HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CAC-2000MINUTES— Conservation Advisory Council
Meeting of January 10 and 13, 2000
January 10:
Present: Judy Jones, Greg Thomas, Paul Salon, Dan Hoffman, Betsy Darlington; EMC liaison,
Barbara Ebert
Absent: Guy Gerard, Michael Culotta (sick)
Guests: Martha Fischer, Molly Adams; JoAnn Cornish (Planning Dept.); Cornell: Bob Stundtner,
Bob Bland, Kathy Wolf (Trowbridge and Wolf)
1. Duffield Hall, Cornell: Bob Stundtner, project manager for this proposed building, and Bob
Bland, explained various aspects of the project. In addition to the building, a separately funded
landscaping plan for the entire Quad is part of the overall project. Duffield Hall is planned for the
eastern end of the Engineering Quad. It will be 3 stories high with a large atrium running north - south
through the middle. The building is primarily to house the nanotechnology facility that has outgrown
Knight Lab. Greg and Judy asked a variety of questions relating to air intakes and exhaust of toxic
fumes. These are complex issues, and the exact design for them is still being worked out. They're
studying safety aspects of handling toxic materials, exhaust into the atmosphere, and how byproducts
can be controlled or destroyed. The stacks will probably be about 20' high.
The building will not have any classrooms, but the clean room will have an instructional lab, and
there's a colloquium room on the third floor. There will be some solar lighting.
The landscape plan involves removal of a number of trees. Concern was expressed about this, as
these trees are now large and attractive —red maples and lindens, for example. We were told that the
lindens are not considered "appropriate" landscaping trees, but the explanation was unclear (too
"dense " ?). The very large ash near the SE corner of the Quad will also be removed, but the
magnificent oak will be saved.
Their intent is that a DEIS will be done, and the CAC voted to recommend a positive declaration.
2. Organization of the rest of the agenda. We listed all the items on the long agenda, decided
what to tackle next, and agreed to meet again Thursday.evening at 7:15, to finish.
3. Contamination report from Judy, Widewaters site: Since the City didn't have any info on
the extent of the spill Widewaters is cleaning up near the railroad bed (at the old fuel tank facility and
around Havlik's home), she contacted the DEC, which is overseeing the work. The material consists
of fuel oil, petroleum, leaded and unleaded gasoline. She met the DEC rep. (Cutting) at the Planning
Dept. and the Dept. made two copies (one for CAC and one for the Dept.) of the massive
documentation the DEC provided. Richard Brazell is the DEC engineer in charge of working with
Widewaters, and Larry Cutting is DEC's technician. Although the Widewaters atty. had represented
to the CAC on Nov. 8 that the spill was no big deal, it turns out that the contamination is heavy, and
the plume has spread out some distance from the source. Cleaning it up at this time of year is
especially problematic because of the cold, wet weather. After being placed on a membrane, the
contaminated soil is supposed to be covered until spring. Then the cover would be removed and the
material exposed to the air so the microbes that had been added could do their thing. But it is so wet
and muddy that they have been unable to cover it. Hence it is getting wetter and wetter.
Judy made up a chronology of events from the DEC documents. A phase I assessment was
done way back in Feb. 1997. In May 1997, Widewaters applied to the DEC, and a site map was
given to the DEC showing the footprint of a 200,000 s.f. building described as a "retail store." In
August 1998, C &H Engineers did a Phase H investigation for Widewaters. On August 31, 1999, a
map was produced showing the area of highest contamination and the extent of the plume. Some
areas will have to be excavated down to 10 feet. In other areas the excavation will be targeting a lens
of contaminated soil in the ground water, at a depth of about 6 -8 feet..
JoAnn will look into having a site visit with her and CAC members, to view the spill area.
4. Oak Ave. Parking Variance (504 Dryden Rd.): This was a request for building a parking
area behind 9504 for 9 cars. Betsy reported that virtually the entire area along Oak Av., from Oneida
2
Place, east to behind the east -most white building (as well as between the various buildings) has
already been converted to gravel parking lots. She believes that the area shown on the applicant's
map already has been converted to parking. Conversion of vegetated yards to parking lots has been a
source of concern to the neighborhood, and led to the creation of the parking lot conversion
ordinance.
Members unanimously reaffirmed the recommendation of last month against permitting the 9 spaces
because of the adverse effects on the neighborhood and because there was no compelling reason
given by the applicant for having the spaces. In addition, we recommend that any illegal parking
already there be removed and the area returned to grass and trees.
5. Oasis Christian Fellowship: When CAC reviewed this in 1995, we recommended a neg.
dec. but cautioned that it was a poor site to build on because of its wetness. Since that time,
AutoZone has paved over the lot immediately behind the property. The drainage study provided is
dated 1990, yet the drainage on the site has presumably been affected by the AutoZone project. Judy
reported that when she visited the site today, the stream behind it was 6 -8 feet wide and 3 feet deep,
and the whole site very soggy.
Additional CAC concerns are with the homes that abut the property, and the proximity of the
church parking lot to these. While the project appears to be ill- advised, we felt we did not have
enough information to make a solid recommendation. For example, an up -to -date drainage analysis is
needed.
6. 611 W. Buffalo St. parking lot —sale of City lot to Building Links: This was built with
public money, to replace parking lost by the route 13 work. Parking is said to be scarce in the area,
and is important to the residents. Members were concerned that the sale could lead to the
redevelopment of the site and loss of the parking, which was built with public funds. The concern is
not ownership of the lot but its availability for parking. We recommend that any sale of the lot be
with a stipulation requiring long -term availability for resident parking. [Note: City Planner Doug
MacDonald e- mailed me that the terms of the sale will include such provisions.]
7. Sale of Taughannock Blvd. land: Before making a recommendation, CAC needs to know
what the conditions of sale are. What controls will there be over what will be there? Should the City
impose some conditions on the sale?
8. 630 W. Clinton St. --Sonya Hicks: On the one hand, Ms. Hicks is in a terrible predicament,
one all of us sympathized with. On the other hand, the residents in that area (including Cleveland
Ave.) are deeply concerned over the conversion of homes to commercial uses, and the subsequent
loss of their neighborhood. This is a complicated issue, and CAC members felt that we could not
render an opinion until we have more information. Among other things, an EAF has not yet been
provided for our review.
9. Widewaters subdivision, so that two pieces can be conveyed to the City for substitute
parkland: We recommend a neg. dec., but with some stipulations, for example:
• City should ensure that it has protected itself and the new parkland from the
contamination on the adjoining properties;
• No remediated soil should be placed on the City's parkland;
• The overburden that's above the pollution plume must not be spread on the parkland;
• No fill whatsoever should be placed on the new parkland. (The grading and
landscaping buffer should be on the Widewaters property.)
• In addition, we object to the failure of Widewaters to provide answers to all the
questions on page 2 of their applications.
Meeting suspended at 10:30, to be continued on January 13 at 7:15 PM.
January 13:
Present: Judy Jones, Paul Salon, Betsy Darlington, Guy Gerard, Michael Culotta, Martha Fischer
We reconvened the continuation of Monday's meeting at 7:15 PM. This part of the meeting was to
discuss the DGEIS for the SW Area Plan, in preparation for the public hearings that start on Jan. 24.
Early in the meeting Guy told us that he was not asking for reappointment to the CAC. He has not
come for a long time. He expressed his frustration that the CAC puts in a lot of work but, he felt, no
one paid any attention to what we recommended, so what was the point. Betsy said she understood
his concern but she felt that our comments often are read and taken into account.
We started by planning out how we were going to approach this monumental task, and quickly
decided that each of us should write up our comments on the sections we reviewed, and e-mail them
to Betsy by mid -week of the coming week (Jan. 16 -22). She will then forward all comments to
everyone else. We will ask Dan (who was sick and couldn't come) to write an introduction and try to
pull together the comments from everyone into one unified document. No one knew how much time
the CAC would be given at the public hearings.
We then started to discuss a few sections of the DEIS, with Paul pointing out a variety of flaws in the
surface water - drainage -flood control sections. He felt that the proposed mitigations for the massive
replacement of woods, wetlands, and other undeveloped land, in a very wet part of the City, were
unlikely to be very helpful.
Then Betsy and others pointed out some of the problems with the section on plants and animals.
Martha said that she had seen coyotes at the Widewaters site in recent months. All agreed that the
wooded areas and wetlands of the old SW Park should be kept as "parkland" and not rezoned.
Concern also was expressed about the impact on Negundo Woods of having invasive alien species
for landscaping, as proposed in the Design Guidelines.
There also was consensus that the 6 alternatives presented showed lack of creativity.
In addition, a major weakness of the DEIS was lack of information regarding who would enforce all
of the proposed mitigations (such as maintenance of drainage swales and sediment traps).
Adjourned about 10 PM.
Submitted by Betsy Darlington
MINUTES— Conservation Advisory Council
Meeting of February 14, 2000
Present: Michael Culotta, Judy Jones, Greg Thomas, Paul Salon, Dan Hoffman, Betsy Darlington;
Guest: Jennifer Schriber
1. Alternative Federal Credit Union project EAF: We agreed to recommend a neg. dec. but
with the following concerns:
Traffic patterns through the site look a bit unusual, with three entrances but only one exit;
Landscaping plan calls for sycamore maples for all of the trees surrounding the site. This
could be risky: if this species (like so many others) should be attached by a disease or insect, all the
trees are likely to be affected, and perhaps killed. In addition, monocultures tend to be more prone to
such attacks. In addition, is anything known about the invasiveness of this non - native species?
Norway maples, e.g., have become a real pest in the City's natural areas. It would be ashame to
repeat this mistake. Finally, this species is a small tree. It would be preferable to have at least some
large species. The Shade Tree Advisory Council should be consulted for advice on species.
2. Cherry St. subdivision EAF (for sale to NYS for the Black Diamond Trail): We agreed to
recommend a neg. dec. but with the following concerns:
Does Parcel B intrude into the two wetlands at the south end of the site, and if so, what
provisions will be made for protection of the wetlands?
We recommend that the trees that are east of these parcels be retained, as a buffer for the
trail. (Note that the SW Area Land Use Plan calls for an effective buffer.) The City should either
retain ownership of this buffer strip, as businesses develop in the area, or require retention of the
buffer by developers. With industrial uses next to the trail, it is critical that the trail be protected with
a wide buffer of trees;
What are NY State's Guidelines for the Trail? If these include buffers on each side of trails,
the guidelines should be adhered to, at a minimum.
3. West End rezoning EAF: We agreed to recommend a neg. dec. but with the following
concerns:
4`h page of the document, section on maximum % of lot coverage by buildings, indicates
100% coverage would be permitted. How will this accommodate the proposals for a N -S pathway
running though the middle of the blocks (West of Meadow St.) and interior pocket parks? Are there
incentives that could be offered to developers to provide space for these amenities?
Shade Tree Advisory Committee (or City forester) should be consulted re appropriate tree
species for the proposed tree pits, to be at the back of the lots facing the east side of Meadow St.
What will be the impact on neighborhoods to the east of Meadow St. for the lack of a parking
requirement in the new zone?
4. Duffield Hall: Scoping session will be on Feb. 29 at 7:30 PM. The two main concerns we
had were with the ventilation system and the landscaping. Judy and Greg agreed to write up
something more specific re the former, and send to Betsy, to pass on to the Planning Board/Dept.
5. Coal tar remediation information (Manufactured Gas Plant sites — Interim Remedial
Measure): We all received this a day after the public information meeting that was planned!
6. DGEIS discussion occupied the rest of the meeting, with many suggestions for changes to
the latest draft. Betsy will incorporate these and take the document to City Hall in time to meet the
Feb. 17 deadline. [Note: Done.]
Adjourned about 10:45 PM
Submitted by Betsy Darlington
clql
Comments from the City of Ithaca's
Conservation Advisory Council, on the
Draft GEIS for the SW Area Land Use Plan (SALUP)
February 17, 2000
INTRODUCTION: The Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) has been examining the dGEIS
since it was released to us, including extensive discussion at three of our meetings. The CAC
finds that the dGEIS does not adequately address several important areas of concern, including
water resources, the old City dump, visual resources, transportation, plants and animals,
community character and quality of life, and. costs to the City.
A. COMMENTS ON THE SURFACE WATER AND DRAINAGE PLAN PORTION OF THE dGEIS
The Executive Summary states that the "adoption of the plan would allow design criteria
to be imposed on development that could act to improve surface water quality in the area through
flood mitigation and storm water management practices." We find this statement unrealistically
optimistic, at best. The GEIS should provide a more realistic appraisal of the impacts.
The SW Area Plan calls for the development of up to 1.25 million square feet of
buildings, plus associated roadways and parking lots, with a projected doubling of storm runoff
volume and a near quadrupling of storm peak flow off the site. The dGEIS states that typical.
storm water pollutants from urban areas include oil, grease, sediment, solvents, various metals,
nutrients and salt. The design of the system for a 25 -year storm event is not adequate for
mitigating significant impacts from these. Designing around old weather patterns, at a time of
global climate change that is causing increasing frequency and severity of storms, is short-
sighted. The GEIS should detail more robust systems for handling weather events,. rather
than marginal systems.
According to the dGEIS, "abrupt slope change from steep to flat sloping channels where
tributary streams enter the inlet alluvial plain result in conditions where flooding can be
frequent." This has been a historic problem, well documented along Buttermilk Falls Road
where residents are concerned about the filling being conducted by the Widewaters Co.'
The Widewaters example illustrates the problems inherent with massive filling in a
flood plain (and with piecemeal development occurring before the environmental impacts are
analyzed). Historically, the overflow from Buttermilk Creek has rushed through an opening in
the railroad embankment and spread out harmlessly across the flood plain area, before draining
into the Cayuga Inlet. Widewaters has filled in much of the flood plain, and proposes to create a
drainage swale to carry the floodwaters into the substitute parkland (and, ultimately, the Inlet).
However, due to the extremely flat topography of the flood plain, it will be very difficult to
build a ditch that will have sufficient fall to carry floodwaters at high velocity. A low -
velocity ditch will allow for rapid accumulation of sediment and require constant
maintenance. This area was totally submerged in flood waters in 1996, and has been inundated
by storms other than 100 -year events. During these events, additional sediment and debris will
drop out into the drainage systems.
The drainage ditch at the Widewaters site will empty into the substitute parkland, so that
the annual maintenance and sediment removal at its mouth will become the responsibility
of the City and will impact on the new substitute parkland. The maintenance of this ditch
and the entire drainage system for the larger SW project area will be the responsibility of the
City. These costs need to be considered in the GEIS in any cost/benefit ratio of the project.
[CAC Comments]
The dGEIS states as a general guideline, that site grading for drainage, roadway and
building pad construction is to be limited to fills of approximately five feet or less. This
guideline is presently being exceeded at the Widewaters site.
