HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2000-08-24COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Special Meeting 7:00 p.m. August 24, 2000
PRESENT:
Mayor Cohen
Alderpersons: (10)Pryor, Manos, Sams, Farrell, Blumenthal,
Vaughan, Glasstetter, Spielholz, Hershey,
Taylor
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney – Schwab
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
Director of Economic Development – McDonald
Planning and Development Director – Van Cort
Sr. Environmental and Landscape Planner - Cornish
Superintendent of Public Works – Gray
Human Resources Director – Michell-Nunn
Former Economic Development Planner – Lee
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Cohen led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the American Flag.
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Mayor Cohen requested the addition of Item 2.6 – Possible
Executive Session – Collective Bargaining Issue, and Item
2.7 – West State Street Project – Award of Bid.
No Council member objected.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
2.1 Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance to
Apply for a grant under the Environmental Protection Fund
and/or Clean Water/Clean Air Bond for Funding of Phase One
of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail
By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Farrell
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is applying to the New York
State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
for a grant under the Environmental Protection Fund and/or
Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act for phase one of the Cayuga
Waterfront Trail, which is the Cass Park section of the
trail and an accessible fishing pier and ferry landing known
as Cass Park Landing, a site located within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Common Council, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been
conducted, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a “Type I” action under both
the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and
WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the environment; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council as lead
agency in this matter, hereby does determine that the
proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect
on the environment, and that further environment review is
unnecessary under the circumstances, and, be it further
August 24, 2000
2
RESOLVED, That this resolution shall constitute notice of
this negative declaration, and the City Clerk be, and hereby
is, directed to file a copy of the same, together with the
attachment, in the City Clerk’s Office and forward the same
to any other parties as required by law.
Carried Unanimously
2.2 Approval/Endorsement for Phase One of the Cayuga
Waterfront Trail for a Grant Under the Environmental
Protection Fund and/or Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act
By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Manos
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is applying to the New York
State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
for a grant under the Environmental Protection Fund and/or
Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act for phase one of the Cayuga
Waterfront Trail, which is the Cass Park section of the
trail and an accessible fishing pier and ferry landing known
as Cass Park Landing, a site located within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Common Council, and
WHEREAS, as a requirement of the rules of these programs,
said proposed waterfront trail and associated sites must
obtain the “approval/endorsement of the governing body of
the municipality in which the project will be located”; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves and endorses
the application for phase one of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail
and the associated Cass Park Landing, for a grant under the
Environmental Protection Fund and/or Clean Water/Clean Air
Bond Act, to be located within the City of Ithaca Cass Park.
Carried Unanimously
2.3 SEQR – Design Guidelines for the Southwest Area and the
Elmira Road-Meadow Street Corridor Declaration of Negative
Environmental Significance
By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Pryor
WHEREAS, on August 5, 1998, Common Council passed a
resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor to enter into
a contract with a design firm to prepare the Design
Guidelines for the Southwest Area of the City, and
WHEREAS, Trowbridge & Wolf was hired in January 1999 to
prepare Design Guidelines that would make recommendations on
site plan development, street design and building
architecture, which would consider both the private and
public sector needs, to be clearly written and presented
especially for use by the Planning and Development Board
during the Site Plan Review process, and
WHEREAS, a client committee, appointed by the Mayor, was
formed in March 1999 to work with Trowbridge & Wolf on
establishing the guidelines, and
WHEREAS, the first draft of the Design Guidelines for the
Southwest Area and the Elmira Road-Meadow Street Corridor
was released in October 1999 for public and agency review,
and
WHEREAS, two public hearings, on February 2, 2000 and August
2, 2000, have been held to receive comments from the public
and interested agencies, and
August 24, 2000
3
WHEREAS, the latest draft of the Design Guidelines, dated
July 21, 2000, incorporates comments and recommendations of
City Committees and Boards, City staff, and the public, and
WHEREAS, the action necessary to adopt the Design Guidelines
for the Southwest Area and the Elmira Road-Meadow Street
Corridor is a Type I Action under both the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQR0) and that
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and a Long
Environmental Assessment Form including Parts I, II, and III
has been completed and reviewed by appropriate City staff
and agencies, and
WHEREAS, no significant environmental impacts have been
identified through this process, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council
has recommended a negative declaration of environmental
impacts; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this
matter, hereby adopts as its own, the findings and
conclusions more fully set forth on the Long Environmental
Assessment Form Parts I, II, and III, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency, hereby
determines that the proposed action will not have
significant environmental impact and that a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact be issued, and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That this Resolution constitutes notice of this
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and that
the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the
same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s
Office, and forward the same to any other parties as
required by law.
Planning and Development Director Van Cort introduced
Attorney John Kirkpatrick, the Environmental Law consultant
the City hired to assist with the complex environmental
review conducted by the City. Mr. Kirkpatrick and Planning
Department staff members answered questions from Common
Council members.
Alderperson Farrell requested clarification regarding the
difference between vegetative buffers and screens. A buffer
is a larger area between two sites with denser vegetation,
while a screen could be a smaller area with vegetation,
physical barriers, and a visual screen.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the
lack of wording describing the aesthetic component of the
bus shelters in the design guidelines. Alderperson Pryor
would like to see that the shelters are compatible with the
surrounding buildings and architecturally attractive. The
TCAT Operations Committee is currently discussing this issue
and a $350,000 project has been approved to upgrade the four
downtown bus shelters. Mayor Cohen requested that words
such as “the standard bus shelter is to be aesthetically
pleasing, approximately 10’ x 12’…” be added to the
guidelines to give the Planning Board a clear sense that
Common Council is concerned about the aesthetics of the bus
shelters.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
August 24, 2000
4
Carried Unanimously
2.4 Adoption of the Design Guidelines for the Southwest Area
and the Elmira Road-Meadow Street Corridor
By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey
WHEREAS, on August 5, 1998, Common Council passed a
resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor to enter into
a contract with a design firm to prepare Design Guidelines
for the Southwest Area of the City, and
WHEREAS, Trowbridge & Wolf was hired in January 1999 to
prepare Design Guidelines that would make recommendations on
site plan development, street design, and building
architecture, which would consider both the private and
public sector needs, to be clearly written and presented
especially for use by the Planning and Development Board
during the Site Plan Review process, and
WHEREAS, a client committee, appointed by the Mayor, was
formed in March 1999 to work with Trowbridge & Wolf on
establishing the guidelines, and
WHEREAS, the first draft of the Design Guidelines for the
Southwest Area and the Elmira Road-Meadow Street Corridor
was released in October 1999 for public and agency review,
and
WHEREAS, two public hearings, on February 2, 2000 and August
2, 2000, have been held to receive comments from the public
and interested agencies, and
WHEREAS, the latest draft of the Design Guidelines, dated
July 21, 2000, incorporates comments and recommendations of
City Committees and Boards, City staff, and the public, and
WHEREAS, the action necessary to adopt the Design Guidelines
for the Southwest Area and the Elmira Road-Meadow Street
Corridor is a Type I Action under both the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO) and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and a Long
Environmental Assessment Form including Parts I, II, and III
has been completed and reviewed by appropriate City staff
and agencies, and
WHEREAS, Common Council has declared the action will not
have significant environmental impacts and issued a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council hereby adopts the Design
Guidelines for the Southwest Area and the Elmira Road-Meadow
Street Corridor as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the
differences between the design guidelines, the Southwest
Area Land Use Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance.
Alderperson Glasstetter voiced his concern regarding the
development of office space and smaller stores in Southwest
Park. Mayor Cohen noted that this subject should be
addressed with the re-zoning of that area. Alderperson
Blumenthal noted that Common Council could consider the
option of zoning for medical office space in that area.
