Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CAC-1999CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES Meeting of January 11, 1999 Present: Dan Hoffman, Betsy Darlington, Paul Salon, Greg Thomas, Guy Gerard; CAC candidates Michael Culotta, Steve Komor; guest Doria Higgins Absent: Judy Jones 1. Lake Source Cooling: Doria was added to the agenda at the last minute, and came to present the CAC with three letters she has sent to the DEC concerning deficiencies in the DEC permit and the EIS. She has not received a response to any of her letters. Her main concern had to do with phosphorus loading. We decided to wait till we had finished our other business for the evening to decide what, if anything, we should do. 2. EAF reviews: a. Variance request from Marc Albanese for the old calendar clock building on Dey St. We all agreed that this was ok. b. Mack Travis's parking variance request for 405 -407 College Ave. Members were not thrilled with the impact this project could have on the already bad parking situation in the area. Several possibilities were suggested: ♦ Incorporate incentives for tenants for not having cars; ♦ Require a significant contribution for public transportation for the Collegetown area (one idea is for a shuttle between Collegetown and a supermarket); ♦ Require that a bus pass be included in the lease for each tenant; ♦ Make it easy for bikers to use bicycles —e.g. by providing convenient, secure ground - level storage for bikes. Greg will call Fernando D'Aragon, the County's transportation planner, for ideas of transit system improvements that he would like to see in the Collegetown area. The developer could then contribute to this, as could other developers. Michael will talk to Sandy Wold about bicycle facilities that would -be facilitate bike use by tenants. 3. CEQR -- proposed changes: After some discussion of a few of the problematic changes being proposed, we realized that we had no idea just what was, in fact, being proposed. Betsy will call City Hall and try to determine what the status of the document is; then she'll let others know if it is worth taking the time to go through what we have in great detail. She will also see if the City Attorney can come to the next CAC meeting to explain whatever it is that is being proposed. Wording that is in the old CEQR, but not in SEQR, is set off with [ ]'s, but it is not clear what would happen with these sections. Would they stay or be cut? Betsy noted that, although theoretically all changes from the old CEQR are marked, this actually is not the case. She noticed two such examples in the new Type I list, but didn't look over the document with that in mind. We were surprised to learn that each agency could come up with its own Type II list (actions that aren't subject to env. review)! It was agreed that the City should have just one list, and each agency should not be able to make up its own list. Dan said that he thought it was the City Attorney's desire that there be just one list. 4. Michael asked who in the City keeps track of federal monies that become available, in particular for the anti - sprawl and open space preservation measures that are being proposed in Washington by Vice President Gore. If such a program gets funded, the City should provide a pamphlet to explain how people could apply for funding. 5. Betsy announced that the Mayor reappointed Judy, Paul, and herself, and has agreed to appoint Michael, Steve, and Harry Davis. Astrid Jirka is being appointed to the new Natural Areas Committee. 6. Dan and Paul reported that Common Council voted a negative declaration for the sale of the 3.5 -acre piece of land next to the new SW Park/Natural Area. However, they have not transferred the property to the Urban ( ?Renewal Agency ?). We agreed unanimously to send a letter to Common Council, urging that this land not be disposed of until there is a plan in place for the new park/natural area. One problem is that a developer who owned the entire area between the natural area and route 13 would be entitled to a more massive development, as of right. 7. LSC and Doria's letters: We decided to send a letter to the DEC, expressing our long -term interest in the project, and our concern that her claims be responded to. Steve will draft a letter, e-mail it to Betsy, who will get it to everyone else to comment on, and then will send it to the DEC. Adjourned at 9:20 PM. Submitted by Betsy Darlington Memo to: BZA, Building Dept Recommendation: Neg. dec. -------------------------------------------- Memo to: BZA, Building Dept. Mack Travis Cc: Marc Albanese Cc: Common Council and Mayor City Attorney From: CAC members From: Conservation Advisory Council Re: Variance for Calendar Clock Building on Dey St. Date: Jan. 12, 1999 Recommendation: Neg. dec. -------------------------------------------- Memo to: BZA, Building Dept. Mack Travis Cc: Common Council and Mayor City Attorney CAC members From: Conservation Advisory Council Re: Parking variance for 405 -407 College Ave. Date: Jan. 12, 1999 Recommendation: We have concerns about the impact this will have on the tight parking situation in the Collegetown area. We recommend that the BZA, if it grants the variance, make it conditional on one or more of the following car ownership reduction measures: ♦ Incorporate incentives in the leases for tenants to not have cars; ♦ Require a significant developer contribution for public transportation improvements for the Collegetown area (e.g. a shuttle from Collegetown to a supermarket); ♦ Require that a bus pass be included in the lease for each tenant; ♦ Make it easy for bikers to use bicycles - -e.g. by providing convenient, secure ground - level storage for bikes. Because providing parking would normally be a part of the developer's cost, and a not insubstantial one, we felt that the developer should be required to make a substantial commitment of funds for alternatives to cars. OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST- GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14BBO Mr. Michael Barylski January 20, 1999 Deputy Regional Permit Administrator New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 7, Division of Environmental Permits 1285 Fisher Avenue Cortland, NY 13045 -1090 Dear fir. Barylski, -fit cojI TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 This letter concerns the Lake Source Cooling plan, Cornell University's proposal to use water from Cayuga Lake to cool their campus. We recognize that this plan has gone through many levels of review, and applaud the efforts of your agency and others to carefully review the potential environmental effects of the plan. However, certain citizen groups remain concerned that the Lake Source Cooling system will have deleterious effects on the lake that have not been taken into account by permit - granting agencies. Our committee recently heard from one such group, the Citizens to Save Cayuga Lake, whose members raised certain issues about phosphorous loading. This group informed us that they outlined their concerns in letters to you dated June 28, October 1 and December 16, 1998, but received no written response. The problems seem to arise from conflict among the following regulations, facts and statements: 1. The New York State guidance concentration for total phosphorous (TP) is 20 micrograms per liter. Also, Department of Environmental Conservation Water Quality Regulations Section 703.2 (1993, page 400.11) for Class AA and A fresh surface waters forbids introduction of "phosphorous and nitrogen in amounts that will result in growth of algae, weeds and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages ". What are the implications for algal growth and for compliance with Reg 701.3, in light of baseline TP levels that are apparently greater than state guidance levels ?. 2. An accurate assessment of eutrophication conditions in the southern end of Cayuga Lake would seem to be an important component of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). In the DEIS for the LSC, the discussion of recent and historical TP concentrations in section 2.3.3.2.1.1 (p. 2.3.3 -5) states that "Cayuga Lake meets the NYSDEC TP guidance value of 20 micrograms per liter ". This statement is at odds with the following data: "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" a. Average near- surface summer TP concentrations (Table 2.3.3 -1) measured in 1968 off Myers Point and in 1994 at Station P4 were 20.2 and 22.4 micrograms per liter, respectively. The same table shows that water - column averaged TP concentrations off Myers Point in 1972 and 1973 were 20.7 and 22.2 micrograms per liter, respectively. b. Section 2.3.3.3.2.1 discusses average near - surface summer TP concentrations at Stations P4 and S 11, above the submerged location of the LSC intake pipe. In 1994, TP concentrations averaged 22.2 micrograms per liter at Station P4 (Table 2.3.3 -14). Also shown in this table are average TP concentrations at four meters depth at Station P2, above the submerged location of the LSC outfall pipe. Here, TP concentrations were 30.8 micrograms per liter in 1994, 23.7 micrograms per liter in 1995 and 25.7 micrograms per liter in 1996. c. Section 2.3.3.2.1.3 discusses 23 water - column profiles of TP concentrations to 70- meters depth at Station S 11 (Figure 2.3.3 -3). Concentrations in excess of the guidance value were measured at the surface (0 meters depth) in five of the profiles, and at depths between 10 and 70 in in many other profiles. For example, the TP profile on May 21, 1996 recorded concentrations in excess of 20 micrograms per liter for the entire water column between 10 and 70 in depth. In summary, it appears statements in the draft EIS regarding compliance of lake water with TP guidance values are not supported by data in the report. These contradictions create the unfortunate appearance that the DEC and Cornell University are not fully disclosing all implications of the data for eutrophication of the southern end of Cayuga Lake. Public answers to the following questions may mollify citizen objections to the LSC project: 1. What is the scientific basis of the state guidance value of 20 micrograms per liter for TP? Does exceedance of this value increase the probability of algal growth and violation of Water Quality Regulation Section 701.3? Why has the DEC chosen to allow the project to go forward, in light of the exceedances listed above? 2. Why does the DEIS state that Cayuga Lake water is in compliance with the state guidance value for TP when the data show otherwise? We would appreciate your comments on this issue at your earliest convenience. Thank your for your attention. Sincerely, Members of the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, contact person: Betsy Darlington Cc: DEC Commissioner Cahill Mayor Alan Cohen and Common Council Robert Bland, Environmental Engineer, Cornell Citizens to Save Cayuga Lake 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 January 28, 1999 Ms. Betsy Darlington, contact person, and members of Conservation Advisory Council City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Betsy and CAC members: First of all, we would like to thank CAC for voting to write DEC concerning the criticisms Citizens to Save Cayuga Lake has raised with DEC about various matters, but most specifically about what we saw as the unacceptable methodology in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Cornell's Lake Source Cooling Project (LSC), which drew an inaccurate conclusion by selectively averaging data from only two of three testing stations for Total Phosphorus (TP) in the southern basin of Cayuga Lake and not averaging all three stations. (Described in our so far unanswered October 1998 letter to DEC.) However, much as we deeply appreciate CAC's support in so voting, we must make clear in the interests of truth and accuracy that the CAC letter did not deal with the questions or data we had raised with you and DEC. Because the letter may be incorrectly interpreted as voicing our concerns, we think it important that this be clarified with CAC and all those to whom you sent copies of the letter. In fact, although we highly respect CAC, we disagree with the conclusions concerning the EIS data which is arrived at in the letter. The