Drainage ditches in the rest of the SALUP area will not be able to carry the design
flow of water without expensive maintenance —costs which the GEIS needs to consider. The
initial sediment load due to construction and erosion is expected to be above normal, according
to the dGEIS, so that cleaning may be required after one season. Yet, this will remove
vegetation that is needed for sediment and pollution remediation. The dGEIS states that "brush,
debris and sediment removal should be performed at least annually." If the maintenance is
neglected and channel dredging and re- shaping becomes necessary, then the activity may require
a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers and would likely require engineering designs.
The Executive Summary states that the proposed Southwest plan will improve water
quality. This claim defies logic and science, since much of the area slated for development is
currently vegetated (or, in the case of the Widewaters site, was vegetated, until the developers
stripped the land). Before it was stripped of vegetation and filled, the Widewaters site acted as a
typical flood plain, storing water and alleviating downstream flooding, and helping to filter
pollutants and sediment from runoff. The rest of the vegetated portions of the SALUP area,
especially the woodlands and wetlands in the original SW Park, perform these same functions.
All of the alternatives presented in the dGEIS will dramatically increase impervious surfaces and
decrease the amount of vegetation.
The dGEIS states that typical storm water pollutants from urban areas include oil, grease,
sediment, solvents, various metals, nutrients and salt. The proposal for addressing these
pollutants by collecting storm water runoff in catchment basins is inadequate, since only the first
% inch of runoff from a rainfall event will be collected in the proposed basins. The GEIS needs ,
to evaluate this more carefully, along with the impact of these materials entering the
important Cayuga Inlet and lake fisheries and the drinking water of Cayuga Lake.
The vegetated swales proposed in the plan will allow for the nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus) to be absorbed by plants, but unless the above - ground portions of plant materials
are removed from the site, there will be no net loss of nutrients from plant absorption. The
use of the drainage swales as an area of sedimentation will only reduce the life of the
drainage swales and increase maintenance costs.
If the swales are dug out every year, as will probably be needed to maintain flow from the
site, the GEIS needs to address where the dredged materials, laden with pollutants, will be
put. Will they simply be spread on the site —maybe even in the new SW Park? In addition, the
GEIS needs to address what will happen to pollutants in the period before vegetation starts
to grow back in the swales. The CAC feels that a drainage system designed to need annual
cleaning is not a viable alternative.
The dGEIS simultaneously proposes removing water from the site as fast as possible,
to reduce flooding on the site, and slowing it down as much as possible, to trap or remediate
pollutants and sediment. Obviously, both scenarios are not possible.
It is the CAC's recommendation that larger sedimentation and retention basins be
constructed and incorporated into a wetland design within each development site, allowing for
a more economic and effective treatment and removal of sediment, nutrients and metals, rather
than spreading the pollutants out over lengthy drainage swales: This would also save the City
money, as maintenance would be the responsibility of the owners. In the original SW Park, it
[CAC Comments]
would be better, and much less costly, however, to retain the woodlands and wetlands
already there, so that they can continue to perform the important flood management and pollutant
remediation services that they currently perform.
The GEIS should propose systems that would result in no net increase in either volume
or velocity of runoff from each development site, as is recommended in State guidelines.
The sweeping and vacuuming of parking lots should be seen only as a practice to
extend the life of other, more realistic, treatment structures. The GEIS needs to explain what
mechanism will be in place for ensuring that they will be so maintained.
The GEIS should provide details of routine monitoring of all drainage and sediment
control structures: who will oversee this, what mechanism will be in place for handling
problems, how much will this cost the City, etc.?
The dGEIS recommends sedimentation control measures, such as installing check dams
or siltation basins in the streams draining South Hill, to minimize sedimentation concerns in the
Relief Channel. These would be helpful, since the Relief Channel is the major outlet for most of
the drainage system in the plan. But much of the South Hill area in question is in the Town of
Ithaca, over which the City has no control. If the Town permitted the City to install dams or
basins, the cost of installation and maintenance will presumably be borne by the City and
should be considered in the cost/benefit ratio of the project. Has this matter been discussed
with Town officials?
The dGEIS recommends that the site drainage configuration also include the ability to
discharge directly into the Cayuga Inlet/Flood Control Channel, due to fear of high water in
the Relief Channel. This would provide an emergency alternative discharge location for
floodwaters. The design should take into consideration that any direct discharge into the Inlet
will by -pass most planned treatments and should be designed to be used only during a 25 -year
storm or worse. And see Part F, below, regarding. impacts on fisheries and drinking water.
Wetlands are important resources, providing (among other things) protection against
flooding and serving as reservoirs for storm water and snow melt events. Wetlands also
provide habitat for specific plants and animals. 10.98 acres of wetlands have been delineated
within the SW area. We support the expansion and enhancement of existing wetlands on the
site. We do not support the creation of new wetlands in the new SW Park until a complete
management plan has been developed for the Park. We are concerned about directing more
water as well as contaminants into Negundo Woods without consultation by a forester or
ecologist on the impacts of pollutants and/or additional water into this area. The use of wetlands
(existing and new /enhanced) to provide storm water and water quality benefits should be part of
any system designed to accommodate new development. Buffer and wetland plant species
should be native and not invasive.
The dGEIS concludes that extensive development in the Southwest area poses no
problems with contamination of the subsurface aquifer system. It also states that the
foundational supports and pilings that will be needed for this development will penetrate the
subsurface water layer, but will be self - sealing. The CAC believes that contaminants in the
former City dump area could be a threat to the aquifer if the water travels along these
pilings, and that the dGEIS is misleading on this point.
Before the City proceeds with any alterations to the important natural water control
systems in our SW area, far more information is needed in the GEIS regarding the impact of
such actions on flooding in the vicinity and downstream, on water quality in Cayuga Inlet, the
Flood Relief and Flood Control Channels, and Cayuga Lake, and oncosts for City taxpayers.
[CAC Comments]
B. COMMENTS ON THE OLD CITY DUMP AREA ANALYSIS, SECTION 2.4 AND APPENDIX D OF
THE dGEIS
Section 2.4 provides an overview of impacts that can be expected from development in
the Old City Dump area and an introduction to Appendix D of the dGEIS, which contains the
Environmental Site Assessment from Spring 1999 for the "Former Dump Area." It does not
contain an explicit regulatory framework for development and provisions for oversight,
since Section 2.4 says that such a framework is not applicable if no development occurs. From
CAC's point of view, this is a serious oversight.
For example, the former dump site assessment concludes that there is no significant
threat from the site to human health, and is therefore not under the jurisdiction of NYSDOH or
TCDOH if not developed. It also concludes that the dump site is no threat to the environment if
left undeveloped, and that it is not under jurisdiction of NYSDEC because the site is not listed
under Part 360 regulations. This is confusing because the scoping document specifies the need
for a closure plan based on a work plan approved by DEC. It is unclear whether site development
would trigger regulatory agency involvement and active oversight of the development process by
experienced and knowledgeable persons or agencies, to mitigate effects clearly expected to occur
in the construction period (according to the dGEIS). The process described for cleanup and
remediation, preparatory to construction, includes a developer proposal in accordance with NYS
Guidelines for Urban Sedimentation and Erosion Control submitted to the City during Site Plan.
review, as well as additional site assessment specific to the developed parcel, also to be
negotiated with City during site plan review. Thus the dGEIS appears to assign responsibility
for further sampling needs, review of assessment data, erosion control planning, and dump
remediation, to the City Planning and Development Board.
All 6 plans in the dGEIS include construction of roadways, infrastructure, major
drainage pathways, and some buildings, with associated parking lots sited in the former
dump.
An example to support our concern that active on -going oversight and technical
expertise is very important can be found in the current Widewaters site activity. While DEC is
providing oversight for the petroleum spill remediation (Larry Cutting out of DEC office in
Kirkwood, approx. 2 days /week, as well as DEC required review of data), Widewaters is also
operating under a NPDES permit and a City permit (since revoked) for the fill operation.
Observers have noted and documented with photographs lack of oversight for the City and
NPDES permits, specifically fill trucks leaving the site and avoiding the required measures to
prevent soil tracking by truck tires onto adjacent Rt. 13 highway. In addition, observers have
noted silt fencing that has fallen over. What process will prevent tracking of soils,
documented to be contaminated with heavy metals (App. D), onto adjacent roadways
during site construction in the former dump area? Can we assume that the city has sufficient
staff and expertise to assure that human health and environmental concerns are met?
CAC's major comment on this subsection of the dGEIS is that an adequate regulatory
framework does not exist or is not made explicit in the dGEIS to assure the community that
impacts to human and environmental health will not occur during construction on the former city
dump site. Oversight by the city would appear to contain a conflict of interest. CAC
recommends that the GEIS provide a chart listing all applicable regulations and standards for
dump site remediation and designated responsibility for oversight. A schedule of fines or
complaint procedures, to be filed when the damage is already done, does not suffice. Most of
[CAC Comments] 5
these comments still apply should the City decide to remediate the entire dump area prior to any
construction, as suggested in the May 1998 Addendum to the SALUP.
The soils over the former dump site may still contain heavy metal contaminated soil after
remediation. The CAC recommends that buffer plantings over the former dump site (such as
the buffer at the south end of the trailer park), include native woody plants known to absorb
and translocate heavy metals from soil into plant tissue, thereby providing a measure of soil
remediation. A possible contact for current advice would be CU Floriculture and Ornamental
Horticulture faculty. While most heavy metals do not move into the environment through
groundwater, they do move when the soil particles to which they are bound move as dusts,
sediments flushed by water to new locations, or by ingestion. Lest the last point seems
improbable, TCDOH can confirm well -known serious consequences for children and pets who
dig, etc. in lead contaminated soils.
[CAC Comments]
C. COMMENTS ON VISUAL RESOURCES, SECTION 2.6 AND APPENDIX E OF DGEIS
The inclusion of a visual impact assessment in the dGEIS is laudable. CAC's comments
concern weaknesses in the Key View projections as well as in the recommendations for
mitigation of impacts. It is notable that this study was conducted before the current activity
on the Widewaters Site, which must have considerable impact on Key Views 1 -3.
The projected impact of development alternatives on key views assumes mitigating
factors (presumably incorporated into the design guidelines) that may not occur: retention of
some of the existing vegetation, large trees on parking lots, no rooftop utilities or
penthouses, strictly controlled signage (see esp. V5 simulation), uniformity of building
height and rooftop in contrast to guidelines which recommend varying roof lines. As a
result, the simulations indicate less impact than the development may well have.
The draft design guidelines do not match recommended mitigation steps listed in the
Visual Resources section of the dGEIS. For example, while the dGEIS speaks of "large trees" in
parking lots, the design guidelines require only 2" BD caliper trees, which would take years to
reach the size projected in the dGEIS. The dGEIS recommends uniformity of building height
and rooftops, while the draft guidelines call for varying roof lines.
New signage will have to compete for attention with an existing gaudy hodge -podge of
signs on Elmira Road, using the vibrant colors recommended against by the study. It seems.
likely that new businesses off the main road will seek considerable presence and visibility, by
means of high contrast signage that does not meet the Visual Resources recommendations and
will still fit the proposed SW Area Land Use Guidelines. The GEIS needs to address this.
The retention of existing vegetation is considered by the McCord Landscape
Architects to have the greatest mitigating effect on negative visual impacts of development.
All alternative plans, and especially Alt. 6, 5 and 1, will require removal of nearly all
existing vegetation in the developed area. A feeling for the visual impact of such development
is readily available at the proposed Widewaters site where the city has permitted extensive site
work and fill in advance of site plan review, thus allowing removal of large trees and most other
vegetation. The view simulations in the GEIS should include such scenarios, and alternative
plans that would avoid such impacts. The GEIS also should show key views from the Black
Diamond Trail as well as from various sites outside City limits.
Substantial, effective buffers of trees are needed: along the Black Diamond Trail;
between the substitute parkland and the commercial zone along route 13; between the
substitute parkland and development to the north in the original SW Park; and between the any
new development and Nates Floral Estates.
Of special concern to the City, in view of its importance, both locally and state -wide, is
the view from trails at Buttermilk Falls State Park. All six alternatives in the dGEIS show a.
very large commercial building at the location now apparently being prepared by Widewaters for
just such a structure. The impact on views from Buttermilk of such a development will be
significant. The GEIS should include one or more alternatives showing more compatible uses of
that site, with greatly reduced visual impact.
[CAC Comments]
D. COMMENTS ON THE TRANSPORTATION PORTION OF THE DGEIS --
1. Spencer Road is not included in the impact analyses; it should be included as part of the
Level of Service (LOS) study and the neighborhood street analysis.
Analysis is needed in the GEIS for the impacts on pedestrians and bikers throughout
the area, but especially along Spencer Rd. and any other streets that have no sidewalks.
Spencer Rd. is already considered hazardous by those who walk or bike along it.
Related to Spencer Rd. traffic is traffic on Stone Quarry Rd.; this is being used
increasingly for access to this part of the City. The GEIS should address this.
2. Unavoidable impacts exist for the listed development scenarios, beyond the brief statement
in the Executive Summary.
a. In spite of traffic- calming measures, intersection improvements, and new intersections,
several intersections' LOS will decrease. The Executive Summary should be corrected to more
accurately reflect these unmitigated impacts.
b. In spite of mitigation measures, traffic volumes will increase significantly. Increased
noise and air pollution are unavoidable impacts (not to mention increased driver
aggravation and decreased quality of life). The Executive Summary should be corrected to
more accurately reflect these unmitigated impacts.
3. Level of Service information is needed in the GEIS for the Meadow /Seneca and
Meadow /Green intersections.
4. Our biggest issue with the Level of Service analysis is that LOS E was determined to be the
goal of mitigation. With the definition of E as it is (including waits of 41 to 60 seconds, driver
aggravation, etc.), we are puzzled and disappointed that city officials and planners would accept
this very poor level of service for the City of Ithaca and its residents. The intersection at Albany
and Spencer Streets will be mitigated to LOS E; several other intersections will be mitigated to
LOS D; still others won't experience mitigation at all because they are already LOS E or above.
We are disappointed that our city planners do not want better traffic service for this community.
5. The dGEIS talks about impacts to neighborhoods only in numerical terms, but does not
address impact on quality of life or property values of the neighborhood. These need to be
included in the statement.
6. The first of three goals and objectives of traffic- calming mitigation is to "Encourage greater
use of multi -modal transportation." But the focus of recommended mitigation is directed
toward engineering measures. The GEIS needs to include mitigation measures that clearly
and specifically address encouraging people to use non -auto transportation. Specific
engineering measures are outlined in Table 2 -20 (page 2 -47). The GEIS should outline in a
similar way measures that can or will be used to achieve the goal of getting people to use
non -auto transportation.