Further discussion followed regarding how critical zoning is
in terms of appropriate development in the Southwest Area.
August 24, 2000
5
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) Pryor, Manos, Farrell, Vaughan,
Blumenthal, Spielholz, Taylor, Hershey
Nays (2) Sams, Glasstetter
Carried
2.5 Adoption of the Findings Statement for the Southwest
Area Land Use Plan
Extensive discussion was conducted regarding the memorandum
from Senior Environmental Landscape Planner Cornish
regarding proposed changes to the Findings Statement in
terms of the designation and placement of screenings and
buffers. New language has also been drafted pertaining to
mitigation, and the traffic plan.
Alderperson Glasstetter stated that he would like to see a
distinct buffer placed on the commercial property adjacent
to the 60 acres of parkland. Mr. Kirkpatrick spoke in
opposition to this concept stating there is no justification
in the findings statement to further protect the parkland
from an adjoining use. Further discussion followed
regarding costs that would be absorbed by the developers,
and the financial impacts of increased buffer acreage.
Upon further discussion wording changes were made to the
proposed Findings Statement regarding vegetative screens.
Alderperson Pryor distributed proposed language for the
Findings Statement regarding the traffic study and
mitigations to minimize the traffic impact on residential
neighborhoods. Extensive discussion followed on the floor
regarding traffic grids.
Resolution
By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Pryor
WHEREAS, on May 6, 1998, the City of Ithaca Common Council,
acting as Lead Agency, determined that adoption of the
Southwest Area Land Use Plan may have a significant
environmental impact and that a Generic Environmental Impact
Statement was required, and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 1998, the City of Ithaca held both an
Agency Scoping Session and a Public Scoping Session to
identify issues to be analyzed in the draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Southwest
Area Land Use Plan, and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 1998, Common Council, after
considering both written and public comments made during the
public and interested agency comment period, adopted the
Scoping Document for the draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (dGEIS) for the Southwest Area Land Use Plan, and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 1998, Common Council, after
receiving additional comments from the New York State Office
of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation amended the
Scoping Document to include the investigation of impacts on
historical and archeological resources, and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 1999, Common Council accepted the
dGEIS as complete and set a 60 day public comment period
ending on February 17, 2000, and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2000 and January 25, 2000, Common
Council held public hearings on the dGEIS, and
August 24, 2000
6
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2000, Common Council finalized a list
of the substantive comments to be addressed in the Final
Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS), and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2000, Common Council accepted the FGEIS
as complete, and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2000, Common Council elicited public
comment on the FGEIS, and
WHEREAS, Common Council has carefully considered the dGEIS
and the FGEIS, including comments made by City committees
and boards, the public, and interested agencies; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That based on the foregoing Common Council
planning and review process, the City of Ithaca Common
Council declares and certifies in compliance with 6NYCRR
Part 617.11 the following:
1. That it has considered the relevant environmental
impacts, facts, and conclusions disclosed in the GEIS.
2. That it has weighed and balanced the relevant
environmental impacts with social, economic, and other
considerations.
3. That the requirements of 6NYCRR Part 617 have been met.
4. That consistent with social, economic, and other
essential considerations from among the reasonable
alternatives available, the action is one that avoids
or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the
maximum extent practicable, and that adverse
environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to
the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as
conditions to the decision those mitigative measures
that were identified as practicable, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council for the City of Ithaca
makes the following Findings supporting this determination:
City of Ithaca Common Council
Findings Statement
Southwest Area Land Use Plan Generic
Environmental Impact Statement
Adopted - August 24, 2000
1. Purpose and Intent
This is the City of Ithaca Common Council’s (The Council)
Findings Statement for the adoption of the Southwest Area
Land Use Plan (”the Southwest Plan”). The Council is the
Lead Agency for the action, the adoption of the Southwest
Plan.
A Findings Statement sets forth the basis for an Agency’s
decision on an action, in this case the adoption of the
Southwest Plan. This Findings Statement sets forth the
Council’s decision with respect to adoption of the Southwest
August 24, 2000
7
Plan, the basis for that decision, and the conditions
thereto.
The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requires
that the Lead Agency and each involved agency make Findings
on an action, however in the case of this action there are
no involved agencies and the Council is therefore the only
agency making Findings.
The Findings Statement contains a brief description of the
action, a description of the SEQRA process for the action, a
discussion of how the SEQRA documents for the action will be
used, a certification required by the SEQRA regulations, a
discussion of significant impacts and mitigation measures,
and a discussion of the basis and rationale for the
Council’s decision.
The discussion of the basis and rationale for the Council’s
decision makes up the bulk of these Findings. This
discussion is organized by topic or area of the environment,
as were the GEIS documents. In making Findings it is
important to state that the Lead Agency need not Find that
the action will result in no environmental impacts. Rather,
SEQRA requires that agencies engage in a balancing process
whereby environmental concerns are weighed against social,
economic and other essential considerations (see the
certification in Part 5 below). The basis and rationale
section generally sets forth the salient facts considered by
the Lead Agency in making its decision, referencing the GEIS
where appropriate. It further sets forth the Lead Agency’s
assessment of information that it received from the public
in reaching its own conclusions. In addition, it puts
forward conclusions that differ from some conclusions set
forth in the FGEIS. Finally, it sets forth specific
conditions that become a part of its decision.
2. Description of the Action
The action that is the subject of this GEIS is the adoption
of a land use plan for an approximately 381-acre area
referred to as the Southwest Area. The Southwest Area is
bounded by Clinton Street to the north, Cayuga Inlet to the
west, and Meadow Street and Elmira Road to the east and
south. The study area consists of approximately 160 acres of
potentially developable land and approximately 60 acres
designated as substitute parkland in conjunction with the
alienation of the Southwest Park parcel. The study area
consists of 13 undeveloped parcels (See DGEIS page 1-1;
table 1-1; figure 1.), as well as developed parcels along
Elmira Road, Cecil A. Malone Drive (formerly West Clinton
Street), Cherry Street, Commercial Avenue and Nates Floral
Estates. It is currently zoned I-1 Industrial, MH-1 Mobile
Home, B-5 Service Business, P-1 Public and Institutional,
and FW-1 Floodway Zone. Current land uses are a mobile home
park, vacant land, industrial uses associated with the
Tompkins County Recycling and Solid Waste Center, and
business/commercial uses.
The purpose of the Southwest Plan is to develop a
coordinated plan for land use in this area. The Lead Agency
recognized that under the existing zoning there was the
potential for significant development in the Southwest Area,
and that if such development was not properly coordinated,
potentially significant adverse impacts could occur.
August 24, 2000
8
Examples of such impacts are offsite traffic impacts caused
by the incremental addition of traffic to surrounding
roadways, and flooding and drainage impacts caused by
uncoordinated development in which drainage systems do not
work together. The Lead Agency further determined that it
would be desirable to coordinate the aesthetic and design
principles guiding development in the Southwest Area, and
that the GEIS should explore ways in which public costs
associated with new development could be fairly apportioned
among development projects benefiting from public
expenditures.
In achieving a coordinated development pattern that
minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum
extent practicable, the City also sought to further other
objectives, including:
a. Increase in City (and County/School District) property
tax revenues.
b. Increase in City (and County) sales tax revenues.
c. Development of a multi-modal transportation link
between West Hill and the Route 13 commercial corridor
and Buttermilk Falls State Park.
d. An opportunity for the City to maintain or enhance its
competitiveness within the region as a desirable
location to live, work, shop and recreate.
e. Job creation.
f. Creation of substitute parkland.
g. Adoption of Design Guidelines for existing development
along Elmira Road, as well as new development in the
Southwest Area.
