Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-16 Planning & Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting Planning and Economic Development Committee Ithaca Common Council DATE: October 12, 2016 TIME: 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: 3rd floor City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA ITEMS Item Voting Item? Presenter(s) Time Start 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review 2) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members 3) Updates, Announcements, Reports a) Dredging Update 4) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council) a) INHS Scattered Site Preservation Project b) Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund: Northside Community Celebration c) Maguire TMPUD Application d) Change to Definition of “Mezzanine” in City Code e) Carbon Fee and Dividend Resolution 5) Special Order of Business a) Form Ithaca: Presentation and Discussion 6) Review and Approval of Minutes a) September 2016 7) Adjournment No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Seph Murtagh, Chair Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner Nels Bohn, IURA Director Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner JoAnn Cornish, Planning Director Seph Murtagh, Chair Form Ithaca 6:00 6:05 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:05 8:00 8:10 8:30 9:00 9:05 If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, October 11th, 2016. October 6, 2016 Mr. Nels Bohn Director of Community Development City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Request for the City of Ithaca to Accept New York State Housing Stabilization Funds Dear Ms. Bohn: INHS has the opportunity to take advantage of grant dollars from a settlement agreement between Morgan Stanley and the New York State Attorney General. The settlement funds are being administered by the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) through a fund it has established called the New York State Housing Stabilization Fund (NYSHSF). The terms of the settlement require that the funds be granted to a municipality for a particular project. INHS is requesting that the City of Ithaca accept these funds and then grant them to INHS for the Scattered Site Project. The Scattered Site Project includes 98 units in 44 buildings – all located within the City of Ithaca – that would be renovated to improve the quality of life for tenants, improve energy efficiency and preserve this stock of affordable housing for 50 fifty years. Attached is a more detailed description of the project and how the financing will work to leverage an additional 15 million dollars in Tax Credit and New York State Housing Funds. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Joseph L. Bowes Director of Real Estate Development 1 INHS Scattered Site Project Description Over the past 30 years INHS has acquired or constructed 153 units within the City of Ithaca (aka the “INHS Scattered Site Portfolio”). The properties are located in the Southside, West Hill and Northside Neighborhoods. All of the buildings are over 20 years old and the majority were constructed over 100 years ago. The entire portfolio is located in close proximity to services, employment, public transportation and downtown amenities. The INHS Scattered Site Portfolio is affordable because INHS’s mission is to provide affordable housing. To accomplish this mission rents have been set below market. Only a small fraction of the units have any type of housing regulatory agreement requiring affordability even though the portfolio represents one of the largest affordable housing portfolio’s in the City and provides housing for more than 70 Housing Choice Voucher holders. Approximately 80% of the families living in these apartments earn less than 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). While this housing serves those most in need it also is home to 17 more moderate income families. INHS will retain this income mix in any refinance and work to ensure that no tenants are permanently displaced as part of the project. A consequence of maintaining low rents and keeping the Portfolio affordable is that there is often not enough money to do the repairs that are needed. Over the years, as the Scattered Site portfolio has grown and the structures have aged, the buildings have become difficult to manage. In many cases only the most pressing maintenance needs are addressed while the more critical large capital expenditures like roofs, siding and energy efficiency upgrades delayed. Renovating and refinancing the Portfolio provides a unique opportunity to permanently restrict these units as affordable housing and create high quality energy efficient housing in one of the strongest housing markets in Upstate, NY. Refinance Plan INHS has the opportunity to take advantage of State and Federal funding for Low Income Housing to renovate and refinance this Portfolio. This financing would be combined with funding from INHS and grant dollars from a settlement agreement between Morgan Stanley and the New York State Attorney General. The settlement funds are being administered by the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) through a fund it has established called the New York State Housing Stabilization Fund (NYSHSF). The terms of the settlement require that the funds be granted to a municipality for a particular project. INHS is requesting that the City of Ithaca accept these funds and then grant them to INHS for the Scattered Site Project. 2 INHS will use the funds to acquire the properties, pay off existing debt, renovate the buildings and pay for the associated costs such as architecture and engineering. The majority of the properties are debt free; however, a small number are encumbered by a $1.8 million conventional loan. One property has a $50,000 NYS Housing Trust Fund mortgage and one has a $350,000 HOME Mortgage. INHS owes $90,000 to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency which will be paid back through the refinance. The goals of the refinance include: improve the quality of life for INHS tenants, permanently restrict the units as affordable housing, improve the energy efficiency of the portfolio to reduce greenhouse gases and cost of utilities, capitalize reserves to mitigate ongoing maintenance and operating risk, and invest equity from the sale of the portfolio into the development of new affordable housing. Scope of Work & Development Team The refinance would include renovating each building based on a recently completed Capital Needs Assessment that evaluated roofs, windows, insulation, siding, kitchens, baths, carpeting, flooring, heating systems, and cosmetics. Floor plans, elevations, and a detailed scope of work have been created for each building and unit. INHS has retained SWBR Architects to provide architectural services and 2+4 Construction as the General Contractor. Both have extensive experience with occupied renovation projects. 2+4 has devised a construction schedule that limits relocation as much as possible; however, INHS is committed to hiring a Relocation Manager to oversee the tenant relocation process. INHS would continue as the property manager and be the Sponsor. INHS will form a wholly owned subsidiary to be the managing member, a wholly owned Housing Development Fund Corporation to own the land and a Limited Liability Company along with an investor member to own the project. INHS staff have extensive experience developing and managing tax credit properties and overseeing occupied rehabs. Sale Proceeds As part of the refinancing INHS will earn equity from the sale of the portfolio into a Limited Liability Corporation. The equity from this refinance will be reinvested into INHS’ mission of creating additional affordable housing. At its September 15th Board of Directors Meeting the INHS Board affirmed its intention to reinvest funds from the acquisition and development of the Scattered Site Portfolio into its real estate development mission by expanding its capacity to do additional housing development in its service area. Examples of how these funds will be used include investments in predevelopment, permanent sponsor loans, and/or acquisition financing for additional affordable developments. To date, INHS has invested over $1 million in acquisition and sponsor loans in the development of 183 units of 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects. This investment has leveraged over $50 million in investment from Tax Credit Equity, State, Local, and Federal funds. INHS plans to continue to make this type of investment in affordable housing over the next decade and the equity generated from this project is a key component in that strategy. 3 Sources and Uses Summary** Uses Total Land/Building $6,860,000 Soft Costs & Fees $4,854,912 Hard Costs $6,471,479 Contingency $652,329 Reserves $286,289 Working Capital $100,000 Total $19,225,631 Sources Construction Permanent Bond $10,175,631 $3,874,773 Tax Credit Financing $2,500,000 $5,281,833 NYS Subsidy Funds $2,000,000 INHS Funds & Equity $3,769,025 $3,769,025 Tompkins County CHDF $ 300,000 $ 300,000 LISC Morgan Stanley $4,000,000 $4,000,000 Total $19,225,631 $19,225,631 **Note this is a draft budget subject to change. Refinance Schedule a. Capital Needs Assessment ...............................…………………………………complete b. Finalize Scope of Work ......................................…………………………………complete c. Finalize Costing .................................................…………………………………October 2016 d. Application to Tompkins County ......................…………………………………October 2016 e. Application to HFA ............................................…………………………………November 2016 f. Finalize Development/Operating Budget .........…………………………………November 2016 g. INHS Board and Committee Approval ..............…………………………………November 2016 h. Ithaca Common Council Acceptance of Morgan Stanley Funds…………November 2016 i. LISC Agreement Executed………………………………………………………………….December 2016 j. Close on Financing ............................................…………………………………April 2017 k. Renovations Complete ......................................…………………………………December 2018 4 Portfolio Characteristics Unit Mix BRs Units No. % Studio 16 12% 1 BR 23 29% 2 BR 28 25% 3 BR 28 24% 4 BR 3 2% Commercial 0 8% 98 Current Incomes Served Income Units % 50% AMI 22 22% 60% AMI 59 60% > 60% AMI 17 18% 98 100% Age of the Housing Stock Buildings Units Age 56% 29% 1900 17% 12% 1901 - 1940 6% 4% 1941 - 1978 21% 55% 1979 - present 100% 100% 5 Location The properties are located throughout the City’s downtown and West Hill neighborhoods. ___________ ___, 20__ Name and Title of Contact Person at Grantee Legal Name of Grantee Municipality Grantee’s Street Address Municipality Grantee (Contact Person’s) Email Re: LISC Program Action Number: ____________ Dear Ms./Mr. _____________: Grant Amount; Purpose of the Grant: I am pleased to inform you that Local Initiatives Support Corporation ("LISC") hereby agrees to provide a grant in the amount of $___________(the “Grant’) to ___________ _____________[Municipality] (the “Grantee”), for the purposes, and on the terms, set forth below. This Grant is a result of the February 11, 2016 Settlement Agreement between Morgan Stanley and the New York State Attorney General. This Grant is being made as part of the activities of the New York State Housing Stabilization Fund, a LISC program whose goals are to support the preservation and development of affordable rental housing, and support services and programs for such housing throughout New York State, among other activities. The Grant proceeds are to be used to provide loans or grants for the affordable rental housing project (the “Project”) described on Attachment A to this Grant Agreement. Grant Commitment: Grant proceeds shall be used solely to fund Critical Need Housing and/or Support Services or Programs for such developments. Critical Need Housing developments are new or existing multifamily affordable rental housing developments that are subject to a Regulatory Agreement comparable to Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) affordability restrictions that meet one of the following criteria: (i) developed through LIHTC or are equivalent to multifamily affordable rental housing developed through LIHTC; (ii) provide multifamily affordable rental housing for senior citizens; (iii) provide multifamily affordable rental housing located near public transit hubs; or (iv) provide multifamily affordable rental housing located near (or that otherwise provides access to) health care professionals. Support Services or Programs are: support services or programs to facilitate the construction, rehabilitation, operation or preservation of Critical Need Housing developments. Grant Letter to ___________; LISC Program Action Number __________ Page 2 of 4 By countersigning this letter, Grantee agrees to use the proceeds of the Grant solely for the Critical Need Housing development and/or Support Services or Programs and represents that the Project shall constitute a Critical Need Housing development or the Grant Proceeds will be used for Support Services or Programs. Accepting the Grant proceeds will be further acknowledgement of Grantee’s agreement to the terms and conditions of this letter. This commitment of Grant funds shall be effective upon the receipt by LISC of a copy of this Grant Agreement signed by a representative of the Grantee, returned by email to grants_contracts@lisc.org, with a copy to HCaloir@lisc.org. Ms. Caloir is your primary program contact at LISC regarding the Grant. Please send a hard copy of the signed Grant Agreement to LISC to the attention of Ms. Caloir. Please contact Ms. Caloir if you have any questions about the Grant. Please note - under Sections 501 and 4945 of the Internal Revenue Code, the Grant may not be used to carry on propaganda, to attempt to influence legislation, or to participate in, intervene in, or attempt to influence the outcome of, political campaigns or elections. By countersigning this Grant Agreement and returning it to LISC, the Grantee agrees to not use the Grant for purposes prohibited by the preceding two sentences. In its use of Grant funds provided by LISC, the Grantee shall fully comply with all applicable federal, state, local (and any other governmental) laws, executive orders, rules, and regulations, including without limitation anti-discrimination laws, executive orders, rules, and regulations. Please note - this Grant Agreement must be signed and returned to LISC within thirty (30) days after the date of this Grant Agreement. If such deadline passes, LISC reserves the right to withdraw this Grant Agreement and reprogram the funds. LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION Signature: Name: Title: Date: _______ __, 2016 Grant Letter to ___________; LISC Program Action Number __________ Page 3 of 4 TERMS OF GRANT ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO: [NAME OF GRANTEE] Authorized Signature: Name: Title: Date: ______ ___, 2016 Grant Letter to ___________; LISC Program Action Number __________ Page 4 of 4 Attachment A Description of Affordable Rental Housing Project Proposed Resolution Planning & Economic Development Committee October 12, 2016 Authorize Commitment Letter to Receive Grant Funds to Support the INHS Scattered Site Preservation Project Whereas, INHS has an opportunity to receive grant funding to renovate existing rental units owned and managed by INHS as affordable rental housing, and Whereas, as a result of the February 11, 2016 Settlement Agreement between Morgan Stanley and the New York State Attorney General, grant funds are being made available to the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) to address affordable rental housing needs in New York State, and Whereas, LISC has established the New York State Housing Stabilization Fund (NYSHSF) to support the preservation and development of affordable rental housing, and support services and programs for such housing throughout New York State, and Whereas, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) has applied to LISC for up to $4,000,000 of funding through the NYSHSF program to support the INHS Scattered Site Preservation Project to refinance and renovate 98 affordable rental housing units in 44 buildings located in the City of Ithaca (the “Project”), and Whereas, the NYSHSF program requires the host municipality to execute a grant commitment letter to receive grant funds and pledge to use the proceeds of the grant solely for the Project, and Whereas, the objectives for the Project include:  Improve the quality of life for residents of the Project;  Renovation of each building;  Energy efficiency enhancements at each building;  Establishment of capitalize reserves for future maintenance;  Contractually restrict assisted units as affordable housing for at least 50 years; and, Whereas, the Project directly advances Housing Goal #5 in the City’s 2015 comprehensive plan, Plan Ithaca: “The existing stock of affordable housing will be preserved and well -maintained”; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby endorses the INHS Scattered Site Preservation Project to refinance and renovate 98 existing units of affordable rental housing located on scattered sites in the City of Ithaca, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Mayor, upon advice from the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute a commitment letter with LISC to accept up to $4,000,000 in grant funds to be used for the INHS Scattered Site Preservation Project, and any other documents necessary to receive and disburse such grant funds. TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee FROM: Megan Wilson, Senior Planner DATE: October 6, 2016 RE: NIIF: Northside Community Celebration Attached is an application for the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund (NIIF) from Karen Friedeborn, on behalf of Northside United, for the group’s annual Northside Community Celebration. The event was held on August 13, 2016 and brought area residents together for music, dance performances, food, and children’s activities. This event has been held annually for the past three years and is intended to promote a sense of community within the neighborhood. In past years, the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund has supported celebrations in many city neighborhoods that focus attention on neighborhood empowerment and solidarity. Expenditures related to this event include the rental fees for a large tent, tables, and chairs, which meet criteria for reimbursement. Northside United members donated their time for event planning, promotion of the celebration, set up, food preparation, and clean up. By putting together this event on behalf of the neighborhood, the residents are furthering the aims of the fund to support initiatives that strengthen city neighborhoods. