Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CAC-2001 MINUTES CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL • Meeting of Monday,January 8, 2001 Present: Betsy Darlington, Dan Hoffman,Judy Jones; Barbara Ebert(EMC); Kate Hackett(County Planning Dept.—Water Resources Planner)and Craig Schutt(Tompkins County S&WCD) 1. Kate and Craig gave an excellent presentation on the county's flood hazard mitigation program. Applicants for financial help with flood control measures can be either a municipality or a private landowner,but if the latter,there must be a clear public benefit and municipal endorsement. An advisory committee reviews the applications;from there,they go to Craig. While many of the projects are for rip-rap or gabions (stones in wire "baskets"), Kate and Craig are trying to move people more in the direction of naturalistic solutions, such as willow wattles,etc. 2. Widewaters soil remediation: Kate and Craig stayed for this discussion,and Kate told us that the DEC hasn't any idea what direction the groundwater is moving at the site. She also said that the DEC is so badly understaffed now that their sampling on the site was abysmal;they really are unable to properly oversee all the sites over which they have jurisdiction. Judy wondered aloud if Widewaters had moved all of the soil that was being remediated or just the top two feet. The stipulation agreement they signed with the State only allowed the latter. If they moved the whole pile,they are in violation of the agreement. Judy is keeping in touch with Mr. Brazell at the DEC on this. She said he personally came down and took some more samples [I think from the contaminated pile that Widewaters moved onto the substitute parkland]. 3. Judy and Greg went on a tour of the LSC project and found it fascinating. Judy has the LSC discharge monitoring data and can pass the info on to anyone who wants to see it. 4. Substitute Parkland Master Plan EAF: This was on the table for us when we arrived and we did not have time,of course,to look at it. But members expressed concern that the plan doesn't look at anything around the park,esp. land uses that would impact the park. Big box stores,parking lots, lighting,etc.—proposed for the area to the north and east—all should have a substantial treed buffer between them and the parkland. Members also wondered if the Town Conservation Board—or anyone else in the town—was looking at this, since it's to be a joint Town-City park/natural area. 5. Review of Minutes—tabled because of lack of a quorum. 6. Intermunicipal sewer/water project: Concern was expressed that we have not heard a word,despite our request to the DEC and the Planning Dept.to be kept"in the loop." We didn't know if this was because there was nothing to report or because we were simply being left out. Betsy will write to John Merriman at DEC again about this [she wrote last March,also]. 7. CAC effectiveness: Betsy was asked to keep trying for Planning Board and BZA Minutes. Judy said that she has not found them on the City web page. Betsy said she has been emailed that she will receive Planning Board minutes, so she emailed back a request that they go to the entire CAC—via mail or email. If the answer is no, she offered to go City Hall,copy them for everyone,and have the City Clerk send them out. Adjourned about 9:05 PM. Submitted by Betsy Darlington MINUTES CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Meeting of Monday,March 12,2001 Present: Michael Culotta,Betsy Darlington,Dan Hoffman,Judy Jones,Paul Salon,Greg Thomas;potential CAC member Jack Elliott; Barbara Ebert(EMC); Josh Glasstetter(CC liaison);JoAnn Cornish(Planning Dept.) and Susan Blumenthal (Common Council) 1. JoAnn and Susan came to tell us what's happening with ICLEI,its Climate Protection Campaign(CPC), and the potential for the City signing up for the CPC,which is free (90 days,free software and intern to train staff),and joining ICLEI(a non-profit whose mission is to help increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,but whose initials stand for I don't remember what!). Greg had arranged a meeting between an ICLEI rep.,himself,JoAnn and Susan. Jo Ann and Susan were enthusiastic about the program,and hope to seethe City participate. JoAnn had kindly drafted a resolution from CAC to Common Council. We made a few minor changes,and she agreed to incorporate these,then send it on to CC. (Unan. approval from CAC.) ICLEI membership($600)would give the City additional software. It provides a way to compare the impact of various BMPs,and to make intelligent trade-offs. Susan wants the City to consider a"bigger picture"—namely,have the County sign on to this,too. She has already talked with EMC Chair Susan Brock who is interested in getting the County involved. 