CAC letter said, "In the DEIS for LSC, the discussion of recent and historical TP concentrations ... states that'Cayuga Lake meets the NYSDEC TP guidance value of 20 micrograms per liter.' This statement is at odds with the following data..." (page 2.33 -5). And your letter then discusses data from table 2.3.3 -1 (including five years of data from Myers Point) and six pages of phosphorus profiles from Station 11 in Figure 2.3.3 -3. In our opinion, opposed to the opinion in the CAC letter, the data from S11 and Myers Point clearly show that the waters in those area are indeed below NYS guidance value for TP. We think the EIS interpretation is supported by the data. Our concern was with the EIS statement, "Data from Station P4 or S11 ... table 2.3.3- 14 ... indicate that southern Cayuga Lake ... meets guidance value for TP in ponded waters..." (page 2.3.3 -21). This table referred to by the EIS shows three testing stations (S11, P4, P2) in the southern basin, not just two. We think it unacceptable methodology for the EIS to selectively average data from S11 (below State guidance value) Dlx with P4 data (above State guidance value), thus getting a desired average below State TP guidance value which could not have been obtained by averaging in, as they should have done, the data from the third station, P2 (above State TP guidance value). (over please) page 2, January 28, 1999 letter If CAC should receive a rebuttal to its letter from DEC, please do not confuse it with a rebuttal of our concerns. Again thank you all for your good spirit in voting to clarify the situation by writing DEC. All best wishes, VVIA� Doria Higgins CC. DEC Region 7 Permit Administrator Barylski DEC Commissioner Cahill Mayor Alan Cohen and Common Council Robert Bland, Environmental Engineer, Cornell CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES: Meeting of Feb. 8, 1999 Present: Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones, Guy Gerard, Betsy Darlington; CAC applicant Michael Culotta; EMC liaison Barbara Ebert 1. Betsy announced that Steve Komor called her just before the meeting to say he had just cut himself while fixing his car, and was headed for the clinic to be put back together again. She also announced that the Mayor had not appointed Steve, Michael, or Harry Davis at the Feb. Common Council meeting. Betsy has not yet received a response to her inquiry as to what happened, and whether or not he will appoint them in March. It was mentioned that the same thing happened last year with Greg's appointment, which was stalled for about 6 months. Hopefully, that will not be repeated! 2. We convened at the EAF subcommittee, to take action on the three BZA EAF's we had received. a. Appeal #2411 from Jagat Sharma for 418 -426 Eddy St. We agreed to recommend the same car- ownership disincentives that we suggested last month, in the event the BZA approves this variance. It was noted that the floor plans show 10 new bedrooms, not 7 (as stated in the application), that one of these is just 7'6" x 10' including the closet, and that the ratio of bedrooms to toilets seemed substandard. The latter raises a public health concern. It was agreed that it would be desirable for the BZA to adopt a standard policy (in situations where they approve variances involving increases in potential car owners), requiring developers to provide funds for alternatives to car ownership: secure, ground -level bicycle storage spaces; contributions to public transit for shuttles to frequent student destinations, etc. - -as recommended last month. b. Appeal #2409 from Giordano, at 113 Cook St.: Again, if the BZA approves this variance, we recommended that they require incentives for alternatives to car ownership. The application didn't say how many new occupants there would be, nor if there is parking. We weren't clear if a request for a parking variance was part of the application. C. Appeal # 2410 from Chaffee, at 201 Thurston Ave.: We ultimately decided to make no recommendation, despite several reservations. We didn't know what the parking situation was, nor the validity of the applicants' claims. We agreed that, for the neighborhood, a one- or two - family dwelling would be preferable to a multiple dwelling, but we didn't know enough about the situation. We also agreed that, since the house is in a historic district, the external appearance should remain intact. 2. January minutes were approved unanimously. 3. Lake Source Cooling: Betsy reported that she was approached by Walter Hang, from "Toxics Targeting" and the Cayuga Lake Defense Fund, regarding the CAC "signing on," in opposition to the DEC's permit. After her conversation with him, Betsy called Judy who called Bob Bland at Cornell. She ended up meeting with him for 2 1/2 hours, and learned a number of things, some of them seemingly at odds with Hang's statements. Judy said that it is only because Cayuga Lake was on the 1998 DEC list of "impaired waters" (303 -d list), that significant funding has come in for upgrading the Ithaca and Cayuga Heights waste -water treatment plants. Judy said that the category the lake is in ( "threatened," for use as a water supply) is at the lowest level of concern. One benefit of the LSC is that there will now be regular monitoring at the south end of the lake- -every two weeks, in fact - -and with citizen review of the data collected. Sediment, phosphorus and thermal pollution will all be tested. One point Judy made is that the SPDES permit only looks at discharges, not associated intakes, yet the LSC will not be adding any phosphorus to the lake that wasn't there before. There was some discussion of what depth the reading of 15 u/1 near the intake pipe was taken - -at the depth of the intake or near the surface? There seems to be some difference of opinion on this. In any event, the amount of phosphorus from the outflow pipe is very small, compared to the amount from the two treatment plants and the various streams. Judy also said that the DEC has a program called RIBS -- Rotating Intensive Basin Study - -and Cayuga Lake is scheduled for this in the year 2003. Regarding the toxic materials at the site for the LSC buildings, it turns out that this has been thoroughly addressed, and any contaminated soil will be removed or capped. Judy said that, based on other work she has done, lead and cadmium (two of the pollutants of concern to Hang), are not generally mobile in the environment. We all agreed not to follow up any further. We felt that we didn't have the expertise required to evaluate the various arguments that have been put forth on each side. 4. NAC (Natural Areas Commission) report, from. Dan: NAC has now met twice, replacing the Six -Mile Creek Committee. The Sincebaugh property, near Six -Mile Creek, has gone up for sale, and regrettably, the Town has no intention of putting up any money to save it from development. Current zoning would permit 25 house lots on the 40 acres. The South Hill Recreation Trail goes through the property, and it has been on the list of priority parcels for protection for many years. Part of the property is in the Conservation District where 1 house could be build per 7 acres, but the rest is in R -30 ( ?). Asking price is $236,000- -above the assessed value. Dan said the City may get an appraisal. City purchase may be the only way to save it. The question was raised about using money from future SW Park sales to fund this. This is an important piece, near the 6 -Mile Creek Preserve and is bisected by the trail. It was mentioned that Mr. Sincebaugh could realize some significant tax benefits from donating a conservation easement (this would make the selling price lower, and easier for the City and /or Town to buy). There were general expressions of dismay that the City and Town weren't jumping at the chance to protect the parcel. It was commented that new land isn't being "made;" protection of this parcel should be a high priority of both City and Town. Adjourned at 9:15 Submitted by Betsy Darlington I. Memo to: BZA and Building Commissioner Jagat Sharma, Applicant Cc: Common Council and Mayor City Attorney CAC members From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee Re: Appeal # 2411, for property at 418 -426 Eddy St. Date: Feb. 8, 1999 Recommendation: 1. We cannot support the proposed increase of 10 more potential car owners (10 new dwelling unites, not 7, as stated in the application's text), without a significant contribution by the developer toward alternatives to private car ownership and use. We recommend that the BZA, if it grants the variance, make it conditional on one or more of the following car ownership reduction measures: ♦ Incorporate incentives in the leases for tenants to not have cars; ♦ Require a significant developer contribution for public transportation improvements for the Collegetown area (e.g. a shuttle from Collegetown to supermarkets); ♦ Require that a bus pass be included in the lease for each tenant; ♦ Make it easy for bikers to use bicycles - -e.g. by providing convenient, secure ground - level storage for bikes. Because providing parking would normally be a part of the developer's cost, and a not insubstantial one, we feel that the developer should be required to make a substantial commitment of funds for alternatives to cars. 2. We do not generally comment on interior space, but we have concerns about the potential impact on public health of the proposal, given the large number of tenants per bathroom. The ratio of tenants to toilets appears to us to be substandard, even before adding more bedrooms. Comments: As we read the site plan, it calls for 10 additional bedrooms, not the stated 7. (One of them is a mere 7'6" x 10', including the closet.) 19 bedrooms on each of the second and third floors share 5 toilets. As we read the plan, 9 bedrooms of one unit share one full bath and one 1/2 bath. H. Same as above, except substitute Giordano, appeal #2409, at 113 Cook St.: EAF and application do not say how many new occupants would be accommodated by the changes, nor if there is parking. Is he asking for a parking variance? If so, our comments are the same as above. In any event, we recommend including a requirement for incentives to not owning a car, if the BZA grants this variance. M. Same as I, except substitute Chaffee, appeal #2410, at 201 Thurston Ave.: No recommendation. CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES: Meeting of Mar. 8, 1999 Present: Michael Culotta, Betsy Darlington, Harry Davis, Guy Gerard, Dan Hoffman, Steve Komor, Paul Salon, Greg Thomas 1. Feb. minutes were approved with three minor changes: Under #2, it should read, "as the EAF subcommittee...." Under #4, it should read, "...could be built per 7 acres...." Also under #4, the "( ?)" should be deleted. 2. The Mayor appointed Steve, Michael, and Harry this month, so they now are members of the CAC! [For the first time in a very long time, we are up to our limit of 9 members.] 3. EAF reviews: a. St. Luke's Lutheran Church variance request: OK b. Refuge Temple of J.C. (Stephen Jones, Pastor) on So. Plain St. Our biggest concern was with what would happen if use of the building as a shelter were discontinued and a private individual bought it. Would the variance still be good (since normally variances are "forever ")? Renting the space to 24 people with cars, as could happen under private ownership, would not be good for the neighborhood. IF the variance applies only to the proposed use as a shelter, inhabited by people without cars, we supported the proposal. The planned use for the building would fulfill an important social need. C. McGraw PI.