7. The GEIS needs to address the need for sidewalks along all of route 13.
[CAC Comments] 8
8. The figures show no increase in traffic on major arterials as a result of traffic - calming
measures on side streets. This defies logic and needs to be corrected in the GEIS.
9. Just two paragraphs are devoted to analysis of public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian use
of the affected area. Just one paragraph covers mitigation measures. One of the mitigating
measures for bicycling is the inclusion of 5 -foot bike lanes. With the forecasted increases in
traffic, cyclists will be fearful of using the lanes. Safer alternatives need to be given.
10. The GEIS needs to include, as part of mitigation plans, specific means for educating the
public about sharing the road with pedestrians and bicycles.
11. The GEIS also should include details of public transit - related mitigation.
12. How will the area be linked (by all means of transportation) to other areas?
13. The dGEIS discusses traffic calming effects only for the development scenarios. For
proper comparison, the GEIS should assume traffic - calming measures for the no- action
alternative as well.
[CAC Comments]
E. COMMENTS ON THE "PLANTS AND ANIMALS" PORTION OF THE DGEIS AND APPENDIX H
Part I: EVALUATION OF IMPACTS
The dGEIS comes to the surprising and unwarranted conclusion that implementation
of the SW Area Land Use Plan "is not expected to have any substantial impacts on plant and
animal resources." (ES -4) The field survey that was done by plant ecologist F. Robert Wesley
does not even come close to drawing such a conclusion. The closest thing he says is that he
found no species that are so rare or endangered that they have legal protection - -the standards for
which are exceedingly high. Not only does the dGEIS draw conclusions from Wesley's
report that are at odds with that report, the Executive Summary doesn't even summarize
accurately what is said in the body of the dGEIS.
It should be mentioned, by the way, that plant ecologist Robert Wesley is misidentified in
the dGEIS as a "wildlife biologist." While he is a fine naturalist (especially regarding plants),
his survey's primary focus was on the plants. No one surveyed for the dGEIS the birds,
amphibians, mammals, reptiles, and other wildlife, nor evaluated their needs, such as for
wetland or contiguous forest habitat. Similarly, invertebrate life important for Cayuga
Inlet's very important fishery are not discussed, nor are potential impacts of the various
alternatives on this resource. This fishery draws large numbers of fishermen to the City.
1. On page ES -4, under "Plants and Animals," the document states that "no significant
ecosystems, other than Negundo Woods ... were identified within the study area." On page 2 -2,
the doc. states that adoption and implementation of the SW Area Plan "will result in insignificant
impacts to the natural features within the study area." In the "Summary of Impacts," on page ES-
3, under "plants and animals," the table says, "none," in the adverse impact column.
Yet, on page 2 -61, the dGEIS reports that the old hedgerow between the original SW
Park and lands owned by Reuben Weiner "constitutes a significant remnant of old- growth
floodplain forest." In addition to other very large trees, the county's largest bur oak is in this
hedgerow. The dGEIS says that the trees in the forest just to the east are "somewhat less large,"
with the implication that these, too, are nevertheless large.
This floodplain forest remnant is identified by Wesley and the dGEIS as being of special
importance and one that should be protected. Mature floodplain forest is now one of the rarest
ecosystems in the state, as a result of human activities.
In addition to the intrinsic value of this forest, if the younger woodlands in the study area
are to develop into healthy flood plain forests, thus undoing some of the damage done by
humans, it is important that the trees in the old hedgerow be protected. They provide important
seed stock for the younger forested areas. Yet all six alternatives shown in the dGEIS
completely eliminate this forest. The Executive Summary conveniently "forgets" about its
very existence! Not only must this be corrected; the GEIS also should provide alternatives that
protect the forest.
2. Cayuga Inlet, according to the DEC's fishery expert, is the single most valuable stream
entering Cayuga Lake for the production of wild migratory trout. DEC estimates are that
85 -90% of the wild trout in the lake come from the Inlet. This is of enormous value, yet the
dGEIS does not discuss it, nor does it consider the many changes in drainage and pollutant
and sediment loads that could affect the Inlet. The Cayuga Lake fishery itself is estimated to
be worth $10 million, about half of which is from the cold water fishery. The GEIS needs
10
[CAC Comments]
detailed discussion of the plans, particularly the drainage plans and long -term monitoring and
maintenance of these.
The dGEIS simultaneously proposes removing water from the site as fast as possible,
to reduce flooding on the site, and slowing it down as much as possible, to trap or remediate
pollutants. Obviously, both scenarios are not possible, and if the former is what happens, the
pollution and sedimentation load entering the Inlet and Cayuga Lake could seriously degrade
these waters, along with their fisheries (to say nothing of the lake's quality for drinking water).
3. Aerial photos of the area show a significant forested area, starting in the south with
Negundo Woods and wrapping around the filled area of the original SW Park. These woods
provide a nearly uninterrupted habitat corridor for both plants and wildlife. Protection of
the forests and wetlands would still leave a very large area for development: the already -filled
part of original SW Park, the former City dump (if safe), and the proposed Widewaters site along
route 13. Conversely, destroying virtually all of it except Negundo Woods would destroy
significant habitat for plants, birds and other wildlife. The dGEIS makes no mention of this
problem. The fact that large areas of woods are still relatively young apparently led the authors
to conclude that these woods are insignificant and not worthy of protection.
4. Replacing the woods and wetlands in the original SW Park with fill and pavement will
result in further isolation of Negundo Woods. With a smaller area in which to be confined,
many of the species using Negundo Woods and the original SW Park woods may vanish. For
example, fragmentation of habitat is thought to be a major cause of the dramatic decline over the
past 20 years of cerulean warblers; mature flood plain forests are its major habitat.
5. Although the dGEIS identifies Negundo Woods as a significant area, and one which will ,
be protected as part of the substitute parkland, it never mentions the potential adverse impacts
on it of having intense development in very close proximity, both in the original SW Park and
along route 13 ( Widewaters site), adjoining the substitute parkland. There will be a variety of
impacts from the latter, such as pollution/sedimentation, changes in hydrology, and
disturbance of wildlife species. The GEIS should describe these thoroughly.
The dGEIS claims that the Plan would provide much - needed protection for Negundo
Woods. Yet, the City must protect it as part of the substitute parkland. Implementation of the
Plan would very likely have a variety of adverse impacts. It should also be noted that Negundo
Woods and the Floodway Zone (FW -1) are not developable anyway.
Introduction of nonnative invasive plant species, dispersed from the landscaping around
the new developments, is yet another potential source of harm to Negundo Woods, especially the
herbaceous vegetation. In the SW Area Design Guidelines, several such pernicious plants are
listed in the recommendations for landscaping - -e.g. shrub honeysuckle, privet and autumn olive.
Loss of biological diversity from invasion of native habitats by exotic species is of growing
concern, worldwide. The Sept. 17/99 issue of Science, for example, has a lengthy section on this
serious problem.
6. The large forested area in our City's SW provides the City with major benefits such as
cleaning the air and moderating the temperature, not to mention the wildlife and plants. It
also performs important drainage functions. It is important to protect what little forest the City
has left. The GEIS should describe impacts on these functions thoroughly.
[CAC Comments] 11
7. Wesley states in his report that the species in the study area that are rare or scarce in the
Cayuga Lake Basin do not have legal protection. (App. H) This is quite a different statement
from the one in the dGEIS that supposedly summarizes it with the statement, "Two plant species
that are locally scarce were noted but are not rare enough to warrant protection." This needs to be
corrected. Just because they do not have legal protection hardly means that they are not worth
protecting! A species has to become exceedingly rare for it to gain legal protection.
A significant reason for a species to become rare in the first place is human disturbance,
especially from destruction of habitat: Note, for example, that Wesley was unable to find nine
rare plant species within the study area that had been reported in earlier investigations. He may
simply not have found them or the timing of his study (Oct. and Nov.) may have made them
impossible to find or human disturbance may already have eliminated them from the area.
We hope that the City will not treat as expendable every species in the study area that is
not yet listed as rare or endangered! To do so would be simply to hasten the time when these
species, too, might qualify for legal protection.
The GEIS should discuss thoroughly impacts on species, both those that are regionally
rare and more common ones.
8. Wesley emphasizes that the timing of his survey- -Oct. and Nova- -meant that many
herbaceous plants were dormant and not visible above ground. This critically important piece of
information is never used in the dGEIS to qualify the conclusion that there would be no
"substantial adverse impacts on plant or animal resources." This timing meant that he would
likewise find virtually no migrant birds.
Surveys done during April- Sept., a critical period for determining. what species of
herbaceous plants and animals (esp. birds) use the area, are a "must for the GEIS.
9. Wesley states in his report that the study area is "much -used by birds, especially the
areas along the flood control channel." The authors of the main document never mention this
important piece of information. Why was an ornithologist not hired to survey the birds,
especially from April- Sept.? This is a serious omission, as is an inventory of other types of
wildlife.
While the CAC does not, by any means, have a complete list of birds, we have .assembled
what little information we could. On May 19, 1988, a CAC member led a Cayuga Bird Club trip
to SW Park and Negundo Woods. The alienation ( "deparking") of SW Park was under intense
discussion at the time. Club president and expert birder, Dick Evans, was among those on the
trip.
In SW Park, some of the birds found included (among many others):
Rose - breasted Grosbeak Baltimore Oriole Red -eyed Vireo
Indigo Bunting Ring- necked Pheasant Warbling Vireo
Northern Cardinal Carolina Wren Northern Flicker
Bobolink Willow Flycatcher Belted Kingfisher
Tennessee Warbler (vast Least Flycatcher Red- tailed Hawk
numbers in the woods) Killdeer Seen on a previous trip:
Common Yellowthroat Cedar Waxwing Eastern Bluebird
Yellow Warbler Chimney Swift Red- bellied Woodpecker
[CAC Comments]
The "Christmas Bird Count," done on Jan.
SW Park (among others):
Carolina Wrens
Eastern Bluebird
American Robin
Red - tailed Hawk
1, 2000, covered this area, and found in the original
Merlin
11 Great Blue Herons (in the wet area around the power lines at the north end)
12
In Negundo Woods (just across the levee from the original SW Park), in addition to many
of the birds found in the original SW Park, the 5/19/88 group found:
Rufous -sided Towhee Blackburnian Warbler Eastern Wood Pewee
Cerulean Warbler Blue -gray Gnatcatcher Tufted Titmouse
Bay - breasted Warbler Bank Swallow
White- breasted Nuthatch Rough - winged Swallow
* A bird list compiled by others in the project area is at the end of this section.
While none of the above except perhaps Cerulean Warbler is listed as threatened or endangered,
the City cannot dismiss all the rest of these birds. Birds play an important role in the complex
balance of nature. In addition, they enrich our lives. For many people, parking lots and shopping
plazas are far less thrilling than seeing or hearing a Rose - breasted Grosbeak, Baltimore Oriole, or
Cerulean Warbler. The CAC believes that there would actually be commercial value in retaining
the woods and wetlands in and around original SW Park, as discussed below.
Part II: CONCLUSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
The CAC is surprised by the conclusion drawn in the dGEIS that there would be no
significant impact on plants or animals from replacing the large areas of existing woods and
wetlands with impervious surfaces. Such a conclusion is unscientific and does not jibe with
anything that is known about natural systems and their vulnerability.
Our conclusion, from reading the dGEIS, is that, at least in the Plants and Animals
sections, its authors were attempting to "greenwash" the plan and make it look as though it
would have only positive benefits and no significant adverse effects. We had assumed that, with
Common Council as lead agency, there would be at least an attempt to be objective. The dGEIS
lacks this objectivity, and needs to be corrected.
In addition, the dGEIS fails to provide and evaluate real alternatives to filling most of
the undeveloped areas in the Southwest Area with new roads, large buildings and large
parking lots, with the resulting substantial loss of woods, wetlands and wildlife, and subsequent
foreclosure of significant future recreational uses.
The CAC would like to propose a more balanced vision for our City:
Keep the woods and wetlands in and around the original SW Park, and build new
businesses on the areas that have already been filled by the DPW, in areas that are currently
developed but could support more intense development (e.g. multi - stories), and - -if safe to do so --
in the old City dump area. Let our legacy be one that enhances and capitalizes on the natural
attributes of the area. We can, at the same time, increase income to the City. Let us not destroy
the natural qualities of the area, and simply leave large shopping malls for our children,
[CAC Comments]
13
grandchildren, and beyond. This is the City's last opportunity to do something wonderful rather
than shortsighted and outdated. Let's show the rest of the country that it is possible to increase
development without destroying vast acreages of natural areas. The GEIS should include one or
more alternative plans that would be in line with such a scenario.
1. Tourism is a major part of our local economy, and birders constitute a significant
proportion of the tourists. Birding has become big business. Since so many stunning birds use
the unofficial green belt along Cayuga Inlet, including the woods and wetlands in the unfilled
portion of the original SW Park, let's take advantage of that.
The City should capitalize on the fact that this area is near a major State Park, and the
soon -to -be City park/natural area and Black Diamond Trail. Bring birders and other visitors
to that area and the original SW Park. What other shopping area can offer such impressive
natural amenities? This would also help bring in stores that cater to users of these natural areas- -
stores that might actually draw customers from places as far as Elmira and Cortland, and that
would provide goods not supplied by other mass - marketers that are already in our area or
apparently soon will be.
Environmentally compatible development that took advantage of the rich natural
resources of the area —for example, a museum of the Finger Lakes, a center for ski touring and
canoeing, a nature center, a hotel and conference center, all tied in with the colleges - -could be a
real asset to the City, both economically and socially. All development in the original SW Park
would be on the filled portion only, leaving the natural areas undisturbed.
2. With seed dispersed from the old- growth hedgerow and Negundo Woods, the woods in
the original SW Park could be restored (naturally and at no cost) to a fine mature floodplain
forest, helping to reverse the appalling destruction that this type of habitat has suffered at
human hands -- simultaneously drawing more tourist dollars to the City. Wildlife that uses
Negundo Woods already travels back and forth between the original SW Park, Negundo Woods
and the old floodplain forest remnant, and depends on the woodlands not being fragmented
further.
3. While the original SW Park woods may not look impressive yet, given time, and seeds
from nearby areas, it could become quite magnificent, and be a draw for birds and birders
alike. Trees, like most creations of nature, start out small. Are we so impatient with the slow
pace of nature relative to our own rush through life, that we will wantonly cut down anything
that has not yet attained the majesty and magnificent of old age? (Fortunately, we don't apply
the same principle to human beings.)
The CAC is surprised by the conclusion drawn in the dGEIS that there would be no
significant impact on plants or animals from replacing these large areas of woods and wetlands
with impervious surfaces.