3. How the GEIS Will Be Used
The purpose of a Generic EIS is to “discuss in general terms
the constraints and consequences of any narrowing of future
options and to present and analyze in general terms
hypothetical scenarios that could and are likely to occur”
(6 NYCRR 617.10 (a)) as a result of the action. The
Southwest Plan recommendations are to be implemented by the
adoption of new zoning and design guidelines applicable to
the area. The actual intensity and form (i.e. layout) of new
development will be dependent on private market decisions
operating within the constraints of the new zoning, the
design guidelines and these Findings.
The DGEIS examined six hypothetical scenarios and discussed
generally the impacts of large-scale development in the
Southwest Area. The purpose of this analysis was to
determine the thresholds or limits of development that
could, consistent with other objectives, occur without
significant, unmitigatable adverse impacts.
Following the adoption of these Findings and the adoption of
zoning and design guidelines implementing the Southwest
Plan, individual applicants who wish to develop portions of
the Southwest Area covered by the Southwest Plan must come
before the Planning and Development Board (and other
agencies) for site plan approval and must complete SEQRA
processes of their own. Therefore, each individual project
will be reviewed for the specific potential environmental
impacts that may arise due to project specific actions and
disturbances. The GEIS would be used as a starting point,
or baseline document, in this review.
August 24, 2000
9
Should the Planning and Development Board (or other involved
agency) find that there are site-specific issues that have
not been addressed in the GEIS, or if the project is not in
some way in substantial compliance with these Findings, then
supplemental study may be required. Such study may take the
form of attachments to an Environmental Assessment Form, a
more in depth Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), or a
project specific supplemental EIS. The costs of any such
study would be borne by an individual project applicant. If
a project is in substantial compliance with the Findings of
the GEIS and no site specific issues are raised, then the
project can be issued a Negative Declaration and proceed to
site plan review.
4. Procedure
The DGEIS was accepted as complete by the Lead Agency, the
City of Ithaca Common Council, on December 20, 1999.
Following this acceptance, a public hearing was duly noticed
and held on January 24 and 25, 2000, and a 59 day public
comment period, (30 day minimum required by SEQRA), ran
until February 17, 2000. At the end of the public comment
period, the written comments and public hearing transcripts
were analyzed and a FGEIS prepared, per the requirements of
SEQRA 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 and 617.10. The Common Council
accepted the Final GEIS as complete on May 25, 2000. The
public and interested agencies were afforded 20 calendar
days to comment on the adequacy of the FGEIS. An additional
public hearing on the FGEIS, although not required by the
SEQRA regulations, was held on June 7, 2000. The Lead
Agency, City staff, and City consultants comprehensively
reviewed all written, emailed, and public hearing comments.
5. Certification
Based on the foregoing procedure and considerations, the
Lead Agency certifies that:
a. It has considered the relevant environmental impacts,
facts and conclusions disclosed in the final GEIS;
a. It has weighed and balanced relevant environmental
impacts with social, economic and other considerations;
a. It has provided a rationale for its decision;
a. It has met the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617; and
a. Consistent with social, economic and other essential
considerations from among the reasonable alternatives
available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes
adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent
practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will
be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable
by incorporating as conditions to the decision those
mitigation measures that were identified as practicable.
6. Findings, Basis and Rationale for Decision
The following discussion sets forth the Findings, basis and
rationale for the Lead Agency’s decision, including required
mitigation measures.
a. Land Use and Density
August 24, 2000
10
(i). The study area generally consists of vacant or
underutilized land. Although a variety of land uses are
allowed by existing zoning, lack of infrastructure and
access considerations inhibit future development. The
Lead Agency Finds that the adoption of the Southwest Plan
will have positive impacts by: 1) Encouraging
coordinated development and by limiting the amount of
development that can occur to a specified maximum; 2)
Tying the costs of mitigation to certain intensities of
development; and 3) Providing a mechanism for developers
to pay their fair share of public improvement costs.
(ii). The GEIS analyzed six hypothetical development
scenarios in order to determine the level of development
at which significant, unmitigatable adverse impacts would
occur. The range of densities analyzed was from a low of
500,000 square feet of retail development to a high of
1,250,000 square feet of mixed retail and office
development. The GEIS determined that a maximum
development of approximately 1,000,000 square feet, (of
which approximately 800,000 square feet was retail
development and 200,000 square feet was office
development) was the maximum amount of development that
could be sustained without significant, unmitigatable
traffic impacts. The Lead Agency therefore Finds that the
ultimate density within the study area shall not exceed
that which would result in 2,152 vehicle trips during the
peak weekday hour, which has been calculated to be
between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m. Trips shall be as calculated
by the Institute of Transportation Engineers standard
reference Trip Generation, taking into account
appropriate credits for pass-by traffic, internal capture
and non-automobile travel. Local data may be used to
supplement Trip Generation where appropriate.
(iii). The GEIS considered general land use alternatives
of retail, office, and light industrial and found that
such uses could be reasonably accommodated on the project
site without significant, unmitigatable adverse impacts.
The Lead Agency Finds that it is desirable to limit
certain uses in order to achieve consistency with the
design guidelines, discussed in section 5.b. below.
Consequently, the Lead Agency Finds that it is desirable
to adopt new zoning districts to implement the intent of
the Southwest Plan and these Findings. The new districts
will consist of the main mixed use district and a sub-
district for the developed areas along South Meadow and
Elmira Road. Both districts will allow for a mix of land
uses such as residential uses of all density, recreation,
retail, office, entertainment, light industrial and
manufacturing. Gasoline filling stations will be
prohibited from the main mixed use district. Automobile
repair/maintenance services as a primary use in the main
mixed use district is also prohibited; it may however be
an accessory use. Mobile homes, adult entertainment and
heavy industry will be prohibited in both districts.
(iv). The Lead Agency Finds that the No-Action
Alternative would result in the failure to adopt the
Southwest Area Land Use Plan. Failure to adopt the
Southwest Plan could result in greater negative impacts
due to uncoordinated review of future projects, failure
to consider cumulative impacts, no fair share cost
distribution, failure to construct a coordinated drainage
system, uncoordinated infrastructure improvements,
adverse off-site traffic impacts and failure to adopt a
policy for concurrency of traffic improvements. See page
August 24, 2000
11
4-1 of the DGEIS for discussion on the No-Action
Alternative.
a. Design Guidelines
(i). The GEIS presented a number of design concepts and
recommended that such concepts be applied to the
Southwest Area in the form of Design Guidelines. The
concepts are generally intended to create a more bicycle
and pedestrian friendly environment consistent with the
urban character of the City. Concurrent with the GEIS
process, the City has caused to be prepared Draft Design
Guidelines for the Southwest Area and Elmira Road-Meadow
Street Corridor. The guidelines address areas such as: 1)
Street design; 2) Parking design; 3) Lighting design; 4)
Bicycle systems design; 5) Pedestrian facilities design;
6) Signage; 7) Vegetation selection for landscape areas,
buffers and drainage easements; 8) Wetlands; 9) Drainage
easements; 10) Buffers; and 11) Architectural treatment
of buildings. The Design Guidelines are independent of
the Southwest Plan in that they will be adopted as an
amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and will apply
to an area larger than the Southwest Area, and thus they
will undergo their own SEQRA review and adoption process
that is independent of and parallel with that for the
Southwest Plan. However, the Lead Agency views the
adoption of the guidelines as a critical mitigation
measure in the adoption of the Southwest Area Plan. The
Lead Agency therefore Finds that the Planning and
Development Board shall apply the spirit and intent of
the design guidelines when conducting site plan reviews.
a. Soils and Geology
(i). The study area is characterized by alluvial plain
soils that generally have shallow groundwater depths.
