Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MN-CAC-2003
Conservation Advisory Committee Meeting,Feb 10,2003 -MEETING MINUTES- Attending: Dan Hoffman, Paul Salon,Greg Thomas, Michael Culotta,Dan Cogan (Common Council Liaison) Absent Judy Jones,Jack Elliott,James Walker 1.BZA APPEALS: # 2571 Richard Flavin's Fall Creek Service,920 N Cayuga Street (Use variance.) CAC is not able to comment fully on environmental review;as the submitted SEAF was not completed(2nd page not filled out). Also CAC did not receive a map of the site, making it impossible to calculate how many vehicles could be stored there,etc.. CAC recommendation: any variance should have restrictions,as noted below. As applicant suggests in his letter to area landowners,restrictions&conditions for use of the lot are important in this residential area.CAC urges that any variance granted be specific to the requested use of the lot as a repair/inspection shop. CAC has concerns about the potential for a high number of parked/stored cars on the lot Perhaps there should be a restriction on the number of cars;however,without a site map it is difficult for the CAC to pick a reasonable number. In any event,a vegetated strip or hedge between the sidewalk and the lot could improve the corner's appearance. #2572 James Zifchock. Extension of hours for Ziffy's Diner,309 E. Lincoln Street. CAC recommends Negative Declaration. No opposition to variance as requested. 2. Proposed Rezoning for Downtown Ithaca(CBD 100 to CBD 120). Discussion centered on the need for design guidelines for zones such as this which allow for very tall buildings. CAC made a similar recommendation when rezoning(to CBD 140)was considered for the office/hotel project, (aka Cimminelli), CAC suggested that building design guidelines be adopted to exert some control over the dominance of structures at such a high height level. Such design guidelines could include, for example, allowing a percentage of a building/project's mass to reach the highest allowed height, combined with lower heights and/or setbacks,in order to preserve amenities such as important views and an attractive, varied downtown skyline. Without such guidelines, an entire parcel could be covered with a massive structure uniformly up to 140 feet tall,as of right. CAC recommends allowing the Planning Board to preserve/protect/emphasize natural and ground-level features, such as"lines of sight,"by requiring thoughtful placement of buildings and variation of height,where appropriate. This could be important in i .. ' situations such as the Cayuga-Green project,where unrestricted project height could block views to Six Mile Creek from the interior"courtyard"of the project. 3. West Spencer Street Improvement Project: This is the component of the Six-Point Traffic Plan which calls for widening W.Spencer Street and making it 2-way. CAC recalls that the City made a negative declaration for the adoption of the entire Six Point Plan(over the CAC's objections),saying that further environmental review would occur for each component as it approached the implementation stage. So,we are now at that point for the Spencer Street component. Dan Hoffman disclosed that his law firm represents two property owners on W.Spencer Street with regard to this project. He will abstain from any CAC vote on it. The LEAF for the project was not made available to CAC prior to tonight's meeting. Tim Logue from the Planning Dept was expected to attend tonight's meeting to answer questions,but he did not appear. Review of LEAF: CAC recommends a number of changes in Parts I and II of the LEAF,as noted below. No recommendation on environmental significance can be made without additional, required information,including the completion of Part III. Part I,Section A. #13 Historic sites. Should be answered"unknown," until it is determined whether the project site may includes any important archeological remains from the original Ithaca inclined plane railway,as has been suggested. Part I,Section B.(PROJECT DESCRIPTION) #1. e.Question on building demolition should not be answered"N/A," as most or all design options require residential demolition. #1. f. Questions on"existing"and"proposed parking.spaces"should not be answered "N/A." This is important information for considering and comparing impacts of various proposed designs. #1. g. Should not be answered"N/A." Traffic will be affected;projections from existing studies should be inserted. #1.h. Potential reduction in housing units should be listed. #14. b. Project's proximity to Six-Mile Creek should be noted. #17. Answer is more accurately"unknown," until question of inclined plane location is addressed. #18. Answer should be YES;sewer relocation may produce odors. #19. Answer to question about noise"after construction" should be YES. Increased traffic will produce increased noise. Conservation Advisory Committee Meeting,Feb 10,2003 -MEETING MINUTES- Attending. Dan Hoffman,Paul Salon,Greg Thomas, Michael Culotta, Dan Cogan (Common Council Liaison) Absent Judy Jones,Jack Elliott,James Walker 1.BZA APPEALS: # 2571 Richard Flavin's Fall Creek Service,920 N Cayuga Street. (Use variance.) CAC is not able to comment fully on environmental review;as the submitted SEAF was not completed(2nd page not filled out). Also CAC did not receive a map of the site, making it impossible to calculate how many vehicles could be stored there,etc.. CAC recommendation: any variance should have restrictions,as noted below. As applicant suggests in his letter to area landowners,restrictions&conditions for use of the lot are important in this residential area.CAC urges that any variance granted be specific to the requested use of the lot as a repair/inspection shop. CAC has concerns about the potential for a high number of parked/stored cars on the lot. Perhaps there should be a restriction on the number of cars;however,without a site map it is difficult for the CAC to pick a reasonable number. In any event,a vegetated strip or hedge between the sidewalk and the lot could improve the corner's appearance. #2572 James Zifchock. Extension of hours for Ziffy's Diner,309 E. Lincoln Street. CAC recommends Negative Declaration. No opposition to variance as requested. 2. Proposed Rezoning for Downtown Ithaca(CBD 100 to CBD 120). Discussion centered on the need for design guidelines for zones such as this which allow for very tall buildings. CAC made a similar recommendation when rezoning(to CBD 140)was considered for the office/hotel project, (aka Cimminelli), CAC suggested that building design guidelines be adopted to exert some control over the dominance of structures at such a high height level. Such design guidelines could include, for example, allowing a percentage of a building/project's mass to reach the highest allowed height, combined with lower heights and/or setbacks,in order to preserve amenities such as important views and an attractive, varied downtown skyline. Without such guidelines, an entire parcel could be covered with a massive structure uniformly up to 140 feet tall, as of right. CAC recommends allowing the Planning Board to preserve/protect/emphasize natural and ground-level features, such as"lines of sight,"by requiring thoughtful placement of buildings and variation of height,where appropriate. This could be important in situations such as the Cayuga-Green project,where unrestricted project height could block views to Six Mile Creek from the interior"courtyard"of the project. 3. West Spencer Street Improvement Project: This is the component of the Six-Point Traffic Plan which calls for widening W.Spencer Street and making it 2-way. CAC recalls that the City made a negative declaration for the adoption of the entire Six Point Plan(over the CAC's objections),saying that further environmental review would occur for each component as it approached the implementation stage. So,we are now at that point for the Spencer Street component. Dan Hoffman disclosed that his law firm represents two property owners on W.Spencer Street with regard to this project. He will abstain from any CAC vote on it. The LEAF for the project was not made available to CAC prior to tonight's meeting. Tim Logue from the Planning Dept was expected to attend tonight's meeting to answer questions,but he did not appear. Review of LEAF: CAC recommends a number of changes in Parts I and II of the LEAF, as noted below. No recommendation on environmental significance can be made without additional, required information,including the completion of Part III. Part I,Section A. #13 Historic sites. Should be answered"unknown," until it is determined whether the project site may includes any important archeological remains from the original Ithaca inclined plane railway,as has been suggested. Part I,Section B.(PROJECT DESCRIPTION) #1. e.Question on building demolition should not be answered"N/A,"as most or all design options require residential demolition. #1. f. Questions on"existing"and"proposed parking.spaces"should not be answered "N/A." This is important information for considering and comparing impacts of various proposed designs. #1. g. Should not be answered"N/A." Traffic will be affected; projections from existing studies should be inserted. #1.h. Potential reduction in housing units should be listed. #14. b. Project's proximity to Six-Mile Creek should be noted. #17. Answer is more accurately"unknown," until question of inclined plane location is addressed. #18. Answer should be YES;sewer relocation may produce odors. #19. Answer to question about noise"after construction" should be YES. Increased traffic will produce increased noise. ' 't ' , Y . , „ ' Part II IMPACT ON LAND. CAC considers the proposed parking area off S Cayuga and the need for cut& fill on this hillside to be a potentially large impact. DRAINAGE (Other impacts:): Proposed parking lot off S.Cayuga Street could be a source of erosion and non- point source pollution. Potentially large impact. IMPACT ON AIR: >500 vehicles/day added to street equals a potentially large impact. Emissions rate of this number of vehicles is unknown. IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES Should be answered"unknown"until location and significance of inclined plane remains is determined. TRANSPORTATION: Alteration of existing transportation systems,possible traffic problems and increase in truck traffic by more than 10 vehicles/day should all be potentially large impacts. QUALITY OF DAILY LIFE Operating noise(exceeding existing ambient levels)should be potentially large impact. Removal of trees&other vegetation as buffer to Loh residence is potentially large impact. Reflected sound from concrete retaining wall(s)is potentially large impact. HEALTH&HAZARDS Very through and good job on transformers. However,other"health&safety" impacts would include those on pedestrian movement and safety as a result of the construction of this project and the increased level of vehicular traffic(potentially large impact). CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY CAC views the possible loss of up to 11(?)low to moderate income housing units (& effect of widened street&increased traffic on viability of remaining units in neighborhood)to be a potentially large impact. #19,question about whether there is public controversy concerning the project, should be answered YES. The two most significant impacts of this project appear to be the loss of(affordable) housing units and the increased noise and hazards from the increased traffic. In light of numerous potentially large impacts and some"unknowns," as identified by CAC, the CAC recommends that Part III of the EAF be completed. CAC cannot make a recommendation on environmental significance without additional information, including Part III. Respectfully submitted, Michael Culotta NEXT MEETING is Monday March 10 ADJOURN Michael Culotta, 02:26 PM 3/19/03 -0500, DRAFT CAC minutes 3-10-3 Page 1 of 3 X-Sender: mculotta@mail.altematives.