2. Environmental reviews: a. 705 Giles St.: swap of land with the City. Recommend a neg. dec.—unanimous with one abstention (Dan,whose firm is representing the buyer of 705 Giles). b. Commons changes: Recommend a neg.dec.—unanimous. c. Surplus lands: Town of Ithaca#48-1-9.2 and 48-1-11.2: CAC recommends keeping these parcels in their entirety. Although sale of the frontage on Coddington Rd. (in other words everything except the shaded area shown on the map as"surplus")would be marginally ok—and we understand,is all that is being suggested,we recommend instead that the City retain this as a possible future parking area for access to the South Hill Rec. Trail,or sell it to the Town for that purpose. Dan told us that the City was obligated to retain access to the trail from the road through this parcel,as part of some prior agreement with the Town. In any event,the City should retain a right-of-way from the road through the frontage area,in order to have good access to the City-owned land beyond. If,in fact,the proposal is to sell more than a few acres of frontage,the CAC strongly opposes such a move. These parcels were purchased to protect the watershed.At the very least,the City should retain a buffer of at least 500' along the Rec.Trail. Land near Seven-Mile Drive: None of us knew what this parcel was. If it is wetland or other critical natural area,the City should keep it. City of Ithaca#2-2-7: (Triangle near High School). City should keep this. It provides excellent access –access which could be enhanced—to Fall Creek and Stewart Park(via Fuertes Sanctuary). Parcels that are on both the"Sell" and "Not Sell"lists,and which should be kept(See CAC's prior comments on these for why): Parcels# 82-8-1 and 82-1-2(between Giles and Six-Mile Cr.); 88-2-16 (steep forested land next to stream,along Giles St.); 110-1-4, 110-1-5, 110-2-1 (on and near Treva Ave. and E. State st.) What is#131.1-4-?,listed as 3.35 acres? d. Zoning change,re procedures for"minor and nonsubstantive" changes to Zoning Ordinance: Everyone wondered what was meant by"minor." Also,we agreed that the new wording should include having the CAC receive copies of such zoning changes. If it is changed to "minor, nonsubstantive" (delete the "and"),and if the CAC is included as a recipient of changes,then(and only then), we recommend a neg. dec. It was noted that Norma Schwab's introductory remarks(2nd para.)also talk in terms of nonsubstantive changes only. e. Economic Development Plan for the City: We recommend a positive declaration because of multiple areas of concern and the plan's many ramifications and potential environmental impacts. Just one example:the recommendation(which the CAC opposes)to weaken the thresholds in CEQR. The plan 2 focuses on development of areas currently undeveloped,rather than stressing the need for looking for opportunities to redevelop existing developed areas—areas already with the needed infrastructure. Supporting the CBD should be the number one directive of the plan;the City should not be going outward 'till denser development in the downtown core has been accomplished and there's no room for more. This is a plan for total build-out of undeveloped areas,with no consideration of the cumulative impacts of such a strategy. The public has been shut out of the process,with no public dialog on the plan. Before any such extensive plan is adopted,there must be public discussion and broad public buy-in of it. 3. Tops Plaza: We continue to be concerned that the City is apparently ignoring its own ordinance requiring retention on site of runoff from a two-year storm. [City's Zoning Ordinance (Section 325-20.0 (1)(d)]. Why? We authorized Dan to look into this further, and Betsy will send him a memo to that effect. 4. SW Rezoning: Betsy passed around the comments she gave to the Planning Board in Feb.,and which she had hastily extracted from the CAC's comments on the SW Area Plan,when she noted the item on the Pl. Board's agenda. Members agreed to get any comments on this to Betsy,so she can submit it again,from the CAC. Betsy will e-mail it out to everyone again. 