4. If the area is rezoned as proposed, any of the six alternatives described in the dGEIS
could be implemented, if not soon, then sometime in the future. The CAC finds that Alternatives
1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, as described in the dGEIS, are unacceptable in terms of their impact on plants
and animals and other natural assets. Even Alternative 3, which is of a more appropriate scale,
would eliminate the significant remnant old- growth flood plain forest that borders the east side of
the original SW Park.
14
[CAC Comments]
Therefore, the CAC recommends that any rezoning exclude existing woodlands and
wetlands (primarily in the unfilled portions of the original SW Park, the old- growth
floodplain remnant, and the southern, unfilled portion of the proposed Cherry St.
Industrial Park extension) so that these can have the protection they need, and to prevent the
isolation of Negundo Woods. These areas should be in the P -1 (public) zone, and considered
part of the new Southwest Natural Area. The GEIS should include such an alternative plan.
5. Seek a mix of development in the remaining Southwest area, not exclusively large -scale
retail. Some other development types tend to have less impact and to allow for retention of more
natural features.
Build new businesses only on the areas that have already been filled by the DPW, in
areas that are currently developed but could support more intense development (e.g. multi -
stories), and - -if safe to do so - -in the old City dump area. The GEIS should include this as an
alternative plan.
Let our legacy be one that enhances and capitalizes on the natural attributes of the
area. We can, at the same time, increase income to the City. The dGEIS should consider such a
possibility and its economic and social benefits for the City.
*Bird list compiled by other birders in the project area:
Great Blue Heron
Red - bellied Woodpecker
European Starling
Green Heron
Downy Woodpecker
Cedar waxwing
Canada Goose
Hairy Woodpecker
Chestnut -sided Warbler
Hooded Merganser
Northern Flicker
Palm Warbler
Wood Duck
Pileated Woodpecker
Yellow Warbler
Black Duck
Least Flycatcher
Common Yellowthroat
Mallard
Willow Flycatcher
American Redstart
Osprey
Eastern Phoebe
Eastern Towhee
Sharp - shinned Hawk
Great Crested Flycatcher
Northern Cardinal
Cooper's Hawk
Blue- headed Vireo
Indigo Bunting
Red - tailed Hawk
Red -eyed Vireo
American Tree Sparrow
Rough - legged Hawk
Yellow- throated Vireo
Chipping Sparrow
Merlin
Blue Jay
Song Sparrow
Turkey Vulture
American Crow
White- throated Sparrow
Ring- necked Pheasant
Black- capped Chickadee
House Finch
Wild Turkey
Tufted Titmouse
Slate- colored Junco
Killdeer
White- breasted Nuthatch
American Goldfinch
Spotted Sandpiper
Carolina Wren
Red - winged Blackbird
Ring- billed Gull
Blue -gray Gnatcatcher
Brown- headed Cowbird
Mourning Dove
American Robin
Common Grackle
Great Horned Owl
Eastern Bluebird
Baltimore Oriole
Belted Kingfisher
Gray Catbird
House Sparrow
[CAC Comments] 15
F. COMMENTS ON THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER PORTION OF THE DGEIS — Section 2.13
The dGEIS Target area does not fully consider the impacts of traffic on property values.
Level of Service decreases and the resulting impact on both quality of life as well as tax base
impacts should be addressed in the GEIS. For example, recent anecdotal evidence from the year
2000 reassessments points to declining tax base on Albany Street due to increased traffic
volumes.
What will be the effect of increased traffic on Stone Quarry Rd. (and Spencer Rd.) as a route
to the SW area?
While the Study does mention the impact of traffic calming measures, these measures are
planned for area streets regardless of the proposed development. To be fair, the GEIS should
study the impact of traffic calming in all alternatives (including the No Action alternative), to
maintain consistency.
Section 2.13.3 Economic Character:
Estimating the impact of transfer sales on existing businesses:
The dGEIS downplays the impact of the proposed development on the business sector. A
significant portion (32% to 40 %) of the potential sales generated from the proposed
development are predicted to come from sales transferred from existing area stores (page
2.70).
The scale of the proposed new retail space suggests a revolutionary impact on existing retail.
Alternative 5 estimates $54.7 million in sales transferred from existing businesses. Using the
Study's figure of $190 per SF Avg. Sales for retail space, this translates to approximately
300,000 square feet of retail space transferred from existing businesses to the new SW Park retail
development. That is one -third of the existing retail space that currently exists within the
City (total 935,000 SF).
Downtown Ithaca, with a total of 400,000 SF of space, will'see twice its total available space
built out in SW Park under Alt 5. The dGEIS assumes that the impacts will be distributed across
the existing retail landscape, transferring 57% from existing retail outside the City at Pyramid
Mall, Triphammer Rd and East Hill Plaza, with only 3 -5% net loss in sales from the City's
downtown.
What if the impact of adding 85% more retail within City limits is distributed differently?
What happens if more sales are transferred from existing business within City limits? The
GEIS should address these possibilities. The potential impacts of blightin of existing
commercial areas and the resultant impacts to tax base and community character should be
carefully postulated.
[CAC Comments] 16
G. COMMENTS ON THE ALTERNATIVES PORTION OF THE DGEIS — SECTION 4
According to State and City environmental review law, the dGEIS must consider a
reasonable range of alternatives to the "action" being considered (adoption of the Southwest
Area Land Use Plan, as currently proposed by the City). The dGEIS is grossly inadequate in
meeting this requirement.
The only alternative listed in the "Alternatives" section of the dGEIS is the "no action"
option. While in most cases, "no action" is a legitimate option, in this case, where the question is
whether to adopt a comprehensive plan, it is not a reasonable one.
The six "concept plans" illustrated in the dGEIS are in actuality variations on a single
theme. While differing in scale, they do not provide real options in several areas of major
environmental and community concern.
All six concepts call for the identical type of development on the so- called "levee
parcels" (now owned by the Widewaters company) - namely, the maximum development
allowed under the existing B -5 zoning - immediately adjacent to new City parkland (and directly
in the viewshed for Buttermilk Falls State Park).
All six concepts would disrupt or eliminate the existing designated wetlands and
young flood plain forest in the southern portions of the original Southwest Park and the
Cherry Street Industrial Park expansion parcel and would likely exacerbate drainage and
flooding problems.
All six concepts would involve destruction of the existing hedgerow along the eastern
boundary of the original Southwest Park, a recognized remnant of old- growth floodplain
forest.
All six concepts call for a new roadway running along the edge of and across the
flood control levee, which is the site of a popular, naturalistic pedestrian path (and which
could become part or a spur of the Black Diamond Trail).
None of the six concepts provides a sufficient vegetative buffer for the Black Diamond
Trail.
The GEIS should include at least one alternative that would provide for significant
commercial expansion in the overall Southwest area, but would also result in much less
intensive use of the Widewaters site, and would preserve some or all of the existing
wetlands and woods in the unfilled portions of the original Southwest Park and Cherry
Street Industrial Park expansion parcel. Among the six concepts illustrated in the dGEIS,
Concept 3 comes closest to accomplishing this balance, but it is not a sufficiently comprehensive
or coherent alternative, as currently drawn; it is missing several of the important components
mentioned above.
Since the City currently owns a significant amount of "developable" land in the
Southwest area, it is in a position to consider development options that would allow for a
more planned approach (such as Planned Unit Development for the northeasterly, filled portion
of the original Southwest Park). By retaining ownership of this area (along the lines of the
Cherry Street Industrial Park model), the City could solicit proposals for overall development of
the site or manage future development consistent with an overall plan for the site that
incorporates environmental protection and the most beneficial socio- economic options. It should
be noted that residential development, which appears only in Concept 2, tends to have
significantly less impact on aspects such as traffic, runoff, air pollution and visual quality. This
possible, lower- impact component of a comprehensive Southwest plan deserves more
investigation and evaluation than it receives in the dGEIS.
[CAC Comments]
H. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
1. Potential costs to City taxpayers are grossly underestimated and fail to take into account
numerous additional costs, some of which are mentioned above.
One example is loss in property values in nearby neighborhoods, as a result of increased
traffic, noise, and air pollution.
2. The impacts on the substitute parkland of increased runoff, called for in the Scoping
Document, are not discussed in the dGEIS.
3. Air quality data from Elmira are inadequate for evaluating impacts in Ithaca. Data from
Ithaca are needed.
The GEIS needs to quantify increased emissions from increased traffic.
17
4. The six so- called "alternatives" slip in features that are not in the SW Area Land Use
Plan, e.g. new roads: along the levee, extension of Cherry St. all the way south along the Inlet, and
reference to a link to West Hill. The GEIS should delete such high- impact development features that
are not part of the SW Area Land Use Plan, as now proposed.
5. Numerous impacts —e.g. views, traffic, noise, quality of life, flooding, wildlife, plants —are
treated in the dGEIS as though any such impacts will stop at the City line. The GEIS needs to
consider such impacts on the City's immediate neighbors.
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Minutes
Meeting of March 13, 2000
Present: Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones, Betsy Darlington, Paul Salon; EMC liaison, Barbara Ebert
1. Minutes for Feb. were approved unanimously.
2. EAF for Quarry Property LLC- -Quarry Boiler House conversion to 16 living units: We received this
EAF and the supporting documents at the meeting, so no one had an opportunity to visit the site, although
several already knew the area fairly well. In addition, since we had an unusually light agenda, we decided
to go ahead and review it. We agreed to recommend a neg. dec., but with the significant reservation that
we are not qualified to comment on the historic issues involved. While we agreed that it would be good to
reuse the building, we also had several concerns:
a. View from the foot bridge, the other side of the gorge, and the trail (in the planning phases) at
the base of the slope along Six -Mile Creek;
b. Trash disposal- -both litter and the location of dumpsters and recycling area;
c. Lighting.
It should be noted that construction on such a site, perched right on the edge of the gorge rim, would not
be permitted today. Also, we think a variance may be needed, since it would be a change of use to a non-
conforming building (it sits right on most of the west property line and part of the north line).
a. View: Many people use the foot bridge on a daily basis, and people will certainly use the
proposed trail next to the creek. It is important that the view not be despoiled by trash on the bank or down
in the gorge, or by unattractive alterations to this historic building. (We leave it to the ILPC to pass
judgement on the latter.)
b. Trash: It will be very important to take all possible precautions to prevent trash from getting
into the gorge. Disposal facilities should be located well away from - -and out of sight of - -the gorge and be
entirely enclosed, on the sides, at least. Trash around the building should be cleaned up at least weekly.
We also recommend that window screens on the west side be installed permanently. Otherwise, especially
during the warm months, trash is more than likely to be tossed out open windows and into the gorge.
Trash from residences along Cascadilla Gorge as well as Six -Mile Creek provides ample demonstration
that this can be a significant problem. We believe it would be very difficult to clean up the steep bank
behind the building, hence the importance of preventing spillage.
c. Any exterior lighting should be directed downward and not permitted to spill off -site. The
relatively new lighting at the nearby residences is very bright and intrusive to people on the other side of
the gorge, at least during the many months when the trees are bare. This should not be repeated around the
new residences.
3. Intermunicipal sewage agreement: Betsy reported on the information faxed to her today by JoAnn
Cornish regarding where the process is on this. Concerns were raised about the CAC not having been in
the loop to receive info on this or the water supply agreement that's also in the works. CAC should be
considered an "interested party" for purposes of review of both projects. Judy agreed to call the DEC and
have CAC added to their list. Concerns also were raised about the impact on the City of the agreement's
likely effect on sprawl, if landuse controls are not in place prior to the agreement being signed.
This blissfully brief meeting adjourned about 8:35 PM! Submitted by Betsy Darlington
NEXT MEETING: MON., APRIL 10, 7.30 PM, CITY HALL
Conservation Advisory Council
Minutes
Meeting of April 10,2000
Present: Michael Culotta, Dan. Hoffman, Judy Jones. City of Ithaca : JoAnn Cornish, Doug.
MacDonald
1.Members present convened as EAF subcommittee, Dan acting chair.
2. a.LEAF for transfer of Parcel 100.-2-1 (Cherry St. II)from City of Ithaca to IURA. (Conditions
are allowed.)
b. Site Plan Review for Glyph Technologies
The proposed transfer of Parcel 100.-2-1 (immediately south of Cherry Street)from the City
to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA)and the proposed site plan submitted by Glyph
Technologies for the northerly portion of the parcel were treated by the City as two separate actions,
but were reviewed by CAC as a single action. Our recommendations concern both actions.
Initially,the CAC must express concern that the City is proceeding with development of this
area prior to the adoption of a master plan for the greater Southwest area(which includes this site)
and prior to the completion of environmental review of the proposed plan and its impacts. We
believe that proceeding in this manner amounts to improper segmentation of environmental review
and could be less protective of the environment. For this reason, CAC does not endorse a negative
declaration for the action.
If the City intends to proceed with the transfer and development of this parcel prior to
completion of the GEIS and adoption of a plan for the Southwest, it should ensure that potential
environmental impacts will be addressed and mitigated,by attaching appropriate conditions to the
transfer.
Our concerns about the use of this parcel are as follows:
a. Wetlands in southerly portion of parcel. The southerly, unfilled portion of the parcel
contains two designated wetlands that appear to be important for wildlife and for retention and
filtration of rainwater and runoff. Prior to any transfer of the parcel to the IURA(or others)the City
should require that no actions or development be approved for the area containing the wetlands (i.e.,
south of the portion proposed for leasing to Glyph)until the final GEIS is completed,findings are
approved, and a plan for the Southwest area is adopted.
The removal of virtually all vegetation from the filled portion of the site(approximately 5
acres)will have a damaging impact on local wildlife and visual resources. This underscores the
need for an environmentally sensitive site plan and for preservation of wetlands and natural
vegetation on the remainder of the parcel, as a mitigating factor.
Also, the treatment of the"edge" of the Glyph portion, bordering the wetland area, is
important. CAC recommends that the slope leading down to the wetland area remain undisturbed
and vegetated and that site design be such that no erosion of this slope is encouraged.
b. Buffer along western boundary of parcel. Development of this parcel could have
significant visual and other impacts on the Flood Control Channel, the grassy strip along the
Channel (controlled by NYS)used for recreational purposes, and on the future Black Diamond Trail
to be constructed along the Channel. We believe that maintaining a substantial, wooded buffer
between these two very different land uses will protect the recreational value of this important
waterway and open space(which is part of a much longer greenway linking State and local parks
along the Inlet Valley and Cayuga Lake).