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:26:58 -0500 X-PH: V4.1@mailhub2 To: Dan@isss-law.com, jwj2@cornell.edu, jre15@comell.edu, prsalon@yahoo.com, gthomas@psdconsulting.com, dancogan©lightlink.com From: Michael Culotta <mculotta@altematives.org> Subject: DRAFT CAC minutes 3-10-3 X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Cayuga Computers JunkMail detection for spam. CAC folks: PIs review these draft minutes. NB Jack, you input requested on Item 2....Casa roma apts PIs reply here with comments with by Thursday @ 5pm Thanks Michael ******* **** Conservation Advisory Committee Meeting - MEETING MINUTES - March 10, 2003 Attending: Dan Hoffman,Paul Salon, Greg Thomas,Michael Culotta, Judy Jones, Dan Cogan(Common Council Liaison) Absent: Jack Elliott, James Walker Approval of 2-10-03 Meeting Minutes: APPVD A. BZA Appeals: 1 . Gimme Coffee #2575 Applicant had not prepared the SEAF or included a past SEAF for the original variance. The reason/need for the special use permit is not noted anywhere. 2. #2576 - Withdrawn B. RAF Reviews 1 . Casa Roma Apartments: CAC recommends that the environmental review process continue and. include a traffic study per committee recommendations. Concerns with parking and traffic were discussed. CAC indicates that Part II Question #14 should be yes for large impacts. Q. What's the existing number of parking spaces? r . Michael Culotta, 02:26 PM 3/19/03 -0500,DRAFT CAC minutes 3-10-3 Page 2 of 3 Is the existing parking that is available truly surplus parking? A site visit on a quiet Sunday indicates that the lot is nearly full. CAC wonders if the existing parking is sufficient for the new demand and existing demand. Thus, CAC supports the concept of a traffic study that would include both vehicles and shuttle buses. Re: Pedestrian Access: There are no sidewalks at all in this residential enclave. As part of the traffic study, CAC Cua ;ends that pedestrian use and access be studied. The idea of air floor pedestrian bridge is a good idea and a plan for pedestcirculation is something that should be included. CAC commends the amenity of indoor bike storage for residents; CAC also recommends that additional bike storage be added to the parking area level so bicyclists wouldn' t need to utilize the elevator or stairs. JACK... What is the standard bike capacity for apartment buildings of this size? RE: Garage Ventilation: No provisions for adequate ventilation were included for the parking area. There is an air quality concern with the 'tucked- under" garage design. CAC recommends that there be provisions for adequate ventilation as any air leak , or elevator shaft or stairwell could conduct car exhaust up into the living areas above. (list,' �//.jy1 LI4 ' �. -r`o- 4't''/ j ie r i a significant grove omature trees with crown heights (e#44/(1-4- thae' currently provide pzilaetry/buffer to the residences above AC is concerned with loss of this vegetated buffer for adjacent property owners on E. State. St. 2. Salvation Army CAC recommends no approval and endorses the Planning Dept.'s list of conditions The site plan for this gateway building for the City's south side does not appear to be in, compliance with design guidelines for SW Area. CAC would like to see a summary of existing site conditions as well as plans for parking, drainage landscaping, fencing, driveway gate-is-lacking from e submission. Other thoughts . riAre,,,Ulazzitiel • A metal building structure is not attractive esp. with no windowsl facing the street. • No provision for bikes, ? lighting plan?. • Show sidewalks contiguous with adjacent properties,, • It would be great place for a bus stop. • What is the plan for control of the dumping of unwanted goods? .. . , - - .. .. .t r • \ - a, • - • ' ,�' - . Sarah Itiyers -cac-min.14ju1y03.dlh-revl.doc Page 1 • Conservation Advisory Council Meeting Minutes July 14,2003 Attending: Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones,Greg Thomas,Michael Culotta(sect'y) Absent: Paul Salon, Jack Elliott 1. Gun Factory Site Rezoning: CAC notes that the site of the Ithaca Gun factory and the surrounding area is perhaps the most unique and environmentally significant building site within City limits, due to its proximity to Ithaca Falls and the adjacent natural area. We support mixed-use redevelopment of the existing, abandoned factory,but we urge that great care be taken to ensure that any new development on this site respect the adjacent natural features and not intrude upon them or diminish their quality. We are not convinced that the current proposal for rezoning of this area will accomplish these goals. In addition to allowing for residential use of the site as proposed by Fall Creek Redevelopment,LLC,the proposed rezoning from Industrial(I-1)to B-2a would: (1) Increase the allowable height of buildings (from 40' to 70'), (2) Raise the percentage of potential, allowable lot coverage(from 50%to 75%)and (3) Change the allowable use of that portion(two-thirds?)of the rezoned area which is not part of the development plans being prepared by Fall Creek Redevelopment(i.e.,the westernmost slope down to Lake Street and the Gun Hill Apts parking lot),thus also permitting taller structures and greater lot coverage in that area. CAC recommends that any of the following three alternatives is preferable to the proposed rezoning. These alternatives would permit development plans to proceed but also would ensure that the significant features of this special site are considered and protected in the course of any ensuing project(s). 1. Require full site plan submission and public review at this time, so that the potential impacts of both the rezoning and the proposed project can be considered simultaneously(avoiding any"segmentation"of environmental review). 2. Leave the current zoning designation in place but encourage the developer to apply for a use variance. This would initiate site plan review(thus allowing decision-makers to weigh all the potential impacts of the actual development and eliminating the need to consider theoretical"worst case"impacts that could occur under rezoning). Also, a variance could be accompanied by site-specific conditions, thus offering more appropriate site control of the envisioned project(s). 3. Consider a new zoning classification(or overlay)tailored to the needs of a site which overlooks Fall Creek gorge, is adjacent to several P-1 zoned parcels, includes very steep slopes,etc. The special classification could specify height, lot coverage and Sarah Myers -cac-m in.14juIy03.dlh-rev1.doc Page 2 buffer requirements appropriate for this special situation. CAC questions why the proposed rezoning encompasses more than the proposed re- development of the Gun Factory parcel. Why piggyback rezoning for the whole area if only one development is envisioned at this point, especially since the developer has stated no intention to utilize any off-parcel parking to meet its parking requirement. LEAF review: CAC standard for a review such as this (ie., a proposed zoning change) assumes that environmental review(eg., of rezoning)should posit impacts of the maximum amount of development allowable under the proposed action(in this case, rezoning from I-1 to B-2a). CAC requests that it be informed if the City is using a different legal standard in evaluating LEAFs where a specific site plan is NOT part of the LEAF submission. Given the assumed standard,CAC suggests in Part I that the site may be eligible for Historic Designation and that could affect its review and approval process. In Part II,CAC believes visual resources could be heavily impacted by projects allowed "as of right"under the proposed rezoning,because of the parcel's close proximity to the gorge,natural area and other land zoned P-1. Other potential large impacts include Water (because of potentially greater runoff)and on Open Space and Recreation(because the immediately adjacent land is parkland). In Part III(or a DEIS), CAC suggests the analysis should include illustrations (elevations and perspective views)of the visual impact of a 70'high building(or buildings)on the rezoned site. Computer simulation technology could readily depict how structure(s) would appear from a variety of key vantage points. CAC wonders what level of environmental review is envisioned. For example,on page 14 of the LEAF,there is mention of an environmental review,but it's not specified further. At this time, CAC cannot recommend a negative declaration for this action. 2. Subdivision of Tax Parcel#67-6-3 at 306 Fairmont Ave. CAC recommends Negative Declaration. 3. Aeroplane Hanger at 140 Brindley Street. CAC recommends Negative Declaration. 5. Gateway Center BZA variance CAC recommends approval of the amended site plan and favors the landscaped roof over the flat roof design. 5. Transmission Tower,815 S.Aurora St. CAC recommends Negative Declaration However,CAC notes that the City adopted a Cell Tower Ordinance last year and this $arah Myers-cac-min.l4july03.dlh-revl.doc Page 3 improvement to(within)an existing,oversized"flag pole"could be construed as a sneaky way to circumvent the City's efforts to control cell tower placement. (It is our understanding that the"flag pole"itself did not require City approval.) One member suggests that it "raises a flag"for the City to check the language in its ordinance. (Interestingly,the structure is described as a"Stealth Flagpole" in the submission. This is apparently a brand name for a flagpole designed to contain cell equipment, suggesting that it was the owner's intent to put up a cell tower at the time the flagpole was purchased.) 6. Waste Water municipal agreement/DEIS: CAC recognizes the importance of area municipalities working together on this project. The new intermunicipal sewer agreement represents a significant opportunity for the involved municipalities to promote and engage in a forum regarding regional interdependence. CAC would like to find ways to promote this realization. Perhaps a more formalized process for the involved parties, specifically planning staff,to work together to consider plans for appropriate growth-while at the same time affirming the municipalities' rights to determine their own futures. Perhaps the wastewater agreement could be the impetus for the municipalities to agree to a more formal process of communication and education. Certainly the need for and interest in consolidated governmental activity with accountability crosses political boundaries. How can this agreement help the involved municipalities to communicate and cooperate on issues of planning and development,over the long term? CAC intends to prepare comments to be presented at the public forum on July 31. ADJOURN Submitted by: Michae 1 J. Culotta Conservation Advisory Committee Meeting,Aug 11,2003 -MEETING MINUTES- Attending: Dan Hoffman,Paul Salon,Greg Thomas,Michael Culotta(sect'y),Judy Jones Absent: Jack Elliott,Dan Cogan(Common Council Liaison) , 1.BZA APPEALS: • BZA 407 Cliff St:, 2nd submission for a variance CAC recommends NEG DEC. However CAC requests that attention be paid to landscaping the site in light of its location in a residential area. M. Culotta recuse. 