These soils are typically 40 or more feet thick before
bedrock is reached. Construction on such soils may entail
the use of specially engineered foundations; however the
GEIS has identified no significant impacts associated
with such construction. Costs associated with
construction on difficult soils will be borne by private
developers.
(ii). The Lead Agency Finds that topsoil should be
stockpiled on-site and used in appropriate landscape
development. Appropriate erosion control measures, as
specified by the Planning and Development Board during
the site plan review process should be employed to
minimize impacts.
a. Wetlands
(i). The GEIS reports on several wetland delineations
conducted within the Study Area. A total of 25 individual
areas meeting the definition of Federal wetlands
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) were
identified. The total area of wetlands so identified is
10.98 acres.
(ii). The GEIS presented evidence that the wetlands in
the Study Area were not regulated by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). During
the GEIS review period several commentors suggested
otherwise. The Lead Agency obtained a letter from the New
August 24, 2000
12
York State DEC confirming that the wetlands in the Study
Area are not regulated by the DEC (See FGEIS Appendix 2).
(iii). Certain wetlands in the study area were delineated
and received confirmation of their delineation by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) in 1995. Delineation
determinations by the ACOE are valid for a period of five
years. Thus, any development where such wetlands are
located may require that the wetlands be re-delineated.
Such delineation, if required, will be the responsibility
of a private developer proposing to undertake regulated
activities in a wetland.
(iv). As a matter of law, regulation of the wetlands in
the Study Area is under the jurisdiction of the ACOE. Any
developer proposing regulated activities such as filling
of wetlands will be required to comply with the ACOE’s
regulations, which generally require mitigation if
impacts cannot be avoided and/or minimized. The Lead
Agency Finds that the GEIS has adequately determined the
location and regulatory status of wetlands in the Study
Area, and therefore fulfills one of its purposes as an
information gathering document for both private
developers who might consider an activity in a regulated
wetland, as well as for agencies responsible for
reviewing such activities.
(v). The Lead Agency Finds that the creation of the
substitute parkland proposed for the project will
permanently preserve and protect certain wetland areas,
and that this is a positive impact of the project.
(vi). The Lead Agency Finds that when and where
practicable, wetlands within the study area should be
retained and incorporated as part of site development.
(vii). The Lead Agency Finds that the most appropriate
area for wetland mitigation, as determined during field
surveys and reviews of mapping resources, is in the
southwestern portion of the study area (Parcels F6 and
the northern portions of Parcels F3 and F2 as delineated
in DGEIS Figure 1). The parcels have the appropriate
hydric soils (Wayland and Sloan silt loam), hydrology,
and distance from proposed development to support
compensatory wetland mitigation areas. The ACOE would
make the final determination of the location, type and
extent of compensatory wetland mitigation areas.
(viii). The Lead Agency Finds that wetland areas may be
created in association with drainage swales used to
manage stormwater, and that this is a positive impact of
the project.
a. Water Resources
(i). The study area is located within the alluvial plain
of the Cayuga Inlet, approximately 1.5 miles south of
Cayuga Lake. As a result, this area has been historically
prone to flooding. The Study Area contains the Flood
Control Channel and the Relief Channel and associated
levees. The purpose of these channels and levees is to
allow floodwaters to flow into these channels instead of
adjacent lands. While most of the Study Area is not
within the 100-year floodplain, that part of the Study
Area south and west of the levee parcels is within the
100-year flood zone as mapped and regulated by the
August 24, 2000
13
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The GEIS
reported on prior studies for this area (see DGEIS page
2-13) that concluded that although this area is within
the 100-year flood zone, filling would not significantly
impact the flood level or velocity, thus allowing for
potential development.
(ii). The drainage characteristics of the Study Area are
generally poor due to flat slopes. New development in the
Study Area will result in increases in stormwater runoff
volumes. The GEIS contained a detailed analysis of
drainage conditions and presented a plan for managing
stormwater runoff from new development. While there were
numerous comments regarding development in an area of
generally poor drainage and prone to flooding, no
evidence such as calculations or expert opinion was
submitted that would rebut the Findings of the GEIS
drainage analysis and recommendations, which concluded
that a drainage system could be constructed to manage
development from a 25-year storm without increasing post-
development runoff in the Study Area. It is the City of
Ithaca’s policy that new development be designed to
manage runoff from the 25-year storm event so that post-
development runoff volumes are equal to or less than pre-
development volumes, and the plan for the Southwest Area
meets this objective. Post-development runoff volumes
will be higher than pre-development volumes for storm
events in excess of 25-years, and there will therefore be
an increase in flood water levels during such events.
Such increase is considered an acceptable consequence
when weighed against the economic benefits of the
project.
(iii). The Lead Agency Finds that implementing the
drainage plan recommended by the DGEIS is of utmost
importance in managing overall runoff from the Study
Area, and that it is likely that successful
implementation of this plan will require the cooperation
of multiple parties. The Lead Agency therefore Finds that
the drainage configuration recommended by the DGEIS, or
one of equal or better design, be implemented within the
study area. Specifically, the Lead Agency Finds that
stormwater management system components be designed to
have capacity to manage rainfall from a 25-year event.
Because the study area is located at the downstream end
of a much larger surface drainage system, it is
determined that storm water detention would not be an
appropriate measure to control peak runoff rates from the
area. (See dGEIS page 2-15.) The recommended drainage
system further consists of two drainage systems, the
conceptual locations of which are illustrated in DGEIS
Figure 17. These systems, consisting of an extension of
the relief channel and a swale discharging to the relief
channel, are described and discussed in the DGEIS at
pages 2-15 through 2-17. These systems will accommodate
stormwater runoff such that only development in excess of
the 25-year storm will result in backwater effects in the
drainage swales. The Lead Agency Finds that construction
of all or a part of these systems may be required to
manage stormwater from multiple developments. The Lead
Agency therefore Finds that it may be desirable for the
City to require that developers construct all or a
portion of the overall drainage systems in excess of that
required to serve their individual projects. The Lead
Agency thus Finds that the City may negotiate the
creation of cost sharing formulas among private
developers, should such construction be required.
August 24, 2000
14
(iv). The Lead Agency Finds that maintenance of
stormwater management systems is important to their
proper functioning. The Lead Agency therefore Finds that
the maintenance procedures outlined at DGEIS pages 2-16
and 2-17 shall be required by the Planning and
Development Board as a condition of any site plan
approval. The Lead Agency further Finds that the
stormwater management measures discussed in the FGEIS,
pages 471-474, shall be considered by the Planning and
Development Board in the review of any project.
(v). The Lead Agency Finds that impacts from stormwater
quality could adversely affect aquatic resources. The
Lead Agency therefore Finds that the stormwater quality
mitigation measures identified at DGEIS pages 2-17 and 2-
18 shall be required by the Planning and Development
Board as a condition of any site plan approval. The Lead
Agency further Finds that the stormwater quality
mitigation measures discussed at FGEIS pages 464-466
shall be considered by the Planning and Development Board
during site plan review, and these additional measures
may be imposed if warranted by the circumstances of
individual site plans.
(vi). The Lead Agency Finds that all stormwater
improvements shall be privately constructed, operated and
maintained, and that the Planning and Development Board
may impose maintenance conditions consistent with the
recommendations of the GEIS.
(vii). The Lead Agency Finds that where practicable,
landscaped areas, including planted islands, may be
designed so as to act as infiltration areas for
stormwater runoff.
(viii). The Lead Agency Finds that the City of Ithaca
shall begin discussions with the Town of Ithaca regarding
stormwater quality and sedimentation control for
stormwater runoff from South Hill.