— Cornell's proposal for "improvements" to the road and parking lots. A number of large trees and other vegetation would be removed, substantially affecting the character of the neighborhood. While we were in support of improving drainage, repairing the road, and putting in sidewalks, we did not support enlarging the road to two lanes, nor straightening the curves (esp. around Water Margin Co -op). Instead, we propose that there be one -way loop with one lane for cars and a 4 -foot lane for bikes. It was noted that the City has been moving toward incorporating trees into parking lots, not removing them, as the planners of this project intend to do. We propose that, in addition to retaining the existing trees in the NE lot, trees be planted in and around the other two lots as well. The overall project also runs contrary to current City trends, of not providing ever -more parking, of enacting traffic- calming measures, and of slowing traffic down. In the application claims are made that there will be landscaping improvements, but no details are given as to what these might be. There should be no net loss of trees. Straightening the curve by Water Margin may result in increased vehicle speeds, and increased dangers to drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. We recommend that that this not be included in the project. We propose that speed bumps be installed in the road; the current road alignment be retained; no trees be cut; trees be planted in the westerly lots; incentives be included for not owning cars (the project would do the opposite); the road be made a one -way, one -lane loop with a bike lane. d. Lake St. subdivision —for acquisition by the City: a section of the cliff area near Ithaca Falls. While we did not oppose the subdivision, we agreed that the portion being purchased is undevelopable, and the City should acquire a larger area, including the abandoned buildings, one of which is perched right at the gorge rim. Otherwise, these could be replaced by large condos overlooking the falls. (Great for the residents of the condos but not for the public.) Given that buying a larger parcel probably will not happen, we strongly advise that if the City buys the portion as proposed, there must be a condition that restricts any new development on the parcel to the south, within 100 feet of the gorge rim. e. Subdivision at 715 -721 Willow Ave., for sale by City to Lansing Instruments. We had no major problems with this, but strongly recommend that trees be planted in the parking lot and between the road, on the one hand, and the buildings and parking lots, on the other. Attractive landscaping is badly needed here. f. SDPR revisions: We agreed that the proposed changes were good ones, and applaud the Planning Board for recommending them. 4. Sincebaugh property: Dan explained the situation with this 40 -acre parcel, on the downhill side of the South Hill Recreationway. The parcel is now for sale. It could be divided into as many as 25 house lots. This is an area that many people for many years have urged the City or Town to protect, and the Town's new Open Space Plan calls for rezoning it as a conservation zone. This zoning would allow 7 homes, instead of the current 25. We all agreed that there should be no development in that area. The parcel comes within 200 feet of the lower reservoir along Six -Mile Creek, and it serves as an important buffer for both the wildflower preserve below it and the creek itself. With the trail so heavily used by runners, walkers, bikers and skiers, protection as a natural area takes on even greater importance. Any development would also be clearly visible from the other side of the gorge area. The City has money set aside for watershed purchases. Even if the City switches to Bolton Pt. for its water supply, this will remain as a back -up supply and must be protected. Also, the creek is an important trib. of Cayuga Lake; thus, protecting the water quality of the creek will help protect the water quality of the lake. The Town Board, we understand, is unwilling to put any money into acquisition of the parcel, despite its Master Plan. They view it as a parcel whose development would help keep the population concentrated near the City, a valid point for some places, but not when it would be at the expense of some other very important values. Betsy pointed out that this would be a bit like taking a bite out of Central Park for housing, to reduce sprawl, and indeed long ago there was a battle over Central Park being made a park instead of being left open for development. Every population concentration needs such amenities (aside from all the other benefits of keeping the parcel undeveloped). There may be a possibility of raising money from individuals, to augment the City's money. This could perhaps be channeled through the Finger Lakes Land Trust, with the Land Trust then holding a conservation easement on the parcel. Dan agreed to draft a resolution recommending that the City acquire the parcel, for us to vote on next month. Adjourned at 9:35 PM Submitted by Betsy Darlington Memo to: Building Dept. and BZA Planning Dept. and Board Applicants for each project Common Council and Mayor City Attorney EAF reviews from the Conservation Advisory Council, March 8,1999: a. St. Luke's Lutheran Church variance request: OK b. Refuge Temple of J.C. (Stephen Jones, Pastor) on So. Plain St. Our biggest concern was with what would happen if use of the building as a shelter were discontinued and a private individual bought it. Would the variance still be good (since normally variances are "forever ")? Renting the space to 24 people with cars, as could happen under private ownership, would not be good for the neighborhood. IF the variance applies only to the proposed use as a shelter, inhabited by people without cars, we supported the proposal. The planned use for the building would fulfill an important social need. C. McGraw PI.— Cornell's proposal for "improvements" to the road and parking lots. A number of large trees and other vegetation would be removed, substantially affecting the character of the neighborhood. While we were in support of improving drainage, repairing the road, and putting in sidewalks, we did not support enlarging the road to two lanes, nor straightening the curves (esp. around Water Margin Co -op). Instead, we propose that there be one -way loop with one lane for cars and a 4- foot bike lane. It was noted that the City has been moving toward incorporating trees into parking lots, not removing them, as the planners of this project intend to do. We propose that, in addition to retaining the existing trees in the NE lot, trees be planted in and around the other two lots as well. The overall project also runs contrary to current City trends, of not providing ever -more parking, of enacting traffic- calming measures, and of slowing traffic down. In the application claims are made that there will be landscaping improvements, but no details are given as to what these might be. There should be no net loss of trees. Straightening the curve by Water Margin may result in increased vehicle speeds, and increased dangers to drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. We recommend that that this not be included in the project. We propose that speed bumps be installed in the road; the current road alignment be retained; no trees be cut; trees be planted in the westerly lots; incentives be included for not owning cars (the project would do the opposite); the road be made a one -way, one -lane loop with a bike lane. d. Lake St. subdivision —for acquisition by the City: a section of the cliff area near Ithaca Falls. While we did not oppose the subdivision, we agreed that the portion being purchased is undevelopable, and the City should acquire a larger area, including the abandoned buildings, one of which is perched right at the gorge rim. Otherwise, these could be replaced by large condos overlooking the falls. (Great for the residents of the condos but not for the public.) Given that buying a larger parcel probably will not happen, we strongly advise that if the City buys the portion as proposed, there must be a condition that restricts any new development on the parcel to the south, within 100 feet of the gorge rim. e. Subdivision at 715 -721 Willow Ave., for sale by City to Lansing Instruments. We had no major problems with this, but strongly recommend that trees be planted in the parking lot and between the road, on the one hand, and the buildings and parking lots, on the other. Attractive landscaping is badly needed here. f. SDPR revisions: We agreed that the proposed changes were good ones, and applaud the Planning Board for recommending them. CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES: Meeting of April 12, 1999 Present: Betsy Darlington, Guy Gerard, Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones, Steve Komor, Paul Salon; EMC Liaison Barbara Ebert 1. Mar. minutes were approved unan. 2. Betsy announced that Michael Culotta was absent because his wife had a baby the day before! 3. EAF reviews: a. Variance for Downing— Stewart Ave. ( #2471): Neg. Dec. b. Variance for Anagnost — University Ave. ( #2418): Neg. Dec. C. Variance for The Oak —off Dryden Rd. ( #2419): Neg. Dec. d. New off -site parking regs.: Neg. Dec. Concern was raised as to whether of not this could stimulate pressure to convert more yards to parking lots, but some of us thought the new ordinance regarding such conversions would limit this. In addition, our impression was that there weren't many available yards to convert, within the new distances from likely uses (Collegetown being the main target for the new ordinance). Two people abstained from the vote, feeling that they were unable to sufficiently evaluate the proposal. e. Inlet Island Rezoning: We deferred a decision on this until we have had a chance to evaluate it based on complete information. The latest version of the plan received by the CAC is dated August 1998. Is there a more recent version? Also, the map and new change that was waiting for us when we arrived at the meeting were unintelligible. Would the A -1 zone have a maximum building height? All the change says is that there would be no minimum. Even a one - story building there will block views; certainly nothing higher should be permitted. The map that we were given shows the zones superimposed on existing conditions, rather than on the proposed plan. We found this confusing. In addition, it was unclear what zone the area between State and Buffalo would be. Would the max. # of stories be just 3 there? This would seem backwards. 5 -story buildings would be preferable there, to the area designated for 5 stories, north of Taughannock Blvd. We were very disappointed to see that the walkway has been removed from the plan for the east side of Inlet Island. Why was the area on the east side that had been labeled for no buildings at all been changed to allowing 5 -story buildings? It appears that about half the area of the Island will be taken up with parking. This seems excessive to us. What is the proposed speed limit along Taughannock Blvd. (esp. the northern portion)? Will there be speed bumps or other traffic- calming measures there? As we have stated before, we are opposed to having 5 -story height maximums north of Taughannock Blvd. (i.e., north of the ramp to the bridge). Re the LEAF: we feel that the public, in general, is poorly informed about the plan, and think it likely that there would be significant controversy, if people knew exactly what was proposed. f. North Campus Residential plan DEIS: We do not contest the completeness of the DEIS. We will wait to make further comments until the public hearing period. Adjourned about 9:40 PM Submitted by Betsy Darlington CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES: Meeting of June 14, 1999 Present: Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones, Betsy Darlington, Paul Salon, Greg Thomas; EMC liaison Barbara Ebert; Leslie Chatterton (Planning Dept.