Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes & Information From Meetings in 1986 •Y STEWART PARK USER SURVEY October 16, 1986 Stewart Park User Survey Survey Summary and Data City of Ithaca Ithaca, New York Prepared by: Trowbridge-Trowbridge Environmental Designers, Landscape Planners and Landscape Architects 1345 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Tom Brown Recreation Survey Consultant Department of Natural Resources Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary The Stewart park user survey was conducted in September- and October of 1986 to determine patterns of use and perceptions of City of Ithaca residents regarding Stewart park. The results of the survey provide direction in establishing program for the park, and in establishing general criteria with which to evaluate alternative ideas and plans generated throughout the design process. The results also establish public priorities for improvements and maintenance procedures. Objectives of the Survey. Three specific objectives were established for the survey. Questions for the survey were then structured to obtain information related to each objective. Objective No. 1 : User profile. The intent was to develop an understanding of the age groups using the park as well as how often they use the park. Objective No. Activities of Users. The intent was to develop a listing of facilities at Stewart park which are most heavily used, which are least used, and what additional facilities or activities, if any, are desired by park. users. Objective' No. 3: User Impressions of the park and Desire for Improvements. Finally, an attempt was made to develop an understanding of users impressions of the visual attractiveness and condition of the park, and their desire for improvements to the park. Survey Method Once objectives of the survey were established and preliminary questions were structured to meet these objectives, a computer search was conducted at the Cornell University Library to locate other- similar recreation surveys that had been conducted in the past. Several completed surveys were located and reviewed (surveys referenced are listed in the bibliography in the back of this report ) . Reviewing other surveys revealed additional ideas about questions to ask and how to ask them to obtain the information as stated in our objectives. We were also able to review advantages and disadvantages of different survey methodologies. The next step was to establish a method for administering the survey. Our major concern was that we obtain a sample of the community that is in fact representative of City of Ithaca residents. Tom Brown, Senior Research Associate in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University was brought in as a consultant to the office to advise us on obtaining a representative sample and to oversee administration of the survey. It was determined that household units would be interviewed. 200 households, randomly selected, would provide a representative crass-section of the population of the City of Ithaca. While only one member of the household was interviewed, information was solicited on all household members. Because of the time of year (September-October) , it was determined that it would not be passible to get an accurate representative sample of park users at the park. In order to get a random sampling of City residents, the decision was made to conduct telephone interviews. Telephone numbers were randomly selected from the most current city directory. Tom Brawn held a training session for the interviewers to review proper interview techniques and ways of avoiding interviewer bias. Telephone calls were made at different times of the day throughout the week to reach the greatest range of respondents and to increase the validity of the survey. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES Stewart Park User Survey Hello, this is I am with T & T, and we are doing a survey for the City of Ithaca regarding residents use of Stewart Park. I' d like to ask you a few questions. 1. Is your home within the city of Ithaca? No: OK, I' m sorry, but this is a survey of residents of the City only. Thank you for your time. (Terminate) Yes: (continue) 2. I would like to speak to either a male or female head of the household about the survey. Are you a household head? No: Is one of the household heads available? No: Is there a household member 18 or over available? When might I reach a household head? Yes: (repeat introduction and go to question 113. ) 3. How many members are in your household? 4. How many members of your household are: under 12 years of age between 13-20 years of age Between 21-30 years of age between 31-40 years of age between 41-60 years of age over 60 years of age 5. How many times have you been to Stewart Park this year? (i f zero times, go to format B) 6. About how many times do you think the household member between the ages of went to Stewart Park this year? (repeat for each household member identified in Question 4) under 12 13-20 21-30 31-40 41-60 over 60 7. Do you usually go to Stewart Park alone, with family, with friends, or with an organizational group? (check one) One individual Friends Family Organizational Group a. What do you like best about Stewart Park? (Probe for one "best" answer) 9. What do you like least about Stewart Park? (Probe for one "least" answer) 10. About how many times has any member of your household participated in each of these activities in Stewart Park this year? Walking or jogging Picnicking in Pavilion Picnicking in Uncovered Areas Used Children' s Play Equipment Lake Viewing Carousel Rides Fishing Feed the ducks Play Softball, Football, Soccer or Frisbee Play Tennis Attend concert Attend Organizational Group Event Bicycling Photography 11. Do you think there should be more, less, or about the same amount of the following facilities and activities in Stewart Park? ,Activity/Facility more same less d/k no opinion 1. Lakeside benches 2. Other benches 3. Lakeside Picnic tables 4. Uncovered Picnic tables 5. Covered icnic tables 6. Children' s Play equipment 7. Duck Feedina Areas _ S. Fishing Access Open Play areas for Softball, football, soccer, and frisbee. 10. Tennis courts 11. Bicycle Paths 12. Group Event Facilities 13. Restrooms 12. Are there activities or facilities not currently at Stewart Park that you would like to see? No. Yes. (specify) 13. I' m going to ask you about several aspects of Stewart Park, and I would like you to give each aspect a grade, like school grades, where A-Excellent, B=Above Average, C=Average, D=Below average, and F=Unsatisfactory. ATB C D F D/K 1. The Physical Condition of the Lake Shoreline. 2. The Condition of Picnic Areas. 3. Visual Attractiveness of the Park Entrance. 4. Visual Attractiveness of Park Buildings. 5. Availability of Picnic Areas. _ 6. Condition of the Duck Pond. - 7— Condition of the Lagoon Area. a. Visual Attractiveness of Parking Areas. 9. Condition of the Rest rooms. 10. The Overall Visual Attractiveness of Stewart Park. 11. Enforcement of Park Regulations. 14. Are you or any member of your household physically handicapped? No. (go to question *15. ) Yes: How would you rate the handicap accessibility within Stewart Park? A B C D F 15. Are there any other specific improvements you would like to see in Stewart Park? No. Yes. THAW YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP FORMAT B: IF YOU RARELY OR NEVER USE STEWART PARK 6. Why don' t you use Stewart Park more often? (Do not ask the followina options, but fill in the categories as they respond. ) Location Inconvenient Inadequate facilities (specify) More Attractive Facilities available Elsewhere New City Resident Not Familiar with the Parks Health Reasons Lack of Transportation Other (specify) (is there something you don' t like about Stewart Park?) 7. When was the last time you used Stewart Park? 19 Never (terminate) 8. Are there activities or facilities not currently at Stewart Park that you would like to see? No Yes (specify) 9. I' m going to ask you about several aspects of Stewart Park, and I would like you to give each aspect a grade, like school grades, where A=Excellent, B=Above Average, C=Average, D=Below Average, and F=Unsatisfacto A B C D F d/k 1. The physical condition of the lake shoreline. 2. Condition-of Pi cn i Areas. 3. Visual attractiveness of the park entrance. 4. Visual attractiveness of the park buildings. 5. Availability of picnic areas. 6. Condition of the duck pond. 7. Condition of the lagoon area. S. Visual attractiveness of the parking areas. _ 9. Condition of the restrooms. 10. The overall visual a rac iveness of StewartPK - � 1i. Enforcement of Park Regulations. I �n Are you or any member of your household physically handicapped? No (go to question 15). yes: How would you rate the handicap accessibility within the park? A H C D F ii. Are there any other specific improvements you would like to see in Stewart Park? No Yes THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP Summary of Results 197 households responded to the survey. Summaries of responses to each question are included in the following section of this report. The raw data are included in Appendix A. Generally, two types of questions are included in the survey. Multiple-choice questions provide specific answers to choose from. Open-ended questions provide no choices. Since no prompting or suggestions are offered for open-ended questions, lower percentages of respondents can be expected to give the same answer. For example, in response to an open-ended question about what residents like best about Stewart park, 39. 