408-410 Aurora Waldorf Initiative Area variance for parking. CAC recommends that the Cascadilla Creek retaining wall be checked out for its structural integrity in light of the potential increased traffic volume to the site under its proposed use. CAC expressed general concerns about traffic volume and short-term parking on Aurora St.for child drop-offs and pickups. CAC recommends that the driveway between Cascadilla Lane and Aurora St. not be opened up as a vehicular thorough-fare. Inlet Island Promenade rezoning: The proposal appears to reduce the buffer between the promenade and the Inlet Island interior to a 20 foot setback. Current zoning provides fro a 40 ft buffer and the proposal calls for a smaller buffer 2-3 story height limit.to prevent a canyon affect along the promenade. CAC notes that the promenade is preserved but the Plazas which were in the original Master Plan are not. These plazas are instrumental in offsetting the"canyon effect"of multi-story buildings along the Promenade. Question: Why aren't the pedestrian corridors that were included in the inlet island urban design plan defined along and through the promenade area? CAC recommends a 40'setback for building to encourage open space feeling. Encourage a second tier of activity. A 40'wide space would encourage the use of the roof top area in the building zone for dining or other commercial uses. CAC recommends that nodes of open space be overlayed into the setback plan to define a park-like atmosphere and encourage public access. MARKLES BLDG: Recommendation: CAC seconds ILPC Pos Dec CAC review notes the building is owned by ICSD,and represented by NYSEG...whose study recommends demolition. Landmarks are important to the built environment. If it's found to be a landmark the building's owner should follow the process before proceeding. LEAF Review: . - Sara Culotta, Business Is Blooming, 10:27 P.../03 -0700, CAC minutes draft Aug 11, 200 Page 1 of 4 X-PH: V4.1 @mailhub3 From: "Sara Culotta, Business Is Blooming" <bizbloom@mindspring.com> To: <jwj2@comell.edu>, <dan@Isss-law.com>, <prsalon@yahoo.com>, <jre15@comell.edu>, <gregthomas@psd.com> Cc: "Michael Culotta" <culotta©mindspring.com> Subject: CAC minutes draft Aug 11, 2003 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 22:27:23 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-ELNK-Trace: bf8a1584ee61 b1 c c9c7f779228e2f6aeda0071232e20db4d25e521 e1116b49fc9e086d8a1 c26; JUDY: et al Sorry they're tardy...technical dificulty. Michael Conservation Advisory Committee Meeting,Aug 11,2003 -MEETING MINUTES- Attending: Dan Hoffman, Paul Salon, Greg Thomas, Michael Culotta(secty),Judy Jones Absent: Jack Elliott, Dan Cogan(Common Council Liaison) , • 1. BZA APPEALS: BZA 407 Cliff St:, 2nd submission for a variance CAC recommends NEG DEC. However CAC requests that attention be paid to landscaping the site in light of its location in a residential area. M. Culotta recuse . NJ-24°414'P', t / // 408-410 Aurora Waldorf Initiative 4 / ;Ai, Area variance for parking. c A) ,. CAC recomme t the Cascad la Creek retai ing wall be M =F ed out or its structural y in li ht of bi- the potentia creased traffic volume to the site under its r• ' use. CAC expressed general concerns about traffic volume and short-term parking on Aurora St. = child drop-offs and pickups. CAC recommends that the driveway between Cascadilla Lane and Aurora St. not be opened up as a vehicular thorough-fare. /' Inlet Island Promenade rezoning: The proposal appears to reduce the buffer between the promenade and the Inlet Island interior to a 20 foot setback. Current zoning provides fro a 40 ft buffer and the proposal calls for a smaller buffer 2-3 story height limit.to prevent a canyon affect along the promenade. CAC notes that the promenade is preserved but the Plazas which were in the original Master Plan are not. These plazas are instrumental in offsetting the"canyon effect"of multi-story buildings along the Promenade. Question: Why aren't the pedestrian corridors that were included in the inlet island urban design plan defined along and through the promenade area? f .. - .. i H 7 Sara Culotta, Business Is Blooming, 10:27 P.../03 -0700,CAC minutes draft Aug 11, 200 Page 2 of 4 CAC recommends a 40'setback for building to encourage open space feeling. Encourage a second tier of activity. A 40'wide space would encourage the use of the roof top area in the building zone for dining or other commercial uses,* CAC recommends that nodes of open space be overlayed into the setback plan to define a park-like atmosphere and encourage public access. MARKLES BLDG: •r110p. Recommendation: CAC Pos Dec CAC reviewnotes he building is owned by ICSD,and repress by NYSEG...whose study recommends demolition. Landmarks are important to the built environme ' ' nd to building's owner should follow the process before proceeding. LEAF Revie � w: v Correction on LEAF#18-Impact on growth and community character. Should be checked as large impact". Lot Subdivision Taylor Place: CAC recommends further investigation per below. Information provided doesn't show how/where subdivision is proposed. It was assumed that a subdivided house lot would be accessed from Chestnut St. CAC notes that the steep topography likely only allows building along the back(west boundary) CAC notes the City maintains a flood control structure north of the proposed subdivision wonders how a constructed driveway up a steep grade could affect drainage and cause flooding, icing or undermining of the existing infrastructure along Chestnut St. Further investigation is recommended Questions: Is vehicular access viable from Chestnut Street to a house lot? What would happen with drainage from the subdivided parcel? LEAF Review P. 3 Question#7-Drainage Should be yes for large impact SEQRICEQR: Streamlining of the City's process. We endorse the effort to have regulations for SEAR and CEQR are in concert with one another An action that is a type I action rarely means that and EIS be complete. The City thresholds now provides for the City to mandate an EIS. If the thresholds are set higher,the ability to call for an EIS is reduced. Has this been a big problem with site plans? CAC would judge that the City has been judicious in mandating an EIS. The closer we get to full build-out the more important having low thresholds becomes. CAC favors retaining the current thresholds to allow the City more flexibility in controlling development that may impact some of the special features in Ithaca that would otherwise not be noted under a higher threshold. Concern: NB Page Nine of the City version: Part A 176-4 Type 1 Actions. Nothing is changed .. "All agencies are subject to Type one list. " •. r ... 1. Sara Culotta, Business Is Blooming, 10:27 P.../03 -0700, CAC minutes draft Aug 11,200 Page 3 of 4 A-2(proposed new section) "Agencies may adopt their own list of Type I actions." Q: Do the authors intend that City agencies could adopt their own Type I lists. This seems problematic;there should be just one Type One list. That would make things even more confusing. 176-5(B) Same deletionon the Type Two section. Concern: Page 8(City version) CAC would suggest improving the language to set forth some standard for notice and for information to be provided to the CAC. Issue is the responsibilities fo the City to the CAC. City agencies shall provide all necessary materials to CAC in time for adequate review not less than two weeks prior to regularly scheduled meeting. State our role in a positive way that expresses of that it is the CAC responsibilities to review and comment to lead agency on actions that are subject to a LEAF or a SERF. Conservation Advisory Committee Meeting, Provide for the City to mandate an EIS. if the thresholds are set higher,the ability to call for EIS would be reduced and that would not allow a process for alternatives analysis(an inherent part of the EIS)to a proposed development to be adequately considered. Q: Has this been a big problem? Q: has the City has been judicious in mandating an EIS CAC favors of retaining the current thresholds to give the city more flexibility in dealing with special feature of Ithaca that might not be included or considered in the State thresholds The closer the City gets to full build out the more important having these thresholds becomes. Some inconsistencies: Page Nine of the City version: Part A 176-4 Type one actions. No changes.: "All agencies are subject to Type one list. " A-2(prop new section) Agencies may adopt their own list of Type I actions. Part 176-5(B) Same deletion noted in the"Type two section". 0: Do the authors intend for City agencies could adopt their own Type I list. CAC recommends that there should be just one type One list in CEQR. Describing CAC role: Page 8(City version) Improve the language to (1)Set forth some standard for notice to allow adequate time for CAC review. (2)Positively express the CAC role. Which is to review and comment to lead agencies on Type I actions that are subject to a LEAF or SEAF. _ ._ ,r s , Sara Culotta, Business Is Blooming, 10:27 P.../03 -0700,CAC minutes draft Aug 11,200 Page 4 of 4 Conclusion: In this time of concern about open government and due process, having a positive statement about the role of advisory boards can only help Next meeting Sept 8. BZA=9-2 meets Zoning concept CC Concept memo is ASAP Planning Board Taylor place=Aug 20 ILPC Marldes flats is Aug 14th so CC CEQR comments? CAC liaison to EMC: Paul to contact Barb Ebert hog MTG MINUTES 8-11-03.doc Sara Culotta, Business Is Blooming, 05:47 PM 8/26/03-0400, Re: CAC minutes draft Aug 11, 2003 fight of the potential increased traffic volume to the site under its proposed use. CAC expressed general concerns about traffic volume and short-term parking on Aurora St. for child drop-offs and pickups. CAC recommends that the driveway between Cascadtiila Lane and Aurora St. not be opened up as a vehicular thorough-fare. Inlet Island Promenade rezoning: The proposal appears to reduce the buffer between the promenade and the Inlet Island interior to a 20 foot setback. Current zoning provides fro a 40 ft buffer and the proposal calls for a smaller buffer 2-3 story height limit. to prevent a canyon affect along the promenade. CAC notes that the promenade is preserved but the Plazas which were in the original Master Plan are not. These plazas are instrumental in offsetting the"canyon effect"of multi-story buildings along the Promenade. Question: Why aren't the pedestrian corridors that were included in the inlet island urban design plan defined along and through the promenade area? CAC recommends a 40'setback for building to encourage open space feeling. Encourage a second tier of activity. A 40'wide space would encourage the use of the roof top area in the building zone for dining or other commercial uses. CAC recommends that nodes of open space be overtayed into the setback plan to define a park-like atmosphere and encourage public access. MARKLES BLDG: Recommendation: CAC seconds ILPC Poe Dec CAC review notes the building is owned by ICSD, and represented by NYSEG... whose study recommends demolition. Landmarks are important to the built environment. If it's found to be a landmark the building's owner should follow the process before proceeding. LEAF Review: Correction on LEAF#18-Impact on growth and community character. Should be checked as large impact". Lot Subdivision Taylor Place: CAC recommends further investigation per below. Information provided doesn't show how/where subdivision is proposed. It was assumed that a subdivided house lot would be accessed from Chestnut St. CAC notes that the steep topography likely only allows bulking along the back(west boundary) CAC notes the City maintains a flood control structure north of the proposed subdivision wonders how a Printed for Judy Jones<jwj2facornell.edu> 2 Sara Culotta, Business is Blooming, 05:47 PM 8126/03-0400, Re: CAC minutes draft Aug 11, 2003 constructed driveway up a steep grade could affect drainage and cause flooding, icing or undermining of the existing infrastructure along Chestnut St. Furtherinvestigation is recommended Questions: Is vehicular access viable from Chestnut Street to a house lot? What would happen with drainage from the subdivided parcel? LEAF Review P. 3 Question#7-Drainage Should be yes for large impact SEQR/CEQR: Streamlining of the City's process. We endorse the effort to have regulations for SEQR and CEQR are in concert with one another An action that is a type I action rarely means that and EIS be complete. The City thresholds now provides for the City to mandate an EIS. if the thresholds are set higher,the ability to call for an EIS is reduced. Has this been a big problem with site plans? CAC would judge that the City has been judicious in mandating an EIS. The closer we get to full build-out the more important having low thresholds becomes. CAC favors retaining the current thresholds to allow the City more flexibility in controlling development that may impact some of the special features in Ithaca that would otherwise not be noted under a higher threshold. Concern: NB Page Nine of the City version: Part A 1764 Type 1 Actions. Nothing is charged .. "AD agencies are subject to Type one list. " A-2(proposed new section) "Agencies may adopt their own list of Type I actions." Q: Do the authors intend that City agencies could adopt their own Type I lists. This seems problematic;there should be just one Type One list. That would make things even more confusing. 