HomeMy WebLinkAboutcac.annual.report.2012.FINAL1 To: Common Council CC: City of Ithaca Planning Department, City of Ithaca NAC, City of Ithaca STAC, Tompkins C o unty EMC, From: Conservation Advisory Council City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council Annual Report for 2012 through March 2013 April 8, 2013 Introduction The past year has seen exciting changes in the CAC. We have created a new positio n, Vice Chair, which Jesse Hill has filled, and appointed a new chair. We also re -established the project review subcommittee which is tasked with writing the bulk of our project review comments so that the full Council has time to focus on initiatives in addition to just reviewing site plans. Our current membership has taken advantage of this new structure to pursue a number of exciting projects, some of which are discussed below. Protecting Our Natural Areas In the past year, the City of Ithaca has see n two natural areas threatened with development, the city -owned Cherry Street parcel (8.25 acres) and the current proposal to build apartments at 130 Clinton Street (1.7 acres). Both sites contain unique natural features that are significant assets to the city, and that are inadequately protected. We understand the need and desire for economic growth and land use development within the city, however, we are concerned that our remaining natural areas of value are gradually being lost or degraded. The city can and should do more to proactively and strategically protect our remaining natural areas, including steep slopes, stands of mature trees, riparian buffers, and other wildlife habitats. One way this can be accomplished would be to create a suite of Environmen tal Protection Overlay Districts that will target key environmental assets within the City and provide appropriate corresponding protections. Such districts are common in other New York municipalities and could easily integrate into the City's existing zo ning. Creating these Districts would provide needed protections for our remaining environmental assets, channeling development to those areas of the city where it is most suitable without stifling growth and development. The CAC has identified this prior ity for the City following two projects over the past year that have threatened our natural areas: the subdivision of the City -owned Cherry Street parcel and the proposed apartment complex at 130 Clinton Street. Both projects are summarized below. Subdiv ision of the City -owned Cherry Street Parcel The CAC and sister organizations including the Natural Areas Commission (NAC) and the Environmental Management Council (EMC) were actively engaged in reviewing and advising the Planning Board and the IURA (Ithac a Urban Renewal Agency) on the subdivision of the 8.25 acre Cherry St parcel. The development of this parcel will eliminate accessible natural green space for city residents and diminish the environmental services available to the city. The property borde rs the inlet and contains acres of mature trees, wetlands and a meadow. Despite our concerns and those of other organizations and individuals, the subdivision was approved. Proposed Apartments at 130 Clinton Street As of the writing of this report, the 1 30 Clinton Street parcel is under environmental review by the Planning Board. The parcel is adjacent to Six Mile Creek on an extremely steep slope (over 35% in some areas) covered in mature trees and other vegetation. The slope is a prominent feature in downtown Ithaca and is also part of a greater habitat corridor from the Six Mile Creek Natural Area to the Cayuga Lake I nlet. The development would result in the clearcutting of an acre of mature trees, destroy the natural slope features on the site, and compromise w ater quality. This proposal is a textbook example of why the city must adopt stricter protections for its steep slope features, riparian systems, and urban forest. The question should not be whether this site, and others containing environmental assets, can be developed, but rather whether it should be developed. To that question, the answer is an unequivocal “no”, and yet there are no restrictions in place to stop it.
2 Energy and Sustainability Committee This new CAC committee has been hard at work deve loping recommendations on Green Building Codes and Minimum Tree Requirements for the City. We intend for both projects to be completed for presentation to the City in 2013. Below are brief summaries of these initiatives. Green Building Codes Our new E nergy and Sustainability Committee has compiled an extensive spreadsheet of Green Building Codes, how they are applied and their specific features, for dozens of municipalities. Once it is completed, we hope that this list will serve as a backbone for the City to create its own Green Building Codes. Parking and Minimum Tree Requirements The CAC is becoming increasingly concerned over the number of parking spaces added to the city in recent years. Hundreds of new parking spaces will be created in 2013 alone. We question the need for this alarming increase . Many of these new parking spaces are in surface parking lots that will be paved with asphalt, and will replac e pervious surfaces with i mpervious grey infrastructure that puts pressure on our stormwater system and over time, may threaten our water quality. Very few examples of green stormwater infrastructure , such as bioswales and pervious pavem ents, can be seen in Ithaca ’s new development s , despite the ir documented long -term financial and public health benefits . Currently, one small step that we have taken towards advocating for improvements is been a guideline that we have begun applying during our site plan reviews of surface parking lots , which urges a minimum of one tree (internal to the site, not along the street frontage) for every five parking spaces . T h is number was arrived at after surveying existing surface parking lots in I t haca and researching existin g minimum parking requirements in other communities. T he excess in parking and, in our view, inadequate parking lot designs is an issue that we will examine on an on -going basis and intend to advise on in more detail in the future . Comprehensive Plan The CAC has endeavored to participate as much as pos sible in the comprehensive planning process. In addition to our member Tom Shelley serving on the Comprehensive Plan Committee, several of us participated in a public workshop in December 2011. In March 2013, at least two of our members participated in f ocus groups. We have also reached out to the Planning Department to make sure that we can contribute in other ways when the time