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 Planning & Economic Development Committee October 12, 2016 RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds for the Northside Community Celebration, August 2016 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents seeking to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community improvement and to encourage, not replace volunteerism, and WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a general neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select few residents, and WHEREAS, activities specified by the Common Council as eligible for the funding include but are not limited to neighborhood clean-ups, plantings in public places, and neighborhood events like block parties or meetings, and WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application specifying other project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be covered by the fund and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Common Council has delegated authority to approve applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for approved activities, and WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and WHEREAS, on behalf of Northside United, Karen Friedeborn has submitted an application for up to $300 in reimbursement funds to off-set expenses from the annual Northside Community Celebration, and WHEREAS, notice of the celebration was circulated throughout the neighborhood via flyers, banners, the Northside United newsletter, and the neighborhood listserv, and the event provided an opportunity for socializing with diverse groups of residents; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the funding request from Karen Friedeborn in the amount of $300 for reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts. TO: Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner DATE: October 7, 2016 RE: Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development - Carpenter Business Park with Maguire Ford Lincoln Nissan and the Community Gardens The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding the application for a Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) from Carpenter Business Park with Maguire Ford Lincoln Nissan and the Community Gardens. This application was previously discussed at the September Planning Committee Meeting. At that meeting there was extensive public comment on this proposal. The Committee discussed the proposal but decided to postpone a vote on the proposal in order to have additional time to consider all of the comments that were submitted. Comments that have been received are enclosed. Also enclosed is a draft resolution for your consideration. In response to the discussion that took place at the September meeting, additional language has been added that examines how the proposed development complies with the vision of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The shaded text in the resolution can be included or removed in order to support or decline the application. If you have questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at jkusznir@cityofithaca.org. CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 Draft Resolution Planning & Economic Development Committee October 6, 2016 Consideration of Common Council Conditional Approval for Maguire at Carpenter Business Park Application for Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) - Resolution WHEREAS, on March 2, 2016, the Common Council adopted legislation establishing a Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) for a period of 18 months in the Waterfront Study Area, and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2016, Schickel Architecture submitted a completed TMPUD application on behalf of Carpenter Business Park, LLC, and WHEREAS, the proposal is to construct an approximately 50,000 SF Ford Lincoln Nissan dealership, including three new showrooms, a cafe/restaurant, and outdoor merchandise display, all fronting the Route 13 corridor, with a proposed sidewalk that will be tree lined and protected from Route 13 by a decorative fence, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the adopted City process for consideration of a planned unit development, the application was circulated to City boards and committees, as well as to the County Planning Department, and WHEREAS, a public information session, hosted by the applicant, was held on August 31, 2016, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the TMPUD, the meeting was advertised in the Ithaca Journal, signs were posted on the property, and property owners within 500 feet were notified by mail of the meeting, and WHEREAS, a notice was posted in the Ithaca Journal on August 30, 2016, in order to advertise a legal public hearing to be held on September 14, 2016, and WHEREAS, the process for consideration of an application for a Planned Unit Development requires that the applicant obtain an approval in concept from the Common Council prior to beginning the site plan review process, WHEREAS, the Common Council reviewed all of the comments that were received and discussed the proposal at their meeting on September 14, 2016, and WHEREAS, according to the City Comprehensive Plan the development site is located across the Enter prise district, the West End Mixed Use District and the Waterfront Focus Area, and WHEREAS, any approved development in this area should be mixed use and will need to be compatible with the adjacent waterfront uses and nearby neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive plan describes the West End district as a gateway to the City from the north and the west and further states that any uses approved in this area should be carefully considered for their visual impacts when entering into the City, WHEREAS, comments and discussion on this proposal concluded that it is not desirable to have a large parking lot as a gateway to the City, and WHEREAS, given the existing adjacent uses to the south, the approval of this development would result in nearly a half mile continuous corridor of automobile focused uses on the west side of Route 13, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan calls for development in this district to provide a pedestrian-scale street –level experience with slower traffic, safer pedestrian and bike crossings of major transit corridors, and improved connections to the adjacent waterfront area and existing trail network. New development should feature multi-story mixed use buildings that define a street edge and provide pockets of green space, and WHEREAS, this proposal does not meet the goals of the Urban Mixed Use district for the following reasons:  Proposal does not create pedestrian scale street level buildings along the street edge.  Proposal does not improve connections to the waterfront and trail network.  Proposal is for a primarily single story single use building surrounded by a large parking area WHEREAS, the City Comprehensive Plan notes that parking for private vehicles has significant implications for land use, fiscal health, community livability, and environmental management, and further notes that nearly all privately-owned surface parking lots are tied to single landowners or businesses, rather than allowing shared parking, and WHEREAS, the proposed development includes a large single user surface parking lot, and WHEREAS, the City Comprehensive Plan discourages new construction of impervious surfaces and encouraging conversion of existing impervious surfaces into pervious surfaces and landscaping, and now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council has reviewed the application for the Maguire at Carpenter Business Park project and has determined that it does/does not comply with the goals of the City Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the Common Council does/does not hereby grant an approval in concept to Maguire at Carpenter Business Park. /, and be it further (IF APPROVED, CONTINUE WITH BELOW, IF NOT APPROVED, END HERE) RESOLVED, that by granting an approval in concept, the Common Council acknowledges that the applicant is able to begin the site plan review process, despite any zoning-based deficiencies in the application, and, be it further RESOLVED, that the Common Council does hereby request that the City Planning Board update the Common Council after each Planning Board meeting where this project is considered and to request ongoing written comments from the Common Council, and be it further RESOLVED, that if this project receives a negative declaration of environmental significance and contingent site plan approval, the applicant will return to the Common Council for final consideration of the adoption of the Planned Unit Development district. Comments Received on Proposed TMPUD for Carpenter Business Park and Maguire Ford Lincoln Nissan From 9-15-16 to 10 6-16 Good evening, We have never written to protest a project. But, in this case, we feel that it is important to add our voices to those who oppose the proposed Maguire Car Dealership’s development of the land near the Farmers’ Market. That area has become, with the addition of the waterfront trail, a welcoming place for families and children. It’s important to keep green space, safe walking routes and beautiful sight lines. All those things are at risk with this new project. We appreciate the opportunity to tell you of our concern. We do hope that the planning committee will turn this project down. Thank you! Michelle Kortenaar and Kenneth Rother 954 Coddington Road Ithaca, NY Dear Mayor Myrick and Common Council Members, I am writing to strongly oppose the Maguire project. For 18 years (1979—1997) we raised our children on Hancock Street, within a few blocks of the property under discussion. We felt fortunate for our children to grow up next to the projects because they were able to develop friendships across class and race lines at an early age. It was a neighborhood that received little attention or worse; I remember comments at a Common Council meeting that “this is not a neighborhood attractive to business or better quality housing.” But we delighted in the neighborliness and the relatively quiet streets for our tricycle and then bicycle -riding children. In going door to door recently for Northside United, I see the same abundance of children, the rich mixture of incomes, races and cultures and people who appreciate growing food. When I returned to Ithaca a year and a half ago, I was delighted to find the thriving gardens and to enjoy the waterfront trail, all near the Farmers’ Market. It felt as if Ithaca were realizing the potential of green spaces in a key part of our downtown. It also felt as if Ithaca were realizing how increasingly valuable these spaces will be in the future, a future with much more local food growth, increased population in need of green spaces, and greatly decreased dependence on internal combustion engine propelled cars. Maguire’s customers will be driving to their facility to buy their cars. Other land within reach of cars is available for them. The thriving neighborhood of Northside will need, use and enjoy green and sunny gardening space within walking distance. From a long-range planning standpoint, Ithaca now and in the future has so much to gain by rejecting the Maguire proposal. Thank you for considering my letter. Sincerely yours, Ruth Yarrow (now renting a small apartment at 224 Cleveland Ave. on Ithaca’s Southside.) From: Jo Marcia Todd Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 11:11 AM To: Common Council Subject: The Maguire Question Dear Mayor Myrick and members of the City of Ithaca Common Council: I am writing to express my opposition to Maguire car dealership’s proposed development in the waterfront area and to urge the City to uphold the vision for the waterfront described in the new Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan says the Waterfront Area “will consist of mixed-use development including commercial and housing, with an emphasis on uses that create an active waterfront environment. There will be a focus on the preservation and enhancement of water-related uses. New development should protect viewsheds and allow public access to the waterfront. Pedestrian and bicycle connections should be improved, particularly to adjacent mixed-use areas. Developable space in the waterfront area is at a premium, and reducing the impacts of parking in new development should be carefully considered.” Maguire’s proposed development is the antithesis of this vision. While I appreciate that Maguire has tried to spruce up their proposal by adding a café and extra landscaping and sidewalks, there is no getting around the fact that ultimately this proposal is for an eight-acre new-car parking lot. The waterfront is a unique and special area with so much potential for revitalization; the recently completed waterfront trail is just the start. The Farmers’ Market and the Community Gardens continue to contribute greatly to the appeal and beauty of this vital area. Surely, there are better ways to use this property that genuinely support the vision for mixed-use and an active waterfront environment. I urge Common Council to reject Maguire’s proposal and to stand behind the Comprehensive Plan that the community supported. Make the waterfront great again. Don’t pave this potential paradise to put up a new-car parking lot. Sincerely, Jo-Marcia Todd 412 South Geneva Street Ithaca, NY14850 From: Ann Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 11:25 AM To: Common Council; Svante Myrick Subject: McGuire Dealership Dear City Council, I am writing concerning the McGuire Car Dealership planned project in Ithaca that the Planning and Economic Development Committee is currently considering. I also add that I have no personal or economic interest in the project. I am not and know no one employed by McGuire, I have not even bought a car from them, since I drive a used Volvo purchased from Ithaca Foreign Car, a car dealership and shop located in the heart of downtown Ithaca on State/MLK Blvd. I have read the PUD Development Code carefully. This Project seems to more than meet several criteris. It furthers the health an wealth of the community by drastically increasing the sales and property tax base, allowing us to fund government services The long term community benefit in tax generation is obvious. The sales and property tax will support government social and infrastructure projects,. The project also furthers the City Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: 1. Promotes mixed use development. 2. Provides employment opportunities (McGuire is an exemplary employer) 3.Promotes use of the waterfront Most people I have spoken with opposed to the project say they do not like the "idea" of the project. There are several projects, for example, that I do not like the idea of here in Ithaca (hotels that block the sun, undistinguished apartment buildings), but that is no reason for the Planning Board to reject them. A few do speak of developing housing at the site.. Unfortunately, no developer is proposing such a project. Furthermore, building there would be incredibly expensive given the proximity to an area prone to flooding. The McGuire people are offering Ithacans the opportunity of good, new jobs, a destination business that will bring people to the City and the construction of a superbly landscaped and green building. They will be good neighbors to the Farmers market and the Community Gardens. If the City Council rejects this project, why would any job creating business think of locating here in Ithaca? The only alteration the City Council might demand in the project is in the material used for the parking lot. Material that absorbs rather than facilitates water runoff would improve it. Best, Ann Sullivan Ithaca From: Ann Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 6:45 AM To: bsbp-discuss@yahoogroups.com Cc: df39@cornell.edu; Common Council Subject: Re: [bsbp-discuss] Maguire project Good letter. I hope this inspires others to speak up. Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 5:29:22 AM To: bsbp-discuss@yahoogroups.com Cc: df39@cornell.edu; council@cityofithaca.org Subject: Re: [bsbp-discuss] Maguire project Bravo, Tom. Perfectly and accurately stated. The Maguire project is good for this city. Thank you for sharing this with your Belle Sherman neighbors. Lynne Conway 220 Valley Rd. lynnesconway@gmail.com On Sep 19, 2016 10:46 PM, "Tom Schryver tschryver@gmail.com [bsbp-discuss]" <bsbp- discuss@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Dear Common Council: I am a lifelong Ithaca resident. My wife and I have owned 201 Fairmount Ave in the City of Ithaca since 2003. I'm writing about the proposed Maguire dealership on Route 13. I have been following coverage of the project with interest, as it addresses two specific issues that have given me concern. One: the tax base. Cost of living has increased dramatically in Ithaca, pricing many people out of the community. If we want Ithaca to be a place where a diverse population can afford to live, we need to keep a lid on taxes. A private developer willing to invest millions on improvements in an otherwise unused space - under power lines, by the train tracks, in a swamp, next to propane tanks - that broadens the tax base, reducing the burden on the rest of the population. Not only would Maguire's proposal drive significant property tax revenues, it will send lots of sales tax revenues to the city as well. I think the city's default position should be to encourage increases in the property and sales tax base inside the city limits rather than driving businesses to areas outside of the city limits. We are still suffering from the bad policies that led to the development of the Pyramid Mall decades ago - let's not make the same mistake again. Ithaca should be for everyone, not just those of us who can afford rapidly increasing costs. We're not going to get there without broadening the tax base through development. Two: fairness. The City has zoning and planning guidelines, as it should. When a developer, like Maguire, submits a proposal that meets those requirements and addresses key issues like moving the community gardens, the presumption of the process should be to approve their plans. All too often I have seen from the city a willingness to move the goalposts based on reasons that are not articulated in the zoning or the city's development plan. This makes developing in the city a much riskier and more expensive proposition than it should be. Ithaca is known as a city that champions progressive values and social justice. Yet it feels like any new development is immediately met with skepticism, and a default presumption that change is to be avoided if at all possible. That isn't a progressive attitude; it's regressive and reactionary. Worse, it feels like zoning policies and plans are easily cast aside based not on objective and transparent policy but on whichever way the political winds are blowing on a particular project or applicant at the time. We have seen several instances of the City saying, on a project by project basis, "yes, we have zoning and plans that encourage this type of development, but we didn't really mean you people". That is neither fair nor just. I encourage the City to approve the Maguire proposal and to promote open, transparent, and predictable zoning and planning policies to encourage development in downtown Ithaca and increases in the city's tax base. In the interest of disclosure - I am employed by Cornell but write solely as a City resident and voter. I have no affiliation to Maguire (not even as a customer). Sincerely, Tom Schryver 201 Fairmount Ave Ithaca NY 14850 I am concerned about the 9 acre car dealership proposal for the following reasons: • We'd rather see a development that works in conjunction with the already existing Farmer's Market and Community Gardens that promote and celebrate more local food production • We need to see development that is in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan • We want more walkable, and bikeable development that improves our city, not more parking lots • We want to see more sustainable development that does not encourage more fossil fuel use • This proposal will generate a tiny fraction of of the tax revenue that would be possible with any other number of possible uses (for two reasons: 1) car sales tax revenue goes to the community where the buyer lives, and car dealerships have large catchment areas; and 2) property tax revenue for car dealerships is extremely low, with little in terms of built structures, and suppressed land values) • We want to improve our city's connection to it's waterfront, not make it a less desirable place to be • Car dealerships promote auto-oriented devleopment, like fast food, and inhibit walkable development – leading to more S. Meadow Street style development • We don't want to see the traffic nightmare that would be Saturdays. According to Phil Maguire, Saturday is the busiest day for auto sales and test drives. This would be on top of the already insane levels of traffic at 3rd street from those who drive to the farmer's market Thank you, Violet Stone 572 Nelson Road Ithaca, NY 607-339-5014 Dear Common Council: my name is Zach Shulman and I run the university-wide entrepreneurship program at Cornell and am also a partner at Cayuga Venture Fund (CVF). CVF has invested millions of dollars into local Ithaca companies such as Kionix, Advion and BinOptics (just to name a few out of many). I am writing today to express my full support for the Maguire car dealership’s proposed development of the Carpenter Business Park site. I am in no way affiliated with Maguire other than having purchased a number of vehicles from them over the years. By way of background, I graduated from Cornell in 1987 (ILR) and 1990 (Law), and have lived in Ithaca full time since 1996. I live at 417 Hudson Street in the City of Ithaca. Please note that there is another Zach Shulman who lives in Ithaca and is involved in the scrap metal business. We are not related. I would like to summarize my reasons for supporting the Project: 1. Currently, the vacant land abuts route 13 on one side (ugly) and commercial buildings and power lines on the other (also ugly). The only attractive adjacent property is the public garden. 