5. Sewer Plant Expansion: CAC has been left totally in the dark on this project,which could have major implications for sprawl in surrounding towns(esp. Lansing). What has happened to environmental review for this? Betsy did contact John Merriman at the DEC,but he told her there was nothing to report yet. Adjourned about 9:35 PM. Submitted by Betsy Darlington - .. .: Conservation Advisory Council Minutes Meeting of April 9, 2001 Present: Michael Culotta, Betsy Darlington, Judy Jones, Paul Salon, Greg Thomas; JoAnn Cornish (City Planner); from Cornell: John Kieffer, Kathryn Wolff, George Frantz 1. West Campus Residential Initiative: John, Kathryn, George and JoAnn were present to tell us more about the project. A scoping session for the DEIS will be held in City Hall on April 10, but comments can still be submitted until April 24, when the Planning Board will finalize the scope. CAC will receive a revised version, following tomorrow's session, and then can comment further, if anything seems to be missing. John started right in before we had even stated two of our biggest concerns: energy consumption involved with the new buildings and recycling of materials of the buildings to be demolished(the 6 Class Halls and Noyes Center). He also explained their efforts to devise a way to alter the existing buildings to fit the new programmatic needs of the University. Two other CAC concerns--where the staging areas will be and the landscaping plan (esp. the loss of many large trees)--will also be addressed in the DEIS. We were gratified to hear that they plan to use state-of-the-art materials and design in the new buildings. They hope to be able to use the LEAD system for designing new buildings. (Sorry-- I've forgotten what LEAD stands for, but it's good!)Greg had a number of questions and offered some helpful suggestions. We also mentioned ICLEI(International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives--to reduce greenhouse gas emissions)which the City and County have recently joined, and suggested that Cornell and the City work together on that for the WCRI. 2. SW Rezoning EAF: We have submitted comments on this before and decided to reiterate the single most important point: The zoning would permit,as of right, significantly more development that Council's own FEIS Findings Statement said would be acceptable. The oft-repeated comment in the EAF for the rezoning--that each project would have to go through its own environmental review--gave us scant hope for keeping development within the limits the Findings Statement supposedly mandated. Once the zoning allows something, environmental review has proven to be a very weak tool for limiting development that complies with the zoning. (Indeed, it has proven to be a weak tool for protecting the environment, period.) We also ask Common Council to give the Planning Board the tools to enforce the Design Guidelines for the SW area(which, as was pointed out, some aspects of the Widewaters plan violated, with Planning Board consent). Does the revised ordinance accomplish this? 3. Gimme Coffee!: This was a different request from the one we acted on previously. We support this type of neighborhood, pedestrian enterprise and recommend granting a special permit for it. There is ample on-street parking here, given that most patrons are pedestrians. 4. 301 College Ave.: CAC recommends granting the variance for as long as it is leased to Cornell. 5. 102 Willard Way: We recommend not approving this project. Is this property in an historic district? The small parking lot proposed for the front yard would seriously detract from the attractive appearance of the front of this historic building. Large trees would probably have to be removed for the new driveway around the building. A retaining wall may be needed, given that the new building would be built right into a steep hillside, and a number trees would have to be removed. The whole character of the site would be significantly altered. The drawings that were submitted were inadequate for determining what trees would be removed or retaining walls needed. Finally, providing parking at the Gun Hill lot we felt was inadequate: It's a long walk down a steep hill, and there is no sidewalk on portions of the trip along the road. This proposal seems to violate at least the intent, and maybe the letter, of the law re distance of parking from a site. 6. 