2% of respondents listed " lake location and view". This is a high percentage of agreement for an open-ended question with no prompting. If the same question were asked as a multiple-choice question with the lake location and view listed as a choice, the percentage of respondents listing this as an answer could be expected to be much higher. Usually 15% represents significant agreement to open-ended questions. ' The following listing of points is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather, represents general findings of the Stewart Park User Survey. 1. An overwhelming majority of City of Ithaca Residents use Stewart Park and use it often. 88. 8% of respondents had used Stewart Park this year. Children under 12 years of age are the greatest user group with an average .of 18. 75 visits to Stewart Park in 1986. 2. 5% of households that use Stewart Park have a physically handicapped member in their household. 3. The amount of most existing activities and facilities in Stewart Park is generally satisfactory. Only rest-rooms received a clear majority of respondents indicating they would like more of that facility. The overall condition or attractiveness of many of these facilities could be improved. 4. When asked to grade various aspects of Stewart Park, residents gave high ratings to the overall visual attractiveness of the park, and the availability and condition of picnic areas. The physical condition of the lake shoreline, visual attractiveness of park buildings, and the condition of restrooms received the lowest ratings. 5. There appears to be a strong desire in the community for swimming at Stewart Park. Swimming appears frequently as a ' Hester, Randolph T. , Jr. 1985. "Landstyles and Lifescapes - 12 Steps to Community Development". Landscape Architecture, Vol. 75. No. 1 : pp. 78-85. response to open ended questions. The inability to swim at Stewart Park was the second most frequent response when asked what residents like least about Stewart Park. Of those respondents listing additional activities they would like to see at Stewart Park, swimming was the most frequent response. When asked what specific improvements they would like to see at the park, 15. 6% of those requesting improvements listed providing swimming. 6. There appears to be a strong desire in the community for additional programming at Stewart Park. Half of all respondents had attended an organized event at Stewart Park. When asked if there are additional activities residents would like, additional programming was the second most frequent response. Several respondents suggested programming for children' s groups. 7. There may be enough interest in having boat rentals at Stewart Park. Of those requesting additional activities, boat rental was the third most frequent response. 8. Overall, the responses to what additional activities or facilities residents would like at Stewart Park indicate a desire for increased water access. Three of the five most frequent responses indicate water or waterfront access. 9. While the overall attractiveness of Stewart Park was rated quite high, almost half of respondents who wanted some specific improvement at Stewart Park wanted improvements to the visual appearance and level of maintenance of the park. The condition of the lake shoreline, visual attractiveness of park buildings, and condition of the rest-rooms are the major visual and maintenance concerns. 10. Drinking in the park, and the rowdy groups and noise associated with it detracts from many users enjoyment of Stewart Park. Loud, drinking, roadside groups was the most fr-equent response to the question about what you like least about Stewart Park. 16. 5% of respondents listing a specific improvement for the park wanted to see better control of this aspect of park use. One respondent suggested alcohol permits for group events. Several respondents felt that these groups had a right to use the park but found it disruptive to the peace and quiet they sought at the park. They suggested that these groups be separated from more passive use of the park. 11. Improvements to the existing traffic and parking patterns was the second most frequently requested improvement to the park. Specific suggested improvements include: eliminate roadside parking, reduce traffic speeds, provide additional parking, and remove parking from picnic areas. High traffic speeds within the park was also the third most frequent response whey► asked what residents like least about Stewart Park. 12. Approximately 15. 6% of those suggesting improvements listed additional landscaping. Specific suggestions included generally increasing and improving landscaping, screening parking, screening Route 13, and plantings to attract wildlife. When asked what they liked least about Stewart Park, the proximity to Route 13 was the fourth most frequent response, again suggesting some type of buffer. User Profile (Summarizes Survey Questions 1-6) Age 5 or more visits Average No. Visits in 1986 in 1986 Under 12 86. 6% 18. 75 13-20 47. 9% 8. 19 21-30 48. 7% 7. 45 31-40 77. 1% 18. 30 41-60 72. 3% 15. 41 over 60 70. 7% 10. 88 Greatest User Group (Respondents x frequency) = 12 years Number of Households with Handicapped Individual = 5% of Park Users S. What do you like BEST about Stewart Park? 9 Most Frequent Responses: % of Respondents Lake Location/View 39. 2% Natural Surroundings 7. 6% Good Picnicking 6. 4% Relaxing Atmosphere 6. 4% Children' s Play Area 5. 8% Open Space 5. 8% Lakeside Seating 4. 7% Willow Trees 4. 1% Accessability 4. 1% Other Responses 15. 8% 9. What do you like LEAST about Stewart Park? 9 Most Frequent Responses: % of Respondents Loud Road Groups/Drinking 19. 6% Lack of Swimming 13. 1% High Traffic Speeds 7. 2% Poor Water Condition of Lake and Lagoon 7. 2% Proximity of Highway 5. 9% Crowds 4. 6% Difficult Access 3. 3% Lack of Maintenance 3. 3% No Zoo 1. 3% Other Responses 34. 6% 10. About how many times has any member of your household participated in each of these activities in Stewart Park this year? % of Respondents % of Respondents who did activity who did activity Existing Park Uses at all 5 or more times Lake Viewing 93. 7% 53. 7% Walking or Jogging 73. 1% 43. 4% Picnic Uncovered 69. 7% 26. 9% Feed Ducks 56. 6% 26. 9% Organizational Group Event 49. 1% 2. 3% Softball, Football, etc. 49. 1% 12. 6% Picnic in Pavilion 44% 8% Use Child Play Equipment 38. 9% 20% Attend Concert 27. 4% 0% Photography 26. 3% 4. 6% Carousel 25. 7% 13. 7% Bicycling 22. 9% 5. 7% Play Tennis 8. 6% 2. 9% Fishing 5. 7% 3. 4% 11. Do you think there should be more, less or about the same amount of the following facilities and activities in Stewart Park? Activity/Facility more same less d/k 1. Lakeside benches 48% 50. 3% 1. 1% . 6% 2. Other benches 41. 1% 49. 1 . 6 9. 1 3. Lakeside Picnic tables 49. 1 42. 9 2. 3 5. 7 4. Uncovered Picnic tables 34. 9 54. 3 - 10. 9 5. Covered Picnic tables 18. 9 54. 9 4. 6 21. 7 6. Children' s Play equipment 20 48.6 1. 7 29. 1 7. Duck Feeding Areas 20 64 2. 9 12. 6 S. Fishing Access 16 35. 4 4.6 42. 3 9. Open Play areas for Softball, football. 29. 7 52 5. 1 12. 6 10. Tennis courts 14. 3 45. 7 5.7 33. 7 11. Bicycle Paths 38. 3 39. 4 . 6 21. 1 12. Group Event Facilities 21. 1 55. 4 2. 3 21. 1 13. Rest rooms 58. 3 29. 1 . 6 12. 0 12. Are there activities or facilities not currently at Stewart Park that you would like to see? % of Respondents NO Additional Activities 52. 6% Would like Additional Activities 47. 4% 5 Most Requested Activities/Facilities: % of Respondents of Those Offering Suggestions Swimming 29. 5% Program Events/Concerts 22. 7 Boat Rental 13. 6 Zoo 11 Waterfront Restaurant/Concession 9 Other Requested Activities/Facilities Handicap Fishing Dock Bandshell Pier or Fishing Dock Provide another Pavilion Additional Parking Bike Path Day Camp Windsurfing Shuffleboard Horseshoes Seating Near Play Equipment Update Play Equipment Ice Skating Improve Nighttime Safety Provide Footpaths Provide Handicap Facilities Lighting Increase BBQ' s Drinking Fountains Improve Policing Basketball Courts Group Football Facility for Church Services 13. I' m going to ask you about several aspects of Stewart Park, and I would like you to give each aspect a grade, like school grades, where A=Excellent, B=Above Average, C=Average, D=Below average, and F=Unsat isf act ory. A B C D F D/K 1. The Physical Condition of the Lake Shoreline. 5.2 30.2 33.9 17.2 10.4 3. 1 2. The Condition of Picnic Areas. 14. 1 51.6 26.6 1.6 -- 6.3 3. Visual Attractiveness of the Park Entrance. 20.3 35.4 32.3 8.9 2.6 .5 4. Visual Attractiveness of Park Buildings. 5.2 31.8 46.4 9.4 3. 1 4.2 5. Availability of Picnic Areas. 29.7 39. 1 22.9 3. 1 -- 5.2 6. Condition of the Duck Pond. 10.4 20.8 25.5 9.9 5.7 27.6 7. Condition of the Lagoon Area. 5.2 23.4 28.6 9.9 3.6 29.2 S. Visual Attractiveness of Parking Areas. 10.4 38.0 39.6 5.7 3. 1 3. 1 9. Condition of the Rest rooms. 1.6 9.9 28. 1 18.8 13.0 28.6 10. The Overall Visual Attractiveness of Stewart Park. 28. 1 52.6 16. 1 2. 6 -- .5 11. Enforcement of Park Regulations. 9.4 23.4 19.8 6.8 6.8 33.9 % of Respondents % of Respondents Average B or above C or less Grade 1. Lake Shoreline 35. 4% 61.5% C 2. Picnic Areas 65. 7% 28. 2% B 3. Park Entrance 55. 7% 43. 8% B- 4. Park Buildings 37% 58.9% C- 5. Picnic Area Avail. 68. 8% 26% B 6. Duck Pond 31. 2% 41. 1% C 7. Lagoon 28. 6% 42. 1% C 8. Parking Areas 48. 4% 48. 4% B/C 9. Rest rooms 11. 5% 59.9% D 10. Park Attractiveness 80. 7% 18. 7% B 11. Rule Enforcement 32. 8% 33. 