2. I understand that the public garden space will remain as is. The Project would not pose a risk to the public garden. To the contrary, I would expect the Project to enhance the public garden by providing better lighting and overall safety. You could even impose on the Maguire’s that the Project support the public gardens in defined ways (like providing plants for people to plant, etc.). 3. I understand that the Project building(s) would be LEED certified. LEED certified buildings are typically very pleasing to view for a variety of reasons that I expect you are familiar with (green roofs, clean energy materials, for example). Now, what a passerby views is very unattractive (the oil/gas facility, railroad tracks, etc). The new building(s) would literally add to the beauty of the inlet, not the reverse. The Project would enhance the inlet trail. Perhaps the Project could include a new bike rental business! 4. I understand that the Project design has the car inventory on the back side of the building and not near route 13. That is also attractive and would preserve green space when viewed from Route 13. 5. I further understand that the Project is proposed to have a public café. This would be fantastic for users of the inlet trail. The café would be used not just by customers of Maguire, but by people using the trail. 6. I also truly believe that increasing the attractiveness of that section of Route 13 (as the Project would do) would directly benefit all of the surrounding business on Route 13 and Third Street. Making an area like the Project a more attractive destination will have a spillover effect and should increase the number of people frequenting the area. That increase of people would directly and positively impact the surrounding businesses, many of which are restaurants and stores (Tamarind, ZaZas, Franklin mall stores, The Piggery, etc.). This is a business reality. 7. I also understand that the Project would have (or certainly could have) a high energy “fast” charging station for electric vehicles. This is a very important feature that will further aid tourism by allowing tourists with electric vehicles to quickly charge their vehicles while in Ithaca. I would be happy to talk with the Common Council about the Project and express my views in person. Ithaca is undeniably growing in population and businesses. We should be striving to get most energy efficient buildings built. The Maguire’s clearly support that vision. Thank you. Zach Shulman cell: 607-227-1153, http://eship.cornell.edu/ , blog: www.ithacaVC.com Dear Svante and all concerned, As a contributing citizen and a dedicated member of this community I am writing to express my deep concern about the possibility of another McGuire Dealership along our precious lake. It would be a travesty to put MORE cars in the location of Carpenter Park. We currently have a whole strip of dealerships on Rt. 13.....far more than one community needs. Surely we do not want to start ANOTHER location for automobiles to be bought and sold. . Fred and I are strongly opposed to this possibility. Our strand in the matter has nothing to do with McGuire and their contributions to Ithaca. In fact, we each drive cars from there dealerships. Thank you for listening and always valuing public opinion. Your supporters, Margot and Fred Schoeps 925 Mitchell Street #7 Ithaca MARGOT SCHOEPS 914-500-5375 Be the change you want to see in the world.....start now. MARGOT SCHOEPS 914-500-5375 Be the change you want to see in the world.....start now. City of Ithaca September 16th, 2016 Common Council Hi Northsiders, Anna's letter is great and comprehensive, and begins to outline in a positive sense the kind of sustainable development a lot of us would like to see. What needs to happen in order for a mixed use pedestrian friendly neighborhood with community gardens permanently established? We could start to nudge some things. 1) Common council could pass zoning for the area that makes it possible. That would involve minimal parking requirements and setbacks. 2) Someone has to actually do the expensive, risky, complicated work of development. But who? A big corporation will never do it the way we want. Somehow a group has to be found or created that will do it right. 3) The public has to mostly support / not oppose the development. If there's a proposal for a neighborhood with minimal parking, someone will oppose it because they think parking is essential. Someone will say they don't want any of the existing trees cut down, etc. There has to be conversation, education, and compromise. 4) For a residential neighborhood in that location to feel good to the residents, they need to be able to walk, bike, bus, and drive in and out of their neighborhood comfortably. Right now, the area is mostly cut off by Rt. 13. History shows that neighborhoods chopped up by highways tend to die. So the access has to be better than it is now, and that is a huge complex expensive design challenge. I'm a bit concerned that if we stop the Maguire plan without moving toward something better, the next proposal could be even worse. Todd Saddler Dear city officials, Please reject the proposed Mcguire car dealership. I want to see that area reserved and developped to promote and celebrate local food production and access and respect for nature. A car dealership would be an aesthetic and spiritual nightmare... not to mention a disaster for the already overcrowded road conditions on Saturday along RT. 13. Please reject this proposal!!! Thank you, Kevin Mayer 47 Cobb St Groton, NY 13073 -- "Art is not a mirror held up to life, but a hammer with which to shape it." Bertold Brecht Gary Marsden Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 12:33 PM To: Joseph Murtagh Subject: Maguire Cars Dear Mr. Murtagh, I am a long-time downtown resident of Ithaca, living at 321 Cascadilla St. for almost 20 years. I'd like to strongly express my opposition to the proposed Maguire Cars project on Ithaca's waterfront. It is a beautiful with lots of potential, that when properly developed, will be available to be enjoyed by a lot of Ithacans. • First, using that property and converting it to mostly parking lot would forever remove that possibility. • Putting a large car dealership so close to a very residential neighborhood will increase traffic in the area, which would pose risks to the families that live on the north side. Especially those families with children. We're already experiencing more traffic than ever. The Hancock Street project (INHS) will already create more traffic and rob parking spaces from the neighborhood. • City discussions have focused on creating jobs and new businesses in our underutilized areas. Maguire says it will create new jobs, but I can't imagine a project that would create less new jobs per acre than one that is mostly parking lot. • Lastly, I feel it is simply an inappropriate use for this particular area. There are many places, much more well-suited to this kind of development. Such as the Elmira Road, which currently houses much of Maguire. Please, please, please help me and voice your opposition to this project. I would appreciate hearing from you about this. Respectfully, Gary Marsden, Northside Resident 321 Cascadilla St. Ithaca, NY 14850 gm27@cornell.edu 607-273-7082 From: Alexa Longmire Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 8:29 AM To: Common Council Subject: Maguire proposed plan Good morning, I went to the meeting last night for the proposal of the new maguire building. I think you should choose to approve this project. I am a maguire employee but im also a parent of three. I live in Interlaken and can't afford to live in ithaca so i commute 25 minutes everyday to go to a great employer. This project being approved could make it so i could grow internally with the company and drop my second job and possibly move back to the town i grew up in. Please help me help my children! -Alexa longmire From: Todd LaRow Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 6:57 PM To: Common Council Subject: Hi my name is Todd LaRow I live in Newfield I was at your city hall meeting for the Maguire project last night. I heard all that was said and all the good and bad about the meeting. There is a few things last night that I wanted to point out to the council and the mayor and the people of north side housing. First: Maguire owns the property so your housing idea Mr. mayor and the rest of the council you all talked like the city still owned the site, you don’t. The city had almost 40 years to put homes or coffee shops or what ever the city wanted to put in there. Second: You all were talking about the Cayuga water way trail last night about how people are going to access the trail for the property that Maguire’s owns. Well there is no way anyone will get access threw there no matter if Maguire was there or not. There are rail road tracks, petroleum tanks and NYDOT. The surrounding area is the same way, you have the Cornell building and other business. Third :I understand where the people of north side are even affected by any of this. I heard many people talking and showing signs of kids and children playing. There is business in front of the homes now so how are they even seeing all the cars that are almost half a mile way from there homes and not only that there will be tree along the side of 13 hiding the cars and lets not forget then you have state route 13 before you even get to the property that Maguire owns. Fourth: I drive threw Ithaca every day 5 days a week I heard people say about traffic this traffic. A traffic light on 5th street would be much more safer then not having nothing there at all. I see traffic everyday from 3rd street do all most 50 mph before they get to the 13 split. So everyone is worried about safety the council needs to think about that. Fifth : The north end of Ithaca when you come down the hill is the most unattractive and most discussing part of Ithaca to you start getting in to the city. I looked at all the pictures of the site after you meeting last night and it was the most beautiful thing I’ve seen in a car dealer ship. I’ve seen this whole beautiful country and that is the most beautiful dealer ship. I would be so proud to have people from all over come into Ithaca and say WOW that is a beautiful place. Thank you for reading this email City of Ithaca September 16th, 2016 Common Council Dear Common Council, I am writing to add my voice to the growing body of community members in opposition to approving the proposal from the Maguire Family of Dealership. In the past decade, Tompkins County and the City of Ithaca have made great strides in increasing tourism in our city and region. Over 800,000 visitors come to our city every year, generating a substantial amount of the overall revenue for our city. I believe it would be counteractive to allow for the Maguire car dealership to be developed in such a highly tourist area of our city. With the beautiful waterfront trail and highly popular Ithaca Farmer’s Market only a few steps from the proposed dealership sight, I hope that we would not put a blacktop and show cars in the middle of this area, but rather preserve it for further tourist related development, such as a recreational park, boating rental or launches open to the public, etc. This is not to mention that the proposed Maguire development would bring in greater car traffic to an area that is already at its maximum traffic capacity (especially with the growth in popularity of the Saturday and Sunday Farmer’s Markets). I am firmly against any proposal that opens 5th street traffic to cross the route 13 into the dealership. As a native to Northside, growing up on 410 Madison St., and playing in Conway Park nearly every day after school, the amount of traffic that would be moving through this neighborhood at an increased speed as a thru street would make this neighborhood unsafe for children to play. Aside from the safety of our children, we must also consider the charm of our small community neighborhoods that give Ithaca its charm. The gorgeous waterfalls, lakes, and trails, are not the only attractions that keep putting our city on the “Top 100” Buzzfeed lists, it is also the charming nature of our downtown and our strong sense of community. Developing an additional, and unnecessary, dealership in the heart of a tourist area that would greatly affect our charming Northside community would be a grave mistake. I have heard that many Maguire Dealership employees have spoken about their living wages and great benefits of working for Maguire and how an additional dealership would create more promising jobs within our community. In 2010, local tourism directly employed 2,366 people—a number that I believe does not accurately capture the true number employed, or has most likely increased greatly in the past 6 years. I would urge that not only the purposed sight land be put to better use in increasing tourism and tourist revenue, but also that there is the opportunity for an equal amount of jobs to be created as a result of a tourist initiative, rather than through the Maguire Dealership. Lastly, Carpenter Business Park is part of the Waterfront & Inlet Island neighborhood as outlined in the General Neighborhood Map (Figure 11.1) in the comprehensive plan. This neighborhood has been marked in the comprehensive plan as a focus area for further analysis to determine its best use in the context of the goals of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan states goals to emphasize waterfront activity, promote public access to the waterfront, and enhance and preserve any environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. the waterfront). Blacktopping almost 9 acres of land in the Waterfront and Inlet Island neighborhood completely counters these goals and takes away any chance of future parks and recreation there that expand on the success the city has had thus far with regards to tourism. I hope that Common Council will reject the proposal brought forward by Maguire, considering the potential for increases tourism and tourist revue if rejected. I hope that Common Council will also stay true to the plan that the community has worked so hard to help our government create, and rejects this proposal for the waterfront development. We can and will do better for our community. The southern entrance to our city via route 13 is already awash with big box store culture and high traffic, let’s not lose our only other gateway to this community when it has so much potential. Respectfully, Hannah Kinsella Dear Common Council, I am writing to add my voice to the growing body of community members in opposition to approving the proposal from the Maguire Family of Dealership. Last week the county presented the most recent housing study. Not only does it show that we have a very low vacancy rate but that we are low in many categories including affordable housing, 1 and 2-bedroom units, single-family homes, and homeowner options. There is a projected increase in students, retirees, and young professionals expected to move to Tompkins County (prioritizing Ithaca). The concern here is that the rate of increase in demand far exceeds the rate of increase in housing stock that we can expect to see in the decades to come given current development trends (particularly of mixed income options). Job opportunities in this city are expected to continue to rise steadily adding pressure to the existing pressure cooker of a housing shortage that we are already in. There are few large open areas left in the city for substantial developments that are not infills. Carpenter Business Park is part of the Waterfront & Inlet Island neighborhood as outlined in the General Neighborhood Map (Figure 11.1) in the comprehensive plan. This neighborhood has been marked in the comprehensive plan as a focus area for further analysis to determine its best use in the context of the goals of the comprehensive plan including increased quantity and diversity of housing options in a manner that increases walkability, promotes mixed-use development, and reduces the impact of parking. The comprehensive plan states goals to emphasize waterfront activity, promote public access to the waterfront, and enhance and preserve any environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. the waterfront). Blacktopping almost 9 acres of land in the Waterfront and Inlet Island neighborhood completely counters these goals. People do not go to a car dealership to have lunch at a cafe, people do not go to a car dealership to relax and