301 Eddy St.: We recommend not approving this project. First, emergency access to this tight site seems precarious, at best. The only vehicular access is up a very steep, narrow driveway. Also, the building would be built into a very steep hillside with the loss of at least one big oak tree and other trees and vegetation that keep the site from being totally stark and depressing. We see no place for bikes--and access up the driveway, with cars using it as well, would be hazardous. We also see no place for recycling. CAC feels that this is far too large a building for this very tight space. The color rendition of the building in the application shows the building sitting out in a big, open area--a field, maybe, with oceans of space around it. Sadly, this would not be the case. 7. White Hall: CAC recommends neg. dec. 8. IURA—CDBG for State Theater: CAC recommends neg. dec. (And hurray!) 9. Collegetown Rezoning: This was a new one for us, and we didn't have time to consider it in great detail, but it looks good. 10. Betsy announced that Jack Elliott, who came to the March meeting, will probably apply to be on the CAC. He had another commitment and couldn't attend tonight's meeting. Adjourned at 9:30 PM. Submitted by Betsy Darlington, Acting Chair Minutes--Conservation Advisory Council Meeting of May 14,2001 Present: Betsy Darlington,Jack Elliott(applicant), Dan Hoffman,Judy Jones,Paul Salon,Greg Thomas; Barbara Ebert(EMC);Doria Higgins(guest) 1. Doria presented information about the dog park at the Festival Lands and Treman Marina. Common Council recently voted to approve this use.However,there was some confusion as to whether its vote was merely for the"concept"of such a park or actual approval. (The actual wording of the resolution indicated the latter,but we had been told,prior to the vote,that it was just"in concept.") The Environmental Management Council(EMC) sent a letter to Commissioner Castro in Albany and Mayor Alan Cohen expressing concerns with the use,as proposed. We reviewed this letter and other materials provided by Doria,and agreed to write to Castro and Cohen,agreeing with the EMC's recommendation that the State conduct environmental review of the proposal. 2. Common Council's Planning Committee will be discussing possible revisions to the City's Env. Qual.Rev. Ordinance this Wednesday(May 16). We were concerned that we have not been kept"in the loop"on this important issue and have received nothing from the City about it. Dan agreed to go to the meeting and express the importance of involving the CAC in the process,right from the beginning. 3. Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance Revisions:We agreed to recommend a neg.dec. on this. 4. Canal Corridor--Amendment to proposal for waterfront improvements along the Inlet:We agreed that,while the concept sounds good(attractive public access along the waterfront),the submission is incomplete and inadequate. a. Taughannock Blvd portion:We puzzled at length over just what was being proposed. Then we discovered that one of the documents we received("Resolution; Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency; January 16,2001)was missing every other page! Since the pages weren't numbered,this was not immediately apparent. Also,the maps were difficult to decipher. Our single biggest concern was with the public access--how accessible would the promenade actually be,and from where?How wide would it be?Would there be a railing along the water side of it? Would the public access just be behind#403-415,or also#323?Was there to be an access point at the south end?What materials would be used in the floating docks--CCA-treated wood,for example,which is bad news?We urge the City to require non-toxic materials for the docks(black locust,e.g.). Based on what we received,we could not make any recommendation on the EAF.We look forward to reviewing a complete application. b. Old Port Harbour portion: Again,while the concept is good,it was unclear from the very poor (mostly unreadable)map how the public would access the promenade. A drawing showing the full context,to north and south of the site,is needed.We urge the City to include in the agreement a binding commitment to public access across the waterfront of the entire property,if not now then by a specified date in the not-too-distant.future. Otherwise, the public benefit of this large expenditure of public monies will be significantly diminished. Based on what we received,we could not make any recommendation on the EAF.We look forward to reviewing an application that shows clearly just what is proposed. 