178-5(8) Same deletionon the Type Two section. Concern: Page 8(City version) CAC would suggest improving the language to set forth some standard for notice and for information to be provided to the CAC. Issue is the responsibilities fo the City to the CAC. City agencies shall provide all necessary materials to Printed for Judy Jones 1wJ2 2comell.edu> 3 4 Sara Culotta, Business Is Blooming, 05:47 PM 8/26103-0400, Re: CAC minutes draft Aug 11, 2003 CAC in time for adequate review not less than two weeks prior to regularly scheduled meeting. State our role in a positive way that expresses of that it is the CAC responsibilities to review and comment to lead agency on actions that are subject to a LEAF or a SEAF. Conservation Advisory Committee Meeting, Provide for the City to mandate an EIS. If the thresholds are set higher,the ability to call for EIS would be reduced and that would not allow a process for alternatives analysis(an inherent part of the EIS)to a proposed development to be adequately considered. Q: Has this been a big problem? Q: has the City has been judcious in mandating an EIS CAC favors of retaining the current thresholds to give the city more flexibility in dealing with special feature of Ithaca that might not be included or considered in the State thresholds The closer the City gets to full build out the more important having these thresholds becomes. Some inconsistencies: Page Nine of the City version: Part A 176.4 Type one actions. No changes.: "All agencies are subject to Type one list. " A-2(prop new section) Agencies may adopt their own list of Type I actions. Part 176-5(B) Same deletion noted in the"Type two section". 0: Do the authors intend for City agencies could adopt their own Type I list. CAC recommends that there should be just one type One list in CEQR. Describing CAC role: Page 8(City version) Improve the language to (1)Set forth some standard for notice to allow adequate time for CAC review. (2)Positively express the CAC role. Which is to review and comment to lead agencies on Type I actions that are subject to a LEAF or SEAF. Conclusion: In this time of concern about open government and due process, having a positive statement about the role of advisory boards can only help Printed for Judy Jones<jwj2(ttcornell.edu> 4 ; .„, •.- • • • .••• ••• . • • ,.•••" - • , , . , =. •, , . • • , = •, •• • ••••• ' - . • . . . . • , -;•-••••=1. Conservation Advisory Committee Meeting,Sept.8,2003 -MEETING MINUTES- Attending: Dan Hoffman,Paul Salon,Greg Thomas, Michael Culotta(sect'y), Judy Jones Guest: Joanne Cornish. Absent: Jack Elliott,Dan Cogan(Common Council Liaison), 1.BZA APPEALS: Ithaca Gun Factory Redevelopment. Comments needed by Sep 25 CAC requests that we receive additional information before we can make a recommendation on positive/negative declaration,including financial and visual analyses of the site. Financial rationale apparently was prepared but not distributed to CAC. CAC believes rezoning the site for Planned Unit Development(PUD)should be considered before this variance. Joanne reports that Director of Planning says adding PUD designation to the City zoning ordinance is called for in any event. Variance request for 70-foot building with parking below Comments: CAC commends the Developer's commitment to providing public access and suggests that the public's access be preserved through an easement granted to the City. CAC recommends limited development on the"island"stipulated by deed restrictions on the Diehl parcel. CAC asks City to consider applying Gorge protection overlay zone to this portion of Fall Creek gorge. CAC received"#6 Reason for appeal"which bears some resemblance to a LEAF,Part III,but apparently is not. Part III of the LEAF is referred to in Part II but was not supplied to CAC. LEAF PART II Review: #12 Local landmark-should be marked YES #13 Impact on open space resources-70'structure could have impact on natural area #14 Impact on transportation- should be marked Yes Define the impact based on the addition of the residential units. Include some signage along Lake Street noting the public's access to the Island/overlook. LEAF reviewer has not answered follow-up questions(in Part II)describing any identified impact as either potentially large or small to moderate, and has not indicated whether such impact could be mitigated by a change in the project. Visual Impact: Perhaps the most notable impact of this massive structure will be visual. What will the view be from other vantage points(esp further away)? CAC recommends floating balloons to help with review of the height and mass of the proposed structure. CAC requests more info on visual impact from a variety of reference points. For example: Other points along the course of Fall Creek in the gorge, West Hill, Ithaca High School, Route 13, Lake St.,etc 2. Proposed PUD Ordinance: NICE WORK.Thresholds OK @>60K sq ft undeveloped, >20K redevelopment Strengths: Project specific with control and oversight of legislature. More flexibility and give&take in development review process. 3. EAF REVIEWS A. Island Health& Fitness Center: Salient points discussed during review of the project: Much of the Taughannock Blvd. frontage will be parking lot—but design guidelines for Inlet Island don't prohibit this. Joann says bio-retention areas will meet the new standards; confirmation is due from Tom West. Suggestions: • Sufficient bike rack capacity for public and building occupants @ north west side of the building(next to the Hwy 89 bridge which will be overhead at this point). • Extend promenade approximately 10 feet south of building to align with southern edge of walkway from Taughannock Blvd. • Traffic volumes at the intersection of Buffalo and Taughannock are an increasing problem. • Consolidate Buffalo St. curb cuts to one • There are no turning lanes(on Taughanncok Blvd)for main entrance to the Health& Fitness Center. This could be a problem,with vehicles waiting to make left-hand turns causing tie-ups that could affect Buffalo Street intersection. It was reported that most frequent accidents involving elderly drivers occur when making left-hand turns. Elderly demographic will probably make heavy use of this facility. • Tree lawn between sidewalk and Taughannock Blvd. is recommended. • Light pollution: Upward directed lighting should be minimized along the promenade to reduce impact to birds along the flyway and for residences on lower West Hill. CAC needs more information on traffic and circulation issues before making recommendation on negative/positive declaration. B. Northside Development: CAC recommendation: Negative Declaration. Comment: This looks like a great initiative! Very thorough. C. Proposed changes to comprehensive plan for Ithaca Gun site CAC recommendation: Negative Declaration BUT,suggests a language change: "...gorge and natural area..." CAC recommends adding the words"Natural Area"to better describe the site. ALSO, CAC recommends that the existing grass slope be recognized as open space and buffer that is important to the character of the residential neighborhood and the natural area. D. Babcock Hall on Prospect St.--Cell Towers CAC recommendation: Negative Decalaration CAC endorses use of existing buildings for these devices, rather than new, stand-alone towers(or Stealth flagpoles). CAC notes only visual simulation of Babcock Hall is looking South. Planning Board should have several more views from the south,looking north, and from the east, looking west. E. Wal-Mart subdivision: Pulled item, so no CAC action. Respectfully submitted, Michael Culotta ADJOURN @ 10 PM Page 1 Conservation Advisory Committee Meeting Oct.6,2003 -MEETING MINUTES- Attending: Dan Hoffman,Paul Salon,Michael Culotta(sec'y),Judy Jones Absent: Greg Thomas,Jack Elliott,James Walker,Dan Cogan(Common Council Liaison) Action item: Minutes for 9/8/03 were approved as submitted(Judy's most recent version). BZA Appeals: #2601—102 Adams St.,Yoga Studio. RECOMMENDATION: Negative Declaration. #2602 -- Benderson(Walmart,etc)Signage Variance: RECOMMENDATION: Denial of variance. CAC notes that adoption of City's sign ordinance was in recognition of the large visual impact sign advertising can have in developed space. Not only is light pollution an issue with illuminated signs,but ommunity character can be negatively impacted by increased signage over time. "Extra"signage for fuel station will be located adjacent to undeveloped original SW Park and may be incompatible with the habitat there and/or the future plans for that area. CAC notes that the fuel station canopy itself works as a highly visible sign post(see Hess& Tops stations along Rt 13 for comparison).In light of the high visual impact of the canopy, which functions as a defacto pylon sign,the need for additional signage appears minimal to the members of the CAC. This variance request asks for twice as much space as the ordinance allows. The additional signs requested for Walmart appear to be outright advertising,not directional. Walmart's variance request appears excessive—CAC recommends that it be significantly reduced.We do not believe that such large variances are typically granted,and a granting of this request would therefore set an unfortunate precedent. #2604 -- 407 Wycoff Ave.,construct house on vacant lot. RECOMMENATION: None(but see below). This sounds like a well-considered project,but neighborhood compatibility is difficult to judge without a sketch drawing or site visit(CAC received the submission the night of its meeting). CAC endorses the objectives of preserving existing trees and neighborhood character. CAC is unable to make a recommendation without additional information,but we endorse the plan in concept. Site Plan Reviews Radio Tower atop the Holiday Inn RECOMMENDATION: CAC finds this impact to be much less than a cell tower,and recommends a Negative Declaration. Page 2 It was quite easy to understand the project's impact,since there were so many simulated views in the submission Some questions: What are the night time lighting characteristics of the project? Will there be any blinking red lights at the top of the antenna array? The supplied information,while extensive,doesn't indicate whether or not Santa Claus will now be precluded from landing on the roof.. Could this impact on community character? Cliff St Apts. RECOMMENATION: None,pending receipt of complete materials. The cover sheet calls for sketch plan review with the submission,but none was provided. Also,need Part 2&3 of the LEAF CAC believes that an analysis of alternatives,such as would be included in an EIS,would be an important tool in evaluating this development. Obvious Major impacts include: Traffic,Drainage,and Visual. Proposed CEQR Revisions: CAC is dumbfounded by this revision. Not only have the proposed Type 1 threshholds not been lowered(to or closer to existing levels),as CAC previously recommended,but most of the proposed threshholds have actually been raised since the last go-round,and there are additional deleted(local)threshholds. For example: • • 5(a)--from 10 to 25 • 6(c)--We said 250 was too high. It's now doubled to 500 vehicles. • 6(e)--Raised from 50 to 500 • 8 --Deleted! These listings are the very natural features of Ithaca that a planning body would deem to be deserving of special consideration. • 9 --Unlisted action. Ithaca-specific thresholds are deleted. It appears that CAC's recommendations are not being seriously considered here. CAC reiterates its strong opposition to the proposed lowering of Type 1 threshholds,and asks to be advised as to the path this proposal will be taking for consideration? ADJOURN Respectfully submitted, Michael Culotta(secty) 1 Conservation Advisory Council Meeting-November 13,2003 Attending: Michael Culotta,Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones Absent: Paul Salon, Greg Thomas, Jack Elliott, Dan Cogan(CC liaison) 1. BZA Appeals #2605 —38 Woodcrest Ave—CAC recommends negative declaration. #2606—213 Cleveland Ave—CAC recommends negative declaration. #2607—931 N Tioga—CAC recommends negative declaration; also that BZA consider the parking capacity for the proposed 3 dwelling units 2. Site Plan Reviews 407 Cliff St. Apts CAC does not having sufficient information to make a final recommendation on whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be required. At a minimum we need to see the traffic study, a full copy of the drainage plan to include plans for snow storage and melt, and further analysis of the visual impact. The steep slopes in the project area, as well as its proximity to protected natural features of the local landscape require exceptional care in planning and review. CAC needs clarification of the discrepancies between the cover letter and other submitted information. The cover letter refers to the north property boundary as Linderman Creek(formerly Silver Creek)which Council has designated as a "trigger"for a Type 1 action. In Part 3 of the LEAF the creek on the north boundary is called Williams Brook.. Both documents refer to a boundary on UNA 136,but we were sent a document describing UNA 137. CAC concurs with staff comments regarding appropriate landscape materials as well as inadequacy of number of provided parking spaces. CAC would like to review further analysis of the impact on visual resources including impact on views from the valley floor and hillsides. Wooded hillsides are part of the Ithaca and Cayuga Lake panorama. CAC repeats its earlier comment— Approval should be conditioned on a maximum development limit and provisions for future protection of the downslope property area. 335 Elmira Road,Restaurant/Retail Bldg CAC remarks that the site plan shows a limited fence on the east border. Since Parcel A is in a residential zone, the fence should protect all of Parcel A. CAC can find no indication in the site plan that light spillage into the residential zone has been considered, or that headlight glare from entering cars(into the residential zone)has been prevented. CAC suggests a review of proposed landscape plantings—side and rear plantings appear to be a single species of oriental cherry(which at the least would make them all vulnerable to the same disease.) 