CAC supports locating the extended Cherry Street to the west of any buildings to be
constructed on the parcel. However, it appears that the proposed location of Cherry Street very
close to the westerly edge of the parcel would at most leave a wooded buffer between the street and
the grassy strip of approximately 40-50 feet. CAC recommends maximizing the vegetated buffer
zone. The westerly curb of the extended Cherry Street should not be located any further west than
what is shown in the Glyph site plan; an adjustment to the east would be preferred. CAC
recommends that any sidewalk and utility poles along the extended Cherry Street be located on the
easterly side, allowing vegetation to remain or be planted as close as possible to the westerly
curbline.
Existing trees in the buffer area should be left, and the buffer strengthened with additional,
strategic plantings. The effect of buffering should be further enhanced by requiring more plantings
on the east side of the extended Cherry Street. (Also, the City should work to ensure that the Black
Diamond Trail is located to the west of the existing woods, requiring the least removal of existing
trees.)
c. Other land west of Cherry Street. The CAC recommends that the City(rather than IURA
or Glyph)maintain ownership and control of the small,triangular section in the NW corner of the
parcel, as an access point to the Black Diamond Trail. This area is now wooded and could
strengthen the buffer referred to above. The City has suggested a parking lot for Black Diamond
Trail users in this area; CAC recommends that this suggestion be tabled for further study of Trail
access and amenities. CAC recommends that the city maintain control of the small triangular
>portion in the NW corner of the parcel for public use).
d. Design Guidelines. As far as we know,there are no design guidelines currently applicable
to the Cherry Street Industrial Park. The City has proposed positive design guidelines for the entire
Southwest area, including this parcel, some form of which will presumably be adopted at the
completion of the GEIS process. CAC suggests that the proposed guidelines be applied to the
extension of Cherry Street and the Glyph project. We would like to see this project become a
positive example in the Southwest with respect to care for the site's valuable natural features. For
example, planting of larger shade trees should be included in the landscape plan, and lighting should
be controlled to prevent spillage into adjacent areas.
e. Drainage. Plans for site surface drainage need clarification and further development.
Current plan for Glyph suggests intent to drain site to the wetlands, which could be problematic.
Will storm sewers serving existing Cherry Street be extended to this parcel?
f. Hazardous materials. CAC would like to know if any hazardous materials (in significant
quantities)will be used/stored on site by Glyph Technologies. The LEAF does not appear to
address this question.
3.Proposed City of Ithaca Zoning Amendment for Central Business District- a change in
boundaries and remove building height limit.
• CAC recommends changing the proposed new boundaries to exclude several small historic
buildings from the new zone, so as not to create an incentive to demolish these buildings (e.g.
J.S. Barr, Catholic Charities at 121 E Buffalo, and the two old houses on Seneca St. adjacent to
the Masonic Temple.)
• CAC is concerned with maintaining the character of the current entrances to the Commons,
especially the entrance at Seneca and Tioga. The scale and character of future development
should be protective of the current quality of openness while allowing for improvements
intended to enhance the entrance.
• Question 12, pt 2 LEAF, check yes. Under "other impacts" check 2 -reduce impact by changing
zone boundaries.
• Question 13, pt 2 LEAF, check yes under"other." Check columns 1 and 3.
• CAC recommends neg dec.
4.W. State St.Reconstruction blocks 100, 200,400, 500. This project will extend last summers
work on the 300 block, and is expected to support plantings with the provision of structural soil.
• CAC recommends neg dec.
• CAC is concerned about the amount of time required by DPW to reconstruct the 300 block last
summer and its disruptive effect on existing businesses. This project should be more carefully
planned.
5. Subdivision 742 Cascadilla St.
- CAC recommends neg dec.
6. ScienceCenter Appeal #2458, 601 1st St. The ScienceCenter plans a major expansion and
requests a variance in parking requirements.
• CAC recommends neg dec.
• CAC would like to see careful attention to the view of the Center from the walkway from Alice
Miller Way to the new pedestrian bridge. This view should be enhanced by careful buffering
with additional trees/plantings.
7.Beebe Lake. Appeal #2459. Installation of chilled water piping under Beebe Lake to serve new
development on North Campus.
• CAC cannot make recommendations since the SEAF provided has not been filled out nor has
part II of the LEAF been provided.
• CAC would like to know about possible impacts on Fall Creek Water Quality during dredging
and construction.
8.West End Zoning-Revised Concept Memo.
• The extension of the WEDZ la zone into the Clinton West Plaza doesn't limit the scale of
commercial development sufficiently to protect the adjacent neighborhood. CAC recommends
that at least a portion of the extension be rezoned residential in keeping with Planning Board
concerns.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:35PM.
Respectfully submitted, Judy Jones
MINUTES
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Meeting of Monday, May 8, 2000
Present: Michael Culotta, Betsy Darlington, Judy Jones, new member Kat Lieberknecht (HURRAY!!),
Paul Salon, Greg Thomas; guests: JoAnn Cornish and Doug MacDonald (City Planning Dept.), Ken
Vineberg (Planning Board); Duffield Hall team, et al.: Kathy Wolf (Trowbridge and Wolf), Bob Bland
and Bob Stundtner (Cornell Facilities), Cliff Pollack (Electrical Engineer at Cornell Engineering School),
John Trendowski (SP?) (City consultant- -from CNS - -to help City evaluate the plans and DEIS), Lee Davis
and Ishrat Chaudhuri (ENSR- -firm charged by Cornell with designing and evaluating air contaminant
issues)
L Duffield Hall proposal at Cornell: Most ( -1 %2 hours) of the meeting was spent hearing about and
discussing the many complex issues related to the use of toxic chemicals. Lee (a micrometeorologist who
studies dispersion of air contaminants) and Ishrat (who is a toxicologist and is doing the risk assessment)
gave most of the presentation, and answered a number of questions from CAC members, esp. Greg and
Judy.
Their task is to predict where the air will go and determine what the concentrations will be, and
ensure safety to all, now and in the future. A flexible design will be needed in order to make the system
adaptable to changes in chemicals used. They have looked at th e 8 facilities in the US that are reasonably
similar to Duffield. The risk will have to be acceptable to the most sensitive members of the community,
not just the healthy.
Three areas of concern in the bldg.:
top two floors -- mostly labs using chemicals common in most chem. labs;
bulk storage of gases (esp. nitrogen and hydrogen); and
handling of small amounts of specialty gases-that are toxic, corrosive, or pyrophoric (bums when
contacts oxygen): arsine, silane, phosphine, chlorine, acids/bases.
First, they are establishing "best management" controls -- administrative controls, engineering
controls, and exhaust stack design. This part is virtually complete now.
Next step is air modeling. for which they're using both a wind tunnel model and a mathematical
model. The former is useful for the area near the stack where the plume will be small and compact, the
latter for distal areas where the plume has widened out. They are trying to find out what the maximum
impact in a worst -case scenario would be within a radius of 1400', and determine if it is safe. They are
checking this for three time - frames: continuous exposure over 70 years, short-term exposure (e.g. an
hour), and instantaneous (as in a spill) for a matter of minutes. They also are looking at possible
microclimatic effects in Cascadilla Gorge.
They've looked at about 100 chemicals and come up with air quality criteria for each. E.g., for
long -term exposure, they are checking annual guidelines, potential carcinogens, and health risks of non -
carcinogens. For short -term releases, they're looking at the maximum amt. that could be released. For
accidental releases, they're ? ?? [anyone remember what they said?].
Preliminary results: Modeled releases are well below the release criteria even though the models
make many worst -case assumptions. For any new chemicals that might be introduced, the same rigorous
evaluation process would have to be used.
Building security will be such as to make entry to hazardous areas by untrained individuals (or
terrorists) very difficult. Knight Lab. can be checked on to see how it works there. To some extent, they
are also looking at cumulative (or even synergistic) impacts of Duffield's exhaust when combined with
that from other buildings in the vicinity. They will try to ensure that the stacks are above the building
"envelope." The velocity of the plume as it leaves the stack will also help move it safely up and away.
Another expert- -John Cox - -is looking at indoor air flows and systems to ensure proper
maintenance. All tradespeople who will do the maintenance will be brought in early and trained well. No
untrained persons will be permitted to perform these duties. A user committee will oversee this.
2. March Minutes were approved unan.
3. EAF appeals. All EAF's this month were from the Building Dept., a large stack of which arrived
on Sat. just two days prior to the meeting. Many of these concern the need for anything happening in the
100 -year flood plain to get a special permit, a situation that we all agreed needs fixing. Special permits
should not be needed for such things as repairing a roof, doing interior work, etc.
On these grounds, we recommend a neg. dec. on the following appeals:
#'s 2463, 2464, 2466. 2467, 2469, all of which are for work on existing structures in the 100 -year flood
plain.
EAF for Sciencenter special permit: Assuming all the necessary precautions required in the flood plain
are taken, to protect both this property and that of neighbors; and assuming the view from the new foot
bridge over Cascadilla Creek is buffered with vegetation, we recommend a neg. dec. (We raised the view
concern in our comments on the project last month.)
EAF for LSC pipe under Beebe Lake: This still does not have adequate info for us to make a
recommendation. The EAF lacks Part II (and III). There still is no info on water quality issues during
construction, especially siltation of Fall Creek.
In Part I, note that 4 10 answers "no" to a question re being in a Unique Natural Area, clearly a
typo since the UNA report for the site is attached to Part I.
EAF for use variance for Dr. Law: We agreed that the applicant made a good case for granting the
variance, and recommend a neg. dec.
EAF for use variance for Ithaca Community Recovery: This appears to be a worthy use of the building,
but we felt it was a big stretch to call it a "church," even if a significant component of the program is
religious. Neighborhood sentiment and consideration of potential parking problems should help guide the
decision on this. No info (text or map) on parking issues was provided. We defer to the BZA.
4. Judy filled us in on the progress (or lack thereof) of the soil remediation project at the Widewaters
site. A lengthy report we received from the DEC says that the bioremediation cells were supposed to be
completed by the end of April, but nothing has been happening at the site. Their apparent goal was to be
finished with this by the end of August. Judy doesn't know why they are not working on it. Maybe
awaiting the results of their Article 78 Proceeding against the BZA and the 7 appellants? We wondered if
they weren't required by the DEC to remediate the contaminated soil, regardless of what else happens on
the site.
Adjourned about 9:10 PM
Submitted by Betsy Darlington
•
MINUTES
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Meeting of Monday,June 13, 2000
Present: Michael Culotta,Betsy Darlington,Kat Lieberknecht,Paul Salon,Greg Thomas;guests: JoAnn
Comish (City Planning Dept.); Doria higgins(briefly)
1. EAF reviews:
Alpha House: Neg.dec.(no problem)
CVS: Neg.dec.,but with several recommendations and comments,as follows:
• The entrance would be better at the NW or NE corner.This is a residential neighborhood,and
placement of the entrance at the SW corner,with a less than appealing side of the building,
along the street is not pedestrian-friendly. The intent of the West End rezoning—even though
the site unfortunately is not included in that—and the importance of protecting the residential
character of the street both argue for taking all possible measures to enhance the use of the
store by pedestrians,and to make the site as pedestrian friendly as possible. CVS is to be
commended,however,for moving the building towards the street rather than at the back of
the parking lot.
• Large shade tree species would be better in the parking lot than the Zelkovas that are
proposed.
Subdivision—Doug Foster: Neg.dec.,but with the following recommendation:
• The City should take steps soon to secure an easement across the properties for the future
Cayuga Inlet Trail. This may be an advantageous time to do this.
<3. r
2. Survey by Cornell: Doria H.gave us her concern about the survey reported in the Ithaca Journal,done
by a class at Cornell. Since the margin of error was+4%,those said to favor the plan could be as low as
51%. Various questions were raised about the survey,and Betsy agreed to call the professor to ask about
them. E.g. 35%of respondents had not even heard of the project;how did the findings break down
between those who had heard of it and those who hadn't.
3.EAF: Beebe Lake pipeline crossing:Neg.dec.provided they adhere strictly to the standards provided
by the DEC and that there is oversight to ensure compliance with those standards.
4. Client Committee for the new SW Park/Natural Area: Michael,the CAC's rep.to the committee,
reported on what they are doing and asked for our suggestions. Michael will write these up,but here is a
summary of the major points we discussed:
• Access to the Natural Area from route 13;
• Buffer between park and Widewaters site—dense vegetation needed,as well as being entirely on the
Widewaters site,not the City's land(for one thing,NYS legislative approval will be needed for this
encroachment);
• No net increase in runoff from Widewaters site;
• Protect adjoining natural areas to N and NE,to serve as a buffer with new commercial development;
•
• Retention of the young trees that have grown up in the former ag. field,and no changes in drainage
that would adversely affect them;
• Be on alert for more compatible uses of the adjoining land to the west of the Inlet than the limousine
business;
• Stormwater retention pond on Widewaters site,to protect the park and Inlet from major drainage
changes;
• Site plan for Widewaters site should seek to reduce the many impacts of large-scale development there
(truck loading areas,orientation of the building,etc.
5. GEIS—recommendations for Common Council's"findings.statement":
The current schedule is for Council to vote on the findings statement at the July 5 meeting.This will be
mailed to the CAC on June 20,for our review. The substance of our discussion on the GEIS is being',
incorporated into our recommendation to Council. Everyone agreed to get revisions of their sections to
Betsy by this Friday(6/16). She will then put everything together,and send it out to Common Council,
possibly with one more review by all CAC members.
Adjourned about 9:45 PM
Submitted by Betsy Darlington
.1.
MINUTES
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Meeting of Monday, July 10, 2000
Present: Michael Culotta, Betsy Darlington, Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones, Kat Lieberknecht; CC Liaison
Josh Glasstetter; EMC liaison Barbara Ebert; guest: Doria Higgins (briefly)
1. June Minutes were approved with one correction: Kat Lieberknecht was not at the meeting.
2. Festival Lands: Doria passed around a document on this matter, and told us that John Clancy of State
Parks and the Mayor are again talking about the City possibly giving the Festival Lands to the State. One
concern she raised was that the State would start charging admission, although the agreement made long
ago was that entrance to the area would be free forevermore.
3. Collegetown rezoning re parking requirements: We discussed this issue at length, and many
expressed concern with a new parking garage proposal as one solution to parking problems now being
experienced both within Collegetown and in adjoining neighborhoods. Part of the problem seems to be
lack of enforcement in the residential parking permit areas, so that students have kept right on parking in
some of these.
The problems are two -fold: too many vehicles and increasing loss of open space from conversions
of yards to parking lots. After considerable discussion, we all agreed that the current rezoning proposal
would bring more cars to Collegcto« n (and thus n7to c con^e.stion;, and i ore loss of open space. The
easier it is for people to park, the more cars there will be there. The EAF does not acknowledge this. The
EAF is inadequate for it doesn't take into account loss of open space and deterioration of community
character in Collegetown, and increased traffic, congestion, and air pollution.