5. Dicke Subdivision EAF:We recommend a neg. dec. 6. CAC plans:We discussed how we would deal with some changes coming to the CAC and how to recruit some new active members. Barbara told us about the EMC's process for selecting new members. Like the Town's Conservation Board,the EMC interviews prospective members and they may go through a kind of probationary period. She agreed to e-mail Greg the details of the process.He will draft a notice to go to groups that might have interested members.The consensus was that a CAC subcommittee should interview prospects. The EMC has an "associate member"(non-voting)designation for people who seem interested but may not be ready to commit themselves to much. This can eventually lead to the recommendation that they be appointed by the County. 7. April Minutes: Approved unanimously Submitted by Betsy Darlington,Acting Chair Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. (Bohn and Cornish) Board of Zoning Appeals and Building Dept. Common Council and Mayor Cc: City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council Re: Environmental Reviews 1. Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance Revisions: We recommend a neg. dec. 2. Dicke Subdivision EAF (106 1/2 Westfield Dr.): We recommend a neg. dec. 3. Canal Corridor—HUD grant for waterfront improvements along the Inlet: While the concept sounds good (attractive public access along the waterfront), the submission is incomplete, inadequate, and insufficient for making a recommendation at this time. a. Taughannock Blvd portion: We puzzled at length over just what was being proposed. Then we discovered that one of the documents we received ("Resolution; Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency; January 16, 2001")was missing every other page! Since the pages weren't numbered, this was not immediately apparent. In addition,the maps were difficult to decipher. Our single biggest concern was with the public access--how accessible would the promenade actually be, and from where? How wide would it be?Would there be a railing along the water side of it? Would the public access just be behind #403-415, or also#323?Was there to be an access point at the south end?What materials would be used for the floating docks-- CCA-treated wood, for example(bad news!)?We urge the City to require non-toxic materials for the docks (black locust, e.g.). Would City have control over the promenade and docks?Would the rear of the properties be cleaned up? Based on what we received, we could not make any recommendation on the EAF. We look forward to reviewing a complete application. b. Old Port Harbour portion: Again,while the concept is good, it was unclear from the very poor map we received how the public would access the promenade, nor if it would go all across the property along the water(as the original proposal specified). In addition to a readable map, a drawing showing the full context, to north and south of the site, is needed. Again,we urge the City to require non-toxic materials for the docks (black locust, e.g.). We also urge the City to include in the agreement a binding commitment to public access across the waterfront of the entire property, if not now then by a specified date in the not-too-distant future. Otherwise, the public benefit of this large expenditure of public monies will be significantly diminished. Based on what we received, we could not make any recommendation on the EAF. We look forward to reviewing an application that shows clearly just what is proposed. -Sets Darlington, 11:18 AM 6/12/01 -0700, CAC Minutes Page 1 of 3 X-NAV-TimeoutProtection9: X X-NAV-TimeoutProtectionl0: X X-NAV-TimeoutProtectionl1: X X-NAV-TimeoutProtectionl2: X by comell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA23584 for<jwl2@corneil.edu>; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:18:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:18:11 -0700 (PDT) X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) From: Betsy Darlington <betsyd2002@yahoo.com> Subject: CAC Minutes To: CityClerk <sues@ci.Ithaca.ny.us>, julie conley <julieh@ci.ithaca.ny.us>, susan blumenthal <susanb@ci.ithaca.ny.us>, tracey farrell <tfarreli@ci,ithaca.ny.us>, josh glasstetter <jag36©cornell.edu>, ed