3. Subdivision Reviews Tax parcel 20.-3-2.. CAC recommends a negative declaration. 452 Floral Avenue. CAC requests at least a rough site plan to better understand the impact of the proposed subdivision. 4. Zoning change reviews A. Proposal to amend the Southwest Area Zoning District CAC questions why the suggested requirement for a"landscaped interim solution" in the new setback is not written into the proposed ordinance. B. Proposal to amend Section 325-9 and 325-16 of the city Zoning Ordinance. CAC concurs with this proposal. C. Concept Memo for Revised Waterfront District CAC is concerned about the reduction of the stepback to 20 ft. We recommend as we did in August a 40 ft stepback to encourage an open space feel to the promenade. Furthermore, a 40 ft stepback might encourage the use of the 2 to 3 story roof top area in the building zone for terrace dining or other uses in season. How does this zoning proposal encourage a building in the WF l d zone to interact with the adjacent promenade (eg.,with eye-level windows, storefronts, eating areas, etc)? We are concerned that under the new ordinance, as written, there could be a blank wall 39 feet or higher, next to the promenade, which would create a cold,barren feel to the space. • CAC notes that the promenade is preserved but the Plazas which were in the original Master Plan are not. These plazas are instrumental in offsetting the "canyon effect"of multi-story buildings along the Promenade. • Why aren't the pedestrian corridors that were included in the Inlet Island Urban Design Plan(between Taughannock Blvd and the Promenade) defined and protected in the zoning designation? ADJOURN Some Chronology—Widewaters Site Feb. 19, 1997—Phase 1 Environmental Assess, Report By CT Male Assoc—Weiner Parcel 2 -Doney, Havlik and TC Parcels July 1, 1997—Above reports revised August 1998—Phase II Investigation begun by C&H Engineers May 7, 1999—Widewaters reports gasoline spill to DEC, Spill # 9901486 May 17, 1999—Voluntary CIeanup Application submitted to DEC by Widewaters May 19, 1999—C&H Engineers submitted Phase II Investigation Report to Widewaters - • listing intended use of property as "200,000ft2 shopping center with adjacent parking". July 16, 1999—CES (Certified Environmental Contractors) site visit -July 1999—City(R. Eckstrom)refuses fill permit application but allows a reapply July 28, 1999 - Date on CES site map showing footprint of proposed building August 8, 1999-C&H Phase II Report rec'd by DEC August 12—August 30, 1999—Paragon Env. Construction Co does following site work: 1. decommission ASTs, UST,s drums, etc 2, excavate 100 tons petroleum contaminated soil 3. asbestoes removals 4. demolish buildings after 3 complete 5. dig 54 test pits September 21, 1999—CES Reports to DEC on Paragon Work September 22, 1999—CES, DEC, and Widewaters meet to discuss report October 5, 1999—First version Corrective Action Plan submitted to DEC by CES October 8, 1999—Second version Corrective Action Plan " 4, October 12, 1999 - Third version CAP submitted(sampling protocols and requirement to sample overburden before using as fill) October 24, 1999—Widewaters resubmitts fill permit application November 1, 1999—DEC merges multiple spill numbers under one file number— 9906124 November 8, 1999—City Att'y writes opinion on segmented environmental review, CAC meetiing November 12, 1999-City(P. Radke)issues fill permit November 15, 1999—DEC notifies Widewaters that they must sign a stipulation agreement within 14 days or DEC will do the work and bill WW. The stipulation agreement exempts the action from environmental review under SEQR, and allows the responsible party to file a claim with the NYS Environmental Protection and Spill Liability Compensation Fund. November 16, 1999—Widewaters signs Stipulation Agreement, December 8, 1999—NPDES Permit issued for stormwater discharges(general permit for ,64,1041,25enstru .on purposes requiring erosion control etc.) "04- Pty( oke. 0 �, f ' Dan Hoffman, 02 : 17 PM 1/13/00 , Widewaters News - Updated BACKGROUND Widewaters initially applied for a fill permit in the summer of 1999, and was turned down by then-Building Commissioner Rick Eckstrom, who said the project must first go through the City's site plan review process. Widewaters reapplied in October, after Eckstrom had been suspended by Mayor Alan Cohen. Widewaters told the Acting Building Commissioner and the Conservation Advisory Council that it had no specific end use, plan or tenant in mind for the property, and that it needed to fill the site (a large portion of which is located in a 100-year flood plain) in order to make it marketable. On November 8, 1999, the City Attorney wrote in a memo to Acting Building Commissioner Phyllis Radke that since Widewaters had "no site-specific plans" at that time, any environmental review of the filling could be "segmented" from consideration of the ultimate use of the site. Thus, potential impacts of eventual development, on traffic, noise, air pollution, views, etc., did not have to be investigated or reviewed before granting the fill permit. (Segmentation is a highly disfavored approach under City and State law, permitted only under special circumstances, such as when the end use is unknown.) Based on this advice, the Acting Building Commissioner approved the segmented review, waived any site plan review until the company had specific plans and issued the fill permit on November 12, 1999. (That permit is now being appealed by citizens who contend that it was issued improperly; the City's Board of Zoning Appeals will hear the case on February 8th.) THE NEW EVIDENCE Members of the City's Conservation Advisory Council, who were investigating Widewaters' handling of petroleum-contaminated soil on the site, have discovered (through a freedom-of-information request) that when Widewaters asked the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in May, 1999, for approval of an oil spill cleanup plan, the company listed the intended use of the site as a "shopping center of approximately 200,000 square feet with associated parking." (By comparison, the store that WalMart wanted to build on virtually the same site was 125,000 square feet; the Planning Board turned down that plan in 1995, in part because it said the proposed store and parking lot were too large for that site.) Furthermore, a map of the site submitted to the DEC by Widewaters in August, 1999, shows the footprint of a very large structure, labeled "proposed building," across the back of the site (immediately adjacent to the City's new Southwest Park) . Accompanying documents indicate that the plan for addressing contaminated soil is affected by the location of the proposed building footprint. According to the DEC, the fill being placed in the area of the intended building footprint is undergoing special compaction different from the rest of the site. IMPLICATIONS These newly-discovered documents appear to indicate that contrary to its public statements, Widewaters did indeed know, in October when it applied for the fill permit, what the intended use of the site was, and even had a site plan, at least to the extent of knowing where the main building was to be located and how large it would be. Had the City known of Widewaters' specific plans, presumably it would have required site plan review prior to issuing a filling permit, and the environmental review would not have been segmented. In addition, Widewaters' pre-determination of the building site (as close as possible to the new City park) may have compromised the City's site plan review process, which is supposed to have control over site layout. WIDEWATERS PROPERTY IS HEAVILY CONTAMINATED Dan Hoffman, 02:17 PM 1/13/00 , Widewaters News - Updated As for the condition of the site, a Phase II environmental assessment conducted by Widewaters' engineers from August 1998 through May 1999 reveals significant soil and groundwater contamination at seven different locations and at depths up to 12 feet, from numerous old, leaking oil tanks, drums and "containment" facilities (some associated with the former Star Oil Terminal) . Contaminated soil exhibited petroleum content (PID readings) of up to 1,999 parts per million (the upper limit of instrument calibration) . (Soils with more than 100 ppm are considered to be out of compliance with DEC's "extraction guidance values" and must be excavated and treated.) The 10 registered petroleum-product storage tanks on the site had a total capacity of over 75,000 gallons. A large, underground "plume" of heavily contaminated soil (over 100 ppm) has been mapped in the vicinity of a former fuel oil "tank farm." This plume has been migrating northwesterly, across the flood plain toward the new park and Cayuga Inlet. Widewaters told DEC it is not economically feasible for the company to dispose of the contaminated soil in an approved landfill, "based on the estimated quantity of petroleum impacted soil which has been targetted for remediation." Instead, on November 16, 1999, Widewaters and the DEC agreed on a cleanup /; ,`/ progr h Widewaters must excavate the most heavily contaminate soli (in the plume and store it on site (on top of heavy plastic, inside a sand . - - high)in large "remediation biocells" each able to hold up to 5,000 cubic yards of material. Contaminated liquid that drains off the excavated soil is to be collected, filtered on site through charcoal to certain standards and disposed of in the City's sanitary sewer system. The soil itself is to be spread out, sprayed with microbes intended to break down hydrocarbons and allowed to aerate for two years. During this time, the process is to be monitored monthly by Widewaters' engineers. After two years, the contaminated soil may be considered safe to be reused on site. This remediation program is now underway, at the same time that Widewaters is adding 80,000 cubic yards of new fill to the site to accommodate a shopping center. The petroleum contamination on the site and the remediation program proposed by Widewaters were not mentioned in the fill permit application or the environmental review the City conducted for the fill operation. The agreement with DEC now exempts Widewaters from any further environmental review with regard to the cleanup. Some have questioned whether, given the company's track record to date, it can be relied upon to conduct the lengthy, complicated remediation process with the care and forthrightness needed to safeguard the environment and the public. Comments from the City of Ithaca's Conservation Advisory Council, on the Draft