(ix). Development is likely to occur in some portion of
the 100-year floodplain. As discussed in Finding e.(i)
above, previous studies have demonstrated that such
development can occur without causing adverse impacts.
Any such development will be required to comply with the
FEMA requirement that floodplain encroachment not cause
an increase in flood heights by more than 1.0 feet, and
that hazardous velocities not be produced. The Lead
Agency Finds that any development that proposes filling
in the floodplain be required to demonstrate such
compliance by the use of appropriate calculations.
a. Former Dump Site
(i). A portion of the study area consisting of three
parcels totaling 59.11 acres was formerly used as a dump
site by the City of Ithaca. The DGEIS contained the
results of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA),
and the FGEIS contained additional data relevant to the
ESA. These investigations concluded that contaminants are
not presently migrating from the dump and the dump does
not present a threat to public health. Although numerous
comments were received suggesting that the investigations
conducted were inadequate, no evidence in the form of
sampling or other tests or measurements that would
August 24, 2000
15
contradict the Findings of the GEIS were submitted into
the record.
(ii). The former dump site is not considered a hazardous
waste site by the DEC or the EPA, the regulatory agencies
with the jurisdiction to make such determinations. The
Lead Agency notes that regulatory agencies had the
opportunity to review the information in the GEIS and
have made no change in the former dump site’s legal
status.
(iii). Once a specific development proposal involving the
former dump site is made, the DEC and the Tompkins County
Public Health Department (DOH) will subject the proposal
to review and may require supplementary investigation,
including additional SEQRA or Environmental Site
Assessment review.
(iv). The data in the GEIS indicate that, in the absence
of new Findings to the contrary, the former dump site is
developable. Positive impacts associated with such
redevelopment include the return of the land to
productive use, as well as potential remediation in the
form of capping and minimization of infiltration and
exposure to contaminated soil. Negative impacts
associated with such redevelopment include the potential
migration of contaminated soil and water (both surface
and ground) if improperly controlled and the seeping of
and exposure to methane gas. Any development proposed for
the former dump site will be subject to the review and
approval of the DEC and the Tompkins County Department of
Health. The Lead Agency Finds that these agencies have
the expertise to determine the adequacy of construction
and remediation plans, and the Lead Agency therefore
Finds that the comments of these agencies shall be
considered by the Planning and Development Board in its
review of any site plan involving development or
disturbance of the former dump site. The Lead Agency
further Finds that the mitigation measures listed at
DGEIS page 2-26 and FGEIS page 191 shall be required by
the Planning and Development Board as part of its review
of any site plan involving development or disturbance of
the former dump site.
a. Air Resources
(i). Construction activity has the potential to result in
airborne dust and in mud being carried off the site by
construction vehicles. The Lead Agency therefore Finds
that the Planning and Development Board shall require
standard dust and mud control measures as part of the
site plan review process.
(ii). Additional traffic in the study area will result in
locally increased levels of automobile generated
pollution. However, the Ithaca area is in compliance with
all standards, as demonstrated by recent NYSDOT
monitoring of the Route 96 corridor. The Lead Agency’s
expert consultants have indicated that the levels of
increased airborne pollution associated with increased
traffic levels would be unlikely to breach air quality
standards or otherwise cause adverse impacts (see DGEIS
page 2-27).
(iii). The Lead Agency Finds that the Design Guidelines
for the plan, will generally encourage pedestrian and
August 24, 2000
16
bicycle transportation, accommodate public transit, and
help to mitigate air quality impacts by reducing the
number of vehicle trips that would otherwise result.
(iv). The Lead Agency further Finds that by requiring
transportation improvements both on and off-site,
including improvements that will help alleviate existing
traffic congestion, delays and idling time will be
reduced, thus mitigating impacts to air quality.
a. Visual Resources
(i). The GEIS contained a detailed visual impact analysis
(see DGEIS Appendix E). The analysis simulated views of
the study area from ten locations that offer
representative samples of major views of the Study Area.
An accepted methodology following the guidelines
established by the Federal Highway Administration as
defined in Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects
was applied to assess the impact from each location.
Minor errors in the methodology were corrected in the
FGEIS.
(ii). A number of comments were received questioning the
accuracy of the visual assessment with respect to the
appearance of the buildings being simulated and the
visibility of the Study Area from Buttermilk Falls State
Park. No alternate simulations or photographs were
submitted into the record, nor was any type of alternate,
accepted methodology applied to dispute the conclusions
of the analysis in the DGEIS.
(iii). With respect to the accuracy of the buildings
being depicted in the visual simulations, the Lead Agency
agrees with certain comments to the effect that the
simulations did not accurately depict the appearance of
rooftop HVAC equipment. However, the Lead Agency Finds
that the simulations were sufficiently accurate and
detailed to allow it to make an informed decision as to
the visibility of development in the study area from the
viewsheds analyzed.
(iv). With respect to the visibility from Buttermilk
Falls State Park, members of the Lead Agency, its
consultants, City staff and Park representatives
physically walked the trails in the Park to determine the
accuracy of the analysis in the DGEIS. This field work
concluded that the DGEIS had accurately portrayed the
area of visibility from within the Park, which is limited
to approximately 100 feet of trail along the Falls.
Reports of an additional area of visibility from the
vicinity of Pulpit Falls received at the FGEIS public
hearing do not change the substance of the Lead Agency’s
conclusions or Findings.
(v). The Lead Agency Finds that the project will have
adverse visual impacts in that it will change a currently
natural viewshed, including the areas of Buttermilk Falls
discussed at DGEIS pages 2-28 through 2-32 and Appendix E
and FGEIS pages 100 to 102, and in Finding h. iv. above
into one that is developed. However, the Lead Agency
Finds that this impact can be mitigated to the maximum
extent practicable, consistent with other objectives.
Such mitigation shall take the forms discussed at DGEIS
pages 2-32 and 2-33, as implemented by the Design
Guidelines to be adopted for the Southwest Area.
August 24, 2000
17
(vi). The Lead Agency Finds that the primary mitigation
for visual impacts shall be the imposition of the Design
Guidelines discussed in Finding b. The Design Guidelines
specify the use of non-reflective building materials, the
use of natural building colors, the type and amount of
landscaping, especially in parking areas, the scale and
type of signage, and the type, height and brightness of
lighting.
(vii). The Lead Agency Finds that buffers are a valuable
tool in minimizing visual impact and enhancing overall
site appearance. Buffers should be utilized to separate
and screen commercial uses from recreational and
residential uses. When possible, areas of existing
vegetation should be utilized and incorporated as part of
major buffers. The Design Guidelines make
recommendations on buffer design.
(viii). The Lead Agency Finds that the Planning and
Development Board shall designate areas on the substitute
parkland for heavily vegetated screening between the
levee parcels and the substitute parkland. The Planning
and Development Board, during site plan review, will
consider the placement of all buffers and vegetative
screening so that the views of developed areas from
nearby parks, trails, green spaces and residences will
have as little impact as possible. Such buffers may be on
an adjacent property under different ownership as
negotiated and approved by the City of Ithaca during site
plan review. The Lead Agency further finds that the
buffer shall be designed to have a natural-looking
appearance in order to be aesthetically integrated into
existing vegetation in the substitute parkland. Fast-
growing, non-invasive native species shall be used in the
buffer, which shall be a variety of types and sizes
(large and small trees and shrubs). Trees such as
sycamore, cottonwood, silver maple and box elder are
examples of such trees. Buffer or vegetative screening
that will be paid for, constructed and maintained by
developers:
a. Between the new development and Nates Floral Estates.
There will be a buffer of one hundred (100) feet
separating any development and the nearest existing
mobile home in Nates Floral Estates.
b. Vegetative screening will be located on the substitute
parkland adjoining the levee parcel.
c. Vegetative screening will separate development and the
north and east boundaries of the substitute parkland.
d. Vegetative screening will separate development and
trails.