4% C Many respondents commented that a particular aspect could use improvement and then proceeded to give that aspect a "C" grade. The summary chart above groups responses into "B or above" and "C or below" because a grade of C indicates that aspect is "average", and could be improved. 14. Are you or any member of your household physically handicapped? How would you rate the handicap accessibility within Stewart Park? A B C D F % Of Households with Physically Handicapped Member = 4.5% of that 4. 5%: B or Above C or Less Average Grade Handicapped Access 33% 66% D 15. , Are there any other specific improvements you would like to see in Stewart Park? % of Respondents No Improvements Desired 39. 2% Would Like Improvements 60.8% % of Respondents of those suggesting improvements Visual Appearance and Maintenance 44. 3% Roadway/Parking 21. 7% Drinking/Noise 16. 5% Swimming/Reach 15. 6% Landscaping 13. 9% Pedestrian and Handicapped Access 7. 8% Visual Appearance and Maintenance included the following suggested improvements: - Improve Buildings. - Improve Park Entrance. - Improve Lake Shoreline Appearance. - Improve Water Maintenance of Lagoon/Lake/Duck Pond. - Upgrade Restrooms. Roadway and Parking suggested improvements included the following: - Reduce Traffic Speeds. - Provide Additional Parking. - Eliminate Parking Along Roadway. - Remove Parking from Picnic Areas. Suggested Landscape Improvements Include: - Increase and Improve Landscaping. - Screen Parking. - Screen Route 13. - Plantings to Attract Wildlife. Other Suggested Improvements Upgrade Tennis Courts Programming for Children Improve Access to Bird Sanctuary Waterfront Restaurant Bandshell Zoo Upgrade Flay Equipment Improve Water Access Boat Rental Docks More Programming More Swings More Restrooms Separate Active Play Fields from Passive Recreation Areas Basketball More Ducks Increase Size of Park Bike Paths FORMAT P: IF YOU RARELY OR NEVER USE STEWART PARK 6. Why don' t you use Stewart Park more often? % of Respondents Location 4% New Resident 8% Not Familiar With 8% Health Reasons 20% No Transportation 16% BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography Buxton, Stanley F. and Johannes Delphendahl. 1970. "Campers at Lily State Park: Socio-Economic characteristics and Economic Impact". Maine Agriculture Experiment Station Bulletin 687. Henderson, K. A. and M. D. B i a 1 esch k i. 1984. "An analysis of selected characteristics, leisure attitudes, and recreation participation of women employed in leisure services. " Resources in Education, 19: p. 135. Hester, Randolph T. , Jr. 1985. "Landstyles and Lifescapes - 12 Steps to Community Development". Landscape Architecture, Vol. 75, No. 1 : pp. 78-85. McArthur, Jwayne, William R. Summitt, and Robert O. Coppedge. 1971. "Outdoor Recreation in North-Central New Mexico, 1967". USDA Economic Research Service 483. Rei 1 i ng, S. D. , F. E. Montville, and C. R. Facch i na. 1981. "Baxter State Park: A profile of users, activities, and user attitudes, 1979. " Bulletin, Life Sciences and Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Maine, No. 776. g r 3 �pF 1T.- Ga� •rC s= m RFCFNED �;T 29 193E CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT CODE 607 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Common Council BPW P&D Board SPAG If f FROM: H. M. Van Cort RE: STEWART PARK USER SURVEY DATE: October 24, 1986 Attached please find a copy of the Stewart User Survey 'Executive Summary' , prepared by Trowbridge-Trowbridge for the City. The consultant has also provided a limited number of copies of a technical Appendix which contains the survey form and raw response data. Please contact the Planning Department if you wish to have a copy-of the Appendix. HMVC:jv encl. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" RECEIVED OCT 30 1986 �A'°ORATEO CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK '148SO TELEPHONE: 272-1713 COMMON COUNCIL CODE 607 MEMO TOs Jack Dougherty FROMi Dan Hoffman DATES October 29, 1986 REs Gabion Project at Stewart Park I see that a load of rock has been delivered to Stewart Park, and I assume it is intended for use in a continuation of the gabion project along Fall Creek. I realize that this project was authorized last February. Since then, however, there has been extensive public discussion about the appearance and the future of Stewart Park. The original installation of gabions has been criticized on several occasions by those who feel they have changed the character of the shoreline. I must admit that I did not realize what a dramatic difference they would make. There will be a resolution on Common Council's agenda next Wednesday to set aside the Stewart Park Master Plan and to reaffirm Council's 1985 stipulation that no changes, other than routine maintenance, occur in the Park without Council approval. If that resolution passes, then the process now underway with Trow- bridge & Trowbridge will be used to develop new guidelines for the Park, and treatment of the shorelines will certainly be one area covered. I expect that ways of softening the impact of the gabions will be explored. In light of all this, I would strongly encourage you to suspend the continuation of the gabion project pending the decision on the Master Plan and the outcome of the Trowbridge & Trowbridge process. If nor* changes were to occur in Stewart Park right now, I'm afraid many members of the public would interpret it as an act of bad faith on the part of the City. Please let me know what you think about this. Thanks. ccs Mayor Gutenberger Susan Cummings C� r T E 6.i CD CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14B50 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE.272-1713 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT.DIRECTOR October 29, 1986 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Common Council FROM: Board of Planning and Development RE: IMPROVEMENTS DATE: October 29, 1986 At its October meeting, this Board approved, by 5-0-0 vote, recommenda- tions for action on the issues currently surrounding the proposed improvements. These recommendations result from consideration of a request by Citizens to Save Stewart Park, that this Board support that group's efforts to have Common Council discard the Master Plan, and to halt the detailed design work currently in process. The Board's recommendations are: 1. That the design work presently under way continue as programmed. 2. That in the course of investigating alternatives, the design consultant pay special attention to enhancing recreational opportunities for all ages, tots through senior citizens. 3. That the Master Plan be held in abeyance pending completion of the design work and subsequent decision about implementa- tion. 4. That guidelines on maintenance of the park should be estab- lished, based where applicable on the design development that may be finally approved. 5. That the Mayor be requested to reactivate the full Stewart Park Advisory Group, filling any vacancies. JCM:jv CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK Analysis of Data from Trowbridge and Trowbridge Survey of Stewart Park Data from the Trowbridge Stewart Park survey show: 1 . The people of Ithaca use Stewart Park. 2. They are happy with it as it is. 3. The only change requested by a majority is better restrooms. Data from the survey do not support many of the interpretations made by Trowbridge in his "Survey Summary." We find his presentation and inter- pretation of the data confusing and misleading. In cases where the number of persons responding is small , percentage figures give misleading weight. For greater clarity we have substituted the actual number of persons involved for the percentage figures used by Trowbridge. We think this alternate presentation permits a more accurate interpretation. Contents: Condensation of Results of Survey. Tabulation of Data, Using Actual Numbers of People or Items Instead of Percentages. Citizens to Save Stewart Park do not think the park should be redesigned. We think it is a beautiful place as it is. We and the 7,000 people who have signed our petition urge that existing buildings, roads, landscaping and other facilities in the park be properly maintained, preserved and restored. 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, New York. October 29, 1986 Condensation of Results of Trowbridge Survey of Stewart Park In general , items listed below are the first, second, third, or fourth highest categories. 1 . Do The People of Ithaca Use Stewart Park? Yes, Trowbridge data show 88.8% use it. 2. Which User Groups Use It Most? (Survey Questions 5 and 6) Heads of Household 2,243 visits 12 and under 1 ,294 31-40 1 ,208 21-30 1 ,193 (Trowbridge's data contradict his claim that "12 and under" is largest user group. ) 3. Are People of Ithaca Satisfied with the Park and its Facilities? (Q-13) Overwhelmingly, yes. Most people graded most park aspects and facilities "Excellent" or "Above Average". Only "Restrooms" were judged "Below Average" or "Unsatisfactory". In his "Survey Summary" Trowbridge has manipulated this data by averaging "C" with "D&F". We have called a number of respondents in this survey and they have all told us emphatically their grade of "C" was passing, or satisfactory, and should not be averaged with failing grades "D&F". 