- -ILPC) 1. EAF Reviews: a. 123 -125 Eddy St., Jagat Sharma and Nick Lambrou: Leslie Chatterton explained a new EAF, just in, for a 12- bedroom rooming house in the vacant lot next to # 125 and 125 %2 Eddy. Project will also need a parking variance. Dan Hoffman recused himself from the discussion because his firm represents the applicant. We agreed to defer to the ILPC, but with the following comments and question: Parking and traffic congestion are a growing concern in this area. If the project and parking variance are approved, approval must be conditioned on providing indoor accommodations for bicycles, and providing significant funds to TCAT for a shuttle, to run between Collegetown and various major student destinations (e.g. Commons, Wegmans, Tops, Kmart, P &C, downtown and West End restaurants); What is in 125 V2 Eddy, the small building behind 125? Part I of the EAF, page 4, #1 h does not acknowledge this building's existence. Is it, too, a rooming house? b. Ithaca Bakery site plan and Sign Appeal (0- 1 -99): We trees be planted in the two parking lots, and that the 30" wall double as a planter dand extend along Court St. shade agreed that the current planter and landscaping were very attractive, and it was too bad to remove them. Would the trees in the planer be removed? This was unclear in the application. Other than this, the plans look good. We agreed that the signage proposal looked acceptable. C. Variance appeal #2431 -- Sheiman- -135 Hudson St.: We agreed that the'proposal looked acceptable provided that: the building's exterior appearance not be altered; that there be no obtrusive signage; and that the variance be stoctly defined as a business which requires owner occupancy and which does not need extra parking. d. Variance appeal #2420— VanNederynen- -105 Catherine St.: We recommend that if the project and parking variance are approved, approval must be conditioned on providing indoor accommodations for bicycles, and providing significant funds to TCAT for a shuttle, to run between Collegetown and various major student destinations (e.g. Commons, Wegmans, Tops, Kmart, P &C, downtown and West End restaurants). In addition, indoor air quality and safety must be addressed. Mold, for example, is an increasing health concern, and these basement bedrooms could be problematic. Also, is there adequate combustion air for the boilers? e. Variance appeal #2421 -- Harold Fish -815 So. Aurora: Our major concern is provision for fumes. How are the residential neighbors nearby protected from them? Have there been any complaints about air quality from neighbors? f. Variance appeal #2424 —Mark Haag -305 Stewart Ave. (the Carriage House): It was unclear if the ILPC has reviewed or will review this application. We agreed to defer judgment to them. 2. May minutes were approved unan. 3• Chairmanship of CAC: Judy agreed to consider it let us know at the next meeting. She was hesitant, because of sporadic, but continuing, health problems. Betsy agreed to be a back -up in case of flare -ups. We voted unanimously in favor of her as Chair, in the event she says yes. 4. Road Salt Policy: Betsy agreed to write to Bill Gray and tell him that we approve of the current low -salt policy. 5. Sincebaugh parcel, along 6 -Mile Cr.: Planning Committee has agreed to discuss its ti 6. EMC: Barbara reported that the County Bd. of Reps. is consideing protection. taking back the making ti all appointments, in other words, taking this away from municipalities! There were universal exclamations of shock and horror from the assembled multitude. Adjourned at 9:15 Submitted by Betsy Darlington OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 Memo to: Bill Gray, DPW Superintendent Date: June 14, 1999 From: Conservation Advisory Council TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 The CAC has discussed the current road salt policy and agrees unanimously that it should not be changed. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Memo to: Planning Board, ILPC, and BZA Building Dept. and Planning Dept. Applicants Cc: Common Council and Mayor City Attorney CAC members From: Conservation Advisory Council Re: Various Environmental Reviews Date: June 14, 1999 1. 123 -125 Eddy St., Jagat Sharma and Nick Lambrou site plan and variance: Dan Hoffman recused himself from the discussion because his firm represents the applicant. We defer to the ILPC, but with the following comments and question: Parking and congestion problems are of increasing concern in this area. If the project and parking variance are approved, approval must be conditioned on providing secure indoor accommodations for bicycles, and providing significant funds to TCAT for a shuttle, to run between Collegetown and various major student destinations (e.g. Commons, Wegmans, Tops, Kmart, P &C, downtown and West End restaurants); What is in 125 '/2 Eddy, the small building behind 125? Part I of the EAF, page 4, # 1 -h does not acknowledge this building's existence. Is it, too, a rooming house? 2. Ithaca Bakery site plan and Sign Appeal ( #7- 1 -99): We recommend that more shade trees be planted in the two parking lots, and that the 30" wall double as a planter and extend along Court St. The current planter and landscaping are very attractive, and it would be unfortunate to remove them. Would the trees in the planter be removed? This was unclear in the application. Other than this, the plans look good. We agreed that the signage proposal looks acceptable. 3. Variance appeal #2431 -- Sheiman- -135 Hudson St.: We agreed that the proposal looks acceptable provided that: the building's exterior appearance not be altered; that there be no obtrusive signage; and that the variance be strictly defined as a business which requires owner occupancy and which does not need extra parking. 4. Variance appeal #2420-- VanNederynen- -105 Catherine St.: We recommend that if the project and parking variance are approved, approval must be conditioned on providing indoor accommodations for bicycles, and providing significant funds to TCAT for a shuttle, to run between Collegetown and various major student destinations (e.g. Commons, Wegmans, Tops, Kmart, P &C, downtown and West End restaurants). In addition, indoor air quality and safety must be addressed. Mold, for example, is an increasing health concern, and these basement rooms could be problematic. Finally, is there adequate combustion air for the boilers? This must be addressed. 5. Variance appeal #2421 -- Harold Fish - -815 So. Aurora: Our major concern is provision for fumes. How are the residential neighbors nearby protected from them? Have there been any complaints about air quality from neighbors? 6. Variance appeal #2424 - -Mark Haag - -305 Stewart Ave. (the Carriage House): It was unclear if the ILPC has reviewed or will review this application. We defer judgment to them. Conservation Advisory Council Minutes: Meeting of August 9, 1999 Present : Members B. Darlington, M. Culotta, P. Salon, J. Jones; Liaison, B. Ebert, City Planner, J. Cornish Convened as review committee for following EAF's. 1. Video Ithaca proposal: The committee views the current property as a good example of commercial property which meets the intent of the West End Design Plan. We also think that some minor changes to the proposal could reduce the impact of tree grove removal and provide desirable shade for areas of the parking lot. Consider saving one more of the large shade trees, slated for removal. If the spruce tree behind the Vitucci garage is in decline, as it appears to be, replace it with a shade tree, and add shade trees to the north end and middle of the planting island adjacent to the Vitucci property. 2. Cornell North Campus Preliminary Site Plan Review. Copy to Historic Ithaca. We view the move of the Moore House from its current site as deplorable and believe such move shows a lack of respect for the historic traditions of this community. Furthermore, both proposed sites are problematic and lack the beauty of the old plantings in the current setting. Cornell is to be commended for responding to neighborhood concerns regarding traffic. We like their proposal for a substantial north entrance to campus that includes parking facilities for visitors, with bus transport to central campus. 3. Quarry Street Rezoning. We recommend that the city require, as a condition of rezoning, that there be no further development. This area is already heavily developed for such a sensitive area. Further we recommend that the city secure a right of way for future public pedestrian access. 4. Request for subdivision at 222 S. Aurora St. We see no problem with this request. 5. 712 Court St. Addition to Small Animal Veterinary Facility. We recommend neg. dec. assuming that the Building Dep't will ensure that any public health issues arising from adjacency to the Ithaca Bakery are fully reviewed, including any ventilation issues. 6. Inlet Island Rezoning proposed Ordinance. We recommend a pos. dec. so that the following issues can be researched more thoroughly for possible cumulative effects. - Limits on light pollution and spillage - Possible effects by nighttime lights on our bird migration flyway, particularly northward migration into Cayuga Lake Valley. Cluster of lights pointing toward north end of island, especially on permitted tall buildings should be evaluated by ornithologists - see current controversy about cell phone towers, etc. - Drainage issues. Storm water releases appear problematic and could affect water quality at the south end of the lake. - Traffic issues for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. We'd like to see plans that support safe bicycle and pedestrian access from both east and west sides of the island. 7. Lacking a quorum of the entire CAC, we deferred voting on the July Minutes till Sept Respectfully submitted, Judy Jones Minutes of Conservation Advisory Committee MINUTES 9/13/99, 7:30 to 9:00 PM Ithaca City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room Present: Betsy Darlington, Judy Jones, Steve Komor (minutes recorder), Gregory Thomas, Michael Culotta. I. Discussion of Boatyard grill: Is the information the CAC received adequate for final site plan approval? Consensus was that certain environmental and hydrologic issues were not sufficiently addressed. Sb Drainage plan - incompletely characterized. How will rooftop stormwater be treated? The CAC members would like to see the City Engineer's evaluation of stormwater treatment. Sb What about petroleum storage tanks and other contaminated areas? Has the cleanup been completed? What was done, if so, and Can the CAC see the closure report? Sb Esthetics: The CAC compliments the designers for the lighting plans. We are concerned about the color of the metal roof. Will this be a color that will blend in? The roofs of buildings on the Island should be of a tasteful color and restrained, pleasing design. Ideally, all the roofs would be of the same design and color. This arrangement would add coherence and collective beauty to the architecture. Sb Accessibility: Pedestrian walkways east of Boatyard Grill: Are the deck and adjoining dock wide enough for walkers to be safe and feel comfortable? The dock appears to be just 5' wide —not nearly wide enough for normal pedestrian traffic and wheelchairs. 10' would be better. How will walkers get from the deck to the dock? Will these areas be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act? Could a person in wheelchair navigate safely and easily on the walkways as now envisioned? Could someone get from the docks to the park at the tip of the Island? Are boat slips in front of the restaurant public or private? �b Landscaping The plantings look interesting and varied. The one suggestion CAC has is to include as many large trees as feasible. Tree species should be diverse, and chosen to thrive in this area. General Comments The CAC members do not believe that the information provided is sufficiently detailed to allow careful assessment of walkway widths, accessibility issues, pedestrian routing, drainage, etc. We request a more detailed plan of the project when one becomes available. II. October CAC meeting: We agreed to meet on Tuesday, October 12 since City Hall will be closed on Monday, 10 /11. III. Michael agreed to ask a landscape architect he knows to fill the vacancy on the CAC. We all agreed that someone with skills in evaluating drainage plans, etc. would be valuable. Submitted by Steve Komor and Betsy Darlington Memo to: Planning Board and BZA Building Dept. and Planning Dept. Applicants Cc: Common Council and Mayor City Attorney CAC members From: Conservation Advisory Council Re: Various Environmental Reviews Date: Sept. 13, 1999 off 18 1999 3 i CITY CLEWS OF �I ";`' 1. EAF— Palisades: Note —We did not receive an EAF for this project, so the following comments are based on the other materials we received. We all agreed that it was wonderful that this company plans to rehabilitate this run -down building, and put it to a good use in the downtown. Sb We suggest that donation to INHS of the residential dwelling on Seneca St. be explored. Sb Landscaping, especially with large tree species, is badly needed for the parking lot. Sb Could they get an easement from Donahue - Halverson for a bit of land where the passage for vehicles is only 9'4 ", and also move the utility pole, to make getting to the parking lot less tricky? 