(ix). The Lead Agency Finds that the trails which
traverse through and by the study area are urban trails
which guide the trail users through a series of changing
landscapes and terrain. The Lead Agency therefore
recognizes that landscaping widths/depth for trails may
vary depending on the width of the trail ROW and the
surrounding/abutting uses. Such trail landscaping may be
in the trail ROW on an adjacent property under different
ownership as negotiated and approved by the City of
Ithaca and New York State Parks.
(x). The Lead Agency Finds that building height on the
levee parcel shall be limited to 2 stories (40 feet) to
minimize the visual impact from the Buttermilk Falls
August 24, 2000
18
State Park Gorge Trail. Elsewhere in the study area the
building height shall not exceed 5 stories (70 feet).
(xi). The Lead Agency Finds that a minimum of 12% of
gross site area shall be required to be landscaped. A
minimum of 10% of the gross site area, excluding buffers
and drainage ways, must be greenscape; the other 2% may
be hardscape/pedestrian amenities.
a. Transportation
(i). The DGEIS contained the results of a detailed
traffic analysis. Additional analyses were provided in
the FGEIS incorporating additional intersections and
several changes to the proposed access scheme were
considered. The entire analysis considered impacts to 36
intersections; impacts on residential neighborhoods
within the City; and impacts to adjacent properties.
(ii). The GEIS traffic analyses concluded that the
intersections analyzed would operate at acceptable Levels
of Service (LOS) with the construction of certain
improvements (see DGEIS pages 2-39 and 2-40 and FGEIS
page 264).
(iii). The Lead Agency Finds that transportation
improvements internal to the site shall be constructed by
private developers at their expense. All roads shall be
constructed to appropriate City standards and may be at
the City’s discretion turned over to the City for
ownership and maintenance. The Lead Agency further finds
that offsite traffic improvements that result in
improvements to existing conditions and that mitigate the
impact of development shall be paid for on a “Fair Share”
basis. The Lead Agency Finds that the “Fair Share” cost
of off-site traffic improvements shall be apportioned.
Such apportionment is further discussed in Finding t (ii)
below.
(iv). The Lead Agency Finds that concurrency between
development and mitigation shall be maintained to the
extent practicable. A policy of concurrency will be
established whereby planning and funding for
infrastructure and transportation improvements keep pace
with anticipated levels of development. Conversely, the
pace of project approvals and actions to implement land
use recommendations will be limited to reflect reasonable
expectations for infrastructure and highway improvements.
(v). The GEIS investigated the impacts of traffic on
residential neighborhoods, including livability and
quality of life issues. The Lead Agency Finds that
additional through or connector streets, improvements to
the existing streets and traffic calming measures will
mitigate potential impacts of the action on neighborhoods
where there may already be existing issues with respect
to the amount of traffic using residential streets as
through or connector streets. The Lead Agency has passed
a resolution stating that traffic calming is a policy of
the City of Ithaca, and the City is now engaged in a
traffic calming study which will result in
recommendations for installation of traffic calming
devices in some city neighborhoods. The City has already
begun to implement traffic calming measures on several
neighborhood streets, and intends to continue to
aggressively seek funding for such improvements.
August 24, 2000
19
(vi). The Lead Agency recognizes that because the
Southwest Area is flat and close to the population
centers in the City, it presents an ideal opportunity to
promote bicycle, pedestrian and transit use. The
combination of on-site facilities as outlined in the
Design Guidelines, and off-site improvements including
bicycle-friendly traffic calming, implementation of the
Ithaca Bicycle Plan, and improved transit service will
allow safe and convenient access to the area. Given these
improvements and the potential for increased automobile
travel times, bicycling, walking and transit will become
more attractive alternatives. The Lead Agency
additionally Finds that it intends to revisit the routing
of the proposed bicycle trail along Elmira Road as
provided for in the Ithaca Bicycle Plan. The proposed
trail may be able to be re-routed off of Elmira Road onto
internal roads anticipated to be constructed in the Study
Area.
(vii). The Lead Agency Finds that promoting development
in the undeveloped Southwest Area of the City will allow
shorter travel distances for those in the densely
populated areas of the City. The location of the
Southwest Area, as well as not designing intersections
and roadways for excessively high automobile levels of
service, will minimize the effects of sprawl in the
Ithaca area. The Lead Agency further Finds that it is
acceptable to allow Levels of Service of E at certain
intersections in order to avoid roadway improvements that
ease travel and lead directly to sprawl.
(viii). While numerous comments were received questioning
the accuracy or conclusions of the traffic study, no
commentor submitted calculations or analyses that would
contradict the Findings of the GEIS traffic analyses. The
FGEIS contained further data to substantiate the accuracy
and conclusions contained in the traffic study.
(ix). Based on the Lead Agency’s analysis of existing and
future traffic in the Study Area and in response to
concern expressed during the public comment period about
potential traffic impact, the Lead Agency Finds that it
will additionally develop and implement a Traffic
Monitoring and Management Plan (M & M Plan) for the
Southside/South-of-the-Creek Area concurrently with
development in the Southwest Area. The goals of the Plan
are to protect the Southside and South-of-the-Creek
neighborhoods from the negative impacts of increased
traffic, to improve the accessibility of the project area
for people who live east and south of downtown Ithaca,
and to provide a direct route which strongly links the
Southwest Area to the downtown and to the West End/Inlet
Island corridor. The M & M Plan will be developed and
implemented to be consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
(x). The Lead Agency, as part of the M&M Plan will study
and implement a set of mitigations that will help to
minimize the impacts of traffic in the City, especially
in the South Side and South of the Creek neighborhoods.
These mitigations will address both existing traffic and
that generated by new development. The mitigations
consist of converting Spencer Street to two-way traffic,
constructing a new road behind Ithaca Plaza entering the
new southwest development area, rebuilding the Plain
August 24, 2000
20
Street pedestrian bridge over Six Mile Creek as a traffic
bridge, widening Route 13 to five lanes, constructing the
new Taughannock Road extension, and developing and
implementing a City-wide traffic plan which promotes an
open traffic grid in all areas of the City, including the
possible removal of the diverters on Wood and South
Streets.
a. Noise
(i). The DGEIS discussed the results of noise
measurements taken in portions of the study area. As a
result of comments concerning the potential impact of
development related noise on Buttermilk Falls State Park,
the Lead Agency caused additional measurements to be
taken in and near the Park (see FGEIS pages 106-107). The
measurements demonstrated that the Park is not presently
significantly affected by road noise, and is unlikely to
be so affected in the future because of distance
attenuation, and because the additional volumes of
traffic resulting from the project are unlikely to result
in a three or more decibel increase in noise levels,
which is the minimum level considered to be noticeable.
(ii). The most likely source of additional noise that
could impact Buttermilk Falls State Park is associated
with idling trucks involved in loading and unloading at a
commercial use on the levee parcel. The Lead Agency
therefore Finds that provisions shall be made to minimize
the impact of noise on surrounding recreation areas, such
as minimizing truck idling times and other noises
associated with commercial development to the maximum
extent practicable.
(iii). The Lead Agency Finds that short term noise
associated with construction activities may cause
temporary, unavoidable adverse impacts. The Lead Agency
Finds that the Planning Board may limit construction
hours to mitigate this impact, if necessary. The Lead
Agency further notes that the City has a noise ordinance
in effect.
a. Water Service
(i). The DGEIS contained a detailed analysis of water
service capacity and determined that the City had
sufficient supply to service new development associated
with the project. The DGEIS identified a need to provide
“looped” connections in order to provide adequate fire
flow protection. The DGEIS also identified the need for
private buildings to have sprinkler systems and fire
pumps, and the Lead Agency Finds that this shall be
required when necessary to provide sufficient fire flow
pressure.