hershey <enh2@cornell.edu>, paulette manos <paulettem c©main.cl.Ithaca.ny.us>, pat pryor <plp3@cornell.edu>, diann sams <dianns@ci.ithaca.ny.us>, joan spielholz <joans@ci.ithaca.ny.us>, Jana taylor <janaward5@aol.com>, pat vaughan <pvaughan@lightlink.com>, alam cohen <mayor@ci.Ithaca.ny.us>, joann comish <joannc@ci.ithaca.ny.us>, Jennifer kusznir<jenniferk@main.ci.ithaca.ny.us>, nels bohn <nelsb@main.ci.Ithaca.ny.us>, Phyllis Radke <radke@ci.ithaca.ny.us> Cc: linda buttel <lab6@cornell.edu>, Michael Culotta <culotta©mindspring.com>, betsy darlington <betsy©fllt.org>, barbara ebert <beel@cornell.edu>, jack elliott <jre15 c@. comell.edu>, josh glasstetter<jag36 c©comell.edu>, Dan Hoffman <dan@isss-law.com>, Judy Jones <jwj2@cornell.edu>, Kat Lieberknecht <katlieb©yahoo.com>, paul salon <prs8@cornell.edu>, greg thomas <G_Thomas@compuserve.com> Hi, everyone— Pasted in, below, and attached are the minutes from glaa last night. / Julie or Sue—Could you please save this to send to the CAC with the agenda for the next meeting?Thanks! / Everyone—with me leaving the CAC, the new contact person for all of you is OUR NEW CHAIR, MICHAEL CULOTTA! His email address is culotta@mindspring.com'� Thanks, everyone! --Betsy MINUTES CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Meeting of Monday, June 11, 2001 Present: Michael Culotta, Betsy Darlington, Jack - a Elliott (applicant), Dan Hoffman, Paul Salon; guest: Rick Manning Betsy'barlington, 11:18 AM 6/12/01 -0700, CAC Minutes Page 2 of 3 1. Rick Manning told us about the Cayuga Waterfront Trail project, and in particular, the two-mile section to be built in Cass Park. Funding from NYS is less than had been requested, so the project has been scaled back somewhat. E.g., a fishing pier and various ancillary items will be eliminated. We hadn't yet received an EAF for the project, so will review that at a later date. We were pleased to see that the bridges would be made of black locust instead of pressure-treated wood. Jack raised the issue of using so much asphalt so close to the water, since this would create a "brownfield" (the petroleum products leach out), and also would increase runoff. He suggested looking into good bio-based trail surface materials now available, and will send info on these to Rids. After Rick left, concerns were raised re the width of the trail, so close to the water. One recommendation was to have plantings along the shore, to create a well-vegetated riparian zone. This would look attractive and also help reduce the bank erosion that is taking place there—which could ultimately threaten the trail. Dan agreed to be the contact person for Rick, should he need to get in touch with us again, since Betsy is leaving the CAC. 2. CAC organization: This being Betsy's last meeting, we discussed who would do what. Michael agreed to be Chair, with the most important responsibilities being to get the agenda to the City Clerk in a timely manner, run the meetings, and be the contact person for City Hall, the media, and various other entities. Although the Mayor still hasn't appointed him, Jack offered to take minutes and write up EAF comments, and send them to Dan for editing. Dan will then get them to City Hall. Paul will ask Judy if she'd be willing to have Betsy's files at her house since she already has old ones stored there. 3. With these details taken care of, we adjourned and were about to leave, when Dan magically produced an amazingly delicious apple-cranberry-walnut pie (from Greenstar, of course!) and a bottle of sparkling organic apple cider, for a good-bye party. The five of us polished off both in record time. The table was decorated with a stunning vase of flowers that Michael had brought for Betsy. The idea of having pie at the meetings seemed like BetsiDarlington, 11:18 AM 6/12/01 -0700, CAC Minutes Page 3 of 3 such a fine innovation that Michael, as his first act as Chair, proclaimed that meetings should always have pie, and offered to bring one to the next meeting! (New recruiting tool, perhaps?) Submitted by Betsy Darlington Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail -only $35 a ear! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ MIN6-011.DOC ,rah ers- CAC mt min My g utes,July 9 01 Pa e1 From: Julie Holcomb<julieh c@ci.ithaca.ny.us> To: <sarahm©main.ci.ithaca.ny.us> Date: Tue,Jul 24, 2001 4:12 PM Subject: CAC mtg minutes,July 9, 01 >From: culottacmindspring.com >Date:Tue,24 Jul 2001 14:46:47-0400 >To:sues c@ci.ithaca.ny.us,julieh@ci.ithaca.ny.us,joannccci.ithaca.ny.us, > whitham@lightlink.com >Cc: lab6ccomell.edu, gthomascpsdconsulting.com, beel c@comell.edu, > jre15 c@cornell.edu,jag36 c@comell.edu, danclsss-law.com, > jwj2ccomell.edu, katlieb c@yahoo.com, prs8 c@cornell.edu, kat@fllt.org >Subject: CAC mtg minutes,July 9, 01 >Sender: culotta@mindspring.com >X-Originating-IP: 216.7.10.194 • >Content-Type:text/plain • >Content-Disposition: inline >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by tisch.mail.mindspring.net id OAA13343 >Joanne, Scott, Sue&Julie: >CAC Meeting minutes are attached & pasted below, FYI. > >Pis fwd to the correct person in Clerk's ofc. >At this moment, I have misplaced her name. >thx >michael >City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) >Minutes of July 9, 2001 Meeting > >CAC members present: Michael Culotta, Dan Hoffman,Judy Jones. >CAC members absent: Kathryn Lieberknecht, Paul Salon, Greg Thomas >Others present: Jack Elliott, Linda Buttel, Rick Manning >In the absence of a quorum of the full CAC, members present decided to meet as the *EAF subcommittee.* >Summary of Actions: >1. Review of CAC *reorganization* >2. Cass Park Waterfront Trail*EAF >3. CDBG Funding Allocation *EAF >4. Revision of City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO) >MINUTES >1. Review of CAC *reorganization* >Betsy Darlington has resigned from CAC. Michael was elected as Chair at previous meeting. CAC files will be responsibility of secretary(Judy). Jack will circulate list of files in the *more recent*box Betsy gave him. Sarah Myers CAC mtg mrnutes,July 9, 01 ».�,...�,:,,.:,.,..»...::...m, -.............._:...._::......:...:.:..: . :._........»..:.:_:...::: ...:.....:. .....:.:....:. »......:.:::..:»:..:.»..,.».:::.....:................»:»..:..::::........_ . .::»»::.:.::.:... .::. ..,.:.»»:::...::»:... :.Page 2 • That box will go to Judy*s house. >Michael and Judy will compile*shortlist*of older files already at Judy*s,for August CAC meeting. Jack will take notes, submit draft minutes to Dan for review. (Jack*s application for appointment to CAC is still awaiting Mayor*s approval.) >Site visits need to occur before EAF reviews (etc). Judy has been doing them,will try to continue. Judy will be responsible for picking up CAC mail at City Hall for the next month. CAC had been promised that we would receive agendas and minutes of Planning Board (and Planning Committee?) meetings. We need to remind Joanne Cornish of this. (Some willing to get email versions.) >2. Cass Park Waterfront Trail-EAF >Rick Manning reviewed the waterfront trail proposal he has put together. >First phase is Cass Park loop: redo trail, rebuild bridges (with black locust),August start date,work to be done*in-house*by City. July 31 date for trail approval by Planning Board,July 12 public walk-through at t 1 5:30 (Michael and Dan will try to attend). 0 >Discussion of Route 89 crossing, paving materials, setback from Inlet bank, parallel soft surface trail. f a >EAF subcommittee expressed general support for trail concept. ./() Subcommittee has several concerns about parallel soft-surface trail. Will greatly increase overall footprint of trail and aesthetic impact; 5-foot • *grassy median*between trails may become dirt strip;soft-surface trail will require added maintenance,which might include herbicide treatment. Soft-surface trail is not part of EAF, so it cannot be approved without further review. Dan suggested that the location of a corridor wide enough to accommodate both trails could be approved, but that construction of the soft-surface trail be deferred pending further review(by CAC, etc). >CAC RECOMMENDATION (made prior to site walk-through): Negative declaration for existing EAF (without soft-surface trail),with the following modifications in the project: (a) reduce width of hard-surface path to 8 feet(lower costs for construction and maintenance, less visual impact,less loss of grassy area, less use of petroleum-based materials, less land affected by petroleum-based treatment); (b) minimum setback(of any part of trail)from edge of Inlet bank should be at least 10 feet; (c) paving material with less impact than conventional asphalt should be investigated and considered.. >3. CDBG Funding Allocation *EAF >CAC RECOMMENDATION: Negative declaration, as qualified below. >Numbers correspond to those used in cover