4. What Do People Do Most at the Park? (Q-10) Number of times activity performed by household members: Lake viewing 1 ,686 Feeding the ducks 778 Walking or jogging 1 ,317 Using children's play equipment 707 Picnicking 1 ,001 Carousal rides 352 5. What Do People Like Best About the Park? (Q-8) Number of Respondents: Lake location 67 Natural surroundings 13 6. What Do People Like Least About the Park? (Q-9) Loud road groups 30 No swimming 20 Traffic speeds 11 (Why not put in speed bumps tomorrow?) Note: We think two other items listed, "highway location - 9" and "difficult access - 5", are negative comments on the recent removal of the sycamore grove (which formerly screened Route 13) to put in the new access road and the Youth Bureau Building. A good example of the bad effect redesigning and relandscaping can have. Condensation of Results - 2 7. What Facilities at the Park Do People "Want More, Less or About the Same"? (Q-11 ) Most people picked "Same" for all but two of the facilities listed. They like the Park the way it is. They do want more restrooms and more lakeside picnic tables. 8. Are There Activities and Facilities Not Now at Park that People Would Like There? (Q-12) NO 92 YES 83 Swimming 25 Boat rental 12 Restaurant Concession 8 Program Events 20 Zoo 9 Other 28 Considering the small number of people giving each category an answer, we wonder why Trowbridge devoted 4 of the 12 items in his "Summary of Results" to the responses to this question (Items 5, 6, 7 & 8). The data contradict his statements that there is a "strong desire for additional programming" and "Three of the five most frequent responses indicate water or waterfront access." 9. Which Items Got the Best and the Worst Ratings? (Q-11 & 13) Visual attractiveness of the park and its entrance got best ratings. Restrooms got worst ratings. 10. Are There Other Improvements People Want? (Q-15) Who knows? Trowbridge has lumped together incompatible categories and used percentages so confusingly, it is difficult to interpret the data. Visual appearance/maintenance 50 Roadways, parking/traffic speeds 24 Swimming 17 Control drinking/noise 16 Landscaping/screen parking 16 "Visual appearance/maintenance" lumps together items such as "restrooms" which we know consistently scored poorly elsewhere, and "visual appearance" which we know consistently scored highly elsewhere in the survey. Similarly, we know that some people expressed concern about speeding elsewhere in the survey, but not about roadways and parking. To lump them together gives a false weight to all three. Trowbridge asserts that 13.9% (his "Summary of Results" incorrectly says 15.6%") voted for "increasing and improving the landscaping." What he does not make clear is that this 13.9% represents only 16 people -- scarcely a strong mandate to redesign the landscaping at Stewart Park, especially when viewed against the high scores given by large numbers of people to the visual appearance of the park. Tabulation of Data from Trowbridge and Trowbridge Survey of Stewart Park. 1-5. Who Are Respondents - Heads of households. Number of Respondents - Trowbridge says 197. But for most of survey N is 175 or less (22 respondents were dropped from Format A because they had not visited park this year). 3. Total Number of Members in Total Households - >540 ("more than") 4. Number of Household Members by Age Grouping 12 and under 78 13-20 83 21-30 211 31-40 85 41-60 51 61 and over 36 5. Number of Times Heads of Households Visited Park This Year - 2,243. 6. Number of Times Respondents Thought Household Members Visited Park This Year 12 and under 1 ,294 13-20 549 21-30 1 ,193 31-40 1 ,208 41-60 663 61 and over 185 7. How Respondents Visited Park Alone 14 Friends 94 Family 53 Organization group 8 N = 169 8. What Respondents Liked Best About Park Lake location - view 67 Natural surrounds 13 Quiet atmosphere 11 Good picnicking 11 Childs play area 10 Open space 10 Lakeside seating 8 Willow trees 7 Accessibility 7 Other 27 N = 171 Tabulation of Data - 2 9. What Respondents Liked Least About Park Loud road groups 30 No swimming 20 Traffic speeds 11 Dirty lake - lagoon 11 Highway location 9 Crowds 7 Lack of maintenance 5 Difficult access* 5 No zoo 2 Other 53 N = 153 *We think respondents are referring to the new access road built as part of the Niederkorn plan. 10. Number of Times Respondents Thought Any Household Members Participated in Activities Below at Stewart Park Number of People Overall Times 1 ) Walking or jogging 128 1 ,317 2) Picnicking in pavilion 77 264 3) Picnicking in uncovered areas 122 737 4) Used children's play equipment 68 707 5) Lake viewing 164 1 ,686 6) Carousal rides 45 352 7) Fishing 10 167 8) Feed the ducks 99 778 9) Play softball , football , frisbee 86 347 10) Play tennis 15 66 11 ) Attend concert 48 70 12) Attend organization group event 86 157 13) Bicycling 40 242 14) Photography 46 138 11 . Do Respondents Think There Should Be More, Less or About the Same Amount of Following Facilities at Stewart Park Actual Number D.K+ Giving More Same Less N.A. An Answer 1 ) Lakeside benches 84 88 3 172 2) Other benches 72 86 1 16 159 3) Lakeside picnic tables _ 75 4 10 165 4) Uncovered picnic tables 61 95 19 156 5) Covered picnic tables 33 96 8 38 137 6) Children 's play equipment 35 85 3 51 123 7) Duck feeding area 35 112 5 22 152 8) Fishing access 28 67 8 74 98 9) Open play areas, softball , football , soccer, frisbee 52 91 9 23 152 10) Tennis courts 25 80 10 30 115 11 ) Bicycle path 67 69 1 38 137 12) Group event facilities 37 97 4 37 138 13) Restrooms 102* 51 1 21 157 *Note that the only changes wanted by a majority are more restrooms. We suspect they want "more' restrooms because they consider the present ones unusable. Tabulation of Data - 3 12. Are There Activities or Facilities Not Now At Park Respondent Would Like to See There? NO 92 YES 83 N = 175 Swimming 25 Boat rental 12 Zoo 9 Program events 20 Restaurant concession 8 Other 28 13. Respondent Grading of Aspects of Stewart Park We think that Trowbridge in his "Survey Summary" has manipulated this data against the intent of the respondents and against the obvious meaning of the question itself. We have called a number of the respondents in this survey and they all , unanimously and emphatically, have told us that a grade of "C" means a passing grade; many ca led it a satisfactory grade. They said it was against the meaning of their grading to average "C" with failing marks of "D" and "F" as Trowbridge has done. Question 13. "I 'm going to ask you about several aspects of Stewart Park, and I would like you to give each aspect a grade, like school grades, where A = Excellent, B = Above Average, C = Average, D = Below Average, and F = Unsatisfactory. " Actual Number A&B C D&F D.K. Giving a Mark 1 ) Physical condition lake shoreline 63 60 48 4 171 2) Condition picnic area 115 45 3 12 163 3) Visual attractiveness park entrance 95 58 21 1 174 4) Visual attractiveness park buildings 66 81 21 7 168 5) Availability of picnic areas 122 39 5 9 166 6) Condition duck pond 57 43 26 49 126 7) Condition lagoon area 54 46 23 52 123 8) Visual attractiveness parking areas 87 66 17 5 172 9) Condition restrooms 21 49 57* 48 127 10) Overall visual attractiveness park 143 26 5 1 174 11 ) Enforcement park regulations 5cl 33 23 600 115 *Note: Only one item in above list, "restrooms, " has most grades in "D" and "F". 14. Are There Members of Respondents Household Physically Handicapped YES 9 NO 166 N = 175 Rating of Handicap Accessibility within Stewart Park A - 3, B - 0, C - 2, D - 4, F - 0 N = 9 Tabulation of Data - 4 15. Are There Any Other Specific Improvements You Would Like to See in Stewart Park NO 63- YES 110 N = 173 Maintenance/appearance 50 Roadway, parking, traffic speed 24 Swimming 17 Control drinking, noise 16 Landscaping/screen parking 16 Pedestrian handicap access 9 We think it is inappropriate and that it distorts the data to lump maintenance/appearance together as one category. Maintenance has to do with things like "restrooms" which we know (from Questions 11 and 13) almost everyone wants cleaned up and improved. Appearance has to do with attractiveness of the park (which we know from Items 3, 4, 8 and 10 in Question 13 are rated very highly by the respondents). To lump these categories together is to put together something very desirable with something very undesirable. We think it inappropriate to lump together "roadway, parking, traffic speed." They are separate categories. Lumping them together gives them a misleadingly higher number than they would have separately. Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, N. Y. Statement Before Common Council , November 5, 1986 Please Don't Change Stewart Park I am Doria Higgins of 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, speaking for Citizens to Save Stewart Park. First I would like to say that Professor Darryl Bem of Cornell University who has most generously acted as consultant for us in examining the data of the Trowbridge Opinion Survey of Stewart Park will speak to you on that matter later this evening. Dr. Bem is known both nationally and internationally for his work in the behavioral sciences, more particularly in the area of attitudes and atti- tude change and has testified frequently in Washington as well as elsewhere on these matters. On your desks are two items: one is a Compilation of Letters, Suggestions, Opinions and Articles by Citizens to Save Stewart Park and Others, and the second item is an analysis of the results of the Trowbridge survey coupled with a tabulation of that data, using actual numbers of people rather than the percentage figures used by Trowbridge -- an alternate presentation which we think permits a more accurate interpretation of the results. This data clearly show that the people of Ithaca like Stewart Park the way it is. They want some maintenance items renewed but there is no mandate whatsoever in the Trowbridge data for redesigning or relandscapaing Stewart Park or any part of the park. l ct4 So the results of this survey us back to the question we have asked this Council a number of times. Why is Stewart Park being redesigned? Who in the community is being served by this project? While we are encouraged by the Hoffman resolution and by the modifications of it by Planning and Development Committee which are to be discussed tonight, we are still concerned that Common Council chooses to pursue plans to change Stewart Park whether they be by Mr. Niederkorn or by Mr. Trowbridge. Oke- cvvV-fKt of Historically the first reference we can find to changing Stewart Park is a "Capital Improvement Program Project Request" submitted �y "BPW & P&D" titled "Stewart Park Improvement Plan" and received by you May 16, 1983. It reads: "Public Works has determined that extensive but unspecified improvements are needed. " So you can see that from the beginning the project has been confusing. If the improvements are unspecified, how does anyone know they' ll be extensive? This early request also says that the Stewart Park Improvements would be "a component of the proposed Inlet Valley Park and Recreation Master Plan." We find this information disturbing, particularly when viewed with reference to the Master Plan brochure map where there is a large white area on the golf course mysteriously labeled "future shore development." We call this matter to your attention to urge you to give it your most careful scrutiny when it comes before you. Those of you who have lived all your lives in ithaca and think of the city surround as rural may not realize how precious inner city green space becomes as suburbia spreads -- as it is doing in cities the world over. -2- While we were encouraged by that part of Trowbridge's third public presentation which dealt with maintenance and restoration, there were other items mentioned by him, notably changing the roadway and parking system and segmentizing the elegant simplicity of green lawn with walkways and promenades, which we find disturbing. Friends of ours who are handicapped and who find that the present roadways and parking at Stewart Park give them a freedom of movement they cannot find elsewhere are also worried about the proposed changes by Trowbridge. These changes cannot be defended legitimately on the grounds that they increase handicap accessibility. So we are left with the question why are you changing the park? By now more than 7,000 people have signed our petition urging you to revoke plans to redesign the park and instead to maintain, preserve and restore existing buildings, roads, landscaping and other facilities in the park. In the Citizens to Save Stewart Park Compilation before you are an outpouring of concern by the people of our community -- people in wheelchairs, Cornell professors of architecture, people who have lived long lives in Ithaca, the young, the old. Please listen to these people -- read the letters in our compilation. Let me close with two quotations (these are from the first two statements in our Compilation) . The first is by John Shaw, Professor of Architecture at Cornell : "It is difficult to understand the imagined need to make drastic changes in Stewart Park. Considering the inexhaustible demand for public money, it seems frivolous to propose unnecessary and insensitive alterations to one of Ithaca's great resources The proposed development seems to assume that the park is now inefficient, boring and out-of-date. It is none of these. Contrived charm dates itself as old Stewart Park will never be dated." The second quotation is by Arch MacKenzie, Associate Professor of Architecture at Cornell , and reads, after he has described the qualities that "make Stewart Park work, " "It would be easy to disturb these delicate features by even a few ill-considered improvements. " underlining ours Please do not let Stewart Park become a political football . Please let it be. Herewith are 554 more signatures to our Petition, bringing our grand total to 7,205. PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS 310 W. STATE STREET ITHACA NEW YORK 607.272 • 2201 14850 MEMORANDUM To: Stewart Park Advisory Group From: Tom Niederkorn Date: November 9, 1986 In the event a meeting of the Stewart Park Advisory Group is called in the near future, I would like to suggest that you review two of the most important components of the Master Plan, so far completely neg- lected: Development Policy and Design Objectives. I have enclosed a copy of an abrieviated version of these two elements, taken from the Master Plan summary. In the full report, Chapter 3 is devoted to policy; design objectives are included in each of the sub- sections of Chapters 4,5 and 6. It should be remembered that the Master Plan includes policy, objectives and proposals for areas other than Stewart Park. This has also been left out of the public discussion to date but these interrelated areas are all extremely important to the overall plan, in my opinion. DEVELOPMENT Pth PO LICY llThe City will support future public and private development which will enhance the op- USE P ,Gt?I►�. portunity for regional use of the park when such development is compatible with the overall objectives of the Master Plan. # +� The City wishes to increase the informal picnic use and passive character of the park. pASS �HA1F � Future development will aim at enhancing casual use by families and people of all ages for picnicking, fishing, strolling, viewing and similar unstructured activities. { ►ANSOf The park faces serious problems of overuse. To overcome this, and increase future holding ca acit y g p y y g p y, the Cit intends to work toward extending parkland b selectively } x F extending the shoreline to the north. The City feels that the best remaining old-growth lakeshore forest should be protected � � and preserved in its natural state. In recognition of the natural functions of these wetlands, their use will be controlled to prevent undesirable impact on human activity. � �°; The City has every intention of again providing natural swimming opportunities in this 1�St1IMMti•I� area if it can be demonstrated that this can be done safely and in a way that is econom- ` ically acceptable to the community, responsive to environmental concerns, and compati- ble with the broad role of this park in the City's recreation system. .trtr It is the City's policy to assure the safety of park users by separating pedestrian and AARMG0F vehicular movement whenever this can be don�hasis will be placed ow-the_ human > aspects of park use and pedestrian-vehicular conflicts will be minimized. The City affirms the park's unique historic nature. It intends to rehabilitate park structures lam : ' when feasible and reestablish some of the earlier social, cultural and recreational activity and character of the area. 2� M7 "ftI1 The City intends to implement the Master Plan by the end of this century. It will use public tTl > Q P' L money to the extent that this can be incorported into overall budgets and supplement this S"'k1S" with funds from other public and private sources. �- .s to an� 'itIG love 1 � �dflaarrt , cultural.and` a �eons YID �a�-. og- k IT.. all of I RpORAT EO CITY OF ITHACA 106 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 11 ayor John C. Gutenber DATE: November 10, 1986 RE: Objection (Veto) - Resolution passed by Common Council November 5, 1986 appearing on agenda as item A, Planning & Development Committee RE: Stewart Park REASON FOR OBJECTION : At its meeting on October 1, 1986, Common Council directed the Planning and Development Committee AND the Stewart Park Advisory Group (S.P.A.G. ) to report to Common Council on the subject of the future development of Stewart Park by November 5, 1986. Unfortunately S.P.A.G. was not able to meet in time to report to Common Council by November 5th. The action taken by Common Council at its November 5th meeting without receiving the requested input from S.P.A.G. is hereby objected to as provided for in Section 2.7 of the City Charter. This objection is based not on the content of the resolution passed by Common Council but solely on the fact that Common Council did not have the advice on this matter from the lay committee involved with Stewart Park. As Mayor, 1 have placed great emphasis on increased public participation in the decision making process. For Common Council to make a decision without the input from one of its established lay committees goes against one of the most fundamental philosophies of my administration. It is my intent that S.P.A.G. meet and provide its input to Common Council on this matter in time for the December Common Council meeting. 1 �,..,n �w`��•� � too.,•,.e �� ��` -- "An Equal O ^^� Pr-V'. f` A q Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Pro '. 