(ii). The Lead Agency Finds that extension of
infrastructure to the study area in the form of a water
line connecting existing lines in South Street with
existing lines in Commercial Avenue behind the existing
Tops and Wegmans parcels is necessary to allow safe and
orderly development with adequate supply and fire
protection pressures. This connection will benefit all
future development in the Southwest Area, with the
exception of the parcel across from Buttermilk Falls
State Park, which already has water supply. The Lead
Agency therefore Finds that it is desirable for the City
August 24, 2000
21
to construct this water line and charge the cost back to
developers who will benefit from it in the form of a
mitigation fee. This line will be owned and maintained by
the City. Private developers will be responsible for
tapping into the City’s lines at their own expense, and
will further be responsible for the ownership and
maintenance of such lines between the City’s trunk line
and their building(s).
a. Sewer Service
(i). The DGEIS contained a detailed analysis of sewer
service capacity and determined that the City had
sufficient capacity to convey and treat sewage from
development in the Study Area.
(ii). The Lead Agency Finds that extension of sewer
infrastructure to the study area is desirable and
necessary to allow safe and orderly development. The Lead
Agency Finds that it is desirable for the City to
construct the first phase of this extension, because it
will benefit multiple landowners and will achieve orderly
and desirable development. The first phase of this
extension will consist of a force main, gravity sewer and
lift station connecting from an existing line in South
Fulton Street across the rear of the Tops and Wegmans
parcels to a point north of Commercial Avenue. The Lead
Agency further Finds that it is desirable to charge the
cost for such extension back to developers who will
benefit from it in the form of a mitigation fee. This
extension will be owned and maintained by the City.
Private developers will be responsible for tapping into
the City’s sewer lines at their own expense, and will
further be responsible for the ownership and maintenance
of such lines between the City’s sewer lines and their
building(s).
a. Solid Waste
(i). The GEIS examined solid waste management resources
and determined that there are sufficient resources for
both disposal and recycling to manage the volumes
projected by development in the Study Area.
a. Plants and Animals
(i). The DGEIS contained the results of a field survey
for rare, endangered or threatened plants and animals.
The survey was conducted during the month of November
1999. No rare, threatened or endangered plants or animals
were identified in the Study Area.
(ii). Correspondence with the NYSDEC Natural Heritage
Program, the State Agency which keeps records of rare,
threatened and endangered species reported no such
occurrence in the study area.
(iii). Many commentors expressed concern over the timing
of the field survey because no surveys were taken during
the spring and summer growing season, and consequently
the survey could have missed species not apparent during
the month of November. The Lead Agency Finds that
additional surveys of the study area should be conducted.
(iv). The first survey was conducted during May 2000. The
survey initially identified the potential presence of a
August 24, 2000
22
plant, Spike Rush (Eleocharis engelmanni) which is an
endangered species, and the presence of a tree, Shellbark
Hickory (Carya laciniosa), which is proposed to be listed
as a threatened species, on the project site. An
additional field investigation was subsequently conducted
in June 2000 to confirm whether such species were
present, and if so, to what extent. The subsequent
investigation determined that both the plant and tree had
been incorrectly identified. The Spikerush was found to
have been misidentified at the species level; the species
noted above is not found in this part of New York State.
The Hickory was also found to have been incorrectly
identified at the species level. The correct
identification is Shagbark Hickory, (Carya ovata).
(v). The Lead Agency Finds that it shall cause two
additional surveys to occur during the 2000 growing
season, one in the period during late July/early August
and one in the period at the end of August/beginning of
September, and that construction in any of the sensitive
habitats in the study area may not occur until these
surveys are completed.
(vi). The Study Area contains a unique natural area, the
Negundo Woods. This area is proposed to be preserved as
part of the substitute parkland. The Lead Agency Finds
that this is a positive impact of the project. The Lead
Agency is also currently involved in developing a natural
area management plan for this area. The Lead Agency
Finds that the creation of the natural area and the
management plan are positive impacts of the plan.
(vii). The study area contains a unique, large Burr Oak,
believed to be the biggest in Tompkins County. The Burr
Oak is located in a hedgerow in the southwest part of the
study area. The Lead Agency Finds that the Burr Oak and
as much surrounding vegetation as practicable shall be
preserved. The Lead Agency further Finds that, where
practical, areas of existing vegetation shall be
preserved and incorporated into site development. .
a. Cultural Resources
(i). Phase 1A and 1B Cultural Resources Surveys have been
conducted for the study area. The surveys did not
identify any significant findings with regard to
prehistoric or historic resources in the study area.
a. Economic Character
(i). The DGEIS contained an extensive study by a
qualified expert examining the potential economic impacts
of retail development in the study area. The study
concluded that market demand supports new retail
development and that it would attract substantial new
volumes of retail sales to Ithaca. Retail sales of this
type would also “recapture” substantial portions of
retail purchases made by local residents outside of the
City and County. The analysis further concluded that
there would be a loss of 3 to 5% of sales in the Downtown
area, which would translate to 10,800 to 17,900 square
feet impacted. The analysis concluded that this was not a
significant impact and that it would not have a blighting
effect on Downtown.
August 24, 2000
23
(ii). Although many persons questioned the conclusions of
the economic study during the comment period, there was
no analysis placed into the record that would dispute the
findings or conclusions of the study.
(iii). The DGEIS identified potential mitigation measures
for Downtown impacts at pages 2-73 and 2-74. The Lead
Agency Finds that it is desirable for the public and
private sector to pursue some or all of these measures
and that it intends to study them further with the intent
to implement those measures appropriate for the City.
See Finding q (vi) below.
a. Fiscal Impacts
(i). The DGEIS contained information, including
interviews with department heads charged with providing
services in the City, to determine their potential
service demands associated with the project. These
interviews resulted in an estimated fiscal cost for
service demand that is far less than projected revenues.
(ii). The FGEIS contained a formal Fiscal Impact Analysis
which used a widely accepted methodology to estimate the
municipal costs associated with development, and to
compare such costs with projected property tax revenues.
The analysis concluded that the development of
Alternative 5, consisting of approximately 800,000 square
feet of retail space and 200,000 square feet of office
space, would have a net annual property tax benefit to
the City of over $400,000.
(iii). Sales tax revenues would provide an additional net
benefit to the City. The DGEIS estimated that Alternative
5 would result in a net annual increase in sales in the
market area served by development in the Southwest Area
of $47,424,000 (DGEIS page 2-72). This translates into
approximately $1,471,956 in additional annual sales tax
revenues to the City (DGEIS page 2-76).
(iv). Development in the Study Area will also have
positive impacts to Tompkins County and the Ithaca City
School District. New annual net sales tax revenues to
Tompkins County from Alternative 5 are estimated at
$947,264 (DGEIS page 2-76). New annual property tax
revenues to the Ithaca City School District from
Alternative 5 are estimated at $1,618,330.
(v). Development in the Study Area will generate
employment, estimated at 2,400 jobs for Alternative 5.
(vi). The DGEIS concluded that development in the
Southwest Area could result in a loss of 3 to 5 percent
of sales in Downtown. With an estimated 358,800 square
feet in downtown, this would translate into a loss of
10,800 to 17,900 square feet. The DGEIS identified
several measures to mitigate this impact at pages 2-73 to
2-74. Such measures within the power of the Lead Agency
to implement include, but are not limited to, continued
funding of the Downtown Business Improvement District,
funding capital projects to improve the downtown area and
financially assisting signage projects directing visitors
to Downtown. The Lead Agency Finds that it will implement
these measures.
a. Community Services
August 24, 2000
24
(i). Development in the Study Area is unlikely to have
significant impacts on community services such as fire
protection, emergency services and social services.