enjoy the scenery of the lake. People go to a car dealership to test cars, fix cars, and buy cars. Converting this land that has great potential as a mixed-use neighborhood where people can live, work, walk, and play in the same area and that fits with the comprehensive plan in every way into a sea of cars will be a profound loss to our community. It will permanently remove a large area in the city that could help solve one of our biggest crises, housing, and blacktop what could be a model green neighborhood we can be proud of. To address some of the criticisms of a mixed-use neighborhood development on this land: • People say the NYSDOT depot is a barrier but we know the NYSDOT is actively exploring alternate locations with the county. • There are concerns that the train tracks are a large barrier to people wanting to live on this lot, yet all along east shore we have houses that are only feet from the tracks and these houses do not have any vacancy problems. • The soil is poor and could not support real development. Previous studies on this site show that the land could support up to three-story developments. Even subtracting the land where there is a NYSEG right of way, and adjusting for the fact that development of only a percentage of the remaining land will be allowed based on zoning regulations, a substantial amount of housing and small commercial development could be built on this land. Any housing given our current crisis is better than no housing, as per the Maguire proposal for a vast inventory of car storage. Lastly the property tax, sales tax revenue, and job creation potential from a comprehensive mixed-use development with up to three-story buildings including local commercial enterprises, offices, diverse housing and walkable streets providing close access to the community gardens and farmer’s market in every way out competes the statistics for a large car dealership. There is interest from the city for this to happen and there are alternate projects that have been discussed that align with the current comprehensive plan. I respect the Maguire family and appreciate their contributions to the community but I respectfully disagree that a car dealership regardless of the green roofs, solar panels, cafes, money to the community gardens, and sidewalk construction can be rendered net sustainable. I applaud Maguire for their initiative and hope that all dealerships make these steps to begin to counter their impact but these steps do nothing to address the car- centric culture the comprehensive plan seeks to deemphasize and certainly does not create the inviting waterfront mixed-use neighborhood that we have one shot right now to create. I hope that Common Council stays true to the comprehensive plan that the community has worked so hard to help our government create and rejects this proposal for the waterfront development. We can and will do better for our community. The southern entrance to our city via route 13 is already awash with big box store culture, let’s not lose our only other gateway to this culture when it has so much potential to be the scenic inviting vision outlined and emphasised in the comprehensive plan. Respectfully, Anna Kelles Cornell Faculty and Tompkins County Legislator, 2nd District Dear City of Ithaca staff, I'm writing to submit public comments on the Maguire Mandatory Planned Unit Development proposal for Carpenter Park. In short, I feel very strongly that this proposal, if passed, would set an bad precedent for future development, and create a highly undesirable environment in a part of the city that we are trying, actively, to improve. There are several reasons for this: • It would weaken the Comprehensive Plan – The City and the community spent a long time very intentionally working out how we want our city to grow and develop. And that vision did not look anything like this. Yes Maguire bought this land before the new zoning went into effect, but not before the comprehensive planning process had largely worked its way through, let alone having gotten started. The PUD mechanism is designed for exactly this sort of scenario, so let it run its course. Maguire knew when they bought the land that it was almost certainly going to run against the Comprehensive Plan, and they took that risk. Abandoning all that work now would set a terrible precedent for the future, and effectively say that the community's input is inconsequential. • It's irresponsible land use policy – Take a walk down South Meadow Street, from Clinton Street down to Buttermilk Falls. Seriously. It's clearly not an enjoyable walk, and not the kind of development pattern that is appropriate for other parts of the city, especially closer in to the city core, and along the waterfront. A 9-acre sea of asphalt at Carpenter Park would dramatically change the character of the city, and would also likely spawn additional car-oriented businesses in nearby parcels, as very few other uses would be appropriate for plots that abut Carpenter Park (imagine having housing between there and the Enterprise car rental). We need traffic calming on Route 13 in this part of town, and increased pedestrian and bike connections between the Northside and the Waterfront, not increased automobile-dependent development. • It would result in low tax revenues relative to other development – Car dealerships return very little in taxes to the host municipality relative to their large footprint, for several reasons – 1) there is very little in terms of built structures, resulting in a reduced assessed value; 2) unlike less durable goods, sales tax revenue for car sales returns to the municipality in which the purchaser lives, and with a large catchment area, a sizable portion of purchases will result in no sales tax revenue for the City; 3) car dealerships alter the landscape around them, effectively disincentivizing uses that aren't geared toward car-dependent clients, often leading to drive throughs, strip malls, and fast food...and reduced property values. • It would exacerbate an already bad traffic situation – Phil Maguire acknowledged in the public hearing on 8/31 that Saturdays are the busiest day of the week for new car sales, leading to direct traffic conflicts with the Farmers' Market, and almost certainly making the 3rd St intersection even more of a bottleneck. Maguire's hoped-for 5th Street light is uncertain, and they stated that they would proceed with the plan even if it isn't approved. This would leave the back door option, off Cascadilla St, but how many out of town (or even in town) shopper would be expected to navigate a winding, narrow back passage with no obvious access – to get to either the dealership or the market? And even if the 5th street extension were to be approved, their design on 8/31 showed no left turn lane for northbound traffic, suggesting that these customers would likely have to continue on to 3rd St. Other uses, such as restaurants, housing, or other shops, would likely have more evenly distributed peak demands, and almost certainly overlap far less with the current uses of 3rd St. • It does not equal visionary leadership – While the City of Ithaca, like any municipality, has to balance its budget and provide for basic services, it also fills a broader role within the immediate area and the broader region as a progressive role model for other towns to follow. I first heard of Ithaca as an undergraduate at a liberal arts college in Washington State nearly 20 years ago; in that very liberal corner of the country we looked at policies Ithaca had adopted in the 70's, 80's and 90's as a lens for how municipalities can pursue social and environmental equity. Today, at a time when people in every corner of the globe face the specter of a rapidly changing climate, and when we are grappling with a severe drought in Upstate NY, building the largest car dealership in the city, in an area planned for mixed-use development, represents the worst set of priorities possible. We need real leadership, in Washington, in Albany, and yes, in Ithaca, too. Please be those leaders. • It would be a generational mistake – Land use mistakes like are often no undone quickly, and if it were to become the mistake many of use imagine it to be, then this would be a daily reminder of a poor decision, and one that would have lasting impacts for a generation or more. Moreover, strange as it may sound we don't really know the future of the auto industry, and now is not the time to build a massive car dealership. New technologies often dramatically disrupt previous business models – e.g., book stores, CD stores, map publishers, etc. – and when the NY Times reports that Ford plans on having a nation-wide fleet of self- driving cars within five years, perhaps we should not invest our community in more car dealerships: "Mr. Fields said on Tuesday that the combination of driverless cars and ride-sharing services represented a “seismic shift” for the auto industry that would be greater than the advent of the moving production line was roughly a century ago." Adding to this, two days ago the founder of Lyft laid out almost the exact same vision, calling it the third transportation revolution. Let's not double down on a CD store, and burn political capital doing so. Even if you don't put much stock in these visions for the future, there is clear evidence already that millennials are driving less, biking and walking more, and choosing to live in places that prioritize the environment and a healthy, active lifestyle. To the question 'what else could go here?', I suggest simply considering that the Comprehensive Plan hasn't even been given a chance yet to work. Through this discussion, and through the rezoning process, there will almost certainly be increased attention given to Carpenter Park, and new ideas for what could go there (a culinary institute? a larger version of Press Bay Alley?). Previous ownership situations may have also effectively suppressed development, so we don't necessarily need to expect it to sit vacant for several decades more. Is it a hard site to develop? Absolutely, but it's not impossible, and regardless, it shouldn't be a car dealership. What I ask of you is to be brave and bold; rejecting this proposal is the right choice. In exchange for doing so, there are many of us in the community – myself included – who will actively go to bat for you if or when you get flack for this. There are many of us who will campaign and lobby on your behalf when you face pressure down the road, because we'll have seen that you did what was needed to help make the community a better place. Please hold us to this. Sincerely, Devon Devon Jenkins 313 N. Geneva St. Ithaca, NY 14850 To Whom It May Concern — I am a town of Ithaca resident, living very close to the city. I am sorry I couldn’t make it to the meeting last night. I would really not like to see any car dealership in this location because big box development is really a visual blight, and we already have a big box development area over on Meadow Street. This is a very important area visually for driving through Ithaca. I think there is reason car dealerships are generally in out of the way spots where visual blight is not much a concern. Best Regards, Adam Adam Thrall Jacobstein adamjacobstein1@gmail.com 607.793.0013 (c) portfolio at http://jacobsteinwoodworking.com From: Lynne Jackier Date: Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:41 PM Subject: No Maguire please... To: Seph Murtagh <sephmurtagh@gmail.com>, Ducson Nguyen <dnguyen@cityofithaca.org> Hi Seph and Duc, Just want to add my voice to all of those in opposition to the Maguire proposal. It doesn't make sense to me to have a car dealership so close to the Farmer's Market and the Waterfront Trail. Any development should be compatible with what is already there and further support walking and biking for transportation and recreation. Also, since there is an affordable housing deficit in the city, I would prefer to see such a prime city plot used at least partly for housing. Thanks! Lynne My family opposes strongly the plan of Maguire to build 9 acre car dealership right on our beautiful waterfront.  Because we all need a development that works in conjunction with the already existing Farmer's Market and Community Gardens that promote and celebrate more local food production  Because we need to see development that is in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan  We want more walkable, and bikeable development that improves our city, not more parking lots  We want to see more sustainable development that does not encourage more fossil fuel use  Because this proposal will generate a tiny fraction of of the tax revenue that would be possible with any other number of possible uses (for two reasons: 1) car sales tax revenue goes to the community where the buyer lives, and car dealerships have large catchment areas; and 2) property tax revenue for car dealerships is extremely low, with little in terms of built structures, and suppressed land values)  We want to improve our city's connection to it's waterfront, not make it a less desirable place to be  Car dealerships promote auto-oriented devleopment, like fast food, and inhibit walkable development – leading to more S. Meadow Street style development  We don't want to see the traffic nightmare that would be Saturdays. According to Phil Maguire, Saturday is the busiest day for auto sales and test drives. This would be on top of the already insane levels of traffic at 3rd street from those who drive to the farmer's market. Grace Horowitz (grace@takomavillage.org) Dear members of the Planning and Economic Development Committee, I am writing in opposition to the proposed Maguire dealership development on Route 13 near Third Street. My home is at 111 Monroe Street in the Northside. There are two main reasons why I oppose this development. First, it will increase the number of high-speed vehicles driving through both Northside and Fall Creek. I understand that the Maguire development designers believe that adding entrances to the property via Cascadilla Street and by extending Fifth Street across Route 13 will alleviate the traffic problems on Route 13, but it seems that those access points will only exacerbate the speeding problem we already have on Cascadilla and Hancock Streets. Both of those streets are highly trafficked through-streets with minimal stops. Those of us who live in Northside have witnessed vehicles driving at much higher speeds than is legal on those streets. It is the rare motorist that respects pedestrians; these streets are already dangerous. Because the traffic can be heavy on Route 13, and because many motorists lose their patience when they climb behind the wheel, Dey Street, Third Street, Hancock Street and Cascadilla Street are all misguidedly used as 'short cuts.' Even the smaller side streets are used to avoid the stops on Route 13. This problem will only be worse when the Route 13 traffic and start-and-stop increase because of this project. Fifth Street is a high density residential area that includes the Northside IHA community. Altering this street from a low traffic street to a highway entrance is not a solution to any problem. I am not opposed to a stop light at Fifth Street, nor an entrance to the Carpenter Business Park from the southbound lanes of Route 13; however, if an entrance on the southbound side of 13 is built, Fifth Street on the Northside side of Route 13 should not be made a through street. Perhaps a walkway/bikeway could be provided from the Northside side of Fifth Street if the Carpenter Park entrance is built. A second, and even greater objection, to this project is its effect on all of Ithaca. The new Waterfront is no place for a multi-acred parking lot; we do not want our Waterfront to look like Route 13 south of Fulton. This project is a misuse of the limited land we have available in our city. The beautiful Waterfront Trail has been such a joy to both residents and visitors; the Maguire project is the antithesis of the use, benefits and promise of the trail and of the Waterfront we envision. A multiuse, part residential, part locally owned business neighborhood is the ideal for open space in that area. Although the Community Gardens and the Farmers Market administrations support the project, I believe they are only considering their own short term needs rather than what is best long term for the whole community and city. I am sure that creative thinking can solve the parking and location problems that concern these two organizations at the moment. Perhaps a community committee can be established to begin working on their needs. My daughter spent many of her days off this summer on day trips to other small cities in the Finger Lakes. She told me that she found a sincere lake pride in all those places, a pride that she finds missing in Ithaca. Cayuga Lake is one of the loveliest spots in NY, yet I've actually talked to visitors who said "I didn't realize I could get to the lake from here." Our Waterfront Trail is a challenge to that, a way that the average person, the one without a lake house or a boat or membership at a yacht club, can enjoy the exquisite natural beauty of Cayuga Lake and its headwaters. The Maguire dealership would be an enormous step backward after such a blossoming of our Waterfront pride. Please do not allow the Maguire project to progress. Once a 600 car parking lot is constructed in this location, the Waterfront District becomes another big concrete sprawl. Linda Holzbaur 111 Monroe Street Ithaca From: Jonathan Greene Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 6:22 PM To: Common Council Cc: JoAnn Cornish; Svante Myrick Subject: Maguire Project All, Let me first say that I appreciate all points of view in this discussion. I have no specific stake in the outcome of this project, as I am not affiliated with, nor a customer of Maguire. I do work at Cornell and, as many of you know, have been a member of the Board of Public Works for the past two years. At a 50,000 foot level, I support fairness and a level playing field. Full stop! It is true, there are multiple ways the property in question could be modified and redeveloped on its own, or as a part of surrounding parcels. But simply stated, the parcel was on the market, Maguire purchased it, and they are proposing a redevelopment project that is consistent with the zoning. Would I prefer a "less commercial" use of the property? Maybe, but I don't think it is fair for our elected officials, staff, and the electorate to retroactively make such an assertion after the purchase. During several Board of Public Works meetings I have heard Mayor Myrick state that it is unfair for the city to legislate on a block by block basis. While there can be exceptions to this rule, I do believe such a statement holds true in this particular situation. Is this project a lost redevelopment opportunity, maybe. But I do believe there are positives outcomes that can arise from the project: 1. Increase our tax base which we obviously need in Ithaca. 