2. EAF— Bridge over Rte. 13: Looks good! We were united in favoring an arched bridge (such as the "Keystone" one, shown), and not the horizontal type ( "Link" is the one pictured), which to us has an unappealing industrial appearance. 3. EAF —Site Plan Review Ordinance changes: Having received this at the meeting, we did not have time to read it carefully, though a quick glance raised some questions with us. We also did not receive a copy showing what was changed. We will review this at next month's CAC meeting. The one big concern we noticed was with Section 276 -3 -13, 1, 2, 3— especially 2 & 3. It struck us that the thresholds for CAC review should be lower. Stream- lining may end up sacrificing neighborhood quality, otherwise. 4. EAF— Carpenter Park sale: We'll review this next month. We received the EAF at the meeting. 5. EAF— Corrections to the Home Occupations Ordinance: The changes struck us as excessive and business - unfriendly, for small -scale home occupations (such as home music lessons). What are the thresholds for requiring expensive building modifications (e.g. sprinkler systems)? Minutes of Conservation Advisory Committee MINUTES 10/12/99, 7:30 to 9:00 PM Present: Michael Culotta, Betsy Darlington, Judy Jones, Paul Salon, EMC Liaison Barbara Ebert; Planning Dept. Dir. of Ec. Development Doug McDonald; visitor Chang Weiyu (Cornell student). Absent: Steve Komor, Greg Thomas, Dan Hoffman, Guy Gerard 1. Doug McDonald brought with him an EAF for the sale by the City and IURA (to "Building Links ") of the Carpenter Business Park. He told us that the Community Gardens can stay. Building Links, a new non- profit, may sell or lease space to several small businesses, probably some at least being retail. Questions were raised about traffic congestion, pedestrian access (and pedestrian circulation within the site and to nearby sites), drainage provisions, and whether or not there will be building height limits or minimums. Doug said there was no big hurry on doing our review because the closing is months away; he knew his visit was unexpected and he had not anticipated that we'd be able to act on it tonight. We will review this in November, after having had a visit to the site (scheduled for Sat., Oct. 30 at 8:30 AM). 2. Palisades: Note —We did not receive an EAF for this project, so the following comments are based on the other materials we received. We all agreed that it was wonderful that this company plans to rehabilitate this run -down building, and put it to a good use in the downtown. 6b We suggest that donation to INHS of the residential dwelling on Seneca St. be explored. ail Landscaping, especially with large tree species, is badly needed for the parking lot. Could they get an easement from Donahue - Halverson for a bit of land where the passage for vehicles is only 9'4 ", and also move the utility poll to make getting to the parking lot less tricky? 3. EAF— Bridge over Rte. 13: Looks good! We were united in favoring an arched bridge (such as the "Keystone" one, shown), and not the horizontal type ( "Link" is the one pictured), which to us has an unappealing industrial appearance. 4. EAF —Site Plan Review Ordinance changes: Having received this at the meeting, we did not have time to read it carefully, though a quick glance raised some questions with us. We also did not receive a copy showing what was changed. We will review this at next month's CAC meeting. The one concern we noticed was with Section 276 -3 -B, 1, 2, 3— especially 2 & 3. It struck us that the thresholds for CAC review should be lower. Otherwise, stream- lining may end up sacrificing neighborhood quality. 5. EAF— Corrections to the Home Occupations Ordinance: The changes struck us as excessive and business - unfriendly, for small -scale home occupations (such as home music lessons). What are the thresholds for requiring expensive building modifications (e.g. sprinkler systems)? 6. Domestic cats' impact on song birds: Betsy will call the Lab. of Ornithology for more information. Studies done in the State of Wisconsin estimated that about 38 million song birds are killed every year by domestic cats! Consensus was that we should do an educational campaign on the problem, after getting more info. [Note: There's a good website: abcbirds.org \catindoo.htm] 7. EMC: Barbara told us that changes coming to the EMC will require that the City's rep on the EMC be a CAC member. Since we have a vacancy, all agreed that the logical solution would be for Barbara to be on the CAC. She comes to virtually all our meetings already. She will try again to have the Mayor appoint her. Since the CAC otherwise has no one with historic preservation expertise, it would be a big loss if she didn't come —aside from her valuable representation on the EMC. Paul asked that the EMC spend some time on promoting a master economic plan for the whole County, with sharing of tax monies. Incentives are needed for intermunicipal cooperation and saving open space. Making the City strong helps the whole County. Submitted by Betsy Darlington MINUTES -- Conservation Advisory Council Meeting of November 11, 1999 Present: Michael Culotta, Betsy Darlington, Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones, Paul Salon; Roxy Johnston (Wastewater Tx. Plant); JoAnn Cornish (Planning Dept.) and Marco Marzocchi (Widewaters Group) Absent: Steve Komor, Guy Gerard, Greg Thomas 1. EAF for filling of site in SW part of City: JoAnn Cornish and Marco Marzocchi were there to tell us about the filling permit that Widewaters has applied for. This would involve placing 80,000 cu. yards (2,160,000 cu. ft.) of fill on the 23 acres of "business district," opposite the Zikakis Plaza (the former Wal -Mart site), on the flood side of the flood control levee. The conclusion of our discussion was that a positive declaration was in order. This proposal, when viewed either on its own or as part of a larger project involving development of the site, is likely to have several significant impacts. The complete details of the discussion are in the EAF report submitted to the Building Dept., and the following just gives the major points of concern: a. Loss of flood control function of the 100 -year flood plain which occupies a significant portion of the project site. Concern over floodwaters from Buttermilk Creek, and potential damage to the adjacent business and to homes on the other side of the railroad embankment. b. Impacts on the new SW Park: More water; contaminants from parking lot runoff, grading of the fill onto part of the natural area; where the remediated soil will be put (in the park ? ?); public access to the park (what form would this take ?). C. Potential hazards to the public from the contaminated soil, as it waits out the 1 -2 years required for its remediation. d. Segmentation of the project: As the City Att orney quotes (from SEQR) in a memo on this issue, "Segmentation means the division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or stages are addressed ... as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of significance." The filling would not have any utility, in and of itself, and indeed, would damage the site for flood control purposes. Although the company representative repeatedly told us that the filling is all that is contemplated, he readily conceded that they hope to sell the site for development. Interestingly, it was reported after he had left that the City already knows something about the ultimate development, and the developer plans to sell the site for a "big box" store which they hope to place all the way to the rear of the site, with parking in front. e. If the City proceeds with issuing the permit, there must be a number of conditions placed on the operation. These are detailed in the comments on the EAF. The CAC felt that the City does not have sufficient information to proceed with the permit. (Again, detailed in the full report.) We agreed that the City should delay further consideration of this permit until the GEIS has been completed, a plan for the new park has been prepared, and this project has been evaluated in a DEIS, assuming a worst -case scenario for what a developer might propose 2. Six -Mile Creek Watershed: Roxy Johnston came to report on the City's application for funds to protect the watershed. She told us that, regardless of whether or not the City joins up with Bolton Point, it will still have a legal requirement to treat Six -Mile Creek as a drinking water source. Furthermore, the City would be a partner in the Bolton Point system, and have duties in that regard, including protecting the Six -Mile Creek watershed, since it is a major source of water for Cayuga Lake, from which Bolton Pt. draws its water. The City is working with communities along the entire course of Six -Mile Creek, in order to come up with a cohesive) plan for watershed protection. Roxy said she'd e-mail us the proposal, and said she hoped we'd play a part in its implementation. 3. Site Development Review Ordinance revisions: In Section 276 -3 -B (3), we agreed that 10,000 s.f. is too high a threshold. The CAC should have an opportunity to comment on projects of this scale. Streamlining may be important, but not if it sacrifices careful deliberation and results in a poor project. Review by the CAC results in, at most, a delay of three weeks, and usually no more than a few days. Not much time, considering that the results of development are close -to permanent. We agreed that, in situations where a project falls within an area for which there are good design guidelines, the CAC should not need to review projects falling below the thresholds given in 276 -13, as long as the project complied with those guidelines. 4. Sale of Carpenter Business Park: a. Design guidelines, along the lines of those for the SW Area, are needed before there is development of the site (and preferably, before the sale of the land). Otherwise, each piece will be reviewed separately, and it will be next -to impossible to address the cumulative impacts of all the projects that might come in there. b. Are the drainage swales on either side of the site sufficient for handling increased flows from the site, assuming full development? C. Views from route 13 should be made as attractive as possible, using a combination of landscaping and design of the structures themselves. Since the backs of buildings will probably be facing route 13, special attention to the backs will be needed. d. It is important to preserve as much provision for pedestrian access to and from and within the site as possible. e. How will traffic be handled, especially on Farmers' Market Saturdays? 5. Suicide prevention: Seems fine. We question their. estimation of the number of available parking spaces, however. 6. Catholic Charities: Good re -use of the building. We do, however, have a concern regarding the appearance in a residential zone, of having most of the front yard paved over for parking. Could the parking instead be long and narrow, along the west side of the lot? Is this much parking actually needed? 7. McGuire Ford: How is it possible that they didn't know site plan review was needed? Overall, we had few problems with the project. However, we felt that the landscaping provisions were inadequate. What species are the five trees that are proposed, and where would they be planted? We wondered why the sidewalk was between the tree lawn and the street, rather than inside the tree lawn (maybe it already is this way ?). 8. Design Guidelines for the SW Area/Elmira Rd.