Development will likely result in an increased demand for
some police protection, particularly associated with
retail development. However, as noted in Finding q. (ii)
above, the revenues from the project will be in excess of
the cost of providing this or other services.
a. Substitute Parkland
(i). As part of the project the City has nearly completed
the alienation of Southwest Park. The City intends to
designate 60 acres of substitute parkland on the
southwest side of the Study Area, thus protecting the
environmentally sensitive Negundo Woods. The Lead Agency
Finds that this is a positive impact of the project,
substituting environmentally valuable and accessible
parkland for land that is less environmentally
significant. See Finding n. (vi) above. The City
further finds that the proceeds from the sale of the
alienated Southwest Park land will be used for
improvements in city parks. The Lead Agency finds this
to be a positive impact.
(ii). The Lead Agency Finds that it is desirable that
public access to the substitute parkland be provided from
the levee parcel which adjoins it, and thus the provision
of a public access easement should be required as a
condition of approval of any development on this parcel.
a. Mitigation Fees
(i). As discussed in the FGEIS, the Lead Agency will collect
mitigation fees in four areas: 1) Transportation
improvements; 2) Water improvements; 3) Sewer improvements;
and 4) GEIS costs. These fees are intended to recoup the
fair share of the City’s costs from developers for
improvements constructed by the City and benefiting
developers. The formulas for and amounts to be collected for
water, sewer and GEIS preparation are presented in the FGEIS
at pages x-xii and are summarized as follows.
Water Fee $9.89/gallon/day
Sewer Fee $14.68/gallon/day
GEIS Preparation Fee $0.40/SF
(ii). FGEIS Appendix 5.2, Table 1 contained a formula for
apportionment of transportation mitigation fees. The Lead
Agency has further considered the formula presented in this
Table and determined that certain improvements can and
should be funded by sources such as grants and consequently
should not be funded by mitigation fees in the same
proportion presented in the Table. The Lead Agency will
therefore apportion the collection of traffic mitigation
fees according to the table attached to and made a part of
these Findings
August 24, 2000
25
Based on this table, the Lead Agency will collect a traffic
mitigation fee of $1,460 per adjusted trip. The Planning and
Development Board may adjust trip generation for pass-by
reduction, internal capture, non-automobile travel,
transportation demand management, or other factors as
determined applicable and appropriate.
(iii) In calculating transportation mitigation fees,
developers may receive appropriate credit for off-site and
on-site improvements which are required as a result of site
plan review, to be constructed by the developer, as required
by their approved site plan. Site improvements to be
considered are only those that become part of city owned
transportation infrastructure. The credit for costs
incurred by the developer will not necessarily be based on
cash disbursement. The credit may be awarded by the
Planning and Development Board at its sole discretion, and
upon advice of a qualified professional traffic consultant
and/or licensed professional engineer, as the reasonable
cost for such improvements. When calculating the total
mitigation fee, based on the final approved site plan, the
Planning and Development Board shall consider the total
adjusted trips plus the shared costs for water, sewer and
the Draft GEIS (as shown on the above table).
(vi). The Lead Agency Finds that it will seek other funding
sources for the public portion of improvements in the Table
presented in Finding t (ii) above. Such sources may include
State and Federal grants. The Lead Agency further Finds that
it is its intent to investigate alternative sources of
funding such as a Transportation Improvement District (TID)
or Benefit Assessment District (BAD) for the Southwest Area.
(v) Not all fees will apply to all parcels. The following
table allocates which fees shall apply to specific parcels
in the study area. The location of parcels is referenced to
DEIS Figure 1, which is attached to and made a part of these
Findings.
Parcel name and
Letter Designation
Transportation Fee Water Fee Sewer Fee GEIS Preparation
Fee
A Southwest Park Yes Yes Yes Yes
B Other City Land Yes Yes Yes Yes
C Cherry Street
Extension
No No No No
D4 Railroad
Adjacent
Undeveloped Land
Yes Yes Yes Yes
E1 Former Dump Yes Yes Yes Yes
E2 Former Dump Yes Yes Yes Yes
E3 Former Dump Yes Yes Yes Yes
F1 Levee parcel Yes No No Yes
F2 Levee parcel Yes No No Yes
F3 Levee parcel Yes No No Yes
F4 Levee parcel Yes No No Yes
F5 Levee parcel Yes No No Yes
F6 Levee parcel Yes No No Yes
All Other GEIS
Study Area Parcels
Yes No No Yes
(v). The Lead Agency recognizes that it cannot exact a
mitigation fee without using the money for the purpose for
August 24, 2000
26
which it was intended. Therefore, if the money collected is
not expended within 10-years from the time of exaction, it
will be returned to the payee with interest at the City’s
cost of borrowing.
*See Fair Share Contribution spreadsheets at end of minutes
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) Manos, Pryor, Farrell, Vaughan,
Blumenthal, Spielholz, Taylor, Hershey
Nays (0)
Abstentions (2) Sams, Glasstetter
Carried
Alderperson Hershey thanked the Mayor for his leadership
during this long process. Mayor Cohen thanked Alderperson
Blumenthal for the extraordinary amount of time and hard
work she dedicated to this issue. Mayor Cohen and
Alderperson Blumenthal also took the opportunity to thank
Senior Landscape Environmental Planner Cornish, Former
Economic Development Planner Lee, and the Planning
Department staff for their exceptional work on this project.
RECESS:
Common Council recessed at 9:30 p.m.
RECONVENE:
Common Council reconvened into Regular Session at 9:40 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Resolution
By Alderperson Manos: Seconded by Alderperson Spielholz
RESOLVED, That Common Council adjourn into Executive Session
to discuss a collective bargaining agreement.
Carried Unanimously
RECONVENE:
Common Council reconvened into regular session with no
action taken during the Executive Session.
Resolution
By Alderperson Manos: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey
RESOLVED, That Common Council approves the 2000-2002 CSEA
Administrative Unit Labor Contract, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the new Hiring Schedule be adopted effective
August 28, 2000, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the new Hiring Schedule increase each year by
5% less than the negotiated salary increases for the
Administrative Unit.
Carried Unanimously
West State Street Construction Project
Superintendent of Public Works Gray addressed Common Council
to discuss the bid results of the West State Street
construction project which includes the reconstruction of
the pavement (brick surface), curbing, colored and textured
sidewalks, as well as street lighting and street tree
plantings. He reported that only one bid was submitted,
which was $1 million over the projected budget of $1.4
million. He explained that the City could save
approximately $250,000 by doing the structural soil work in-
house. Other factors which contribute to the increased cost
are: requiring that the work be completed within 120 day
August 24, 2000
27
period, contracting the work vs. completing in-house (must
pay prevailing wages), project costs may have been under-
estimated.
Due to the current competitive bidding environment, it is
possible that the City could save up to 25% of the cost if
the project is re-bid in the spring. The disadvantage to
this course of action is the fact that the 2001 prices of
asphalt and gasoline are currently unknown, and several
large construction projects are scheduled for Cornell
University and other local institutions next year.
Superintendent Gray explained the various components of the
project. If items are removed from the project, it would
need to be re-bid. Mayor Cohen explained that an advantage
to awarding this contract is that a local contractor would
be completing the project who has included increased traffic
control measures in the project, and has a vested interest
in creating the least amount of disruption for area
merchants and motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
Common Council members requested that a Special Common
Council meeting be held on August 28, 2000 at 7:00 pm to
discuss this item further when the bid tabulations, and
additional information is available.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Alan J. Cohen,
City Clerk Mayor