2. Opportunity to incorporate improvements to public infrastructure in and around the parcel paid by the project 3. The growth of a local business that employs people here in Ithaca and the surrounding area I would therefore suggest that the electorate, council, and staff shift the discussion to one that contemplates how can the city benefit from the proposed redevelopment of the parcel. Let's focus on mitigations to address traffic flow, landscaping that softens visual impacts, appropriate site lighting that avoids visual pollution, bike path/side walk connections, and other infrastructure enhancements that this redevelopment project might support. And if Council so chooses, they should direct staff to identify and address similar opportunities in the city proactively, seeking out financial and regulatory mechanisms required to avoid this situation in the future. I for one would like to see the city tackle the issue of vacant buildings in core locations throughout downtown with carrot/stick incentives for property owners. Respectfully, Jon Greene Member of the BPW 213 Mitchell Street Dear Ms. Cornish, Ms. Nicholas and Mr. Myrick, I am emailing to express my strong opposition to the planned construction of a Maguire Dealership at Carpenter park, because we in the community would rather see a development that works in conjunction with the already existing Farmer's Market and Community Gardens that promote and celebrate more local food production. We need to see development that is in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. We want more walkable, and bikeable development that improves our city, not more parking lot. We want sustainable development that does not encourage more fossil fuel use. Because this proposal will generate a tiny fraction of the tax revenue that would be possible with any other number of possible uses (for two reasons: 1) car sales tax revenue goes to the community where the buyer lives, and car dealerships have large catchment areas; and 2) property tax revenue for car dealerships is extremely low, with little in terms of built structures, and suppressed land values). We want to improve our city's connection to it's waterfront, not make it a less desirable place to be. I hope that you will listen to and accommodate the community's concerns with this development. Best, Jael Goldfine -- Jael Goldfine jog8@cornell.edu (814) 404-2023 American Studies|Cornell University '17 From: Lydia Froncek Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 5:45 PM To: Common Council Subject: Protect our communities and future Dear City Council, Today I learned about the plan to build a Maguire Dealership in our community garden space. I have grown up in Ithaca and take pride in our community as leaders of an environmental movement away from fossil fuel dependence and towards a local economy. It is wrong to put the wishes of a greedy few above the values of the people of Ithaca. We should be setting an example for cities around the country to find alternative methods of transportation and utilizing the waterfront trail is one way I have been able to get around without a car. Please end this nonsense and say no to Maguire development for the good of our city and the future of our environment. Thank you, Lydia Dear JoAnn, Lisa, and Mayor Myrick, I am writing to ask you not to approve the Maguire Dealership proposal near the waterfront. So much effort was expended to create the City's Comprehensive Plan; why do something completely out of line with it? Why put so much energy into developing the Waterfront Trail through there, only to put a 9-acre eyesore along it? That area is a huge draw for tourists and locals alike, though there is room for improvement. A proposal that ties in walk- and bike-ability with the existing food and agriculture theme already present there--Community Gardens, Farmers Market, and across Rte 13, the Piggery and adjacent pizza/wine markets--would be much more appropriate. If tax revenue is the driver here, this proposal will only generate a tiny fraction of of the tax revenue that would be possible with any number of other uses. Please consider other options more in line with our town's reputation for sustainability. Please keep the S. Meadow Big Box Store development contained to that part of town. Don't extend it with a huge paved lot full of parked cars next to the Farmers Market. If we want to continue Ithaca's reputation as a progressive and beautiful city, a car dealership is simply not an appropriate use for that area. Respectfully, Erica Frenay Hello, I am writing to voice my concern over the proposed creation of the Maguire dealership along Rte. 13 near the Farmer's Market. It is my opinion that this would detract from the current space. While I am not opposed to, and am actually a proponent of, development in this area, I don't feel this is the best use of this space. When I visit other Finger Lakes communities and see how they have utilized their space, I continue to hope for better development of ours. I can't imagine any scenario where a car dealership would enhance the missions and visions of our community, nor further the goals of the comprehensive plan for the city. I urge you to deny this development and continue to seek out new and better ways to develop this prime real estate. It is my opinion that what goes into this space will dramatically impact our city, and that a car dealership would have lasting negative impacts. While I have no analytical data to support this belief, I can say that anecdotally it will increase car traffic (a given), detract from the image of our community as one committed to truly local business (nothing locally produced for car dealerships), and negatively impact the beauty of this and the surrounding spaces. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Brandon Fortenberry Hello, This email is in strong opposition to any proposed car dealership on the land next to the Farmers’ Market. I’m opposed to a 1 acre dealership, 9 acre, and everything in between. I’m not even against Maguire, I would have the same opposition to any car dealership that desires the same spot. This isn’t an email saying I don’t want change, in fact I’m all for revisiting how our space is used and making the most of our land. But a car dealership is literally one of the last things we need on route 13, especially at that location. If we’re a progressive town, one that prides itself on walkability, public transit, even a successful carsharing network, approving the proposed Maguire dealership would feel like a slap in our collective faces. It doesn’t matter to me that it is near the Farmers’ Market (and I love the market). It’s the use of the land that is the issue. Every week I see a news story, opinion, editorial, whatever, about Ithaca’s housing crisis. I would much rather see some of this land devoted to a mixed-use building similarly to what people proposed for Trebloc, just a smaller scale, and with fewer students. I say this as former Ithaca College student, current Ithaca College employee, and father of an 11 year old who wants to stay in Ithaca. I’m not asking to preserve this space, although I think keeping the community gardens would be wonderful. But we can do better than yet another car dealership. Housing makes sense (it doesn’t have to be 100% low income, I’d pay decent money to live in that location!). It would be a sad day for our wonderful city to see such a promising location ruined by greed. Thank you, Tyler Finck (Ithacan transplant via Maine, since 2000) Dear Ms. Cornish, Ms. Nicholas, and Mayor Myrick, Maguire is a major employer in our area, and a good employer, with sustainable initiatives. And they want to expand. Ok, expand. But not at the foot of the lake, next to the farmer's market, community gardens, waterfront trail, etc. Not more pavement by the lake and an area of community resources. That area should have something community oriented, community building, community serving. To me a car dealership and 9 acres of pavement at that location is not congruent with what Ithaca stands for. Thanks for considering, Sherri Ellis 91 Nelson Road Ithaca Hi friends, Just a few comments on the Maguire project. And good luck debating & deciding tonight. I don't like this Maguire proposal much, for all the reasons many people have shared, especially on the neighborhood lists I see (West & South Hill, mostly). Given what I'm aware of now, I don't think Council should approve it. If it were to gain us a lot of local sales tax, that would make a little difference, but it's not. There might be a little sales tax (etc) from people buying cars who then either spend money nearby or get repairs done later, but that's not anywhere near enough to balance the significant land use and traffic timing problems the project will most likely create (without much likelihood of any resolution in the future). I can see there are some caveats they're providing, which are nice, but really don't address the larger concerns. I don't like pavement where it doesn't belong, but I don't think it would be much of a loss for the dealership to move out of the city, honestly. I am curious to know if there are mitigating reasons for your support of the project. Thanks for doing what you're doing. Again, good luck, and I wish you all a lovely fall. Jennifer Jennifer Dotson 607-351-5458 I write to object to the proposed Maguire dealership. I am a resident of the Town of Ithaca, not the City, but Ithaca is my home. Part of its appeal is its commitment to imaginative, forward-thinking development that preserves its character as a choice destination, an educational center, and a vibrant, people-centered town on a beautiful lake. In such a community there is inevitably a need for car dealerships and Maguire has been a part of our community for a long time. This proposal seems out of synch with their role in the community, though. They already occupy many acres filled with sterile buildings and row after row of automobiles and trucks. They have enough. No matter what they say they are doing to accommodate the Farmer’s Market and Community Gardens, their desire for even more than they have already is out of step with the community as a whole. So far as I can see, they are not being good citizens and it is time to set limits. Thank you. I appreciate all you do. Susan Dixon 112 Terraceview Drive, Ithaca Hello, I’m writing to express my disappointment that may be plans in the works to allow Maguire to develop a 9 acre car dealership (i.e. parking lot) on Rt 13 near the Ithaca Farmers Market. That area of Ithaca deserves something much more productive! Don’t we have enough car dealerships on Rt 13 in Ithaca already?? Rt 13 is a major passageway through the City for traffic passing through town. It seems this would be an opportunity to develop something much more people friendly for the town/city/county residents and for tourism, especially with the lake and inlet so close by, rather than more blacktop and yet MORE (parked) cars! I say NO to the proposed 9-acre Maguire dealership on Rt 13. Thank you for your time, Genevieve DeClerck Freeville, NY Date: September 28, 2016 Dear Mayor Myrick and members of the City of Ithaca Common Council: I am writing to express my opposition to Maguire car dealership’s proposed development in the waterfront area and to urge the City to uphold the vision for the waterfront described in the new Comprehensive Plan. I absolutely love using the waterfront trail several times a week for walking and biking. The Comprehensive Plan says the Waterfront Area “will consist of mixed-use development including commercial and housing, with an emphasis on uses that create an active waterfront environment. There will be a focus on the preservation and enhancement of water-related uses. New development should protect view sheds and allow public access to the waterfront. Pedestrian and bicycle connections should be improved, particularly to adjacent mixed-use areas. Developable space in the waterfront area is at a premium, and reducing the impacts of parking in new development should be carefully considered.” Maguire’s proposed development is the antithesis of this vision. While I appreciate that Maguire has tried to spruce up their proposal by adding a café and extra landscaping and sidewalks, there is no getting around the fact that ultimately this proposal is for an eight-acre new-car parking lot. The waterfront is a unique and special area with so much potential for revitalization; the recently completed waterfront trail is just the start. Surely, there are better ways to use this property that genuinely support the vision for mixed-use and an active waterfront environment. The Farmers’ Market and the Community Gardens continue to greatly contribute to the appeal and beauty of this vital area. I urge Common Council to reject Maguire’s proposal and to stand behind the Comprehensive Plan that the community supported. Make the waterfront great again. Don’t pave this potential paradise to put up a new-car parking lot. Sincerely, Joan Cappione (signature) I am a City of Ithaca resident Print name: Joan Cappione I own a business in City of Ithaca Business name and location: Street Address: 102 Park Street Comfortable Relaxing Downtown Suite 102 Park Street Ithaca, NY City: Ithaca, NY I own property in the City of Ithaca Location: 102 Park Street Ithaca, NY I shop, eat out or visit the City of Ithaca MAIL COMPLETED LETTER BY SEPTEMBER 30th to: Common Council or email to: council@cityofithaca.org 108 E. Green St., City Hall Ithaca, NY 14850 From: Cheryl Capozzi Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 12:17 PM To: Joseph Murtagh Subject: RE: Carpenter Business Project Mr. Murtagh, I’m writing today to let you know that I did follow your suggestion and attended last night’s meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee with regard to the Maguire Carpenter Business Park Project. I just wanted to say how disappointed and dismayed I was to realize that anything that was said or done throughout the meeting really had no bearing as it was very evident that your decisions have been made. I also wanted to address your comments regarding the Maguire employee speakers – perhaps you viewed their comments as loyalty to their company, but please be aware that the Maguire employees are the exact people who know what good neighbors the Maguire Family of Dealerships would be to all the residents of the area under consideration. I understand that you have a vision of the idyllic use of the property but it actually is not based in reality. In a perfect world there would be no traffic and we could all stroll through beautiful landscapes and shop in quaint stores. The reality is that Route 13 traffic will not go away, the railroad tracks will remain, the power lines will be overhead and while the entryway to Ithaca may very well not be known for auto dealerships, it will be known for an eyesore that in all actuality will remain for many, many more years to come. The City of Ithaca has the opportunity to change the landscape of an otherwise dreary, and unsuccessfully developed, part of town and can be secure in the fact that the property, while still having vehicles parked there, will be surrounded by the idyllic beautiful landscape, will be thoughtfully and respectfully built and maintained, and will be everything you mentioned in your vision of Ithaca – and all built by a local family business. I realize the public comment portion of this project is over, but I wanted you to know my feelings after having attended your meeting. Respectfully yours, Cheryl Capozzi From: Gina Campbell Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 9:43 PM To: George McGonigal Subject: Maguire at Carpenter Park Hi George, I know you've heard from me before on this subject, but I want you to know my feelings are still very strongly against Maguire building a car dealership at Carpenter Park. As far as I understand it, the development plan calls for development having to do with food or comestibles. A dealership is not food related. A car dealership, with its busiest day on Saturday, would be a disaster for the already bad Saturday traffic jam related to the Farmer's Market. As a gardener at the Community Garden Plots/Project Growing Hope, I am against having any car dealership anywhere near soil being used for food production. My concern is with run-off from the many chemicals used at the service part of a dealership. I am against the acres of blacktop a dealership requires and the environmental consequences so close to the waterfront of the rapid run-off after heavy rainfalls. And finally, I'm horrified that Route 13 at that end of town should be turned into a strip as bad a it is on my end of town. Wishing you well and trusting you'll fight the Maguire Proposal. Thanks, Gina - Gina Campbell, LCSW EMDRIA Certified Therapist From: Krys Cail [krys.cail@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 6:10 PM To: Common Council; Deborah Grunder Cc: c4sed@googlegroups.com Subject: Please let us do something better than a car lot on the Waterfront! Hi. I was very encouraged when, what seems like just a few months ago when the Waterfront Trail was completed, I heard the Mayor say something about how in just a few years, Ithaca would be known as "that great city on the water." For as long as I have lived just West of the City of Ithaca in the countryside (and that is a long time!), the waterfront has been an underutilized resource. With the finishing of the trail, and the final, long-overdue finishing of the Comprehenisve Plan, I had high hopes that, soon, Ithaca would work with our talented local businesspeople, developers and building tradespeople to add a wonderful new neighborhood to the mix. As Treasurer of GreenStar, I was especially interested in the development of the trail and the areas along it, especially those parts between the land the cooperative owns and the Farmers Market. I was absolutely devastated to learn of Maguire's attempt to sneak in under the wire and put an entirely inappropriate development in place before the city had the chance to update the zoning in congruence with what we all, city dwellers and businesspeople alike, had agreed was the way we wanted to develop our waterfront. What an enormous affront to those of us who patiently and respectfully waited to propose anything until the process had completed and the new zoning was in place. So much for respecting community wishes! please don't let this happen, and show us that the comp plan process was not worth participating in. The Maguire plan is not just an affront to our community visioning process, though. It is also a way to turn what could be a major sales and real estate tax role boost into almost NO additional tax revenue. Automobile sales taxes do not accrue to the municipality in which the sale takes place, unlike, say, the prepared foods or housewares sold at GreenStar. Or, any other retail shop. And, there is little that uses up so much acreage with so little real property tax than a car lot, which is mostly, well, an unimproved parking lot. It would be hard to find a development plan that would take up as much space with offering as little in return to the tax coffers as this plan. Then, the part of me that is fascinated by how communities can spark economic development through synergies-- the part that studied community economic development at Cornell-- is astounded by how anyone could fail to see the wasted potential. We have one of the finest Farmers Markets