- Meadow St. Corridor: We did not have enough time for a full discussion of these, but intend to do so in December. Adjourned about 10:35 Submitted by Betsy Darlington Memo to: Acting Building Commissioner, Phyllis Radke Cc: Applicant: The Widewaters Group, c/o Marco Marzocchi Common Council and Mayor City Attorney, Marriette Geldenhuys, Esq. Planning Dept., c/o JoAnn Cornish Planning and Development Board, c/o Scott Whitham, Chair BPW, c/o Steve Ehrhardt, Vice Chair Superintendent of Public Works, William Gray From: Conservation Advisory Council Re: EAF for fill permit, Widewaters property on Route 13 Date: Nov. 15, 1999, for Meeting of November 8, 1999 Proposed action: Placing 80,000 cu. yards (2,160,000 cu. ft.) of fill on 23 acres of land, opposite the Zikakis Plaza, on the "flood" side of the flood control levee, to render it suitable for development consistent with B -5 (heavy commercial) zoning. Recommendation: Positive declaration. This proposal, when viewed either on its own or as segmented from a larger project involving allowable development of the site, is likely to have several significant impacts. If the action is to be reviewed independently of the GEIS now being prepared for the Southwest area Land Use Plan (which includes this site), a separate DEIS should be done. This is not, however, the option recommended by the CAC. The CAC recommends that this action be considered in conjunction with the GEIS for the Southwest area. In that case, the fill permit should not be granted until the GEIS is released and reviewed, together with a supplemental EIS for the filling action and eventual development of this particular site. Approval should also await the adoption of design guidelines for the Southwest/Elmira Road corridor Part of the GEIS process. Furthermore, approval of the filling should be deferred until the planning for the new Southwest Park/Natural Area is completed. (Funds for such planning have been placed in the 2000 City budget.) Comments: 1. A significant percentage of the area to be filled is in the 100 -year flood plain. Flood plains serve a critical function in flood control, as has been shown repeatedly across the country, as such areas have been filled and developed. Subsequent floods have caused catastrophic damage (and insurance claims), and after each one, news reports quote officials from the Army Corps of Engineers as saying that it is foolhardy and shortsighted to build in flood plains. As the climate warms, a now - accepted fact of life, storms are forecast to become more severe. If this area of our own greatly diminished flood plain is filled, there is the potential for more severe flooding, at the very least in the vicinity of the fill. In 1972, during the aftermath of Hurricane Agnes (and on several other recent occasions), Buttermilk Creek flooded and its waters rushed into the site through the pedestrian passageway under the railroad embankment. This opening, and the vast area into which the water poured, served as a relief valve, affording some protection to the homes along Buttermilk Falls Road (on the other side of the embankment). Route 13 also serves as a way for waters from a flooding Buttermilk Creek to reach the flood plain. Once in the flood plain, the water should be able to spread out and take its time in being released to Cayuga Inlet. If the filling is approved as proposed, floodwaters from Buttermilk will simply have no place to go, and will back up, with serious consequences to the homes on Buttermilk Falls Road (in both directions), as well as the adjoining establishment near the embankment. 2 This is true whether or not the site is ever developed beyond filling. However, the notion that there may be no further development on the site is an absurdity. The entire object of the filling, as the developer readily admits, is to sell the site to one or more businesses. From the point of view of flooding, it doesn't matter whether the site is covered with one "big box" or a number of smaller businesses. The end result will be the replacement of the flood plain with a raised, impervious surface. Eventual construction will simply exacerbate the displacement impacts that the fill itself has already imposed on the site. 2. Potential impacts on the new SW Park/Natural Area are another concern. The applicant contends that since the fill material will be "permeable," there will be no substantive change in drainage. Our information indicates that compacted fill material is in fact significantly less permeable than earth not comprised of such fill. Thus, the filling operation itself will not only lead to the displacement of water that tends to collect in this low -lying area; it will also shed more water into the adjacent, lower -lying park/natural area. The combined effect of these two impacts should be thoroughly studied before the filling permit is acted upon. Furthermore, plans for the park should be developed before actions are taken that will alter its character in as- yet - unknown ways. In addition, the water that will be draining from the site will be water that has washed over parking lots that contain numerous contaminants. Street and parking lot runoff is recognized as a major source of non -point source pollution. Such pollution is especially unwelcome in a public park/natural area. While there undoubtedly will be drainage structures intended to trap some pollutants, are such structures actually checked regularly by the City and maintained? Our understanding is that there simply is not staff to perform such functions. If so, the cost of monitoring should be the responsibility of the site developer /owner. 3. Brownfield contaminants: In addition, the CAC has concerns regarding the remediation of the fuel - polluted portion of the site. We were told only that there was a spill with a pollution plume downgradient. We were not given any information about the volume of the spill to be remediated nor the level of contamination — information that is needed in order to evaluate potential risks. The soil will be placed on a membrane on top of the fill, and allowed to clean itself (the pollutants volatilize into the air), with the help of periodic turning. CAC member Judy Jones, who has some experience in this field, said that, while this is an effective method of remediation (as well as very cheap and easy), it is impossible to get the pollutants down to zero. The CAC asked where the final "product" would be spread, and the applicant said most likely on -site. However, since the remediation will take 1 -2 years, the question must be asked as to where on the site it will be put, since by then the site will undoubtedly be developed. Will it be graded onto the new park, further diminishing the park? It should be a condition of any filling permit that the "remediated" soil not be placed anywhere near the park nor in areas of significant downgradient groundwater flow. During the 1 -2 -year period that the contaminated material is sitting on the membrane and being cleaned by natural processes, any potential hazards it might pose to the public should be identified and analyzed (in the DEIS or supplemental EIS). This is critical if the volume of contaminated soil is large and contamination is heavy. 4. The proposal calls for grading the fill into the new park area, an area that NYS and the City have designated for substitute parkland. If approval is granted for the filling, the CAC feels' that the fill -- including the grading down to the level of the park -- should be kept entirely within the B -5 zone (and outside the designated substitute parkland). The slope on the park side of the filled area should be relatively gentle, to minimize erosion and visual impact. The slope and areas both above and below the slope should then be promptly vegetated with approved trees and other plants to create an appropriately dense, wide (200 feet ?) and tall buffer and visual barrier between the park and the buildings and other activities on the commercial site. The fill slope should be designed and graded so as to present a more natural - appearing, meandering edge toward the park (rather than the straight, featureless edge now proposed). 5. Public access and the entrance to the park are other concerns. While the developer states that the project will permit the public to use the parking lot for access and parking, the representative at our meeting, Marco Marzocchi, did not expect there to be provision for a separate, landscaped entrance and driveway. Without a separate entrance, cars would have to make their way through the sea of cars in the parking lot, to reach the park. The CAC brought up this concern earlier, when the City was considering selling a parcel of land adjacent to the substitute parkland to Widewaters. Although that transaction has gone forward, apparently there is still no agreement or commitment to ensure that there will be an appropriate entrance to this newly designated natural area parkland. 6. The issue of segmentation is discussed in a memo from Mariette Geldenhuys, City Attorney. Under SEQR, segmentation is strongly discouraged, yet the City Attorney finds this to be a case where it should be allowed. The cases she cites, where segmentation was permitted, appear. to be different from the case currently under review. For example, in the Concerned Citizens case, one criterion (for permissible segmentation) was that the earlier stage (in that case, a recycling facility) have utility in its own right, regardless of what might be developed in a later stage. In our case, the filling operation by itself has no utility; in fact, unless there is construction on the fill, the project will have been a waste of money for the developer. Indeed, by itself, the fill operation would have only negative impacts - for example, making the site less well- suited for flood - control purposes. Although the company representative repeatedly argued for environmental review limited to the filling project, on the grounds that no other action is planned at this time, he also readily conceded that Widewaters hopes to sell the site for development. We find it difficult to imagine that the company would make an investment of this scale without any commitment or strong interest from a potential buyer /occupant. An environmental review of the ultimate intended development would be more productive, in keeping with the spirit of SEQR and much more protective of the environment. The CAC recommends that the City get a second legal opinion on whether this is a case of permissible segmentation, from the DEC in Albany (e.g. Charles Lockrow, in,regulatory affairs). Even if it is determined that segmentation is allowed and appropriate in this case, the review must be no less protective of the environment. The CAC suggests that the best way to ensure this is to require a DEIS for this Type I action or a supplemental EIS to the GEIS for the larger Southwest area. 5 7. In the event that the City proceeds with issuing this permit, there can and should be conditions placed on the permit, including the following: a. The filling should not be allowed to extend into the designated substitute parkland; b. The slope of the fill should be gentle, and contoured so that it does not present a straight line to the park/natural area; c. The drainage plan for the filled area should be consistent with plans to be developed for the substitute Southwest Park/Natural Area (e.g., enhancing restored wetlands if those are part of the plan, or avoiding adding water to the park/natural area, if the plan calls for this portion to be kept dry); d. Any previously contaminated soil left on the site should be located as far as possible from the park/natural area; e. There must be post -fill monitoring of the remediated soil and the resultant drainage effects as developer -borne actions and costs that should be stipulated in the fill permit; f. There must be provision for rapid revegetation of the site, and for planting of an approved visual buffer, partially above the slope bordering the park, on the slope and partially below the slope; g. Silt fencing and hay bales must be maintained so that they function properly at all times; h. Filling should be done when the ground is dry, and completed at a time when it can be revegetated quickly; i. Truck tires must be cleaned of mud before trucks reenter Route 13, and a sweeper truck must clean Route 13 regularly; j. Dust must be wetted down; k. Trucks should not operate during rush hour; 1. Widewaters should provide proof of funding for the entire fill project (so the City can be assured that the revegetation and buffers can be completed, etc.). Conclusion: The CAC feels that the City does not have sufficient information to proceed with the permit. For example, what will be the impact of the filling on the adjacent natural area? What will be the effect (in the event of flooding) on the homes along both parts of Buttermilk Falls Road? Where will the remediated contaminated soil be spread? What will be the impact on the public of this exposed, contaminated soil during the 1 -2 years it is being remediated? The CAC urges the City to delay further consideration of this project until. the GEIS has been completed (including adoption of design guidelines) and a plan for the new park has been prepared. Unless this project (including both the filling operation and the eventual, maximum allowed development) is the subject of a separate DEIS, its particular impacts should be addressed in a supplemental EIS to the GEIS. Conservation Advisory Council MINUTES Meeting of Dec. 13, 1999 Present: Michael Culotta, Betsy Darlington, Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones, Greg Thomas, Paul Salon; Barbara Ebert (EMC liaison); Martha Fischer Absent: Guy Gerard 1. Martha Fischer was introduced. She would like to be appointed to the CAC and will get an application from the Mayor. She works at the Lab. of Ornithology and would bring valuable knowledge to the CAC. 2. Betsy announced that Steve Komor has resigned. His other commitments made it impossible to put time into the CAC as well. No one knew what has happened to Guy, who hasn't come to a meeting for several months. Minutes for Nov. were approved. 