1%V40100, 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 November 10, 1986 Members of Common Council City Hall Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Common Council Member: For the record we would like to ut in writing our position with regard to the resolution concerning unanimously passed by you November 5, 1986, and subsequently vetoed by the Mayor. First, we would like you to know that we sincerely appreciate the efforts you have made to accommodate the wishes of the community and, most particularly, we are grateful to you for the exclusion of five items from the Niederkorn Plan (the three large parking lots and spine road, the island, the promenade, removal of the duck pond and willow row). We feel you are to be commended for these positive steps and we heartily do so. Secondly, to make clear our position with regard to the resolution, we feel we must once more state that CSSP thinks the design of the park is beautiful and functions well as it is now. The November 5th resolution continues to call for the redesign of Stewart Park ("preparation of 'design development drawings for Stewart Park ' . . . to continue to work . . . on this project . . . the formulation of alternative design development guidelines . . . future park planning . . . proposed design development"), and CSSP is worried by the continued efforts of Common Council to call for redesign of the park. We fully support your stated intention to procure maintenance guide- lines for the park and we will support your efforts to obtain the services of people who can provide experienced skills in that specialized field. Recent and other maintenance work at the park (the disastrous trimming of the willow row east of the pavilion, the use of gabions, the accumulation of uncared for waste at the swimming ramp) highlights the urgency of the need for clearly defined maintenance guidelines and for the hiring of a city forester. We continue to urge you to revoke efforts to redesign the park and urge you instead to provide proper maintenance, preservation and restora- tion of existing buildings, roads, landscaping and other facilities at the park. �-CA-, V With all best wishes, 0--cJl- Citizens to Save Stewart Park by: ��� Doria Higgin RE CE! �1 13 1986 Memot0' el � a.e TiS�� C! vr� eSeF . �' /�8 C• �a.cc-�.r/f�' •. 314.E. STATE STREET _ P.O. BOX B ITHACA,NEW,,YORK'14851. (607) 2724001 From: ,,�� WRITING ALL FORWOF MURANCE Su ©ATE: 1 �/�/C E� �✓3`1--t �5..¢�:�.d�./�� �`x�� : /tet/T�r/� F.J� Td ��L/✓6x �f loll V rJ E-e ",roe S'�✓�. yQ r/.�. E-��.rr v z G�iJ�� /�/Lc�EsG /P2o G d.2 `o G a u/E , dCT 01 !e, i /ed - /.��c�,�� sF o �/ afeijio,��.oel 07- � r1 - -er -• � _ ., . _ � � Qin/ r. -k�i s Ile J _ Vjpply �vc/c . _ 1 .✓ r r November -A 1 �6, .....,,,Editor, The J ourna, most heartwarming 'to have' the Ithaca Jouxnal take a seatinY controversial send on an i +porta.nt local issue in fits Nov�eiien`'��h r , edi oriel advocating a vetfl. of the Common Council r'es o,iutioq tai`, sheive the Stewart Par Master. Plan. With that type of support, in a F ;Ps st, downtown urban renewal might have been accopl i shed in the x2 196Q's '( take a look tocfiiy at the original urban renewal :.plart and ; �r r weep for what might have been with anchor "stores, econom vita;�.i.ty r :A and all 'the rest); and flouridatian of Tthaca's water supply. ight r A: � ti have begirt accomplish+adteke a. look at the` article :in Ahe JanuaJy YY, Parade �fiage.�ine;�` i t ± � year study inintans shawq the OAK' ar J` r reduced tooth decay and the str®ngtheninq of bones. in alder people, * Y2 ,paxtiioul rly women over. 70) ,- With: 0),With at type of eciitori,d�. s+ipport in the future, we dight have new Aci i ►n theca. nell Campus,`' a ma�Gh ' tx ,� Ster park . }5 - for .our grea t-gxand,c}►L1% €t'.�west: hili. traffic ffic real, 'i. s INL, � with an overpass and four lane highway that will pxevent- the toy xd a 'stagnation of this community because of opposition "to p ogx°cQ6 with ` � changing times. k „ r As one looks back on ne4rl fl years in his ad6ptec n 7 f. many given to public service, .he remembers: the ;Devi, sms o m mrit, If ortunately) on Common Council that wanted to :defeat` 3 ban. ..6 ' � enti. ely (even as the: easy hill malls were in thean; rtg stages ,r a fox the moment Route 13 w$s f 3,nished) and,.* thereby, delatyed: t so rF Fl�.,r}' h N L0� r. - 7 any 2 x c, yY y : ,lost allof its value, tio � f wa w ,tl City r *. A Sy*tem to save $35, e ,� on ,�lYet�, �4X�uTi$telt' form all of us !rt' the f it,��', a t1t red f ,���x t 1 aAlma jet, : � ��'to do Sway `with` 1a Roj c� sss�te �,OQQ� ► year: ( 1` the Federal: Government on p10to E,a " �opt t kt t cu'r**nt, *on and seed a Do*ocratxor '- nx 6 4 r '"'• arm,♦). }, �S�sra S- t+ave � COnatruction of the G�rne1 bailAq, �itlx delay eft •legal, vos$ 'off , .1 Yens o•f dollars, to provom t tf #r }prevent the Stewa rt Pa rk mim ro.vem* t;� d ;the► + "R iat + a�� nation' , ira. 1. G�3l�e�ra*- rid sf x � L i +ofte.h Wander wk�a�.. it will; i re tc�,:force a "x►uc14 awa�+�n���, ;V�'r s " ' F Cornell -University:;And Itha Gollege should close O"'Ar 4,00"', �=s�ovw less- t around believe rC ar��:f': �x � s''<y � ♦f. � � n �„ y ;;�hpy�� y � �i, wlt yy L^ �s�j, i vva4Pi ��i.'^���,l '! WwRdi►� -,L�' �:� tzin futu e - a3t a tte � Kca f the r v t�w preserveus as we used to bei .n the early 1800.'a, :, z :4 �+ .....' xPr Py♦ f Y "xy �'� 'S r°d ,{� Q•�e �' S R l' ,}e •y `mcY'�'3id .39 OakWod c r L" i �� x .8 1 od ,a�ce 1,s a , ryh ggn�� * �t� Va, � i - ¢ � Cx �y r F ; a? � �`�'r��. ��l r-: s Y• i� �' �'`��,i' 4. Sd,rtf� . 7,4 .� x$ If'•�. *°: r`"s k k�` " v r x'S' ES, A`,Y4 ✓t �.� .,.-". ��..�r ' � � ' �;'F � :• „y �����'�vyi j�y,fro, _:,��� 'r'�°_ Y`�` �.Smx .�'' i yyY� y e�nn* �Y•4� �# � �� ' may. � y�hyrfty, 'Z• ) TtZ$-sP kSr�Yyf.d { f � �5 f 'wf'-•.i. ."f,' "�yl' q'.ryr„�1 ,nl "♦+!w'w.n' 's';'r• .'�YC� '�.S''♦ '�"1�'G S 't Y. "ayt....`�..�`.� wr......+..u., Yty ..ni..4 r1�f,♦�M+`r. `�' "♦�.�'•" uyWMcM^'•...++•Y�. ✓..�-.. wN.;. .r, 'n .grT"'r!+,IMwn+4w�✓ Om +wrrwY�+r .ow}, Memo to. � F� : 314 E. STATE STREET P.O. BOX B ok /�� S `a ITHACA, NEW YORK. 14851 ^—' (607) 272-4001 From:'�''°'�' �' ' �" ` L WRITING ALL FORMS OF INSURANCE Subjea "►.�.%. DATE: �/•/%.I r / /1 :r!./r . /q .,,.�,. t/f �'"+fy/"r•�.•C. r'a:-'�..,ivi4u�F-.t �' �-�e !i e, so V G ice. %y T,,rf 6C � L�/L..® .d � 9� ---_ �G Esc.F,s, r.� f-".,+�_ ,�Y �7 � z -`Z r'i �: .�.�•rr'7y.C.�s" c' 'c f) .s/ e."6007 Gf /1141"'o-lei'' .a,s( A I�F .��f.r� ...L r-� �If:.r'i �i�.J t✓ry' d.�1� ""^"1 .i�'r�' .��t..•v ra' .fr.�jL.... .. //L -r c: ��,/f .✓�/'�`/�C�'.i.��i s'rt� !:�'G/:'`mss/"'' '" r�'� ��/" �.,,,gl•�ca sfr !.+ .� !(/�' e " R E C E IV E D E` `'`:' 19 1986 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, NY 14850 November 18, 1986 The Honorable John C. Gutenberger Mayor of The City of Ithaca City Hall Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Mayor: Citizens to Save Stewart Park feels that the public has been misled when invited to "participate" at the recent Stewart Park Information Meet- ings, sponsored by the City of Ithaca and presented by Peter Trowbridge. Reactions from Trowbridge and staff to questions from the public suggests the public has really been invited to passively acquiesce with Trowbridge's presentation rather than to participate. As a case in point: At the October 8th meeting, Trowbridge presented his interpretatior of the data from his Opinion Survey of Stewart Park (data which was at that time with- held from the public and which was not made available until October 24th) , and at the next meeting on October 29th, he used interpretation of that data as rationale for the designs being discussed but cut off questions from the audience on the data itself by saying "The survey was discussed at the last meeting -- tonight we are only discussing designs. " Does City Hall and Trowbridge want the public to participate or not? It sounds as though the public is expected to attend eight lengthy meetings but will be prevented from addressing relevant issues at them. We are writing in the hope that this situation can be improved. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Citizens to Save Stewart Park as agreed at our November 17, 1986 meeting by: Doria Higgins cc: Trowbridge Meigs Common Council 1986 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, NY 14850 November 18, 1986 The Honorable John C. Gutenberger Mayor of The City of Ithaca City Hall Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much indeed for your invitation to us concerning SPAG. Certainly there is no question in our minds that we want to put ourselves at SPAG's service in seeing that the best is done by Stewart Park. However, in discussing this matter at our last meeting, a number of questions arose and the consensus was that we should have a clearer idea of the responsi- bilities involved. Firstly, what is the charge to SPAG -- what are its functions and its powers? By whom are its meetings convened and hcw often does it meet and under what circumstances? What is the relationship of SPAG's executive committee to its larger body? What are the responsibilities involved with SPAG membership? And, finally, what role do you see a representative from CSSP serving on SPAG, particularly in view of the fact that SPAG approved the Niederkorn plan to redesign Stewart Park to which we are opposed. We are also con- cerned that SPAG is not representative of the community and wonder on what basis appointments to it are made. We are all looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Citizens to Save Steuart Park as agreed at the November 17, 1986 meeting By: l li Doria Hig ns -6- November 5 , 1986 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE tewart ar y Alderperson Cummings : Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman WHEREAS, Common Council on January 2 , 1985 adopted the Stewart Park Master Plan as the "official concept plan for that area , " and WHEREAS, Common Council on April 2 , 1986 approved the expend- iture of $21 , 500 for preparation of "design development drawings for Stewart Park" , and the city subsequently hired Trowbridge and Trowbridge for this task, and WHEREAS, Trowbridge and Trowbridge expect to continue to work until February 1987 on this project and have scheduled a series of public meetings to present findings and to gather Public opinion about the park, and WHEREAS, public involvement in the consideration