comes. Member Handbook We created and adopted a new member handbook in 2012. The CAC was created about forty years ago but before we created this handbook, little information was readily available to current members in terms of a written guide tha t outlined responsibilities, expectations , or the history of the C o uncil . Also, the institutional infrastructure of the Council was difficult to maintain without a written record of our internal rules and procedures . Former CAC member Meghan Jacquet endeavored to creat e this handbook when she saw the need for a comprehensive introduction and guide for CAC members, both new and old. Meghan researched what should go into the handbook and was aided by myself and former CAC member Emily Hamilton. The handbook was adopted in early 2012 and has been distributed electronically to every member, new and old. Review of Chapter 35 of the City Code The chapter in the city code that pertains to the CAC is outdated and in need of amendment . The CAC conducted a review and began d rafting changes in 2011, but th is project was not completed . We hope to revisit this towards the end of 2013 or perhaps in 2014, ideally in consultation with the Common Council's GPA committee. CAC Elections , and Meetings with City Offiicials The first CAC election in several years was held in November, 2012. The Council elected Rima Shamieh as chair for 2013, and also created a new position, the Vice Chair, and elected Jesse Hill to fill that seat. Jesse and Rima began th eir term in January, 2013. They spent a great deal of time in November, December, and January meeting with city officials, including Mayor Myrick, Common Council members Jennifer Dotson, Chris Proulx, Deb Mohlenhoff, and City Senior Planner Lisa Nicholas. The purpose of these meetings was t o determine City priorities and what the CAC should be focusing on in 2013. The new leadership also reached ou t to sister councils and committees including the
3 EMC, the NAC, and the Shade Tree Advisory Committee (STAC). These efforts were also intended to strengthen collaboration and communication between CAC and City leadership, and CAC ’s sister organizations. S.W.O.T. Analysis and Strategic Plan The CAC held a special meeting in January to develop a strategic plan for 2013. The S.W.O.T. analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) and strategic plan are attached to this report as an appendix. Th e strategic plan also incorporated priorities identified from meetings with city officials and will guide the CAC's work in 2013. Membership We had a great deal of membership turnover since the beginning of 2012. Four members either stepped down or did n ot renew their memberships. We acquired six new members, but two are currently students and will be graduating in May, so their status is uncertain for the latter part of the year. As of this writing we have eight members, which is one member short of a full coun cil . Resignations 1. Anna Stalter (term ended) 2. Meghan Jacquet (Planning Board liaison) 3. Emily Hamilton (Environmental Management Council liaison) 4. Joanna Nadeau Appointments 1. Yash Gharat, an undergraduate student of natural resources at Cornell 2. Eva Birk, a g raduate student of city and regional planning at Cornell 3. CJ Randall, a planning professional 4. Jesse Hill, a property management professional 5. Joanna Nadeau, a water resources planning professional 6. Chris Hayes, a planning professional Current membership 1. Rima Shamieh, Chair 2. Jesse Hill, Vice Chair 3. Michael Culotta 4. Thomas Shelley 5. C.J. Randall 6. Eva Birk 7. Yash Gharat 8. Chris Hayes 9. v acancy
APPENDIX: Strategic Plan and S.W.O.T Analysis 2013
City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council 2013 Strategic Plan, based on CAC's January 28, 2013 special meeting ADOPTED 4/8/13 Priorities for 2013 were determined based on a priorities brainstorm and an evaluation of CAC's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats known as a S.W.O.T. Analysis during a special meeting on January 28, 2013. Overall, the group is interested in strengthening its role as an environmental leader in the City and making meaningful contributions to sustainability and smart growth initiatives. In order for CAC to successfully work towards these goals, certain institutional improvements have been identified. Collectively, the 2013 priorities can be divided into three categories: 1) institutional improvements, 2) strengthening CAC as an environmental leader, and 3) specific projects to contribute to in 2013.Category 1: Institutional Improvements ·Priority 1.1: Develop internal guidelines to use when evaluating site plan and subdivision applications that will also serve as a framework of recommended improvements to land use regulations.·Priority 1.2: Maintain full membership by recruiting new members promptly as needed ·Priority 1.3: Develop functional subcommittee structure to increase productivity and effectiveness Category 2: Strengthening CAC as an Environmental Leader ·Priority 2.1: Increase regular collaboration and communication with related boards and committees in the city, surrounding towns, and the county ·Priority 2.2: Submit recommendations and communications to Common Council and the Planning and Development Board on a regular basis Category 3: Specific Projects to contribute to in 2013 ·Priority 3.1: Both as individuals and as a group, contribute to the comprehensive plan process, particularly in the context of sustainability and environmental issues.·Priority 3.2: Develop a list of Green Building Codes employed throughout the country and present it to the City as examples for the development of the City's Green Building Codes. Assist the city in developing a greed building codes ordinance.·Priority 3.3: Develop guidelines for Minimum Tree Requirements in new or remodeled parking lots.·Priority 3.4: Work with the City to develop steep slope protections and advocate for a suite of environmental protection overlay districts for Ithaca's remaining natural resources, particularly steep slopes, streams, mature trees, and viewsheds.At the January 28 th special meeting there was recognition that the advisory role that the CAC was originally conceived to have has not been exercised much in recent years. For this reason, CAC will focus on re-establishing communication and collaboration avenues with partner groups including Common Council, the Planning and Development Board, the Natural Areas Commission (NAC), the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Council (BPAC), the Shade Tree Advisory Committee (STAC), and the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (EMC).