GEIS for the SW Area Land Use Plan(SALUP) February 17,2000 INTRODUCTION: The Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) has been examining the dGEIS since it was released to us, including extensive discussion at three of our meetings. The CAC finds that the dGEIS does not adequately address several important areas of concern, including water resources,the old City dump, visual resources,transportation, plants and animals, community character and quality of life, and costs to the City. A. COMMENTS ON THE SURFACE WATER AND DRAINAGE PLAN PORTION OF THE dGEIS The Executive Summary states that the"adoption of the plan would allow design criteria to be imposed on development that could act to improve surface water quality in the area through flood mitigation and storm water management practices." We find this statement unrealistically optimistic, at best. The GEIS should provide a more realistic appraisal of the impacts. The SW Area Plan calls for the development of up to 1.25 million square feet of buildings, plus associated roadways and parking lots, with a projected doubling of storm runoff volume and a near quadrupling of storm peak flow off the site. The dGEIS states that typical storm water pollutants from urban areas include oil, grease, sediment, solvents,various metals, nutrients and salt. The design of the system for a 25-year storm event is not adequate for mitigating significant impacts from these. Designing around old weather patterns, at a time of global climate change that is causing increasing frequency and severity of storms, is short- sighted. The GEIS should detail more robust systems for handling weather events, rather than marginal systems. According to the dGEIS, "abrupt slope change from steep to flat sloping channels where tributary streams enter the inlet alluvial plain result in conditions where flooding can be frequent." This has been a historic problem, well documented along Buttermilk Falls Road where residents are concerned about the filling being conducted by the Widewaters Co. The Widewaters example illustrates the problems inherent with massive filling in a flood plain (and with piecemeal development occurring before the environmental impacts are analyzed). Historically, the overflow from Buttermilk Creek has rushed through an opening in the railroad embankment and spread out harmlessly across the flood plain area,before draining into the Cayuga Inlet. Widewaters has filled in much of the flood plain, and proposes to create a drainage swale to carry the floodwaters into the substitute parkland(and, ultimately,the Inlet). However, due to the extremely flat topography of the flood plain, it will be very difficult to build a ditch that will have sufficient fall to carry floodwaters at high velocity. A low- velocity ditch will allow for rapid accumulation of sediment and require constant maintenance. This area was totally submerged in flood waters in 1996, and has been inundated by storms other than 100-year events. During these events, additional sediment and debris will drop out into the drainage systems. The drainage ditch at the Widewaters site will empty into the substitute parkland, so that the annual maintenance and sediment removal at its mouth will become the responsibility of the City and will impact on the new substitute parkland. The maintenance of this ditch and the entire drainage system for the larger SW project area will be the responsibility of the City. These costs need to be considered in the GEIS in any cost/benefit ratio of the project. . „ • , . . • , . • . . . • . , .• , • . . • • • • • • • , • • „ , , , , „ . „ , . , • , • .. . t . „ • . - . , • . . , , ' , ,. • . , . • ' ' • M1 • • • . •. •• •. " • . . . • • • . • „ . • • • , • • • „ • e ,• •. •.., . .1 •• , • . • .•• . 1., . •. .1 • . • . . • , . • . e . • • • . • 1. , •• • . • • ' . .• . M1 . — „ [CAC Comments] 2 The dGEIS states as a general guideline, that site grading for drainage, roadway and building pad construction is to be limited to fills of approximately five feet or less. This guideline is presently being exceeded at the Widewaters site. Drainage ditches in the rest of the SALUP area will not be able to carry the design flow of water without expensive maintenance—costs which the GEIS needs to consider. The initial sediment load due to construction and erosion is expected to be above normal, according to the dGEIS, so that cleaning may be required after one season. Yet,this will remove vegetation that is needed for sediment and pollution remediation. The dGEIS states that "brush, debris and sediment removal should be performed at least annually." If the maintenance is neglected and channel dredging and re-shaping becomes necessary, then the activity may require a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers and would likely require engineering designs. The Executive Summary states that the proposed Southwest plan will improve water quality. This claim defies logic and science, since much of the area slated for development is currently vegetated(or,in the case of the Widewaters site,was vegetated, until the developers stripped the land). Before it was stripped of vegetation and filled,the Widewaters site acted as a typical flood plain, storing water and alleviating downstream flooding, and helping to filter pollutants and sediment from runoff. The rest of the vegetated portions of the SALUP area, especially the woodlands and wetlands in the original SW Park, perform these same functions. All of the alternatives presented in the dGEIS will dramatically increase impervious surfaces and decrease the amount of vegetation. The dGEIS states that typical storm water pollutants from urban areas include oil, grease, sediment, solvents,various metals, nutrients and salt. The proposal for addressing these pollutants by collecting storm water runoff in catchment basins is inadequate, since only the first Yi inch of runoff from a rainfall event will be collected in the proposed basins. The GEIS needs to evaluate this more carefully, along with the impact of these materials entering the important Cayuga Inlet and lake fisheries and the drinking water of Cayuga Lake. The vegetated swales proposed in the plan will allow for the nutrients(nitrogen and phosphorus)to be absorbed by plants,but unless the above-ground portions of plant materials are removed from the site,there will be no net loss of nutrients from plant absorption. The use of the drainage swales as an area of sedimentation will only reduce the life of the drainage swales and increase maintenance costs. If the swales are dug out every year, as will probably be needed to maintain flow from the site,the GEIS needs to address where the dredged materials,laden with pollutants,will be put. Will they simply be spread on the site—maybe even in the new SW Park? In addition, the GEIS needs to address what will happen to pollutants in the period before vegetation starts to grow back in the swales. The CAC feels that a drainage system designed to need annual cleaning is not a viable alternative. The dGEIS simultaneously proposes removing water from the site as fast as possible, to reduce flooding on the site, and slowing it down as much as possible,to trap or remediate pollutants and sediment. Obviously, both scenarios are not possible. It is the CAC's recommendation that larger sedimentation and retention basins be constructed and incorporated into a wetland design within each development site, allowing for a more economic and effective treatment and removal of sediment,nutrients and metals, rather than spreading the pollutants out over lengthy drainage swales. This would also save the City money, as maintenance would be the responsibility of the owners. In the original SW Park, it [CAC Comments] 3 would be better, and much less costly, however, to retain the woodlands and wetlands already there, so that they can continue to perform the important flood management and pollutant remediation services that they currently perform. The GEIS should propose systems that would result in no net increase in either volume or velocity of runoff from each development site, as is recommended in State guidelines. The sweeping and vacuuming of parking lots should be seen only as a practice to extend the life of other, more realistic, treatment structures. The GEIS needs to explain what mechanism will be in place for ensuring that they will be so maintained. The GEIS should provide details of routine monitoring of all drainage and sediment control structures: who will oversee this,what mechanism will be in place for handling problems, how much will this cost the City, etc.? The dGEIS recommends sedimentation control measures, such as installing check dams or siltation basins in the streams draining South Hill, to minimize sedimentation concerns in the Relief Channel. These would be helpful, since the Relief Channel is the major outlet for most of the drainage system in the plan. But much of the South Hill area in question is in the Town of Ithaca, over which the City has no control. If the Town permitted the City to install dams or basins,the cost of installation and maintenance will presumably be borne by the City and should be considered in the cost/benefit ratio of the project. Has this matter been discussed with Town officials? The dGEIS recommends that the site drainage configuration also include the ability to discharge directly into the Cayuga Inlet/Flood Control Channel, due to fear of high water in the Relief Channel. This would provide an emergency alternative discharge location for floodwaters. The design should take into consideration that any direct discharge into the Inlet will by-pass most planned treatments and should be designed to be used only during a 25-year storm or worse. And see Part F, below, regarding impacts on fisheries and drinking water. Wetlands are important resources, providing(among other things) protection against flooding and serving as reservoirs for storm water and snow melt events. Wetlands also provide habitat for specific plants and animals. 10.98 acres of wetlands have been delineated within the SW area. We support the expansion and enhancement of existing wetlands on the site. We do not support the creation of new wetlands in the new SW Park until a complete management plan has been developed for the Park. We are concerned about directing more water as well as contaminants into Negundo Woods without consultation by a forester or ecologist on the impacts of pollutants and/or additional water into this area. The use of wetlands (existing and new/enhanced)to provide storm water and water quality benefits should be part of any system designed to accommodate new development. Buffer and wetland plant species should be native and not invasive. The dGEIS concludes that extensive development in the Southwest area poses no problems with contamination of the subsurface aquifer system. It also states that the foundational supports and pilings that will be needed for this development will penetrate the subsurface water layer, but will be self-sealing. The CAC believes that contaminants in the former City dump area could be a threat to the aquifer if the water travels along these pilings, and that the dGEIS is misleading on this point. Before the City proceeds with any alterations to the important natural water control systems in our SW area, far more information is needed in the GEIS regarding the impact of such actions on flooding in the vicinity and downstream, on water quality in Cayuga Inlet,the Flood Relief and Flood Control Channels, and Cayuga Lake, and on costs for City taxpayers. • • , , • • . , • • . 