It was pointed out that parking garages are tremendously costly and the City loses money on all
three of its current garages.
The CAC proposes that, instead of the proposed parking garage, the City create real incentives for'
not having cars, and disincentives for developers to build parking garages and lots. It would be more
effective, in our view, to require all future developers to pay a substantial amount into a fund to mare
it easier for Collegetown residents (esp. students) to live without cars. One example of a use for such a
fund would be to greatly increase shuttle service from Collegetown to various shopping areas and other
popular destinations —at times when students want or need to go to these areas. For people to use it in
place of a car, it must be at convenient times, on time, and get to destinations in as expeditious a manner
as possible. Landlords could provide their own private shuttles or give all tenants free bus passes. They
should be required to provide convenient, secure ground -floor storage places for bicycles. It is expensive
for developers to build parking lots or garages, so the amount to go into such incentives should be
somewhat less than the cost of providing parking.
To prevent landlords from continuing the paving over of yards, the legislation on this needs to be
tightened. (Developers might even be prohibited from providing parking except under their buildings.) Or
the City could require a special pen-nit for construction of private garages in Collegetown.
The Dryden Rd. parking garage should be limited to short-term parking. This would open up
spaces for patrons and employees of businesses and the Center for Theater Arts, and serve as a further
disincentive for nearby residents to own a car.
On -line grocery shopping has already come to Wegmans, and it may not be long before the need
for a car for grocery (and other) shopping will be nearly obsolete, especially among college students.
4. Fall Creek Family Dentistry, 501 N. Cayuga St.: We received no Part II or III of the EAF.
V%
do
We all agreed that it was extremely regrettable that the zoning in the area would permit
conversion of the empty lot at Fann and Cayuga to a parking lot, and that this space will not be used for
commercial and residential purposes —or, failing that, attractive open space.
As proposed, the new parking areas would detract from the aesthetic character of the
neighborhood. Hence, our recommendations are focused primarily on the vegetation aspects of the site
plan. First, the proposed 2 -space parking lot at the NE corner of the site is currently a green area with
several large trees. This forms an important buffer between the business and the adjoining residential
neighborhood. We recommend that this parking be eliminated from the site plan and that this remain a
green area with large trees.
We wonder if the number of parking spaces to be provided is required under City Code. If not, we
strongly recommend that less be provided, or that a variance be sought for fewer spaces. Nearby, quite a
bit of on- street parking is available, especially on the west side of Cayuga St.
The parking lot on the south side of Farm St. shows no landscaping, despite its presence next to
the creek and across from a park, and despite the City's concerted efforts to include large tree species in
parking lots. We feel that large trees must be provided, especially along the south and west sides, as well
as hedges or other "street wall" type plantings along the west and north sides. Likewise, the concrete
aprons on the north side should be converted to a sidewalk and vegetation — grass, trees, shrubs,
perennials, etc.
5. Duffield Hall: Judy reported on a meeting at Cornell that she and Greg Thomas (out -of -town tonight)
attended, concerning the technical aspects of the plan, in particular plans for accidental chemical releases.
Judy felt that it was well worth her and Greg's time to have attended, as a number of their suggestions will
be included. She also felt that Cornell was doing an admirable job in its planning for the safe operation o
the building.
Following her report, Betsy expressed her dismay at the landscaping aspects of the Duffield Hall
plan, especially the needless removal of the large linden trees along the western side of the quad. These
form dense shade which is much appreciated by pedestrians in the summer. In addition, their flowers,
pollinated by bees (not the wind), have a wonderful frag
species is no longer considered [by whom ?] 'ice. The landscape architect's opinion that this
wasteful. The trees have finally reached a good size, an d to replace them with something s her as arbitrary and
t may
later be deemed "inappropriate" by some future landscaper) of much smaller size would bea m jor loss to
the beauty and pleasantness of the quad.
Adjourned about 9:20 PM
Submitted by Betsy Darlington
MINUTES
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Meeting of Monday, August 14, 2000
Present: Michael Culotta, Betsy Darlington, Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones, Kat Lieberknecht, Paul Salon,
EMC liaison Barbara Ebert
Dan agreed to chair the meeting and Betsy to take minutes.
EA Fs:
Telergy: Common Council already voted on this, so no point in our reviewing it.
Contemporary Trends expansion: Recommend a neg. dec.
319 College Ave.: Recommend a neg. dec. conditioned upon the following mitigations:
a) State -of -the -art, indoor, secure, easily accessed storage area for bicycles. This should be
accessible from College Ave. There should be at least one space for every two tenants.
b) Developer should be required to make a contribution to a fund for making it easier for residents
to not own cars in Collegetown.
c) Delivery access should not be on College Ave. We could not tell where deliveries and
unloading areas would be. Collegetown has a significant problem with trucks blocking traffic.
Comments: In light of the evolving parking solutions being proposed for Collegetown, the City should
look very hard at variance requests.
We were unable to understand just what the parking would be. Would any of it involve paving
over green areas?
It the building were pulled back slightly from the sidewalk, there would be room for some
landscaping. We recommend this.
315'/2 Eddy St.: Recommend a neg. dec. conditioned upon the following mitigations:
a) State -of -the -art, indoor, secure, easily accessed storage area for bicycles. There should be at
least one space for every two tenants.
b) Developer should be required to make a contribution to a fund for making it easier for residents
to not own cars in Collegetown.
c) Delivery access should not be on Eddy St. Collegetown has a significant problem with trucks
blocking traffic. The site plan shows no obvious area for deliveries. Where would these be?
use.
d) Historic elements from the house to be demolished should be offered to Historic Ithaca for re-
Comments: We appreciate that the developer is retaining the green area between this building and the one
to its west. What are the proposed plantings for that area? We recommend trees.
We also recommend trees for the parking area.
SW Area:
I. SW Substitute Parkland Client Committee: Michael reported that they will meet one more time.
on Sept. 5. Comments are due by August 21. Three main issues have been identified: access, drainage, and
buffer strip with Widewaters. The two Common Council reps. want to concentrate on drainage issues, and
leave the other matters for site plan review. Strong opinion was expressed that it was inappropriate for the
Council members to be "calling the shots" on this, that all three issues should be addressed in the park
plan. Other impacts on the parkland from adjacent areas must also be addressed.
The park should not be used to filter runoff from adjacent development. If excess water is to enter
the parkland, it should be clean water. All remediation of pollution and sedimentation must take place on
the property where the problems originate. Otherwise, the enlarged wetland in the parkland will simply be
serving as a dumping ground, and prospects for a high quality wetland will be nil. Claims in the DEIS that
the SW Area Plan will protect that area will also have proven to be false.
The plan for the parkland needs to address stormwater, drainage, water quality, visual impacts,
access, and buffers. Otherwise, the plan will be virtually worthless. We wondered just what sort of area
the new parkland will actually be.
2. "Findings" Statement and Rezoning:
a) No protection is provided from the maximum buildout, despite the fact that the DEIS says this
would have unacceptable impacts and Common Council has repeatedly rejected development beyond I
mill. s.f. If Common Council truly believes this, why doesn't the rezoning prevent it? At a bare minimum,
the rezoning should prevent it.
b) No real protection is provided for any natural areas other than one bur oak tree and the
substitute parkland (and, as we have seen, this, too, is likely to be compromised);
c) The Widewaters site is treated the same as developed sites along Elmira Rd. instead of the
undeveloped areas behind Elmira Rd. This site should be treated like the other undeveloped areas,
especially in light of its proximity to Buttermilk Falls S.P. Because of this change, the less rigorous
frontage requirement will diminish the aesthetic character of the Elmira Rd. corridor with respect to the
design guidelines.
Michael agreed to draft our comments (the above, plus others) and send them to us by Friday, so
we can make changes and get them to Common Council by Monday.
3. EAF for Rezoning: We recommend a positive declaration for the above reasons plus others.
4. Guidelines: Members expressed dismay that the revised guidelines (7/2 1) have watered down the
previous draft. Many of the changes are in the direction of weakening them. For example, the requirement
for buffers along the Black Diamond Trail has been removed, maximum height for lights has been
increased from 20' to 30'; the section on hiding roof mechanicals has been deleted (p. 35); buffers could
now be on adjoining properties instead of on a developer's property. We wondered what was meant on
page 15 by "one bicycle parking space " - -just one bike, or a bike rack?
The Wide-,vaters site should be treated like the other undeveloped sites, not like the developed
areas along Elmira Rd.
Betsy agreed to rework her preliminary comments on the Guidelines to reflect the discussion and
the changes she understands will be proposed by the Planning Dept.
5. EAF for Guidelines: Of course it is better to have some guidelines than none, but we agreed
that they should be significantly improved. E.g. they do not provide the guidelines needed to protect of the
Inlet from thermal pollution nor to protect the old - growth hedgerow, and they don't acknowledge that
the largest contiguous natural area under City otivnership will be fragmented, degraded or even
destroyed, nor provide the tools needed to prevent this. The guidelines also do not adequately protect the
substitute parkland from degradation from adjoining development to the east, north or northeast.
The City is missing an opportunity to create guidelines that comprehensively consider the large
natural areas in the Cit_v's SW; a significant resource for the City_ . The same problems are inherent here as
in the rezoning.
Duffield Hall: Judy and Greg will work on comments regarding completeness and adequacy of the
voluminous DEIS.
Cayuga Waterfront trail EAF: We received the Aug. 10 memo and documents at the meeting, and thus
were not able to review it in detail. However, based on the map and a brief look at the document, menlhc°rs
were puzzled as to why this project is being proposed for phase one, rather than other, less developed - -a:�d
hence more needed - -parts of the trail such as around the Ithaca Farmers' Market. Much of the proposed
Cass Park loop already is a trail, albeit not up to the proposed standards. Would this really be the wisest
use of City and State funds when other parts of the trail are still nonexistent, and when bikers and Avalkers
may well prefer to have Cass Park (and the Black Diamond Trail) connected to other parts of the Ci ty';
waterfront before having a loop within Cass Park'? We felt that the investment ($' /z+ million) was a huge
cost for rather small net gain.
Fall Creek Lead Contamination: The City is gearing up for cleaning up the site. Judy said that the
biggest problem at the site is from lead dust, not the actual bullets. The dust can travel readily, especially
at this very steep site. We wondered how they'd clean it up without making things worse. We should
request being included for reports, documents, etc. on the matter. Judy will contact JoAnn Cornish about
getting us on the distribution list.
July Minutes: Approved unanimously.
Adjourned about 10:10 PM
Submitted by Betsy Darlington
Finger Lakes Land T, 09:53 PM 9/11/00 , Minutes
X- Sender: fllt- mailbox @postoffice4.mail.cornell.edu
X- Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:53:18 -0400
To: sues @ci.ithaca.ny.us, julieh @ci.ithaca.ny.us, dan @lsss- law.com,
G_Thomas @compuserve.com, jwj2 @cornell.edu, katlieb @yahoo.com,
culotta @mindspring.com, jag36 @cornell.edu, mf26 @cornell.edu,
nakita @lightlink.com, Barbara Ebert <beel @cornell.edu>
From: Finger Lakes Land Trust <fllt @cornell.edu>
Subject: Minutes
Hi, Sue or Julie - -Could you please have these ready to send with next
month's agenda? Thanks! - -Betsy
MINUTES
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Meeting of Monday, September 11, 2000
Present: Betsy Darlington, Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones, Paul Salon, Greg
Thomas
1. EAFs:
Adult Entertainment Zoning Amendment: We agreed that Areas C an D
were
much too close to a residential neighborhood, namely Nate's Floral
Estates. We recommend that Area D should be entirely eliminated, and
Area
C should be eliminated or limited to the far northern end. There
should be
no frontage on Cecil A. Malone Dr. or Cherry St. Greg noted that the
potential for accompanying violence, as evidenced by Kuma's, was high.
If
these changes are made, we recommend a neg. dec.
Cramer's Auto Parts: We recommend neg. dec.
a. Greg reported that the proposed insulation system (EIFS) has
had
serious quality problems, especially in rainy climates. Water can get
in
behind it, if not done absolutely perfectly. The major trouble spots
to
watch out for are around windows and the top edges of the building.
There
currently are millions of dollars of liability suits on this system in
rainy climates, such as the Pacific Northwest. The builders will need
to
know in detail exactly how to use this material, and the various
pitfalls,
if it's to be used successfully here.
b. The tree island with three trees looks good, as long as it has
large tree species in it. However, we wonder if the site could
instead
have a long tree island as shown in the West End Development Plan.
Printed for Sue Stickel <sues @ci.ithaca.ny.us> 1
Finger Lakes Land T, 09:53 PM 9/11/00 , Minutes
Since
the parking lot is shared with Maxie's, perhaps there could be an
easement
to accommodate this. It was noted, by the way, that four of the six
trees
along the State St. side appear to be unhealthy.
Sciencenter: We recommend neg. dec.
We're pleased to see the additional landscaping along the walkway on
the
Cascadilla side of the addition. We didn't receive Part 2 of the EAF
and
therefore could not determine if 100 -year flood plain issues are being
addressed. We assume that the building will conform with the
requirements
for building in such an area, particularly with regard to displacement
of
flood waters by the new building.
2. Duffield Hall: Judy and Greg have been following this,
reviewing
the DEIS and attending meetings with Cornell and City staff and
consultants. They both submitted comments on the DEIS. They
expressed
appreciation for the care that has gone into the project, by both
Cornell
and the 4 City consultants. Judy handed out copies of the Summary for
each
of us to review; comments on it should be sent to JoAnn Cornish in the
Planning Dept., and copied to Betsy. The project goes to the Planning
Board at 2 PM on Sept. 21; Judy can attend this meeting, but Greg will
be
out -of -town.
3. August Minutes: Approved unanimously. Dan noted one typo "it"
should
be "if" at beginning of final para. regarding the 319 College Ave.
EAF .
4. Betsy reported on the request for nominations for the "Pride
of
Ownership" awards.
5. Betsy read Susan Blumenthal's response to our comments on the
trail
application (Cass Park) in which she explained why it was not yet
possible
to apply for funds for the trail on the eastern side of the Inlet.
6. Betsy reported that the revised SW guidelines and Findings
Statement are not yet ready, but will be sent to CAC members when they
are. She didn't know when the SW rezoning was going to be ready.
7. Greg reported on an organization he recently learned about
that
works with communities to establish greenhouse gas reduction
guidelines. He'll bring materials and we'll discuss this further next
month.
8. Betsy reminded everyone that the next meeting will be one day
late
because of Columbus Day.