Priorities Brainstorm (priorities for 2013 are in bold in the list below)·Stream setbacks → watershed protections ·Slope building regulations → watershed protections ·OSI – Open space inventory, including parks, natural areas, etc. (there is one for the County but it's not city-oriented)·Ask for a budget: training, trips, materials ·Recruitment ·Community involvement ·Comprehensive plan – sustainability, focus groups, review of drafts, involved as individuals or as a collective?·Logo/ social media ·Green building codes – Phyllis Radke, new Director of Zoning Administration ·Greenhouse gas inventory – city buildings complete already ·Tree protection/preservation – development threat – legislate protection ·Climate Smart Communities – policies and funding for implementation ·Improve collaboration/communication with related boards and committees: city, town, county ·Become environmental leader ·Parking regulations, design controls ·Energy action plan (comprehensive plan) currently being reviewed → Megan Wilson ·Zoning revamp – form-based codes ·Site plan and subdivision guidelines for CAC (PB checklist) – internal policies ·Creating CAC subcommittees to address: policy projects, planning projects, reviews ·Clean Air Act ·Re-establish ourselves in city conversation ·Watershed protection – in and out of city ·Recruitment ·Banning grocery bags – intermunicipal effort, EMC, Carolyn is chair ·Revamp SEQR (PB)·Water quality - runoff also see SWOT analysis document
CAC SWOT 2013 Page 1 Strengths – What is good now Opportunities – What could be good in the future 1 Idea generation 9 Leadership CAC is a good forum for generating ideas Mandate to advise Common Council 8 linked to SEQR Pick out tasks and goals (we get to pick)design review process become leader in environmental issues 10 Comprehensive Plan site focused visits help develop comp plan 7 Political climate/currency comp plan Site Plan review PRIME political conditions 0 0 Historic Record 6 Members as assets City CAC archives 4 Information Management motivated membership loyal, connected CAC members 1 Members 1 External Resources Space for new members PD support, City Clerk support Threats – What could be bad in the future Threats – What could be bad in the future 5 5 Relevance/existence Relevance/existence 1 Internal Resources (Handbooks)become irrelevant become irrelevant Development of CAC Handbook CAC has no authority CAC has no authority Weaknesses – What is bad now combination w/ other groups combination w/ other groups 3 Resources city dissolves CAC!city dissolves CAC!Lack of time and Lack of resources 8 8 No standards No standards no city staff or budget 6 Membership balance 4 4 Limited time Limited time a bit planner-heavy in our membership limited time to dedicate to CAC work limited time to dedicate to CAC work low membership 8 Toolbox 7 7 Membership Membership lack of guiding reference material short on members, members leave short on members, members leave 7 Power/relevance we're tied to SEQR – we're written into the process awareness of CAC by other boards and city members A place at the table in SPR, planning processes CAN WORK & THINK OUTSIDE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES People that are willing to learn, be flexible, engage in teamwork (we have no bullies!)Well-connected members – involved in a lot and know a lot of people commitment and familiarity w/ environmental conservation matters build body of research reference material that influences policymakers, public, other places Lots of planning and construction EXPERTISE subcommittees can help us get a lot done CAN have access to GIS/ adobe /etc. programs @ Cornell (plus “expert” professor input)no “standards” for no “standards” for environmental/sustainability issues and environmental/sustainability issues and planning!!planning!!Take on too many projects – loose Take on too many projects – loose steam/burnout.steam/burnout.MISSING CRITERIA (guidelines for project review)Not much standing or presence in community
CAC SWOT 2013 Page 2 weakness- relations with other organizations not perceived as relevant/valuable by some Not sure if comments are read/taken into account we don't know where the real POWER is in relation to CAC. (Need power/stakeholder analysis)