of the Master Plan has dramatically increased and broadened in scope over the past five months , and many members of the public have expressed great dissatisfaction with numerous elements of the Master Plan; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That in order to take full advantage of the present availability of the city' s consultant , and in recognition of the desire of the public to take an active and ongoing role in determining any future design of Stewart Park, that the Stewart Park Master Plan be set aside to allow continued Public discussion and the formulation of alternative design development guidelines by Trowbridge and Trowbridge, and be it further RESOLVED, That the role of Trowbridge and Trowbridge be clarified as follows : 1) The Master Plan may serve as a resource but is not necessarily a guide to or a constraint upon further park planning; 2) The following elements of the Master Plan shall be specifically excluded from further consideration : a . the spine road system and its large bermed, aggregated parking lots b . the off-shore island C . the lighted promenade d. the removal of the duck pond e . the removal of the willow row 3 . Any proposed design development should reflect as accurately as possible the expressed concern of the community to restore , preserve , and maintain the character of Stewart Park . - 7 - November 5 , 1986 Mayor Gutenberger stated that the resolution that the Council passed on October 1 referred this matter to the Stewart Park Advisory Group and the Planning and Development Committee . Because of vacancies on the Stewart Park Advisory Group they have not had a chance to meet . Therefore , the Council ' s directive of their own resolution hasn ' t been carried out . Fie suggested that this resolution be tabled so that the Council will follow its own resolution and allow the Stewart Park Advisory Group to meet as was requested and come hack with their information . Alderperson Booth stated that he does not think that is necessary . This is an issue that has received a great deal of airing and while he appreciates what that group could add lie thinks this is an issue that is ripe for a decision . Mayor Gutenberger stated that the Stewart Park Advisory Group has been working since 1983 with new people on and off. It ' s a community group and he thinks that to ignore them would be a very poor display of asking for public participation . There has been a public group in place since 1983 and to make a decision tonight and ignore their input would be doing a disservice to that group. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows : Carried Unanimously Mayor Gutenberger stated that he will be giving this issue a lot of thought because he feels very strongly about the Common Council ignoring a group that had been established and been working for two and a half years . He reminded Council that the City Charter states that any resolution passed by Common Council does not go into effect for five days . The Mayor has five days to review and consider any resolution and he will be taking that five days to consider this very seriously. Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Service Funding Request Alderperson Cummings reported that Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services has lost Community Development funding . They have been able to receive State money to replace much of the Federal project money . They have been able to replace the projects they had on - line with State money . However , they have not been able to secure administrative money and they are $65 , 000 short of administrative funding . They carne to the Planning and Development Committee for assistance . In light of the c ty ' s coin m1 tment this year to housing and ne iPhhorhoods we are going to have to address their concerns . She asked Council members to contact INNS and talk to the there about their problem . 1 PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS 310 W. STATE STREET ITHACA NEW YORK 607•272 • 2201 14850 MEMORANDUM To: Stewart Park Advisory Group From: Tom Niederkor.n Date: November `j, 1986 In the event a meeting of the Stewart Park Advisory Group is called in the near future, I would like to suggest that you review two of the most important components of the Master Plan, so far completely neg- lected: Development Policy and Design Objectives. I have enclosed a copy of an abrieviated version of these two elements, taken from the Master Plan summary. In the full report, Chapter 3 is devoted to policy; design objectives are included in each of the sub- sections of Chapters 4,5 and 6. It should be remembered that the Master Plan includes policy, objectives and proposals for areas other than Stewart Park. This has also been le±- out of the public discussion to date but these interrelated areas are all extremely important to the overall plan, in my opinion. ►S - DEVELOPMENTJu -IM aoaudiionoide variesoilpossibrirpublicandprivate,acttonst,fogFapitat4investiaenl and for :. , 10LICYotheamanagemeairgnestions'and developmentopportuuitiesthat,continued' on"of.thw pada wilt inevitabig create:;Thi Master Plan-I&based ort the foUoveiig polldes: REGIONAL USE,OI The City will support future public and private development which will enhance the op- '` THE PARIL M _ portunity for regional use of the park when such development is compatible with the overall objectives of the Master Plan. �, .. l. The City wishes to increase the informal picnic use and passive character of the park. PASSI11,1E. AIOi FES Future development will aim at enhancing casual use by families and people of all ages for picnicking, fishing, strolling, viewing and similar unstructured activities. E?�ANSIONOF The park faces serious problems of overuse. To overcome this, and increase future °} USABLE PARK ARF.06 .��; holding capacity, the City intends to work toward extending parkland by selectively extending the shoreline to the north. y,•Kz Y ��z �{�fi�r lRESERS�tAThON OE " r The City feels that the best remaining old-growth lakeshore forest should be protected �+PUB[1C4 and preserved in its natural state. In recognition of the natural functions of these wetlands, their use will be controlled to prevent undesirable impact on human activity. RFFSTABLISHMENT.;OF` '° �, The City has every intention of again providing natural swimming opportunities in this LAKE SWIMMIIYG=" . area if it can be demonstrated that this can be done safely and in a way that is econom- ically acceptable to the community, responsive to environmental concerns, and compati- ble with the broad role of this park in the City's recreation system. It is the City's policy to assure the safety of park users by separating pedestrian and PARKING OFVEHIGZ:ES vehicular movement whenever this can be done. Emphasis will be placed on the human aspects of park use and pedestrian-vehicular conflicts will be minimized. 3 r The City affirms the park's unique historic nature. /t intends to rehabilitate park structures `' USEOIt �x , ry `. when feasible and reestablish some of the earlier social, cultural and recreational activity "HISTORMSTRU and character of the area. IMPEF.MEN'FietTIO1N The City intends to implement the Master Plan by the end of this century. It will use public G FUND IN OF "� Y money to the extent that this can be incorported into overall budgets and supplement this r"PROPOSAL t�•��� with funds from other public and private sources. 3 -r -�'� •mss � ,�'a°_ _ a;rrsdi�'Pievn�s�'•,Go}l`C,ou�e.►so=that Iimite+dtlaaisx *�useo!bo best potentfaf ancf ptager challenge is increased.. a,•F. Y 1r2 A•`t i �'.r Ule:SOC.lal+-culturaL-ar 1g ��u�� t u�McErfCould Come froarr..`-�, f I O�IIdL� � 85f �ttS�Q�paL�t'Sit�CIUT�"t3ii� X. gg�taYt carr `+ ' T` :q W_ :{JJli�Slyi Wi►JVFi.^q,Jam, -514 -"s�+•jr L. i Aattttr's'' - iA�,'I 'i kx r s$c 1...�.•nrw� _�-.r--�-_ _ ~... Po1�11TEV CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 MEMORANDUM To: Stewart Park Advisory Group From: John C. Gutenberger, Mayor Sub: Stewart Park Design Date: November 26, 1986 At its October 1st meeting, Common Council referred to you a resolution proposing that the Master Plan for Improvements to Stewart Park be . . . set aside, pending continued public discussion and the formulation of alternative design development plans . . " and that in this regard "The Master Plan may serve as a resource but is not necessarily a guide to or a constraint upon future park planning . . ." This referral was made in recognition of SPAG's role in developing that plan, and my desire that the knowledge and interest represented by the group not be over- looked in the current debate regarding implementation of the plans ' recommendations. In its referral , Council requested a report by SPAG at the November meeting of Council ; however, the need to bring SPAG membership up to date, and then to convene it, made this impossible. Council , at its November meeting, approved the resolution in the absence of SPAG input. Nonetheless, the issue will be further discussed at the December meeting, and it is desirable to have input to that discussion from SPAG. I had expected that the first opportunity for SPAG to be brought up-to- date on the status of the design work, as background for action on the referral , would be presented at the public information meeting scheduled for last week. This would have given some time for members to weigh the issues and develop a response, but Ithaca weather struck, resulting in that session being postponed to December 2nd. I urge you to attend that meeting. Despite the impossibility of SPAG becoming intimately informed on the details of the current design process, it is my hope that in addition to the involvement several of you had in the Master Plan, you will be generally familiar with it as a result of the news coverage of the past several months; and that SPAG will thus be able to develop a substantive response to the referral , that can be delivered to Council December 3rd. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" i Memo to: SPAG Date: 11/26/86 Re: Stewart Park Design Page: -2- I regret that I will be unable to attend the December 2nd information meeting in order to discuss this important matter. However, I am very concerned about the possibility that the effort that went into prepar- ation of the Master Plan, incorporating many of the suggestions made by user groups represented on SPAG, will be negated if the point of view that presently dominates debate prevails. While I recognize that, in fairness, that point of view must be taken into consideration in the resolution of the issues with which it is concerned, I feel strongly and deeply that it represents only a limited perspective which, if allowed to control the direction of city stewardship of this major public facility, will result in a serious loss of opportunity for en- hancement of the park's potential to serve future recreational needs of the community as a whole. It is for this reason that I call on the Stewart Park Advisory Group to become actively and positively involved on behalf of the community in attempting to establish a balanced basis for decision-making. I would like SPAG to accept the challenge of acting as coordinator for the remainder of the design process, beginning with the December 2nd information meeting and providing, to the best of its ability, input for consideration by Council the following evening, For your information, I enclose a copy of the resolution adopted by Council , which is to be given final discussion at its December 3rd meeting. Also included is a memo from Tom Niederkorn regarding important aspects of the overall topic which have not been addressed in recent debate. I will do all I can to share my thoughts on this subject with you in the near future. Please give this important matter immediate consideration. On behalf of the citizens of Ithaca, I thank you in advance for taking on such responsibilities. JCG/mc Enclosures 1TH,g0 o�. .�0 gpORATEO CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 148SO OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 TO: Stewart Park Advisory Group t �, FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger DATE: December 2, 1986 RE: Common Council Resolution hope to be able to join you tonight after the Boy Scout Recognition dinner but in case I miss your discussion, I would like to share a few of my thoughts regarding the Common Council resolution up for reconsideration at its Wednesday meeting. The resolution states "that the Stewart Park Master Plan be set aside. . ." . The resolution further states "the Master Plan may serve as a resource. . .". The Library of Universal Knowledge defines "set aside If as . . .to omit, to lay out of the question; to disregard; to abrogate" . How the Master Plan can serve as a resouce after it has been disregarded, omitted, etc. makes no sense to me. I would suggest removing the words "that the Stewart Park Master Plan be set aside" and insert a positive statement such as: *Insert A Common Council reaffirmsthe Design Objectives of the Master Plan: 1. To accommodate the growing local and regional demand for usable waterfront parkland. 2. To maintain an effective separation of user activities in different parts of the complex. 3. To minimize vehicular intrusion and concentrate parking in specific locations. "An Fw,ii Cv,-oti,wy FAff- mmtwv Arh,m fl—a mn Stewart Park Advisory Group December 2, 1986 4. To increase opportunity for access to, and use of, lake, creek and inlet shoreline. S. To preserve the habitat and buffer functions of the Fuertes Sanctuary. 6. To modify Newman Golf Course so that limited land is used to best potential and player challenge is increased. 7. To take full advantage of the social, cultural and economic opportunity which could come from rehabilitation and increased use of park structures and facilities. 8. To design and schedule changes so that use can be maintained during construction. 9. To create distinct but related activity areas by land use design and landscaping. * Item #2, listed under "Be It Further Resolved" be reworded, such as: a. Trowbridge S Trowbridge are to investigate alternatives to the spine road system, and its large bermed, aggregated parking lots. (This could include recommending that no chage be made to the current system. ) b. Trowbridge E Trowbridge will not consider the off shore island, the lighted promenade, or removal of the willow row in their scope of work. c. Trowbridge S Trowbridge will recommend corrective actions to address the health problems, stagnant water, and other unsanitary conditions of the duck pond so as to preserve this activity. In item #3 1 would suggest adding the words "and enhance" after the word maintain. Thank you for your consideration of my suggestions. XIX UNFINISHED AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS - AGENDA ITEM A WHEREAS, Common Council on January 2, 1985 adopted the Stewart Park Master Plan as the "official concept plan for that area", and WHEREAS, Common Council on April 2, 1986 approved the expenditure of $21,500 for preparation of "design development drawings for Stewart Park" , and the city subsequently hired Trowbridge and Trowbridge for this task, and WHEREAS, Trowbridge and Trowbridge expect to continue to work until February 1987 on this project and have scheduled a series of public meetings to present findings and to gather public opinion about the park, and WHEREAS, public involvement in the consideration of the Master Plan has dramatically increased and broadened in scope over the past five months, and many members of the public have expressed great dis- satisfaction with numerous elements of the Master Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in order to take full advantage of the present availability of the city's consultant, and in recognition of the desire of the public to take an active and ongoing role in _... determining the future design of Stewart Park,,-that ewart� Par Master Plan be seta ism_ to allow continued public discussion and the formulation of alternative design development guidelines v� by Trowbridge and Trowbridge, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the role of Trowbridge and Trowbridge be clarified as follows: 1) The Master Plan may serve as a resource but is not necessarily a guide to or aconstraint upon further park planning; 2) The following elements of the Master Plan shall be specifically excluded from further consideration: a. the spine road system and its large bermed, aggregated parking lots b. the off-shore island c. the lighted promenade d. the removal of the duck pond e. the removal of the willow row 3) Any proposed design development should reflect as accurately as possible the expressed concern of the community to restore, preserve, and maintain the character of Stewart Park. a� •i � b _� "� P' SII � I , i 4 K + , �I�i vD /Jss • .� '�. y IiW Y•1 � i . M(i. A ���� II_ .� i-r i Ate••. rlA14A=WV OR ITHACA, 120 NORTH CAYUGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 &TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK �y December 17, 1986 Mayor John C. Gutenberger City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY Dear Mayor Gutenberger: As a recent appointee to the Stewart Park Advisory Group, I wonder if I might share a few of my comments and concerns with you. I realize that the newly-reconstituted Stewart Park Advisory Group has only been in operation a few months, but I am surprised that we have not yet had an official meeting. I believe that, in order to gain and maintain community support, it is imperative that this group meet independently of the public information sessions. In addition, notification of this meeting must be made in a timely manner. Although one recent public information session was clearly disrupted by winter weather, the efforts made to notify interested individuals and even SPAG members of the rescheduled presentation were belated. I realize that this was through no fault of your office, however it does reflect badly and raises public ire. I was also quite confused about your December 2nd memorandum, which I received, hand-delivered, on December 3. From the content of that memo it appears to me as if an -official' SPAG discussion was to occur at or following Trowbridge' s public presentation. If so, this was in no way clear to me from any notice or conversation held prior to that evening' s events. While I was at the December 2nd session, I could not tell who was representing SPAG and who was not. I found that to be quite regrettable. DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF TOMPKINS COUNTY LANDMARKS Mayor John Gutenberger December 17, 1986 Page 2 Historic Ithaca is hopeful that Mr. Trowbridge' s final product will focus on maintenance and building preservation issues, taking into consideration the fiscal realities of the City of Ithaca. I know that the Stewart Park Advisory Group' s contribution to this process could be a valuable one. I would encourage you to call a meeting of this group as soon as possible. I will be in Ithaca and available for a meeting anytime after December 29. Thank you. Sincerely, Barbara E. Ebert Executive Director