letter. >1.04 Recommend neg dec for remediation only; cannot comment on any future use due to lack of information. >1.05 Recommend neg dec for demolition only; cannot approve any subsequent land use due to lack of information. >1.06 Recommend neg dec assuming continuation of pedestrian use only. Proposal appears to contradict stated City plans to reopen bridge to Sarah Myers- CAC mtg minutes,July 9,01 .. ...... ... .. . ............. Page 3' motorized traffic. >2.1 Addendum note 1 g states environmental review for this item will be deferred. We await the outcome of this review before we make a recommendation. >4. Revision of City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO) >Certain parts of City*s CEQRO have been inconsistent with State SEQRA regulations for about 5 years. Dan circulated copies of Planning Director Thys Van Cort's proposal to revise CEQRO by deleting everything except those parts that depart from State regulations (and adding reference to State regs). Michael favors this; Dan and Judy have some concern that this will make it more difficult for people to find all of the pertinent rules in one place, and will result in local people being less familiar with EQR procedures. In light of the fact that the full CAC does not have a quorum, no decision tonight. Will attempt to get feedback from Betsy(CAC member-emeritus) as well. >Minutes submitted by Jack Elliott; reviewed by Dan Hoffman >Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cac-min.july0l.doc" CAC MTG MIN 10-13.doc Page 1 CAC MEETING MINUTES October 13,2001 Attending Dan Hoffman&Michael Culotta NEXT MEETING: Tuesday Nov. 13 @ 3rd Floor Conference Room EAF Reviews: Carriage House improvement: •• The CAC previously reviewed this EAF and recommended a"neg dec"with the suggestion that a plan for bike racks be included to encourage use by non-vehicular users. It was noted that no landscape plan was included with the plans to indicate how the remaining green space might be improved to compensate for the loss of lot coverage. Might a bike rack be installed under the new deck at the south elevation? • Alexander House Variance: CAC recommends a"neg dec". Maintaining the single ••• .family-character is an important element that the CAC recognizes. There could be • • significant changes to the character of the neighborhood and the project if the intended use as a senior residence fails and the variance remains. Question: Can a variance be applied • exclusively to a specific type of occupant(ie. senior citizen as opposed to student?) • Page 1 of 2 .. . :.. ...::..:.:.. CAC MTG MIN 10-13.doc Page 2 • • • • CAC MEETING MINUTES • October 13,2001 •• Page 2 of 2 Widewaters Site plan: • Alternatives analysis: The required DEIS limited to hydrology,drainage, and traffic is proceeding without a scoping. The CAC expects that completion of this limited dEIS • would include a section for consideration of an alternatives section. • Thus far,the alternatives considered in previous EIS(s)do not address a range of possible activities. Only the alternatives of: (1) Full development of the site with the submitted site plan and (1)No development of the site(after fill)have been considered. No alternate site configurations (for example, a parking lot configured to contain runoff) have been postulated. Remediated soils: A complete assessment of environmental impacts at the site is further complicated by the presence of remediated soils located in/on a berm that been built in an • area that's adjacent to substitute parkland-a designated natural area-in the City's ownership. In addition to the potential liability from owning previously contaminated soil, the City will need to determine and mitigate for the risk of the public's access to its natural • area across and downstream from this constructed berm. • Floodplain development: The limited dEIS should also consider the impacts of a significant flood event that would alter the grading and the fill associated with the development. In such an occurrence, an alternatives analysis could inform the landowners • of the prospective impacts of such an event and recommend mitigation measures to be • implemented during build-out of the site. • Recommendation: For these reasons, CAC maintains that the dEIS would benefit from a • formal scoping process. In the event scoping is not pursued,the CAC requests a review • of the dEIS prior to its determination of completeness. •