Adjourned about 9:40 PM Submitted by Betsy Darlington
MINUTES
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Meeting of Monday, October 10, 2000
Present: Michael Culotta, Betsy Darlington, Judy Jones, Paul Salon, Greg Thomas; JoAnn Cornish and
Kathleen Frankle (Pl. Dept.), Richard Franco and others (Benderson Development Co. —Tops developer)
1. Tops: We heard a presentation from the developers of the Tops site about their proposal, but it is
not yet ready for our review. Issues of drainage, energy conservation measures, provisions for bicyclists
and pedestrians, parking lot lighting, and landscaping were all discussed.
2. EAF for acquisition and sale by City of Esty St. Parking Lot: We agreed that the City would
be best served by retaining ownership of this parking lot and combining it with the City lot to its south.
This would give the City control over its use. It could landscape it in an attractive manner and ensure safe
access to it from City streets.
We further agreed that there should be no curb cuts on Fulton St., especially since there is no traffic light
at Fulton and Esty.
The City could lease the Esty lot to the adjacent proposed restaurant.
3. Widewaters: This application is not complete, so we will wait `till it is before making final
comments on it. Each of us will send Betsy preliminary comments on it and she will forward these to
JoAnn. Dan, who had another meeting at the same time, sent along his own comments, and we agreed to
read these at home, along with JoAnn's draft of her EAF - -Part 3 comments. JoAnn told us that the
Findings Statement is binding, and the Guidelines are to be used as a guide. JoAnn was asked if the
Guidelines call for buildings in that area to be near the street, and she said they do. She also said that
Scott Whitham has asked the developer to come back with several different layouts for the site. Since a
pad was prepared, prior to site plan approval, the developer obviously is reluctant to have the buildings be
in any other location.
Betsy had to leave for another meeting, so Judy took over note - taking.
4. Duffield Hall DEIS: Judy and Greg will attend the public hearing /site plan review next
Tuesday. The CAC has been involved in review of plans since January of this year. Our input regarding
air resources and health and safety was heard early on, and responses made to our comments have been
satisfactory. In fact, we commend the City and Cornell for the process they have followed.
The landscape plan which was recently submitted to CAC resulted in another comment: Many trees on the
south end of the engineering quad are scheduled for removal. This will mean that there is no shade for
pedestrians on the west walkway. We would like to see substantial tree plantings in this area.
5. ICLEI: Greg gave us a brief introduction to the workings of ICLEI, an organization that provides
free technical expertise to communities with a formal goal to reduce pollution which contributes to global
warming. Greg will see that all of us will have more information before our next meeting, when we would
like to have further discussion with a full committee on the possibilities for Ithaca/ICLEI liaison.
Submitted by Betsy Darlington and Judy Jones
Two years ago, when Landicape
Architecture first looked into the subject of
green roofs ( "Grass -Roofs Movement,"
May 1998), about the only functioning
green roof we could find in this country
was on top of Tom Liptan's garage.
Liptan, ASIA, a stormwater- management
professional in Portland, Oregon, believed
that putting absorbent plants and soil on
top of buildings could keep a percentage of
urban rainfall from gushing into storm sew-
ers and causing rivers and streams to flood.
Because there was no such roof to study in
Portland, he rigged up an experiment on
his garage using a thin layer of soil from his
backyard carpeted with sedums and other
plants and monitored it to see how much
water the roof actually retained.
The results of Liptan's home experiment
were quite encouraging, but that wouldn't
have raised many eyebrows in northern Eu-
rope. In Germany in particular, green roofs
have been used for decades on major build-
ings and, in many places, are required by
law. In Holland, a green roof has been used
to cover the terminal at the Amsterdam air-
port and the Alterra Institute in Wagenin-
gen (to be featured in an upcoming issue of
Lands* Architecture), among other build-
ings. -The reasons for the emergence of this
technology in space - scarce Europe are sev-
eral, chief among them the fact that green
roofs really do reduce the demands on mu-
nicipal stormwater systems. The really odd
thing in 1998 was that this proven and
beneficial technology had scarcely been ap-
plied at all on this side of the Atlantic.
That has changed in the past two years,
and a modest surge of interest in green roofs
appears to be under way. The most dramat-
ic illustration of this interest is in Chicago,
where a green roof (now under construction)
will soon cover 22,000 square feet of the of-
fice building that houses city hall. Designed
by architects William McDonough + Part-
ners and Conservation Design Forum, land-
scape architects, it uses a waterproofing
system from Canton, Massachusetts -based
Samafil, Inc., and a green -roof system by
Roofscapes of Philadelphia.. This system is
intended to reduce the effect of the "urban
heat island" caused by the tendency of the
flat roofs of buildings to soak up and store
solar radiation. Chicago, one of five cities
participating in an Environmental Protec-
tion Agency study of the effects of roof cool-
ing, is the only city in the study that
incorporates a green roof. Because the other
Landscape Architecture 1 36 1 SEPTEMBER 2000
technology,
half of the office building will not be
covered by a green roof, the two sides
may be effectively monitored to de-
termine whether the green roof ac-
tually cools and if so, how much.
What are green roofs exactly? "A
thin veneer of living vegetation in-
stalled on top of a conventional
roof;' is the way Charlie Miller of
Roofscapes describes the project
type. It is important to distinguish
green roofs from conventional roof
gardens, which are essentially con-
tainer plantings on a roof and may
incorporate trees and other plants
that require deep rooting. A green
roof, by contrast, is a thin- growing
medium,sptead over layers of
drainage medium or waterproofing that
may cover the entire roof. And, because the
growing medium may be only a few inch-
es deep, drought - tolerant, shallow - rooted
plants are. required. Trees are out of the
question. In terms of plantings, then, green
roofs more closely resemble meadows than
what we normally think of as gardens. If
the primary purposes of a conventional roof
garden are outdoor seating and enjoyment,
the primary goals of a green roof are envi-
ronmental, primarily the following:
IN soaking. up stormwater;
19 absorbing solar radiation and convert-
ing it intoplant foliage through photo-
synthesis; and
■ insulating the building.
A few U.S. and Canadian firms now
supply components and technical advice
for green roofs. Miller, an environmental
engineer specializing in stormwater man-
agement, says that he currently has a dozen
projects in the works in eight states. One of
these is a new Lincoln- Mercury headquar-
ters in Irvine, Califomia, on which he col-
laborated with landscape architects at the
Laguna Beach office of the SWA Group.
(The project, which employs waterproof-
ing by Sarnafil, is currently out for bid.)
Like all the green -roof designers and sup-
pliers in the United States, Miller draws on
the experience of the Germans; he has part-
nered with Optigriin International AG in
Stuttgart, one of the leading green -roof
firms in Germany, and draws on their data-
base of technical design information.
Miller's flagship project, completed in
Green roofs were employed at the
Mashantucket Pequot Museum In Con-
necticut, shown here, and the GAP office
complex in California, opposite above,
1998, is the 3,000 - square foot roof garden
atop the Fencing Academy of Philadelphia
Like many applications of green roofs, this
one is a retrofit. The fact that lightweight
soil mixtures make. this possible without
structural reinforcement of the building is
an important feature for the widespread dis-
semination of green roofs. Interestingly, al-
though Miller considers the mitigation of
stormwater to be the chief benefit of green
roofs, this green roofwas installed for avery
different reason: The fencing master lives in
the penthouse with his wife, and the glare
off the bare roof was intolerable. The green
roof has apparently solved that problem.
The green roof at the Fencing Academy
is only 2.75 inches thick, including the wa-
terproofing layer; its weight when fully sat-
urated with rain is only fifteen pounds per
square foot. The growing medium (also
known as the substrate) consists of a gran-
ular mineral mixture with -low organic
content and some nutrift. added. This
supports a meadow -like growth of sedums.
Despite the lack of any irrigation on the
roof at all, the sedums were unfazed by last
summer's drought in the mid - Atlantic re-
gion. Unlike a meadow, however, the se-
dums and thin planting layer will not
tolerate frequent pedestrian traffic. Miller
says that the roof requires no maintenance
other than spot weeding once or twice a
year. The green roof has been monitored for
LandreapeArchitecture 1 38 1 SEPTEMBER 2000
the reduction in total runoff, and Miller
makes this data available. (See Resources.)
Generally, however, Miller says that the
green roof will retain 0.6 inches of rain be-
fore any runoff occurs and that for a two-
year storm in Philadelphia, the runoff will
be the same as for an open meadow. This is
in line with Miller's stated goal for the
green -roof system: that the hydrologic
characteristics of a green roof mimic those
of the landscape the building displaces.
The United States is actually a much more
fertile environment than Europe for retro-
fits like the Fencing Academy, says Miller,
because of the enormous number of flat
roofs. He envisions green roofs as part of
the solution to flooding problems in the
northeast corridor.
Other suppliers of green -roof systems
tend to be manufacturers of roofing and
waterproofing systems who have branched
into vegetated roofs, such as American
Hydrotech and Soprema. Hydrotech's
product, Garden Roof, combines the com-
pany's waterproofing membrane with a
patented system of components from Ger-
many's Zinco to create a single - source sys-
tem. Hydrotech offers a Garden Roof
Planning Guide that, while oriented to its
own products, does offer some technical
information (see Resources). Quebec -based
Soprema, after years of research, has devel-
oped a lightweight growth medium, So-
pranature, that has been incorporated into
the design of a green roof at La Centrale
Hydroelectrique, a dam complex in Que-
bec. (It is worth noting that Canada seems
to be further ahead in promoting green
roofs than the United States; see Resources
for some highly informative web sites.)
American Hydrotech supplied some
components for a green- roofed building
built in 1997: the GAP office complex in San
Bruno, California, which features a mixture
of native grasses and wildflowers planted in
a six-inch layer of soil atop several layers of
waterproofing material. This green roofpro-
vides extraordinary thermal insulation and
contributes to increased energy savings year -
round, according to the web site of the
foliage layer
growing medium
filter fabric
drainage layer
waterproof
membrane
insulation
conventional
steel roof
Bay Area Council, a
public policy organi-
zation (bacqube.bayarea-
council.org/901).
Other green roofs in the works
include the LDS Conference Center in Salt
Lake City, where the Olin Partnership of
Philadelphia has designed a five -acre mead-
ow that is currently being planted. In
Michigan the Ford Motor Company is in-
vestigating putting green roofs on buildings
i n its River Rouge plant. (The Daimler Cor-
poration in Germany has covered nearly all
its automobile plants with green roofs.) In
Washington, D.C., designer Katrin Scholz -
Barth has a green roof under construction at
the Earth Conservation Corps headquarters
in Washington and a 30,000 - square -foot
green roof on an old department store that is
being rehabilitated in nearby Baltimore.
There are, of course, obstacles to the
dissemi-
nation ofgreen
roofs, including the
mostly unfounded fear
that they are too heavy to be
practical and the reality that they do
increase building costs. Miller estimates
that green -roof components will double the
initial. cost of a new roof. The lifetime cost
of a green roof will be lower, however, be-
cause green roofs can prolong the life of roof
waterproofing systems up to twenty years
and, of course, help reduce the costs to heat
and cool the building. Moreover, a green
roof can reduce the amount of stormwater
SEPTEMBER 2000 ( 39 1 Landscape Architecture
mitigation required for a develop-
ment, particularly for buildings with
large flat roofs; this may offset some
of the cost. '
So fat we have stressed the envi-
ronmental benefits of green roofs,
but these roofs can be quite beauti-
ful. In many office situations, the
aesthetic benefits of being able to
look down on a verdant meadow
rather than a blank roof are signifi-
cant. Imagine how different any
dense urban area would look from
an upper -level office if one could
look out over various shades and
patterns of vegetation!
The aesthetic potentials of green
roofs have scarcely begun to be
tapped in North America. One proj-
ect in which aesthetics were consid-
ered is the Mashantucket Pequot Museum
and Research Center in 'Mashantucket,
Connecticut, installed by American Hy-
drotech with a planting design by Dan Ki-
ley. Here the soil layer is several inches
thick, which allowed for shrub plantings. ' .
Although this installation' is not a light -
weight system that would be suitable for
retrofits on older buildings, it is a step to-
ward artful designs that cover an entire roof.
In apaper she wrote last May (see Re-
sources), Scholz -Barth speaks to the
aesthetic potential of green roofs.
'There is no limit to the imagination,"
she writes, "A green roof may reflect an
adjacent river. or streetscape with blue
festuca grasses... or'burstwith color
through the use of flowering sedums.
Just picture the vast area of unpleasant
tar and concrete roofs transformed into
colorful carpets of flowers modeled after
Roberto Burle Marys abstract mosaic design
at Copac ahana Beach in Rio."
Obviously, the green -roofs movement
poses exciting. oppomm ties for landscape
architects who are willing to educate them-
selves in what Europeans have been doing
for decades: The green -roofs movement in
North America could move along still faster
if ASLA or one of the green -roof advocacy
organizations. would take the advice of Ted
Osmundson, FAaA, and make the German
green -roof technical research literature
available in English. There is no reason to
reinvent this tried and proven technology
on this side of the Atlantic. LA
RESOURGES Seepage 125.
TECSxoLOGY Soprema, Inc., at 80..0- 356 -3521, pro-..
See "Meadows Above" on page 36. I vides components for green roofs. '
For anyone interested in learning more
about green roofs, a good next step is to
visit wunugrwervofs.cum, the web site Lin-
da Velazquez put together while .a stu-
dent in landscape architecture at the
University of Georgia.-
American Hydrotech, Inc.., 312 -337 -.
4998. Web site: www.hydrotechusaxom
The garden roof product manager is
Matthew Carr at 804 -378 -6125.
Bialek, Janna. 2000. "Greening Our
Cities' from >the Rooftops` Down:
Audubon Naturalist „July /August.
Chicago City Hall rooftop, Kevin iaberge,
projectmanage; 312 - 74240463
SCULPTURE GMWEX
'See "A Garden First'
Benes, Mirka. 1994. '.Inveriting a Mod-
ern Sculpture Garden at the Museum of
Modern Art, New_York:” Landscape
Journal l3:1, pp. 1 -20 .
Brown, Brenda.1996. "Goddess andG r . .
den." In Pet fit Unity. Sculptors and Living
Form 19901994, pp 33-39 St. Iouns;
laume er Sculpture Park and Museum
Downing, Andrew aekson I'967
J ...
(1859). A Trratise on the Theory and Prat
tice of Landscape `Gardentng' New fork'.
Funk& Wagnalls.
The Green Roof Monitor_ published by. Lawrence, C!: idney, and Foy, George
Canada's Office of Urban Agriculture, is 1984 Music to Stone: Groat Sculpture Gar
a medium for keeping up
de
with ruafthe,Wnrld NewY or kScalaBooks.
developiinents at cityfarmer.org /Green
:iZoof html � .
Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. The web
page for this Toronto-based organization .
contains extensive.information on the; '
siiii s 0 if roofs: wuw.pwk:calgrhal:
main.htm.