6 , , • , • . • . • 6 • . • . • • • , , . • . • • „ . , „, • . •• . . , • , • . . ,.... . • - • • ' • . . , 4. • . • , • - . , - , . , • • 6 .. . , , • , . • • • . , • . • ,.. . , „ . , . • • , . • • [CAC Comments] 6 C. COMMENTS ON VISUAL RESOURCES, SECTION 2.6 AND APPENDIX E OF DGEIS The inclusion of a visual impact assessment in the dGEIS is laudable. CAC's comments concern weaknesses in the Key View projections as well as in the recommendations for mitigation of impacts. It is notable that this study was conducted before the current activity on the Widewaters Site,which must have considerable impact on Key Views 1-3. The projected impact of development alternatives on key views assumes mitigating factors(presumably incorporated into the design guidelines)that may not occur: retention of some of the existing vegetation,large trees on parking lots, no rooftop utilities or penthouses,strictly controlled signage(see esp.V5 simulation), uniformity of building height and rooftop in contrast to guidelines which recommend varying roof lines.As a result,the simulations indicate less impact than the development may well have. The draft design guidelines do not match recommended mitigation steps listed in the Visual Resources section of the dGEIS. For example,while the dGEIS speaks of"large trees" in parking lots,the design guidelines require only 2" BD caliper trees,which would take years to reach the size projected in the dGEIS. The dGEIS recommends uniformity of building height and rooftops,while the draft guidelines call for varying roof lines. New signage will have to compete for attention with an existing gaudy hodge-podge of signs on Elmira Road,using the vibrant colors recommended against by the study. It seems likely that new businesses off the main road will seek considerable presence and visibility, by means of high contrast signage that does not meet the Visual Resources recommendations and will still fit the proposed SW Area Land Use Guidelines. The GEIS needs to address this. The retention of existing vegetation is considered by the McCord Landscape Architects to have the greatest mitigating effect on negative visual impacts of development. All alternative plans,and especially Alt.6,5 and 1,will require removal of nearly all existing vegetation in the developed area. A feeling for the visual impact of such development is readily available at the proposed Widewaters site where the city has permitted extensive site work and fill in advance of site plan review, thus allowing removal of large trees and most other vegetation. The view simulations in the GEIS should include such scenarios,and alternative plans that would avoid such impacts. The GEIS also should show key views from the Black Diamond Trail as well as from various sites outside City limits. Substantial,effective buffers of trees are needed: along the Black Diamond Trail; between the substitute parkland and the commercial zone along route 13;between the substitute parkland and development to the north in the original SW Park; and between the any new development and Nates Floral Estates. Of special concern to the City, in view of its importance,both locally and state-wide, is the view from trails at Buttermilk Falls State Park. All six alternatives in the dGEIS show a very large commercial building at the location now apparently being prepared by Widewaters for just such a structure. The impact on views from Buttermilk of such a development will be significant. The GEIS should include one or more alternatives showing more compatible uses of that site,with greatly reduced visual impact. [CAC Comments] 7 D. COMMENTS ON THE TRANSPORTATION PORTION OF THE DGEIS-- 1. Spencer Road is not included in the impact analyses; it should be included as part of the Level of Service(LOS)study and the neighborhood street analysis. Analysis is needed in the GEIS for the impacts on pedestrians and bikers throughout the area,but especially along Spencer Rd. and any other streets that have no sidewalks. Spencer Rd. is already considered hazardous by those who walk or bike along it. Related to Spencer Rd. traffic is traffic on Stone Quarry Rd.;this is being used increasingly for access to this part of the City. The GEIS should address this. 2. Unavoidable impacts exist for the listed development scenarios,beyond the brief statement in the Executive Summary. a. In spite of traffic-calming measures, intersection improvements, and new intersections, several intersections' LOS will decrease. The Executive Summary should be corrected to more accurately reflect these unmitigated impacts. b. In spite of mitigation measures, traffic volumes will increase significantly. Increased noise and air pollution are unavoidable impacts(not to mention increased driver aggravation and decreased quality of life). The Executive Summary should be corrected to more accurately reflect these unmitigated impacts. 3. Level of Service information is needed in the GEIS for the Meadow/Seneca and Meadow/Green intersections. 4. Our biggest issue with the Level of Service analysis is that LOS E was determined to be the goal of mitigation. With the definition of E as it is(including waits of 41 to 60 seconds, driver aggravation, etc.),we are puzzled and disappointed that city officials and planners would accept this very poor level of service for the City of Ithaca and its residents. The intersection at Albany and Spencer Streets will be mitigated to LOS E; several other intersections will be mitigated to LOS D; still others won't experience mitigation at all because they are already LOS E or above. We are disappointed that our city planners do not want better traffic service for this community. 5. The dGEIS talks about impacts to neighborhoods only in numerical terms,but does not address impact on quality of life or property values of the neighborhood. These need to be included in the statement. 6. The first of three goals and objectives of traffic-calming mitigation is to "Encourage greater use of multi-modal transportation." But the focus of recommended mitigation is directed toward engineering measures. The GEIS needs to include mitigation measures that clearly and specifically address encouraging people to use non-auto transportation. Specific engineering measures are outlined in Table 2-20(page 2-47). The GEIS should outline in a similar way measures that can or will be used to achieve the goal of getting people to use non-auto transportation. 7. The GEIS needs to address the need for sidewalks along all of route 13. [CAC Comments] 8 8. The figures show no increase in traffic on major arterials as a result of traffic-calming measures on side streets. This defies logic and needs to be corrected in the GEIS. 9. Just two paragraphs are devoted to analysis of public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian use of the affected area. Just one paragraph covers mitigation measures. One of the mitigating measures for bicycling is the inclusion of 5-foot bike lanes. With the forecasted increases in traffic, cyclists will be fearful of using the lanes. Safer alternatives need to be given. 10. The GEIS needs to include, as part of mitigation plans, specific means for educating the public about sharing the road with pedestrians and bicycles. 11. The GEIS also should include details of public transit-related mitigation. 12. How will the area be linked (by all means of transportation)to other areas? 13. The dGEIS discusses traffic calming effects only for the development scenarios. For proper comparison,the GEIS should assume traffic-calming measures for the no-action alternative as well. [CAC Comments] 9 E. COMMENTS ON THE"PLANTS AND ANIMALS"PORTION OF THE DGEIS AND APPENDIX H Part I: EVALUATION OF IMPACTS The dGEIS comes to the surprising and unwarranted conclusion that implementation of the SW Area Land Use Plan"is not expected to have any substantial impacts on plant and animal resources." (ES-4)The field survey that was done by plant ecologist F. Robert Wesley does not even come close to drawing such a conclusion. The closest thing he says is that he found no species that are so rare or endangered that they have legal protection--the standards for which are exceedingly high. Not only does the dGEIS draw conclusions from Wesley's report that are at odds with that report,the Executive Summary doesn't even summarize accurately what is said in the body of the dGEIS. It should be mentioned, by the way,that plant ecologist Robert Wesley is misidentified in the dGEIS as a"wildlife biologist." While he is a fine naturalist(especially regarding plants), his survey's primary focus was on the plants. No one surveyed for the dGEIS the birds, amphibians, mammals, reptiles, and other wildlife, nor evaluated their needs,such as for wetland or contiguous forest habitat. Similarly, invertebrate life important for Cayuga Inlet's very important fishery are not discussed, nor are potential impacts of the various alternatives on this resource. This fishery draws large numbers of fishermen to the City. 1. On page ES-4,under"Plants and Animals,"the document states that"no significant ecosystems, other than Negundo Woods...were identified within the study area." On page 2-2, the doc. states that adoption and implementation of the SW Area Plan"will result in insignificant impacts to the natural features within the study area."In the"Summary of Impacts,"on page ES- 3,under"plants and animals,"the table says, "none,"in the adverse impact column. Yet,on page 2-61,the dGEIS reports that the old hedgerow between the original SW Park and lands owned by Reuben Weiner"constitutes a significant remnant of old-growth floodplain forest."In addition to other very large trees,the county's largest bur oak is in this hedgerow. The dGEIS says that the trees in the forest just to the east are"somewhat less large," with the implication that these,too, are nevertheless large. This floodplain forest remnant is identified by Wesley and the dGEIS as being of special importance and one that should be protected. Mature floodplain forest is now one of the rarest ecosystems in the state, as a result of human activities. In addition to the intrinsic value of this forest, if the younger woodlands in the study area are to develop into healthy flood plain forests,thus undoing some of the damage done by humans, it is important that the trees in the old hedgerow be protected. They provide important seed stock for the younger forested areas. Yet all six alternatives shown in the dGEIS completely eliminate this forest. The Executive Summary conveniently"forgets"about its very existence! Not only must this be corrected;the GEIS also should provide alternatives that protect the forest. 2. Cayuga Inlet, according to the DEC's fishery expert, is the single most valuable stream entering Cayuga Lake for the production of wild migratory trout. DEC estimates are that 85-90% of the wild trout in the lake come from the Inlet. This is of enormous value, yet the dGEIS does not discuss it, nor does it consider the many changes in drainage and pollutant and sediment loads that could affect the Inlet. The Cayuga Lake fishery itself is estimated to :�►t 0 minion. about half of which is from the cold water fishery. The GEIS needs t ' Conservation Overlay Zones November, 1988 The Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) recommends that Common Council adopt the following conservation overlay zoning in sensitive natural areas of the city. I. Purpose . The purpose of conservation overlay zoning (COZ) is to give added protection to environmentally sensitive areas without changing the overall zoning of the given areas. The CAC feels that our wetlands, waterways, and woodlands are Ithaca's most sensitive and valuable natural resources. The purpose of the COZ would be: * to protect the water quality of the streams themselves and Cayuga • Lake into which they flow; * to preserve plant and wildlife habitat; * to minimize excessive increases in water volume flowing through the creeks, and consequent erosion of the banks, siltation of the streams and lake, loss of riparian (streambank) vegetation, and - loss of habitat for fish and other wildlife; * to protect land from periodic excessive flooding due to removal of riparian vegetation, dredging, filling, damming, or channelization; * to prevent degradation or loss of wetlands; * to safeguard scenic views and vistas from and to the lakes, wetlands, creeks, and gorges; and * to enhance the recreational (including tourism) values of these important places. II. Background and rationale Ithaca's waterways have often been treated as nuisances rather than the tremendous natural assets that they are. Especially in downtown Ithaca, the result has been polluted water, channelization, disregard for plant and wildlife habitat, litter, and inappropriate development. Loss of fisheries, and possible contamination of remaining fish species, has been another result. Runoff from streets is a major cause of water pollution, and in addition, the replacement of permeable, vegetated surfaces with impervious ones leads to gullying on the slopes and greater volumes of water in the streams with resulting erosion, siltation, loss of plant life, loss of fisheries- and isheriesand other wildlife. Buildings close to waterways can degrade the aesthetic appeal of these resources. The CAC feels that it is important to preserve the features we have left and improve water quality, enhance aesthetic appeal and recreational value, and improve plant and wildlife habitats•of our waterways. The COZ proposed here would be a first step in that process. In addition, we hope that the city will give attention to rehabilitating areas along our waterways that have been degraded. While increasing the enjoyment of city residents in these important natural resources, tourism will also be enhanced, with consequent economic benefits to the city. In addition to the waterways, the city boasts several woodlands that deserve protection. Woodlands provide a number of benefits; for example, f !