in the country, connected by a waterfront trail to a redeveloping West End. We need housing desperately, and we need a place for mixed-use development that would create attractive neighborhood amenities. And, here, right along the water, is land ripe for both development and redevelopment. To top it off, there is NYS investment in a nearby microgrid project that might be able to provide a clean energy link. In a city where people really want to live. Stuff economic development professionals usually only dream about...... Please let us do something better than a car lot on the Waterfront! Hi. I was very encouraged when, what seems like just a few months ago when the Waterfront Trail was completed, I heard the Mayor say something about how in just a few years, Ithaca would be known as "that great city on the water." For as long as I have lived just West of the City of Ithaca in the countryside (and that is a long time!), the waterfront has been an underutilized resource. With the finishing of the trail, and the final, long-overdue finishing of the Comprehenisve Plan, I had high hopes that, soon, Ithaca would work with our talented local businesspeople, developers and building tradespeople to add a wonderful new neighborhood to the mix. As Treasurer of GreenStar, I was especially interested in the development of the trail and the areas along it, especially those parts between the land the cooperative owns and the Farmers Market. I was absolutely devastated to learn of Maguire's attempt to sneak in under the wire and put an entirely inappropriate development in place before the city had the chance to update the zoning in congruence with what we all, city dwellers and businesspeople alike, had agreed was the way we wanted to develop our waterfront. What an enormous affront to those of us who patiently and respectfully waited to propose anything until the process had completed and the new zoning was in place. So much for respecting community wishes! please don't let this happen, and show us that the comp plan process was not worth participating in. The Maguire plan is not just an affront to our community visioning process, though. It is also a way to turn what could be a major sales and real estate tax role boost into almost NO additional tax revenue. Automobile sales taxes do not accrue to the municipality in which the sale takes place, unlike, say, the prepared foods or housewares sold at GreenStar. Or, any other retail shop. And, there is little that uses up so much acreage with so little real property tax than a car lot, which is mostly, well, an unimproved parking lot. It would be hard to find a development plan that would take up as much space with offering as little in return to the tax coffers as this plan. Then, the part of me that is fascinated by how communities can spark economic development through synergies-- the part that studied community economic development at Cornell-- is astounded by how anyone could fail to see the wasted potential. We have one of the finest Farmers Markets in the country, connected by a waterfront trail to a redeveloping West End. We need housing desperately, and we need a place for mixed-use development that would create attractive neighborhood amenities. And, here, right along the water, is land ripe for both development and redevelopment. To top it off, there is NYS investment in a nearby microgrid project that might be able to provide a clean energy link. In a city where people really want to live. Stuff economic development professionals usually only dream about...... Please, please, please tell me that you will not turn your back on all this promise and clone everybody's least favorite part of town, the "miracle mile," leaving gaping holes in that neighborhood, and obliterating all the possibilities on the waterfront near Farmers Market. Don't make the mistake of turning what could be a whole new mixed-use neighborhood on the water into Drivers Village in Syracuse. Please. Krys Cail 3110 DuBois Rd. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 342-5679 email: KLC32@Cornell.edu, Krys.Cail@gmail.com From: Sahara E. Byrne Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 1:10 PM To: Common Council Subject: Maguire Hello, My name is Sahara Byrne an Ithaca resident and I have followed the plan because I am a fan of Maguire as a local business. This is the wrong plan. This area of our town needs improvement and this would make it worse. No to the Maguire plan ASAP so that the owners of this important and healthy business can make other plans. Sahara Byrne Sent from my iPhone October 5, 2016 Dear Common Council, I’d like to weigh in now on the proposed use of the land in and near the community gardens. I do not think paving over the land for another car dealership is in any way a good use of this lovely property. Ithaca is a community that is trying to move towards a more pedestrian and bike friendly environment. We’re trying to decrease sprawl [do we really want another area like the south of our city?], increase low cost housing, make the city more walkable, and reduce our carbon footprint. A car dealership does none of the things we want. Please consider other alternatives as low cost [but well designed] housing with small businesses and stores. Thank you for considering other options. Margot Brinn 600 Hector St Ithaca Dear Lisa and Seph: I am writing because I do not support the Maguire project at its proposed location near the waterfront. I'll keep it succinct, but the Enterprise future land use designation does not imply parking lots by necessity; there are plenty of walkable innovation districts elsewhere which Ithaca can look to as examples. Tangentially, I want to see Ithaca collaborating with NYSDOT to turn Route 13 into a real boulevard rather than a funnel for through-traffic. I think the best indicator of what the City of Ithaca will be losing is represented in the calculations which Randall+West produced of municipal property tax revenue per square foot (about 41 pages into the attachments for the Planning and Development Board meeting agenda). Maguire's development, if comparable properties are any indicator, will generate only about $15 per square foot at best, when alternative development options will create more desirable and far more valuable spaces not just for people to visit, but for the city's budgets as well. Thank you, Patrick Braga B.S. Urban and Regional Studies B.A. Economics and Music Cornell University 2017 Dear Mayor Myrick and Planning Committee members of the City of Ithaca, I have written to Lisa Nicholas already voicing my strong opposition to the Maguire plan, but I want to make sure that our opposition to this plan is heard clearly. As a Fall Creek and City of Ithaca resident, mother of 3 children, active weekly user of the Ithaca Farmers’ Market, professor of food systems and passionate gardener, I would like to indicate my strong opposition to the plans proposed by Maguire to put a car dealership on Rt. 13 next to the farmers’ market and community gardens. I think that as a city that has committed in the comprehensive plan to let the community to decide how to develop the area, this is the opposite of what honors this important commitment. The farmers’ market and community gardens are important social, economic and environmental places in Ithaca which support the production and sale of local, sustainably produced food. My family and I walk or bike to the Farmers’ Market every week, and it is not only an important way for us to source food, a social time for me and my family, as well as a key way that we support the local and regional economy, it is something that we are deeply proud of when we host visitors in Ithaca. Many visitors are greatly impressed by the Farmers Marke, making it an important source of tourism for the City. Putting a car dealership right next to the market and the community garden will not only increase the traffic problems for the northside of the city, and for Rt. 13, but will make parking problems at the farmers’ market even worse than they are already, making it a less attractive food option for residents and visitors. In addition the dealership will increase pollution and promote more private auto dependence in a city that is allegedly committed to promoting walking, biking and public transit over car use. The new car dealership will not generate as much tax revenue as many other possible uses, and will eliminate the potential to develop this area of the city into other, more productive, sustainable and attractive options for local businesses. Instead, it will support a strip mall, big box development pattern within the city - again going totally against the city’s commitments and the interests and will of local community members. I hope that you as the city leadership will take the lead in preventing this plan by McGuire, and in doing so show your vision for a healthy, economically thriving and sustainable city that we all want Ithaca to be!!! Sincerely, Rachel Bezner Kerr Dear JoAnn Cornish, Lisa Nicholas, and Mayor Svante Myrick, I am very concerned about the possibility of approving a nine acre parcel of land to be used for a car dealership in Ithaca. Please do not support this proposal. I am a big supporter of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and can’t imagine why this is even being considered. The dealership should select another location for their business. We should have the option of expanding the Community Gardens and the Farmer’s Market area when more resources are available in the future, and the city should secure as much waterfront area as possible for public use. A car dealership does not compliment the already existing Farmer's Market and Community Gardens, and not only will it cause worse traffic problems on Saturdays, but it will be a real eyesore! More importantly, I support local food production that builds communities and the preservation of the waterfront area for walking trails and bike paths. Best regards, Lynn Lynn M Bertoia Program Coordinator Library Administration 234 Olin Library Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 (607) 255-4813 lmb20@cornell.edu Dear Council Members, I am a resident of Fall Creek and a consultant on sustainable and impact investing working with clients locally and nationally. I urge that the Council reject the proposed Maguire dealership, follow the new comprehensive plan and ensure that Ithaca maximize the use of our important resources. Following the plan offers the potential for Ithaca to continue to become more of a leader in sustainable development for all of its residents. Allowing the Maguire dealership to be built ensures that Ithaca's waterfront and Farmer's Market, some of our most valuable resources, will be cut off for years to come from the West End and the rest of the town. A more thoughtful development strategy would be mixed use and connect the Farmer's Market, the new Waterfront Trail, and the waterfront itself to the rest of the city as much as possible. It would also provide more tax dollars than a car lot, and done properly can also help to address issues of housing and employment. Please ensure that the Maguire project does not go forward and that any project on the site helps to make Ithaca more livable, equitable, and sustainable for the years to come. Thank you, Dan Apfel 527 Linn Street Ithaca, NY 14850 "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." M E M O R A N D U M To: Planning & Economic Development Committee From: Office of the City Attorney Date: October 6, 2016 Subject: Ordinance to amend the Zoning and Housing Standards Code definitions of “Mezzanine” and “Story” ________________________________________________________________________ Staff have identified ambiguities and inconsistencies between the City’s Zoning and Housing Standards Code regarding the terms “mezzanine” and “story” and have asked this office to address the issue. Below are the issues and proposed code changes. First, Section 325-3 of the Zoning Code, which sets forth “definitions and word usage,” contains no definition for the word “mezzanine,” despite its inclusion in Section 210-5, “definitions,” of the Housing Standards Code. The proposed ordinance defines mezzanine in the Zoning Code in a manner consistent with the recently updated New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and amends the existing Housing Standards definition of mezzanine to match. Second, the definition of “story” in the Zoning Code conflicts with the word’s definition in the Housing Standards Code. The Housing Standards Code provides a mezzanine shall not be deemed a story, while the Zoning Code dictates a mezzanine that exceeds “1/3 of the area of the floor immediately below” shall be deemed a story. The proposed ordinance would remove the conflicting portion of the Zoning Code definition and replace it with language indicating a mezzanine is not a story. With this memorandum, please find the proposed ordinance, which: (i) adds a “mezzanine” definition to the Zoning Code; (ii) amends the Housing Standards Code definition of “mezzanine” to match; and (iii) amends the Zoning Code definition of “story” that conflicts with the Housing Standards Code. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Aaron O. Lavine, City Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504 Robert A. Sarachan, Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507 Krin Flaherty, Assistant City Attorney Kevin Levine, Assistant City Attorney Jody Andrew, Executive Assistant 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___-2016 An Ordinance Amending Chapters 325 – “Zoning” – and 210 – “Housing Standards” – of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code to Add a Zoning Definition for “Mezzanine,” Amend the Housing Standards Definition of “Mezzanine,” and Amend the Zoning Definition of “Story.” WHEREAS, Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, full title “City of Ithaca, New York, Zoning Ordinance,” in Section 325-3 of that Chapter, sets forth “Definitions and word usage” for certain words and terms used throughout the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, Chapter 210 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, “Housing Standards,” in Section 210-5 of that Chapter, sets forth “Definitions” for certain words and terms used throughout the Housing Standards; and WHEREAS, the Common Council, to eliminate any ambiguity or inconsistency in its Municipal Code that may result from current Sections 325-3 and 210-5, wishes to (i) add a definition for the word “Mezzanine” to Section 325-3 consistent with the definition in Section 210-5, (ii) amend the definition of “Mezzanine” in Section 210-5 to be consistent with Section 325-3 and the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, and (iii) amend the Section 325-3 definition of “Story” to remove its above-described sentence regarding “Mezzanine” that conflicts with the definition of “Story” in Section 210-5; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that: 1. Staff have identified the following ambiguities and inconsistencies in the definitions sections of the City’s Zoning and Housing Standards codes in regarding the words “mezzanine” and “story.” 2. Section 325-3 does not define the word “Mezzanine.” 3. Section 210-5 of Chapter 210 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, “Housing Standards,” defines the word “Mezzanine” as “An intermediate level between the floor and ceiling of any space that is completely open or provides adequate visibility to the level below as defined in the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.” 4. The definition of the word “Story” in Section 325-3 provides, in part, “If a mezzanine floor area exceeds 1/3 of the area of the floor immediately below, it shall be deemed to be a story.” 5. The definition of the word “Story” in Section 210-5 provides, in part, that “[a] mezzanine as defined in the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code” shall not be deemed a story. Section 2. Creation of a Zoning Definition for “Mezzanine.” The “Definitions and word usage” Section 325-3 of the Municipal Zoning Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to add a definition of “Mezzanine,” in alphabetical order, and to read as follows: 2 MEZZANINE An intermediate level or levels between the floor and ceiling of any space as defined in the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. Section 3. Amendment of the Housing Standards Definition of “Mezzanine.” The “Definitions” Section 210-5 of the Municipal Housing Standards Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows: MEZZANINE An intermediate level or levels between the floor and ceiling of any space that is completely open or provides adequate visibility to the level below as defined in the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. Section 4. Amendment of the Zoning Definition of “Story.” The word “Story” in “Definitions and word usage” Section 325-3 of the Municipal Zoning Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows: STORY The portion of a building which is between one floor level and the next higher floor level or the roof. If a mezzanine floor area exceeds 1/3 of the area of the floor immediately below, it shall be deemed to be a story. A mezzanine as defined in the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code is not a story. A basement shall be deemed to be a story when its ceiling is six or more feet above the finished grade. A cellar shall not be deemed a story. An attic shall not be deemed to be a story if unfinished and without human occupancy. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect in accordance with law, and upon publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Resolution Urging United States Congress to pass Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation Whereas climate scientists worldwide are in near-unanimous agreement that the planet Earth is warming rapidly and to a degree that is perilous to human civilization, to numerous species, and to the global ecosystem, Whereas human activity is a significant contributor to global warming, especially through the accelerating combustion of fossil fuels that create carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as a byproduct; and Whereas the City of Ithaca Common Council has a record of acknowledging the reality of climate change as well as the city’s responsibility to reduce its contribution to the causes of global warming, as evidenced by the City of Ithaca’s Energy Action Plan and Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas a prompt and major shift away from fossil fuels is a necessary cornerstone to any meaningful response to global warming, and; Whereas a steadily increasing fee on fossil fuels at the point of their entry into the economy would be straightforward and make effective use of free-market mechanisms to promote the transition to greater energy conservation and renewable sources of energy, and Whereas this revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend is an effective method to reduce carbon emissions for the following reasons: 1) The fee would motivate everyone to conserve and adopt renewable energy without the need for extensive governmental regulatory controls or infrastructure, encouraging consumers and the market to replace consumption of carbon-based energy with innovative, sustainable energy sources, whether by being more efficient or choosing other, less carbon intensive energy sources; and 2) The fee would employ a market approach to encourage innovative processes, not only in energy production, but also in every field in which energy is consumed, e.g. electric cars, mass transportation, architectural planning and construction, water heating, lighting, and air conditioning in residential and commercial buildings; 3) Levying the fee at the point of production would be more efficient, less expensive and provide more accurate signals than would doing so at the point of consumption; 4) The fee would incentivize the development and use of alternative energies and attendant technologies, eliminating the need for government subsidies that attempt to forecast alternative energy winners and losers; 5) Because the fee is levied on the same basis on all businesses, it is fairer to every business and easier to administer than alternatives, such as a cap and trade system; 6) A border adjustment would assess a fee on goods traded with countries without a comparable carbon price, thereby maintain the competiveness of US businesses and discourage relocation to such countries; and Whereas such a policy would protect lower and middle-income households, as the dividend would allow more than 70% of American households to benefit financially, break even, or have only minimal increased costs from this policy; the policy would also create jobs, as the dividend puts money back into local economies; and Whereas further delay in responding to this crisis increases the risk of catastrophic climate change, imminently threatens low-lying coastal areas and land and sea species, threatens water supplies, increases the frequency of severe weather events, increases the cost of undertaking adequate responses, and increases risks to the global economy; now, therefore be it Resolved that the Ithaca Common Council endorses a carbon fee and dividend and urges our representatives in the United States Congress to enact it into law. CARBON FEE AND DIVIDEND LEGISLATION - FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS From Citizens’ Climate Lobby website http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/ Why is a carbon fee and dividend necessary? This legislation will put us on the path of a sustainable climate by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning us to a clean energy economy. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution we have increased the level of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), in our atmosphere. Scientists warn that this is having a drastic effect on our climate. Changes that would normally take thousands of years are happening in decades. Current concentrations of heat-trapping CO2 are higher than at any time in the entire history of the human spec ies on Earth. In effect, we have covered the Earth with a large blanket of greenhouse gases and the Earth is warming up. The oceans are absorbing this increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, making them more acidic. Eventually, this acidity will affect the oceans’ ability to support life. What is a carbon fee? It is a fee based on the amount of carbon in a fossil fuel. Fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal contain carbon. When burned they release the potent green house gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), into the atmosphere. The fee is based on the tons of carbon dioxide the fuel would generate, and it would be collected at the earliest point of entry into the economy — well, mine or port. The fee would start out low — $15 per ton — and gradually increase $10 each year. What is the difference between a tax and a fee? A tax has the primary purpose of raising revenue. By contrast, a fee recovers the cost of providing a service from a beneficiary. Since the CCL advocates for revenue-neutrality and a policy that doesn’t grow the government, we are advocating for a fee, not a tax. However, for purposes of discussion you will find carbon tax and carbon fee used interchangeably, and referring to the same type of legislation. This is fine, and don’t let it get in the wa y of the discussion. The tax or fee do the same thing, which is to include the damage that carbon is doing to our climate, oceans, and health in the price. How much would the carbon fee affect energy prices? The best example would be gasoline. A $1 per ton increase in the carbon fee would equal about 1 penny on the price of gas. So if the carbon tax started at $15/ton, gasoline would go up by about 15 cents per gallon the first year and 10 cents each year afterward. How does carbon fee and dividend legislation work? Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation puts a fee on the amount of carbon dioxide in fossil fuels. This fee is assessed at the source of the fuel: at the mine, well, or port of entry. The fee starts out low and increases annually in a predictable manner until we reach a safe level of emissions. The fee is collected exclusively at the first point of sale, and 100 percent of the revenues are reimbursed directly to all American households, shielding them from the financial impact of the transition to a clean energy economy. Because the fee (and the price of fossil fuel) goes up predictably over time, it sends a clear price signal to begin using fossil fuels more efficiently or replace them with low emissions energy. That price signal motivates investm ent to move into low emissions technologies, as the true cost of fossil fuels is brought back onto the balance sheets of those who sell them. The rising cost of fossil fuels increases the demand for low emissions products, making them even less expensive as they reach mass production. This clear and easy-to-understand price signal (increasing fossil fuel costs and decreasing green technology costs) drive the transition to a green economy. This transition will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, stabilizing our climate and the health of our oceans. Why a dividend? Academic studies that consider the economic effect of a revenue -neutral carbon tax generally consider a dividend less beneficial (but still very beneficial) than a tax-swap [8]. A tax-swap means using the revenue to reduce any combination of payroll, income, or corporate taxes. However, these studies also say that though these tax-swap policies, especially corporate tax- swaps, result in a marginally larger economy, extra measures would have to be implemented to help the poor, because none of these tax-swaps will help the unemployed; including millions of retirees. Because CCL values simplicity and transparency, because economists say the poor must be taken care of, because the difference in economic efficiency is marginal, and because a dividend will still boost the economy when health and climate benefits are accounted for, the CCL advocates for the only revenue return mechanism that reaches every American. Reaching everyone is indispensable for the success of any carbon price because when gas is $1.00 per gallon more expensive (year 10 in CCLs policy) [1], the poor will not be able to afford it with any of the tax-swap mechanisms of return, and the bill would be repealed. Only a dividend can simply, transparently, and fairly help everyone afford the price increases, ensuring support of the policy until we have restored the climate, and giving the Main Street economy time to adjust. Won’t it be expensive to impose the fee? No, for the two reasons listed below: 1) The administrative & enforcement cost of collecting and processing a carbon fee is proportional to the number of fossil fuel firms that pay the fee. Collecting a carbon fee from a few hundred fee-payers, at a point where the fossil fuels enter the economy, is a relatively simple and low-cost activity. [Calder2015] and [Metcalf2009] suggest that — to keep the number of taxpayers to an absolute minimum — petroleum, coal, and gas fee collection be considered separately. A) There are far fewer petroleum refineries than petroleum well-heads, and the refineries are owned by fewer than 150 petroleum firms. It is these 150 firms that should be required to measure the output at their refineries and pay the fee.
B) The approximately 1,500 U.S. coal mines are owned by between 500 and 800 coal producers. It is these producer firms that should be required to measure the output at their coal mines and pay the fee. There are four grades of coal, each of which has a slightly different carbon content, and therefore requires a different fee.
C) There are over 450,000 natural gas wells in the U.S., but only 500 natural gas processing plants. It is the processors that should be required to measure their output and pay the fee. An additional advantage of collecting fees from processors (and refineries in the case of petroleum) is that the carbon content of processed outputs are easier to measure than unprocessed outputs.
The total count of fee-payers is then between 1200 and 1500, a conveniently small, low-cost number. 2) According to [Calder2015], “… use of existing tax mechanisms is probably the key advantage of upstream taxation”. An ‘excise’ is an existing tax mechanism assessed on a transaction to pay for a particular expense, and is most likely the least cost model for our new upstream carbon fee. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service has for years collected a per-ton excise from coal producers [IRS2005] and deposited the proceeds into the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. The IRS also collects an “environmental excise tax” from petroleum firms for oil spill liability [IRS1993]. The excise procedures used to assess, collect and enforce these taxes could be extended and refined to assess an upstream carbon fee on the 1200-1500 fossil fuel firms described in 1 above. The carbon fee program could then be managed by existing IRS staff with perhaps some incremental hiring. [Calder2015] tells us that a carbon fee could assess, “different rates for different fuel types, [and] possibly credits or refunds for non-combustion uses”. Coal producers and petroleum firms are well-prepared to pay a carbon fee because they already measure their output and pay taxes on their fossil fuel sales. The IRS will have to extend the new carbon fee procedures to natural gas processors, and natural gas processors will have to measure their output (if they don’t already), calculate the carbon content of each output, and then determine their applicable carbon fees. How is this legislation fair to businesses, ut ilities, manufacturers, and farms? By giving all of the carbon tax back to households — the end users — consumers will be able to pay the higher prices of goods and services caused by the higher price of fossil fuels. This allows businesses to pass along the increased cost and keep market share. Each year the carbon tax goes up, the dividend goes up as well. Everyone is on a level playing field for the first few years. But if businesses do not become more energy efficient and start converting to low -emissions energy, they will become less competitive and lose market share. These market forces will drive innovations in low-emissions technology, creating new business opportunities to develop, produce, install and service these products. This will create millions of new jobs here in America. American companies will be able to sell these technologies globally and American companies will become more efficient with the energy they use, making them more competitive worldwide. Why will citizens change to low-cost emissions technologies if they are given a dividend to pay for the increasing cost of fossil fuels? With Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation, it is clear to citizens that prices for fossil fuels will go up every year. Part of their motivation is to save as much of their dividend check as possible rather than spending it on more expensive fossil fuels. They can do this by changing over to energy efficient lighting and appliances, upgrading their insulation or windows, replacing that old oil furnace with a geothermal heat pump, etc. When it comes time to get another vehicle, they would consider one that gets better gas mileage or an all -electric vehicle. They can then buy clean electricity (where available) through their utility to charge their car, getting them off fossil fuels altogether. The motivation is to reduce cost in the years to come. The same is true for investors and for fossil fuel companies: as the fee increases, and the cost of doing business rises with it, the rising dividend will ensure that the true cost of doing business will be paid by those in that business. How will our manufacturers remain competitive? The CCL legislative proposal calls for placing a border adjustment levy on all imports from countries that do not price carbon similarly, giving no company an incentive to move production to a country that allows them to pollute more at lower cost [2]. Because the US consumer economy is so much more valuable than any other in the world, foreign countries that export heavily to the US will likely choose to institute a similar carbon price, to avoid sending huge amounts of capital to the US. Either way, US and foreign manufacturers will lose no ground economically for producing products with a lower carbon footprint. Additionally, the legislative proposal calls for rebating the border adjustment fee to American companies exporting to countries without similar carbon pricing, leveling the playing field for our companies and complying with the World Trade Organization (WTO). Why a border adjustment? Though many other countries have carbon prices in some form, none of these are a match for the physics of the climate, and none employ a border adjustment. Without a border adjustment, both American exporters and foreign importers would find themselves with an incentive to relocate production to countries with a more relaxed regime, polluting more for the same good. This is called “leakage”. In the interests of the climate, it is therefore necessary to refund the carbon fee on goods exported and impose a carbon fee on carbon intensive goods imported. While there are widespread concerns about how such a border adjustment could be compatible with World Trade Organization (WTO) law, these concerns are ill-founded. WTO experts have written documents explaining how this could be achieved, and it is clear that the CCL proposal is consistent with the requirements these experts outline [2]. Why will the adoption of Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation put American in the leadership position on climate change? Because of the carbon fee border adjustments, exporting countries will either adopt similar carbon pricing, or pay at our border. All countries that adopt similar taxes on carbon are on the same level playing field and can make border adjustments with coun tries that do not adopt such taxes. This encourages all countries to place similar taxes on carbon. As more nations adopt carbon taxes, worldwide demand brings the best green technologies to mass market faster, driving down costs and making the transition to a green economy less expensive for everyone. City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, September 14, 2016 – 6:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street Minutes Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Graham Kerslick, Ducson Nguyen, Cynthia Brock, and Josephine Martell Committee Members Absent: None Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic Development; Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA); Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner; Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner; Deborah Grunder, Executive Assistant Others Attending: Phil Maguire and Tom Schickel, Maguire TMPUD Application Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review No changes were made to the agenda. 2) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members No one from the public wished to speak during the public comment. 3) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council) a) Art in Glow Mural Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mural Installation on the Cayuga Waterfront Trail Moved by Alderperson Nguyen; seconded by Alderperson B rock. Carried Unanimously. WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to, among other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the exhibition and display of public art in the City’s public spaces, and WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls within the city, while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to showcase their work, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street art by resolution on May 19, 2010 and added the Cayuga Waterfront Trail to this list on September 12, 2016, and WHEREAS, McKenzie Jones Rounds, on behalf of the Ithaca Festival, has submitted a proposal for Art in Glow, a glow in the dark mural featuring a dandelion and the Festival slogan, to be installed on the surface of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail as part of the PAC’s Mural and Street Art Program, and WHEREAS, after discussing the project with the Ithaca Festival staff, the PAC agreed that the section of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail adjacent to the NYS DOT property would be an appropriate location for the proposed glow in the dark mural, and WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the mural design and location at its meeting on August 24, 2016 to gather input on the proposed installation, and the public responses to the proposal have been mostly positive, and WHEREAS, the mural will be privately funded, and the installation will be budget-neutral to the City, and WHEREAS, while a quorum was not present for this discussion at the August 24th meeting, all PAC members in attendance recommended that the Common Council approve the Ithaca Festival’s 2016 Art in Glow project for installation on the Cayuga Waterfront Trail; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the Ithaca Festival’s 2016 Art in Glow project featuring a dandelion and the Festival slogan to be installed on the portion of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail adjacent to the NYS DOT property and to be added to the City of Ithaca’s public art collection; and be it further RESOLVED, that the selected artist may proceed with the installation of her mural upon the execution of an agreement with the City as reviewed by the City Attorney. b) Fall Creek Block Party, Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund (NIIF) Planning & Economic Development Committee September 14, 2016 RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds for the Fall Creek Neighborhood Block Party, September 2016 Moved by Alderperson Martell; Seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed unanimously. WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents seeking to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community improvement and to encourage, not replace volunteerism, and WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a general neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select few residents, and WHEREAS, activities specified by the Common Council as eligible for the funding include but are not limited to neighborhood clean-ups, plantings in public places, and neighborhood events like block parties or meetings, and WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application specifying other project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be covered by the fund and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Common Council has delegated authority to approve applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for approved activities, and WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and WHEREAS, on behalf of neighborhood residents, Helen Ann Yunis has submitted an application for up to $300 in reimbursement funds to off-set expenses from the Fall Creek neighborhood’s annual block party, and WHEREAS, notice of the block party was circulated throughout the neighborhood via flyers and the neighborhood listserv, and the event provided an opportunity for socializing with diverse groups of residents; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the funding request from Helen Ann Yunis in an amount not to exceed $300 for reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts. c) Restore NY Grant Resolution Proposed Substitute Resolution Planning & Economic Development Committee September 14, 2016 Authorize Restore NY4 Funding Application Moved by Alderperson Nguyen; Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed unanimously. Alderperson Brock asked about the handling of the selection. Not much information was available for review. Nels Bohn stated that the timeline for this project was very tight. Nine (9) projects applied. After review only two (2) moved forward. He further stated that there is a lot of information to review in addition to the projects. The time restraint was an issue. Alderperson Kerslick asked Nels Bohn to explain how the scoring was done and determined since both properties received a very close score. The project selected scored a little bit higher due to the number of housing units to be included. This project also fit more favorably in the neighborhood. More state funding sources were also or will be utilized. All projects will remain on the tax rolls. Chair Murtagh asked about any contamination on the property. He also asked about the Harold Square project. This is a project that’s been in the making for a long time. This project has secured funding from another funding source that took them out of the running. Whereas, the 2015-16 New York State budget enacted the Restore New York’s Communities Initiative (“Restore NY4”) to revitalize urban areas and stabilize neighborhoods and authorized the Empire State Development Corporation (“ESDC”) to implement the $50 million program, and Whereas, on June 20, 2016 ESDC issued a request for proposals to provide municipalities with financial assistance for revitalization of commercial and residential properties, and Whereas, the goals of the Restore NY program are to (1) revitalize urban centers, (2) induce commercial investment, and (3) improve the local housing stock, and Whereas, Restore NY4 funding is available only for projects involving the demolition, deconstruction, rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of vacant, abandoned, condemned or surplus properties, and Whereas, cities with populations under 40,000 are eligible to submit one project, which may contain multiple properties, not to exceed a request for $500,000 in funding, and Whereas, only projects identified in an Intent to Apply form that was due by July 13, 2016 are eligible for possible Restore NY4 funding, and Whereas, on June 30, 2016 the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) issued a call for proposals and received 9 property proposals, and Whereas, the IURA Economic Development Committee (EDC) reviewed proposals against Restore NY4 scoring criteria and for community benefit and recommended the following two competing candidate projects be submitted on the mandatory Intent To Apply form: • State Street Historic Buildings Rehabilitation - rehabilitation of properties located at 129 E. State Street, 121 W. State Street and 310 W. State Street • Seneca/Corn Street Buildings Rehabilitation – rehabilitation of properties located at 109 N. Corn Street and 413-15 W. Seneca Street, and Whereas, on July 21st, 2016, ESDC determined that each of the two candidate projects were eligible for Restore NY4, and Whereas, IURA requested detailed project information from each sponsor by August 31, 2016, and Whereas, on September 13, 2016, the IURA Economic Development Committee recommended selection of the following Restore NY4 application to maximize commun ity benefit and competiveness for funding: (Select one) • State Street Historic Buildings Rehabilitation project or • Seneca/Corn Street Buildings Rehabilitation project, and, Whereas, the Restore NY4 funding application is due by October 2, 2016, and Whereas, applications must include a municipal resolution in support of the application, proof that a public hearing was held on proposed application, and a site control affidavit for projects located on non-municipally owned property, and Whereas, the property owners have agreed to provide the full 10% required local match contribution, so no City match funds are required; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby endorses submission of an application for the Seneca/Corn Street Buildings Rehabilitation project for up to $500,000 in grant funding from the Restore NY4 program, and be it further RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby finds the proposed project is consistent with the City comprehensive plan and Urban Renewal Plan; that the proposed financing is appropriate for the specific project; that the project facilitates effective and efficient use of the existing and future public resources so as to promote both economic development and preservation of community resources; and the project develops and enhances infrastructure and/or facilities in a manner that will attract, create, and sustain employment opportunities where applicable, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Mayor, upon advice from the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to take all actions necessary to submit a Restore NY4 application in accordance with this resolution, including, but not limited to, certification of the application, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to modify the proposal to address any unforeseen feasibility issues that arise that would impact competitiveness of the application, and RESOLVED, that, if awarded, the Mayor, upon advise from the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with ESDC, and any other documents necessary to receive the Restore NY grant, as well as agreements with individual property owners to implement the project, and be it further RESOLVED, the IURA is hereby authorized to administer and implement the City’s Restore NY4 grant award. 4) Special Order of Business a) Public Hearing: Maguire TMPUD Application Prior to the public hearing, the developer provided a summary of the project. It’s a three phase project. Moving the Ford, Lincoln, Nissan to a new loc ation, renovate the existing Ford location and move the Subaru dealership . The current site named Carpenter Business Park has been an unused site for many years due to the issues on the site namely the power lines impede any development as well as the railroad tracks. They have reached out and received feedback from a number of stakeholders. DOT has been in the works. The Farmer’s Market will benefit due to the large population in the area. Walk ability is greater with this project. Solar charging stations will be available to all electric cars in the City. There is a letter of understanding with Project Growing Hope. It offers the Community Gardens many benefits. The design of the car dealership is not your typical car dealership. Its intent is to present a much-needed project that provides solar energy, etc. This project will utilize 100% of all parking available. Alderperson Kerslick moved to open the public hearing; Alderperson Brock seconded it. Rene Garcia, Fifth Street. He moved to Ithaca in 1992 from Guatemala. He lives on Cayuga Street. His concern is the life of our children being able to play without worrying about their safety. Randy Murphy, 312 Fourth Street, appreciates that Maguire is a local family and business and the good that they have done for this area. He referred to a traffic policy that was approved by Council in 2015. This project has all the requirements of this policy. Christopher Trudeau, 130 East Spencer Street, asked Council to vote this project down. It is a low generator of tax revenue. The ‘green’ features suggested don’t make this project ‘green.’ Joel Harlan, Newfield. He has been around for a very long time. People are afraid of change. They are in the twilight zone. We need to improve this commun ity. He is in favor of this project. We just need to do this, and not listen to all the naysayers. David West, 225 Cleveland Avenue. This does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. This will never be walkable or safe to ride a bike. He encourages the City to stop this project. Now. Adam Rogers, 121 Parkside Gardens, a Maguire employee. He states that car dealerships have a bad rap. He hasn’t seen any other dealership willing to do what this dealership is. He is in favor of this project. Fred Wilcox, 212 Second Street, read a collective message from the Northside Community Group that this project is not needed here. Joe David, 222 Elmira Road, owns a business in Ithaca. Over the years, he has seen many plans come and go. If we don’t allow this project, we will regret it. We need to give this family a chance. Please consider it. I think we need it. Lester Sowell, 721 East Shore Drive, Lives in the Town of Ithaca and is originally from Elmira. We are fortunate to live here. Elmira businesses are closing. He moved here for the diversity. He supports it 100% and asks that the City support it as well. Jaekah Chase, Fifth Street, She thanked everyone for being here to hear both sides. She pointed out the number of existing properties in this area – Stewart Park, Farmers Market, etc. People are not interested in going to a deli on Route 13 or charge their electric cars. Common Council should not allow an eight-acre car dealership or an extension of Fifth Street. Daniel Fuson, 213 Second Street, it’s not productive for all of us to be at odds. Things are getting really bad weather wise. We do know that the planet is declining. This is what needs to be focused on. We need to come together as a community. We need to decrease the number of cars we use. Let’s give a much better value on life. Tali Fuson, 213 Second Street, emphasized that this project is a detriment to this community. It will disrupt the neighborhood. The cotton wood trees to be removed doesn’t make sense. She would like to see the gardens stay there, maybe an apple orchard, and possibly a similar site like Press Bay Alley. Diana Ozolius, 722 Cliff Street, opposes the Maguire project. The waterfront area has just been opened up due to the creation of the waterfront trail. She is not opposed to development, but smart development. Andreas Ozolius, 722 Cliff Street, Car dealerships or the empire of car dealerships isn’t what we need. The Farmer’s Market is accessible now because people park on Buffalo Street and walk from there. Judy Swann, 329 Hook Place, stated she gave up driving a car four years ago. We don’t need this project here in Ithaca. Dan Hoffman, 415 Elm Street, spoke on behalf of the Community Gardens. Community Gardens can currently lose their lease with the City at a moment’s notice. The ability for the Community Gardens to stay is a good thing. He stated, in his view, this property isn’t Waterfront property. Roland Conover, 109 Millard Hill Road, Newfield. He is currently an assistant manager of the Hyundai dealership. He has been given the chance to raise and take care of his family. He completely supports this project. James Lukasavage, 417 S. Aurora Street, Due to the topography of Ithaca, the pollution from automobiles settles in the value. He stated the number of chemicals from automobiles is detrimental. Joanne Trutko, 310 Elmwood Avenue, is a customer of Maguire but also a member of Community Gardens. She is disheartened about this project. Andrew Miller, 318 North Plain Street. He grew up in Lansing and now lives in downtown Ithaca. We talk about the traffic issues, but he feels the cars we speak of are those who are leaving Ithaca to go to work because of the lack of jobs in Ithaca. Jasper Adams, a graduate of Ithaca College who studied environmental studies. He came to Maguire with no experience in car dealership. He believes in global warning. With this proposal Maguire is mindful of this. Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, strongly opposes this project. She urges the City to make sure it meets all the current zoning laws. Mayor Myrick joined the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Phoebe Brown, 520 Alice Miller Way, she isn’t mad at Maguire. She doesn’t drive. She would like to see the community come together. Maguire needs to talk to the neighborhoods that are being edged out. She would much rather see a group debate something else. Armin Heurich, 114 Monroe Street. A Northside neighborhood resident. There isn’t’ a single Northside resident here tonight that is in favor of this project. No one from Maguire ever talked to these residents. Danite Fish, 412 Hector Street, she is able to stay in Ithaca and raise her son because of Maguire. She currently works at Maguire and is proud of that fact. Maguire does a lot for the community. Kyle O’Connor, 3218 Wilkens Road, works for Maguire and states they are a reputable employer. He has been able to raise his children, two of which went to Ithaca College. They (Maguire) are here for the long haul. He encourages the City to approve this project. Stephanie Bailey, Third Street, and Angela McEnerney, 131 Hopkins Road appreciate some of the suggestions in this project, but Maguire has other land to develop. Although this may not be right on the waterfront it will have an effect on it. Affordable housing is a much more of a need. Ryan Curtis, 6340 Carmen Road, Trumansburg is proposed to this project on this specific location. Raul Briones, 9398 Iradell Road, works at Maguire and supports this project. Dan Apeel, 527 Linn Street, does not support this project. VJ, is a Farmers Market vendor and feels that this project will help the market with their parking needs. Alderperson Kerslick moved to close the public hearing; Alderperson Brock seconded it. The public hearing was closed. 5) Discussion (with possible action) a) Maguire TMPUD Application Chair Murtagh thanked all that came out to voice their opinion. There has also been an incredible amount of response from the community. He was very impressed with the amount of positive comments from Maguire employees. He further stated that this is not about how Maguire is as an employer, but what is best for this area. Alderperson Kerslick appreciates all the comments tonight and that were sent in. As the way it stands now, he doesn’t think this meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Alderperson Nguyen thanked everyone that came to voice their opinions. He wouldn’t necessarily write off a car dealership in this area, just not one of this size. There is a trend across the country of mixed use development. Alderperson Brock also thanked everyone for their comments. This isn’t a yes or no vote at this time. We have this time to work together to come up with something for this site. She too isn’t opposed to car dealerships. She is very mindful of what car dealerships have in a community. She does think it’s a transition to the Waterfront Zone. It is the acres of parking that is of concern. With any other business, cars would come and go and would not remained parked for the entire duration of the day. The site would remain stagnant. She is willing and interested in working with the property owner that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Alderperson Kerslick stated he isn’t against car dealerships, but this business h as changed over time. Alderperson Brock stated that as long as the petroleum business remains at its current location and in such close proximity of this site, she is not in favor of housing being developed at this site. Alderperson McGonigal reminded his colleagues that there are only three industrial zones in Ithaca. This site is suited more for this use than housing. He stated that this site is also in close proximity to one of the busiest highways in the county. What he would like to see is more conversation of porous material being used. Alderperson Nguyen stated he’s not opposed to an industrial use of this site, but would much rather see affordable housing. Alderperson Martell thanked all who came out to voice their opinions. Even though the comments made by the current employees are admirable, it isn’t about that. It’s about what is best for the site. Mayor Myrick stated urban development can be very complicated . He stated that he would like to work with the property owner to come up with something that will work well for all. Phil Maguire thanked all for coming and voicing their opinion regardless of whether it was in favor or against. He apologized for not contacting the Northside Neighborhood. He further stated that when they purchased this property, it was zoned completely different. Now it is zoned TMPUD which is very complicated. He asked why that along Route 13 other areas are zoned differently than this particular parcel. Mayor Myrick left the meeting. Chair Murtagh asked the committee what they would like to do. There has been a lot of comment here tonight. It is a lot to take in and absorb. Alderperson Kerslick stated he would be fine revisiting this next month. Alderperson Brock stated she would also like to refrain from a vote tonight. It’s pretty uncommon that a vote of this nature be made the same night as the public hearing. Chair Murtagh stated we will revisit this next month Alderperson Kerslick moved to table the resolution before us ; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried 4-1 (Murtagh) Alderperson Brock stated that it is the parking that concerns her most. JoAnn Cornish stated that an analysis should be done to compare this project and the Comprehensive Plan. Does the project reflect that of the Comprehensive Plan? 6) Announcements, Updates, Reports Alderperson Nguyen thanked the three staff members for attendin g the Northside Community Group meeting. Alderperson Kerslick thanked JoAnn Cornish for attending the Collegetown meeting. JoAnn Cornish stated that the Commons fountain has been started and should be done by November. 7) Review and Approval of Minutes a) August 2016 Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed unanimously. 8) Adjournment Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.