Osmundson, Theodore. 1999. Roof Gar -.
'dau.,-New York W.W. Norton &Corn=
pony.
Roofscapes Inc., Charlie Miller, .princi-
pa1, 2157247 -8784 phone /fax. Cmiller
@roo fimeadow. com, wwcu. roofrneadow. com.
Miller will share his research reports and
can arrange for a tour of the Fencing
Academy
Sarhafil manufactures waterproofing
systems for green roofs. 781- 828 -5400
or vuwsarnaflus.camICtt 2Roof.htm.
Katrin Scholz -Barth is an engineer and
green -roof designer with the HOK Plan-
ning Group in Washington, D.C., 202 -
339-8727 orKatrimScholz- Barth @hok -om
Longstreth, Richard, ed 1991 TheA4d1
in Washington, 1791 =1991 Vashingtont
National Gallery ofArt (Studnes`in the
History. of
ra
house "The NewZepublrc, jutne
See 'The be Gates afMenimY` of
For more information about i
homa City National'Memorlal Founds=
tion, visit ti .oklaho it rn.net.16i nnecttaiul
Linenthal, Edward, red. i996.-Hiriory.
Wars: The Enola Gay and Other. Battles for
the American Part. New York Henry Holt.
Linmthal, Edward. 19.97. Preserving Mein-
ory: The Struggle to Create Amerira'r Holo-
caust Museum. New York: Penguin Books.
Critic at large
(Continued from Page 128) center, retail
complex, and cyclorama building will go
up about a mile away —on ground that has
lain undisturbed since the Civil War and
that may itself have archaeological signifi-
cance. In taking aim at the Cyclorama, the
Park Service is being highly selective: De-
spite the quest for authenticity, the service
does not intend to remove any park roads,
for example, or any of the many memorials
that dot the battlefield.
In its haste, the Park Service is riding
roughshod over its own procedures. The
National Historic Landmarks Commit-
tee of the National Park System Ad-
visory Board recommended that the
building receive landmark status; gener-
ally, this is sufficient to guarantee a
building's designation. But at a meeting
on December 13, 1999, the full Adviso-
ry Board —in an unprecedented move —
declined to ratify the recommendation.
The Park Service had already adopted a
new General Management Plan for the
battlefield that called for the building's
demolition, and the Advisory Board ap-
parently did not want to challenge that
decision. Under pressure from building
preservationists, the Advisory Board has
now agreed to reconsider the nomination
in November in the larger context of
Park Service history.
The Cyclorama should be saved. Ex-
cept to Civil War buffs, the Gettysburg
landscape presents a perplexing array of
Civil War –era buildings and later memo-
rials. Battlefields in general are difficult to
interpret, and few are graced with such an
effective device for storytelling as the
Philippoteaux painting and the Neutra
building that houses it. Without the
Cyclorama at its present location, visitors
would not be able to walls from the cyclo-
rama painting directly out to the land-
scape it depicts. Removing it from the
battlefield might make sense if it detract-
ed from a visitor's appreciation of the site's
history, but the opposite is true. The
Cyclorama is a powerful interpretive ex-
perience: It is a potent aid to understand-
ing why the ground on which it sits is
sacred to the national memory. LA
John Beardsley is a senior lecturer at the
Harvard Graduate School of Design.
SEPTEMBER 2000 1 125 1 Landscape Architecture
Conservation Advisory Council
MINUTES
Meeting of Monday,November 13, 2000
Present: Michael Culotta,Betsy Darlington,Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones, Paul Salon, Greg Thomas;Guests:
Martha Fischer,Phyllis Radke (Building Commissioner), JoAnn Cornish and Kathleen Frankle (City
Planners)
Dan agreed to chair the meeting and Betsy agreed to take minutes.
1. Floodway zoning change: Phyllis was invited to explain the reasons for and implications of the
change from FW-1 and FH-1 to P-1. Members expressed concern that the P-1 zone would permit more
than the current zone does,and also more than a natural area should. We agreed that some other
designation for the zone--and for all other natural areas in the City(e.g. Fall Creek, Six-Mile Creek,
Fuertes Bird Sanctuary)--would be more appropriate, something that would be more restrictive than P-1.
P-1 could have "Na"(for example)tacked on after it. JoAnn and Phyllis agreed that this would be
desirable and will work on it. In the meantime,the City needs to fix the City Code so that it doesn't
contain contradictions. CAC members agreed with recommending a neg. dec.provided the change is
amended soon to give the zone a new designation and restrictions that would make it suitable for natural
areas.
We also had a lengthy discussion on the change in the zoning ordinance to eliminate the BZA's
authority in floodplain matters,and assign it instead to the Building Code Board of Appeals. Concern was
expressed that this is a body few members of the public even are aware of(including CAC members,until
tonight),that it functions largely out of the public eye,and that it also may not deal with impacts of
projects on neighbors (as the BZA must).
It was recommended that the zoning amendment contain a provision that any decisions involving
the 100 year flood plain include consultation with the CAC.
2. Widewaters: JoAnn told us that the Planning Board's public hearing is set for 11/20 at 7 PM(although
the Ithaca Journal said it was at 6 PM!),and preliminary site plan approval is on the agenda for their
regular 6 PM meeting on Nov. 28.
A number of concerns were expressed regarding the proposed development. We recognized that
the City is not going to change the location of the building,despite the repeated pleas of the CAC and a
large number of citizens, so we focussed our comments on trying to make the best of the situation.
We also were dismayed by the extreme speed with which this project is apparently being
propelled. It was just this weekend that CAC members received a huge volume of materials for review
tonight,and the public certainly has not had a chance to review them. This is an immense project,perhaps
the largest private development ever considered by the City. More time is needed for both the public and
the Planning Board to consider the proposal carefully.
Our single most important recommendation to the Planning Board is that it not permit deviations
from the Design Guidelines. Kathleen Frankle is working on listing these,and has already listed a number
of such deviations in the plan. The City has already made major concessions to Widewaters for this
project. At least one of them--permitting fill along the back of the site to be on parkland--sets an extremely
bad precedent for future developments in the City. In addition,the plans now show a swale--a new
element to appear on the parkland--along the proposed berm. If the Planning Board gives in on the design
guidelines for this project,it will be difficult or impossible to enforce them for other projects.
Two examples of guidelines that are not followed in the plan:
The number of parking spaces far exceeds the recommendation in the guidelines;
The distance of the developed area from a public trail (in this case,the Black Diamond Trail)is a
good deal less than the 50' called for in the guidelines;
2
The Planning Dept.has provided additional examples.
On the positive side,the drainage plan that is now proposed looks good;we look forward to
seeing the report from the City's consultant at T.G. Miller.
Recommendations:
The berm on the parkland at the rear must have a much gentler slope--not the proposed 1:1 ratio
which would be unnatural,unsightly and would limit growth of vegetation. It should have a natural look,
as was described by City Planners months ago.
At least 50'should separate the Black Diamond Trail property from the developed area(and none
of this 50 feet should be on the former!).
Include many more large tree species throughout the parking lot and along route 13, and more
that are suitable for the site (e.g. sycamore,basswood,cottonwood), as well as a more interesting and
varied selection of native shrubs and perennials. Given the great excess of parking spaces,it would be easy
to trade some parking for more large trees and larger landscape islands.
The landscape plan must show what plants will go where.No key was provided.
Since the building will apparently not be moved out of the viewshed of Buttermilk Falls State
Park,we urge the Planning Board to require that the roof be a'green roof'as described in the Sept. article
in Landscape Architecture, already circulated to the Planning Board, Planning Dept. and developer. The
concessions to date have benefited the developer. This would be a small concession by the developer. It is
undeniable that the view from even the first trail lookout will be severely impacted by the building,and a
vegetated roof treatment would help reduce the impact.
Given the large volume of water that will be carried by the eastern-most Vortechnic unit,we
recommend that two of these units be at that location.
There must be either regular certified inspections of all drainage structures or regular written
reports documenting what has been done and how. Otherwise, it is likely that these structures will be
neglected and will malfunction.
No runoff should be diverted from the parking lot into any wetland. Grease and oil slicks are
likely in the swales.
Note that throughout the EAF,the predevelopment condition is considered to be filled,not
agricultural.Yet,in the separate "Stormwater Pollutant Loading Calculations"report,the pollution
potential chart compares post-development to the long-gone agricultural uses of the property.
In that same chart,why are lead and zinc shown as increasing by such huge percentages(1,363%
and 549%,resp.)?What will this be coming from?
The 5'sidewalk shown next to the levee for access to the parkland,is located in a very wet area
and also is too narrow.
The Target building is shown on the plan as about 37'in height, but is listed in the EAF as 30'.
Loading docks should not be used between 10 PM and 7 AM year-'round. The largest of these,
behind Target,will be very close to people's homes on W. Buttermilk Falls Rd. The noise is likely to
destroy their peace and quiet and lower their property values. If the time can be limited in summer,it
surely can be in winter,as well. Also,any buffering of noise by vegetation along the old railroad
embankment will be far less during the months when the leaves are off.
Loading docks at all of the businesses,not just the anchor store, should be limited to 7 AM-10 PM
during the warmer months,at least.
Idling of engines at the loading docks should not be permitted.
We are concerned that Widewaters and the City have not yet exchanged land. This looks as
though Widewaters is saying, "We'll only turn over the future parkland if you approve our plan." The
public was assured some time ago by Thys Van Cort that the exchange would take place before site plan
review.
3
Specific comments on the LEAF:
Note: Many of the responses demonstrate amply why the current proposal should not have been
segmented from the filling. Answers to the questions would have been very different,had the applicant
been comparing the proposal to the pre-fill condition. These items are not listed here.
Part 1-B,#19: Noise after construction will also exceed the local ambient level.
Part 2,#1: (water table)2nd example should be checked in 2nd column.
#14(transportation) 1st and 3rd examples should be checked in 2nd column.
#18 Project will set an important precedent(e.g. use of public parkland to benefit a commercial
project).Also,under"Other," should add something like, "Increased traffic(and/or measures to address
increased traffic, such as reopening closed streets or bridges,or widening streets)will affect `quality of
life' standards in several affected neighborhoods."
Part 3: Impact on Land: What alterations in the site plan might be possible if the excessive number of
parking spaces was reduced?
Impact on Plants/Animals: Planning Board should not permit use of pesticides,given the
adjoining natural area.
3. "Surplus" City Properties: We have not received enough information nor had sufficient time to look
at the long list of properties (which was sent to just one CAC member) in order to evaluate disposition of
any of them. We urge the City to postpone the comment period.What can be the rush,given the long
length of time the City has held them? Our one comment,at this point,is that the City should not transfer
any land near natural areas without thorough examination and public comment.
Michael agreed to look at the list,and select the ones that appear most important to retain.We
agreed to meet this Sat.morning to look at these.
4. Tops: The submittal is not complete, so we cannot yet comment. The SW Design Guidelines should be
met,at a minimum. Also,drainage from the site must be done carefully,especially in light of the
likelihood of considerably more development in the area,and cumulative impacts on drainage.
5. Disposition of 614 W. Clinton St. (IURA Project ID#114)We recommend a neg. dec.,and
enthusiastically endorse conveyance of the property by IURA to INHS.
6. Downtown Development Strategy: We did not have time to discuss this.
Adjourned at 10:05 PM. Submitted by Betsy Darlington
MINUTES
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Meeting of Monday, December 8, 2000
Present: Michael Culotta,Betsy Darlington,Dan Hoffman,Judy Jones,Greg Thomas; Josh Glasstetter
(Common Council); Barbara Ebert(EMC); Scott Whitham (Planning Board Chair); Susan Blumenthal
(Common Council,Planning Committee Chair)
1. How CAC can be more effective: Scott and Susan graciously came to the meeting to help us in a
discussion of how we might be more effective. There has been a growing sense of discouragement and
frustration on the CAC as we spend many hours considering large projects but then perceive our
recommendations as being ignored. We had a lengthy discussion of the problem and possible remedies. Scott
and Susan both said that our comments are read,considered seriously,and appreciated.
One idea we had was to have people from each of our committees rotate coming to the other's meetings
when there are issues of concern. The hard part,of course, is getting people to attend yet another meeting!
We all agreed that the very short time frame CAC is given for reviewing major projects (often two days or
less)was unsatisfactory. Greg will draft a note to City Hall asking what their various deadlines are so that we
can work out receiving materials earlier in the game. Betsy gave the example of the WW fill permit(a year ago)
being provided at the meeting,and the rush at getting our comments to the Building Commissioner. Ideally, all
materials needed should be in CAC members'hands at least a week ahead of our meetings.
It was also suggested that when a recipient of our comments has questions about them,that these be directed
to a CAC member rather than just to staff. Scott and Susan said that we should all get the Planning Board and
BZA minutes.
Judy and Greg pointed to the Duffield Hall project as one where the process worked very well.
2. Widewaters—soil remediation: Judy reported that she had called Mr. Brazell at the DEC in Syracuse.
He is in charge of overseeing the soil remediation on the site. He said that Stage 1 has been completed,meaning
that the top 18" has been "remediated." This 300 cu. yd.has now been removed to the back of the site—onto the
future parkland. Although the City does not yet own the land,there is a contract for its acquisition,and normally
a grantor cannot degrade the land without the grantee's consent. Given the potential liability for the City and the
environmental risks involved,we wondered if the City had given its consent.
Betsy raised the question of who would be obligated to maintain the berm and the swale,given that these
will now be on City-owned land. No one knew the answer.
3. Duffield Findings: All agreed we had ample opportunity to comment,and our comments were fully
addressed. Judy and Greg,who were closely involved in the process from start to finish, commented on what a
good process it had been.
4. LSC trip: Judy and Greg will arrange a time when CAC members can tour the new plant.
5. Review of Minutes—tabled.
6. Widewaters issues: a. The newly moved fill appears to be farther into the substitute parkland than the
fill permit allows. No one was aware that the permit had been amended.
b. The Zoning Ordinance (325-20.C(1)(d) says that all parking lot runoff from a two-year storm must be
held on site,and may not be sent onto neighboring land. The drainage plan appears to be inconsistent with this.
c. We all agreed that the City should not consent to having the "formerly" contaminated soil placed on
the substitute parkland(both the land now owned by the City and the land to be transferred Dec. 19). With new
standards coming out any day for how "clean" such remediated soils must be,and with the trend in general being
toward tightening things up,what is considered "clean"today,may not be tomorrow. Having this soil on City
land puts the City [and thus taxpayers] at substantial risk. We all agreed that the City should have this soil
tested. How was the testing done? It was noted that the DEC let the Widewaters consultant do the testing.
Given the history of this project, it seems prudent to have some independent testing done.
Adjourned at 10 PM. Submitted by Betsy Darlington