4. Betsy received a memo from JoAnn Cornish (Planning Dept.) saying that the CAC needs to appoint a rep. to the Environmental Management Council. If we don't, the City will lose its representation on the EMC. Barbara Ebert said that the Mayor has agreed to appoint her to the CAC, and we all agreed that we would like her to then be our liaison to the EMC. Paul Salon agreed to be our backup, in case the Mayor takes his time in appointing Barbara. 5. We reviewed the application from Carole Paltz for changes in her rooming house on Dryden Rd. and for 9 additional parking spaces. (She has just 6 tenants.) The application was incomplete - -no map, no EAF, no explanation, no details. We agreed unanimously to oppose granting a permit for 9 additional parking spaces; the neighborhood has seen many yard -to- parking lot conversions, and these have had an adverse impact on neighborhood character. 6. We reviewed the SW Area Design Guidelines. Overall, we felt these looked good and were a step in the right direction. There were, however, a few improvements to recommend. Some are listed here; the complete list of comments is in a separate document. a. Greatly increase the size of the buffers along the Black Diamond Trail and around the new SW Park, some of which is directly across the flood control channel from the old SW Park. Alternative 3, and to a lesser degree, alt. 4, in the DGEIS, are more in the right direction than any of the other alternatives. Since the new park will be a joint City /Town project, the City must consider the interface with the Town portion of the park, just across Cayuga Inlet and its flood control channel. b. Protect the woods and wetlands at the southern end of the old SW Park and the significant old- growth flood plain forest remnant along the east side of the old SW Park and near its entrance (shown simply as gone in the DGEIS). For many reasons, these are important resources to retain. These areas should be off - limits to grading, filling, or other disturbance. We had a real concern about where all the displaced water would go, if any of the near - total development alternatives in the DGEIS were adopted. These woods and wetlands provide an important function for helping with drainage. The goal should not be simply to move the surface water as fast as possible off -site and into the flood relief and flood control channels. Manmade swales and detention basins will be more expensive, less effective and less attractive than what is already there. As the woods mature, they could even become a tourist draw, since flood plain forests have become one of the rarest ecosystems in the state. C. Remove from the suggested species list all nonnative invasive species (NIS), such as autumn olive, privet, Chinese bittersweet, and black locust. None of us knew if the NIS known as reed canary grass was the same species as the one listed, but this needs to be checked. Cooperative Extension, all over the country, is working hard to eliminate NIS, and numerous scientific papers have been written about the harm they cause to native systems. It would be ironic if these were deliberately planted in the City's SW area, only to have volunteer crews from Coop. Ext. come in to remove them! d. Use trees and shrubs and raised earth berms (also with such vegetation), rather than "architectural screening," for hiding parking lots, storage and loading areas, etc. from public view. These will also do a better job of buffering noise and air pollution. e. Instead of grass, use of low- maintenance native perennials and native grasses on the tree islands would reduce maintenance costs and eliminate the need for pesticides and fertilizers. Also more aesthetically pleas ing. f. Energy conservation measures should be encouraged in building design: lighting, insulation levels, control of solar gain on exterior glass, etc. Builders should follow the EPA's Energy Star Standards for construction; financial support is available from NYS (through the NYS Energy Research and Development Authority) for the design of "green" structures. 7. Review of "completeness" of the Draft Generic Impact statement ( DGEIS) for the SW and Elmira Rd. areas). Our comments are in a separate document. 8. We decided to continue without a Chair, but to divide up various tasks. Michael Culotta agreed to be our main liaison with City Hall, esp. the Planning Dept. and Planning Board. Judy already has volunteered to be our main EAF person checking out sites for which EAA's have been prepared. 9. Discussion of the NESTS project will be on the Jan. agenda, if there's time for it then. 10. The information the Building Dept. left for us about the brownfield cleanup at the old Wal -Mart site was not what we needed. We need to get the size of the contaminated area and level of contamination from the DEC, and Judy agreed to contact them. Adjourned about 10 PM. Submitted by Betsy Darlington Memo to: Common Council and Mayor Cc: Planning Dept. and Board City Attorney CAC members From: Conservation Advisory Council Re: Completeness of DGEIS for SW Area and Elmira Rd. Plan Date: Dec. 13, 1999 It is very important that the DGEIS adequately address every item in the Scoping Document, prior to release to the public, because filling in the gaps will then be the responsibility of the consultant already under contract to prepare the DEIS. If you wait until after you have declared the document complete, you will obligate the City to pay out still more money to pay someone to remedy the deficiencies (unless you plan to do it yourselves). Even though you did not request that the CAC review it for completeness (as is normally done), you did not take a vote not to ask for this. Hence we are providing you with our comments. Since we had just one copy (and for only 1' /2 weeks), we have been unable to do a comprehensive review of completeness. Nevertheless, we have found a number of items that were listed in the scoping document but not addressed in the DEIS, as well as some unexplained oddities, as follows: 1. The drawings showing various alternatives slip in.a number of features that are not in the "SW Area Study." (The latest version that CAC has received is from 1994 - -is there a more recent draft ?) Just two examples: road along the levee and a link to West Hill. Why were these various elements added? 2. Under Impacts on the land: No discussion of the loss of the significant strip of old - growth trees along the east side of the former SW Park and near its entrance. Every drawing shows these as simply gone. Nor is there discussion of the impact of removing the tree buffer and wetlands from the southerly portion of old SW Park. 3. Public need section never states what the public need is, and hence is incomplete. It simply states that there's a need for a plan, but never addresses the need for any of the elements of the plan, as it obviously should. 4. Wetlands: does not discuss the impacts of reconstructing these elsewhere on the site or reconstructing them offsite. Does not discuss the impacts on drainage and stormwater (or on anything else) for either course of action. 5. Scope calls for analysis of the impact of the various alternatives on the contained aquifer, but there is no such discussion. 6. Scope calls for analysis of the impact on the new SW Park of increased runoff. Not provided. 2 7. Air quality: a. Using the Elmira data simply is not adequate. DEIS should have data from Ithaca, and the consultant should have done the necessary monitoring. b. Doc. merely says that increased traffic "may" result in increased air emissions. No data are given. The blanket statement, "unlikely to exceed standards" is not adequate. Quantification is needed. 8. Visual impacts: DEIS merely says these will be bad. Scope called for analysis of views from upland areas in the Town of Ithaca, yet no such info is given. 9. Transportation: a. Only the peak hour traffic is given; no discussion of what the Avg. Daily Traffic counts will be. b. Traffic calculations are given which make the increases look trivial. They knock off 20% for pass -bys, 10% for internal traffic, and 7% due to use of public transportation, without stating how they arrived at these percentages. Furthermore, while anticipating a 1.2% traffic increase for the "no action" alternative, they do not apply this same increase to their figures for the other alternatives. c. Amazingly, they show no increase in traffic on main arterials as a result of traffic- calming measures on side streets. Where is that "calmed" traffic going to go? Is the traffic - calming going to be totally ineffective, or will people just stay home? 10. Technical error in Tables 2 -18 and 2 -19: Section of Wood Street is incorrectly described as going between Corn and Meadow. 11. The only traffic projections in the text assume that Spencer St. between So. Cayuga and So. Albany will become two -way. DEIS needs data on traffic without this conversion, esp. regarding the impact on Albany St. 12. Table 2 -17 (summary of intersection levels of service): A column is needed for the effect of traffic - calming measures on the no- action alternative, just as is provided in col. 5 for action alt. 13. Scope asks for mass transit options, but these are not given, just the inadequate statement that there will be such options. 14. Impacts on daily life: a. Only temporary noise is addressed. No discussion of permanent noise impacts- - these are merely brushed aside as "acceptable by relevant guidelines " - -for example, it says that truck noise isn't a problem as long as people are at least 600 feet away from it. b. No discussion of light impacts 15. Scope asked that the limits of Negundo Woods UNA be given. They aren't. There also is no discussion of the impact on Negundo Woods of having heavy commercial E development and changes in drainage nearby. 16. Community Character: a. Residential impacts - -no discussion of impact on the Buttermilk Falls Rd. neighborhood. b. Under economic impacts, they discuss new jobs created, but do not subtract jobs lost. See esp. Tables 2 -32, -33, and -34. 17. Additional fiscal costs: other than stating that there will be some, and getting a partial estimate from the police dept., there is no discussion of these. 18. Under Alternatives section, the only alternative to adoption of the plan that i.s given is the no- action alternative. Impacts of the no- action alternative aren't given except for transportation. In addition, the misleading statement is made that without development of the old SW Park the new park might not happen. The City has already committed itself to this and has received approval for this substitute parkland from the NYS legislature. In addition, the City and Town have agreed to make this a City -Town park/natural area. 19. Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources: DEIS states that at least 296 acres will remain undeveloped in the SW part of the City. Where are these acres, and how did they arrive at this number? It is neither explained nor shown on any of the maps. Indeed, the SW Area Study document (page 2) states that the total area included in the study includes just 257 acres. Was a decimal point inadvertently omitted? Curiously, the DEIS uses 381 ac. as the figure for the total area under discussion, and states that of this, 160 acres are developable. Where do these figures come from? We are confused by these figures, and the public will be, as well. At least a map is needed showing where these acreages are. 20. Growth- inducing aspects: DEIS contains no substantive discussion of this. 21. There's no statement of what the maximum amount of development would be, if the proposed zoning is adopted. For example, if a lower impact plan is adopted initially, would the zoning permit a heavier level of development at a later date? If zoned to allow alt. 6, for example, how can the development be limited to less than that? 22. There's no cohesive discussion of potential impacts of new development on the new SW Park /Natural Area, although Scope calls for this. 23. Scope directs that mitigation fees be detailed in the DEIS, but they are not. How will these be established and calculated? 24. The maps showing the various alternatives should show total square footage of built areas. One of the requirements of the DEIS is that it be usable by the public. Without this information, it is far less so than it should be. Memo to: Common Council and Mayor Planning Dept. and Board Building Dept. and BZA Cc: City Atty. Bill Gray (DPW) CAC From: Betsy Darlington Date:. Dec. 9, 1999 Re: A very important, but neglected, aspect of flood plain function Because of the time constraints at the public hearing last night, and at an earlier meeting that day in City Hall, I decided not to take the time to explain a major function performed for us by flood plains. Yet it is critical for all decision - makers to understand this, especially as you consider major new development in the SW part of the City. I watched a bit of the Common Council meeting on TV last night and heard Thys Van Cort's "bathtub" explanation. The bathtub analogy is useful only to a point. A bathtub has an impervious bottom. The surface of a flood plain is permeable, and this is vitalfy important. The water does not just sit there and slowly run off the surface; a lot of it slowly soaks down into the groundwater. The water from these underground systems (aquifers) is released very slowly into streams and lakes. In the valley where our city sits, the aquifers are in several layers. The upper layers release the water after a shorter period than the deeper layers. The deepest aquifer, under the former Wal -Mart site, is very old, and my understanding is that any given drop of water that reaches it today would not enter the lake or Inlet for many years. To understand why all this matters in terms of flooding, image that the county were entirely paved over. Water from rain and snow would rush off the pavement, the creeks would fill rapidly, and the lake level would rise rapidly as well. During droughts, since there would be no way for rain to get below the surface, there would be no groundwater to be released slowly over the ensuing months and years, the creeks would dry up, and the lake level would fall precipitously. This is one of the consequences of development, wherever it may be: more extreme high - water events (and with water moving at high velocity —which does a lot of damage) and more very low -water events in our creeks. But since flood plains are nearly flat, they are especially important for groundwater recharge. The more of the flood plain that we fill in and pave over, the faster Cayuga Inlet will fill up, and the worse its floods will be. Look at our SW portion of the City. There is not a lot left of what was once a vast flood plain, which played a major role in regulating the creek and lake levels. Today, fortunately, the County as a whole has more forestland than was true 100 years ago. Forests are also very important because rainwater readily soaks into the soil and to the groundwater. Some of it then gets taken up by the trees; the rest is slowly released into streams. That is why our major creeks continue to run even during extreme droughts. Best of all are flood plain forests, once common in NYS, but now, I'm told, one of the state's rarest ecosystems. Perhaps the new SW Park/Natural Area can be allowed to revert to a flood plain forest —it's already on its way. Paving 23 acres of the flood plain in the SW part of the City will be just one more nail in the coffin of that once -vast flood plain. As we chip away at this floodplain (and the few remaining forested areas in it), both the amount of water in the Inlet and the velocity of its flow will be greater than if we had kept the system intact. That means a greater potential for flooding, and for the lake rising quickly and backing up into the City, as it did in 1993. What is important is slowing down the release of water, and its velocity, into the creeks and lake. The more we put runoff into drainage swales and culverts, and direct it to the nearest creek, the worse the flooding problem becomes. Many people think that all one needs to do is direct the runoff as fast as possible to the nearest body of water. Last night Thys Van Cort was explaining to Common Council that there would be a swale near the old railroad embankment to direct the water right to the Inlet. This is NOT a desirable outcome. It would be better to have the water go into the new park where it can be slowly released to the underground aquifers, even though it would probably turn the future park into a lake. Furthermore, the runoff from the parking lot will be loaded with pollutants. Again, although this will have adverse impacts on the park, at least some of the pollutants can be filtered out before the water gets to the Inlet, the lake and people's water faucets. One more point needs to be made regarding the bathtub analogy. The City's flood plain "bathtub" has a high wall —the levee, at 406)' —on one.side. It matters a great deal how high any fill is, up to that level. Above that elevation, since a really extreme flood would spill over the levee, the height of the fill and buildings on it won't displace any more water than if they were at that same height. I hope this explanation helps! Comments from the Conservation Advisory Council on the Draft Design Guidelines for the SW Area and Elmira Rd./Meadow St. Corridor December 13, 1999 The CAC reviewed the SW Area Design Guidelines, and felt that, overall, these looked good and were a step in the right direction. We reserve the right to make additional comments, as we study the document further. We have a few improvements we'd like to recommend at this time: a. Greatly increase the size of the buffers along the Black Diamond Trail and around the new SW Park, some of which is directly across the flood control channel from the old SW Park. Alternative 3, and to a lesser degree, alt. 4, in the DGEIS, are more in the right direction than any of the other alternatives. Since the new park will be a joint City /Town project, the City must consider the interface with the Town portion of the park, just across Cayuga Inlet and its flood control channel. (P. 29) b. Address protection of the woods and wetlands at the southern end of the old SW Park and the significant old - growth flood plain forest remnant along the east side of the old SW Park and near its entrance (shown simply as gone in the DGEIS). For many reasons, these are important resources to retain, and should be off - limits to grading, filling, or other disturbance. We had a real concern about where all the displaced water would go, if any of the near - total development alternatives in the DGEIS were adopted. These woods and wetlands provide important drainage and flood control functions. The goal should not be simply to move the surface water as fast as possible off -site and into the flood relief and flood control channels. Manmade swales and detention basins will be more expensive, less effective and less attractive than what is already there. As the woods mature, they could even become a tourist draw, since flood plain forests have become one of the rarest ecosystems in the state. C. Remove from the suggested species list all nonnative invasive species (NIS), such as autumn olive, Tartarian honeysuckle, privet, Chinese bittersweet, and black locust. None of us knew if the NIS known as reed canary grass was the same species as the one listed, but this needs to be checked. Cooperative Extension Agencies, all over the country, are working hard to eliminate NIS, and numerous scientific papers have been written about the harm they cause to native systems. It would be ironic if these were deliberately planted in the City's SW area, only to have volunteer crews from Coop. Ext. come in to remove them! (P. 19 -25, 71, 72) d. Use trees and shrubs and raised earth berms (also with such vegetation), rather than "architectural screening," for hiding parking lots, storage and loading areas, light industrial areas. from public view. These will also do a better job of buffering noise and air pollution. (P. 44, 62, 72) e. Instead of just grass, use of low- maintenance native shrubs, perennials and native grasses on the tree islands would reduce maintenance costs and eliminate the need for pesticides and fertilizers. Also more aesthetically pleasing. (P. 56, 57) f. Energy conservation measures should be encouraged in building design: lighting, insulation levels, control of solar gain on exterior glass, etc. Builders should follow the EPA's Energy Star Standards for construction; financial support is available from NYS (through the NYS Energy Research and Development Authority) for the design of "green" structures. coples CCU iiii)yof -7 Lots of shade trees will help with saving energy in the summer months, as would use of light - colored paving materials instead of blacktop. And provision for bicycles will help, as well. g. Large tree species are needed in all parking lots, so that these have a significant amount of shade. (P. 4, 61) h. Just 12% of each site's area dedicated to landscaping seems much to small, and again, large tree species should be a component of virtually all landscaping. (P. 8 and 10) i. Emphasis should be on trees. Also, screening that is only 36 " -48" high won't hide SUVs and trucks. Also, masonry walls tend to be unattractive. (P. 9). j. Contradiction between guidelines on pages 11 and checklist on p. 12. P. 11 says downlighting (of buildings) only, page 12 says up or downlighting. Uplighting will cause light spillage off site. k. Signage maximums are far too large, both in square footage and height, and would destroy any possible aesthetic appeal of the area. (P. 18) 1. Playgrounds are needed in any residential development. (P. 47, 48) M. What is meant by "one parking space" for bikes? Just one bike, or just one rack for bikes? (P. 66) n. Guidelines are needed for the entrance to the new SW Park/Natural Area. o. Guidelines are needed for the buffer between commercial development at the former Wal -Mart site and the new park. P. Visual impact guidelines should apply not just to what is visible from the street, but also to what's visible from the new park. Memo to: Building dept. and BZA Cc: Planning Board and Mayor Date: Dec. 13, 1999 From: The Conservation Advisory Council The application from Carole Paltz for 9 additional parking spaces at her property on Dryden Rd. is incomplete. There is no EAF, no map showing where the parking would be, no justification for the increase in parking, no mention on the impact on this neighborhood in which numerous yards have already been converted to parking lots. Also, how would the 9 spaces compare in square footage with the amount permitted under the new yard -to- parking regs.? She also did not say how many spaces she already provides for her tenants. Her house has only 6 tenants. It is clear that Ms. Paltz simply wants to be able to rent parking spaces to others in the vicinity. The CAC unanimously opposes permitting the 9 additional parking spaces. As for the changes in location of her tenants within her building, with no net gain in number of tenants, the CAC had no problems with this.