� * enjoyment of the people who live near them, see them, cr use them; * noise buffer; * visual buffer; * habitat for wildlife and plants; * protection of waterways from excessive runoff, pollution, erosion, and siltation; * protection from flooding; - * protection of air quality by trapping or absorbing pollutants; * cooling through shading and evapotranspiration; * absorption of CO2, one of the major greenhouse gases. Note: An alternative to including the woodlands in the COZ would be to designate these as Critical Environmental Areas under the local Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. M. Proposed provisions of the ordinance 1. In the overlay zones, no new construction except for certain accessory uses to existing structures, as specified below, may take place without a special permit and environmental review. Existing structures, roads, _ driveways, etc. may remain, but may ,not be replaced without a special permit and environmental review (with the same exceptions as for new con- struction). In the absence of a permit for replacement, demolition must return the site to a stable, vegetated condition. Replacement of existing structures may not result in an increase in density. 2a. Construction activities in an overlay zone must make provisions for protecting the zone from environmental damage: to avoid such problems as erosion and increased runoff, compaction of soil around trees, piling of soil around trees, trash and pollution, etc. The owner/contractor must spell out in advance what actions will be taken, and if problems arise during or after construction, must take corrective action. 2b. Construction activities outside of the overlay zones may not encroach on the areas inside the zones. Appropriate construction fencing must be installed to ensure that this provision is not violated. Any debris that gets into the overlay zone must be removed by the project's contractor or owner, and any accidental damage must be remedied by same. Water runoff from such nearby activities must be controlled by same. 3. No trees above 12" DBH, and no more than 10 trees above 2" DBH, may be cut in either zone without a special permit and environmental review. Criteria to consider before granting or denying a permit should include such things as species of trees and appropriateness of habitat, health of the trees, endangerment of nearby structuresand utilities. Note: Loss of tree cover is one of the major threats to our waterways. The CAC views this provision of the proposal as vital. 4. Consideration in granting or denying permits shall be given to such things as slope, existing vegetation, views, size and appearance of project, and of course, findings of the environmental review. The reviewing board may place any conditions on the owner/developer that it deems necessary to ensure the protection of the critical area. The board should have broad powers in terms of design and layout of structures, both of which should blend with their surroundings and be as unobtrusive as possible. If mitigating measures, spelled out in the permit, prove to be inadequate as a project proceeds, the review board may require additional protective measures before work may proceed. Note: The CAC recognizes that there will be controversy concerning the degree of specificity that is needed in identifying the criteria. It would be very difficult in Ithaca to come up with very specific criteria because each situation is likely to be so different from every other; what might be entirely appropriate in one setting could be disastrous in another. The CAC feels that it would be best to leave each determination up to the good sense of the reviewing board (whatever body that may be), acting with advise from the CAC and possibly outside experts. 5. A no-build buffer zone should•be established in especially critical areas such as along waterways, in which no new structures could be built--that is, a permit could not be issued. Exemptions to such a provision--along the flats but not the gorges--could include boat launching sites, boathouses, poles, lean-tos, docks, fences, bridges.(list taken from state guidelines-- Appendix R of the Stream Corridor Management Manual--a DEC publication). (Replacement of existing structures might be exempted.) These same guidelines recommend buffer strips of varying widths, depending on slope of the land, in watersheds and other critical areas: 0% 50' (from high water mark) 10% 90' 20% 130' 30% 170' 40% 210' etc. 6. Members of the CAC and the reviewing board may enter any site in an overlay zone in order to evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposal and, after work has begun, to assess compliance with protective measures and the possible need for additional measures. • 7. Accessory uses that are permitted without a permit, PROVIDED these do not come closer than 50 feet to the edge of a creek's high water mark nor closer than 50 feet to slopes that are greater than 15% adjacent to a creek (whichever is farther) (or use guidelines in #5): a. Driveways larger than (360-400??) square feet b. Parking lots for 4 or fewer vehicles c. New attached construction that would, not increase the existing footprint by more than (10% ?) nor density of use by more than (10% ?). d. Small garden sheds, children's play apparatus, picnic tables, patios for single or double-family homes, and similar small-scale residential uses. 8. Any dispute regarding the intent of this ordinance shall be resolved to give the maximum protection to the critical area. 9. Except for small projects as described under 117 above, granting of permits in an overlay zone may not be treated as ministerial acts. • • 10. Severability: If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance and the application thereof to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such holding and shall remain in full force and effect. IV. Areas to be covered A large map marked with the proposed overlay zones is available for examination in the Planning Dept. In some municipalities with overlay zoning, 200 feet in each direction is the standard distance from critical areas. A. Waterways The CAC took a trip (with a 100' tape measure) to five different sites in the city to see what the implications of various distances would be. In most cases, the CAC is recommending a distance of 200 feet in each direction, measured horizontally from the center of a stream. Where a stream is unusually wide, such as along the Flood Control Channel and Cayuga Inlet, the measurement has been taken from the top of the bank next to the creek. A few other exceptions to the 200-foot rule (in some spots leaving less than 200' and in other spots, more than 200'): a) From College Ave., going east along the south side of Cascadilla Creek, follow the north side of Oak Ave. to rt. 366. b) From College Ave., going east along the north side of Cascadilla, the distance shall be 250' from the center of the creek until reaching the east end of the Theory Center. From there, follow Campus Rd. east to the stairs (leading to the stadium) just before the bridge at rt. 366. The gorge is unusually wide in many areas of the stretch from College Ave. to the rt. 366 intersection. Furthermore, the north side has a number of buildings in close proximity to the gorge. Further infilling in that area would be harmful to the gorge and the water quality of the creek, as well as to aesthetic values. c) Along the connector between Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel, follow Taber St. on the south side. d) Along south side of Six-Mile Creek, east of Aurora St. Bridge, follow Hudson and. Giles Streets; except note additional protective band along south side of road (under "other protected areas"). e) Along north side of Six-Mile Creek, east of Aurora St., follow State St. to Ferris Pl. From there, go southeast along a line 250' below State St., to the city line; except note additional protective band ("under other protected areas"). f) Going east along south side of Fall Creek, near Johnson Art Museum, starting at N-S intersecting rd. (Central Ave.), follow north side of University Ave. and first part of Forest Home Dr. Thereafter follow a line 200' south of Forest Home Drive, to the city line (south side of Beebe Lake). (See map.) g) Going northeast along the NW shore of Beebe Lake, follow the service road that leads to Newman Gym; from there follow a line 250' from the old north shore of Beebe lake, east to the city line. B. Other protected zones: (see map) a) Linn St. Woods (on EMC's unique areas list) and narrow band of woods north and east of Lake St. on the south side of Fall Creek (use treeline as the boundary in both instances). (Not precisely marked on map.) • b) 200 feet from, and including, Fuertes Sanctuary. This is one of the best examples in the state of now-rare old-growth flood plain forest. c) 200 feet from, and including, Cornell's Biological Field Station (boundary needs to be more clearly delineated on map). d) 100 feet from, and including, rare remnant old-growth flood plain 7 forest and other mature woods at SE corner of SW Park and along the southern, eastern, and northern boundaries of SW Park. Use line of mature trees as boundary--not accurately marked on map. e) Wooded area of SW Park (not precisely marked on map). f) Zone extending from Ferris Pl. southeast to the city line, and from State St. south and southwest to the boundary of the creek overlay zone. This area has seen intensive development in close proximity to the gorge. Serious damage to the creek and the gorge could result from further increases in density. Furthermore, there would be severe loss of neighborhood and aesthetic values and of wildlife and plant diversity (with all that this entails). g) Zone extending 200' to 300' feet--as shown on map--south from Giles St. between Columbia and Van Atta's Dam, to where the area abuts the City's Watershed holdings. (See map) This area consists of important protective forest. h) As much as possible of the remaining woodland (now about 100 acres?) on West Hill, with help from the West Hill neighborhood in defining the boundary of the protected area. i) The Hogs' Hole next to Cass Park, an area with valuable wetlands and a large stand of massive trees (boundaries to be determined). Important habitat for birds--and birders! Valuable remnant of the once-vast wetland that used to border this end of the lake. Now owned by the state park system. (j. Other possible areas.) • ,gal) A/I/tip 7, _ fl- Memo to: Common Council and Mayor 2 0 Planning Board Planning Director City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee Re: EAF for the Alienation of SW Park and Designation of Substitute Park Land Date: March 19, 1998 1. The EAF as written wavers between treating "the proposed action" merely as the alienation of SW Park/designation of substitute park land, and approaching it more comprehensively, to include future uses of the properties in question. We suggest a consistent approach: evaluating only the alienation/substitution (as has been done in parts of the EAF), and leaving the evaluation of actions that could involve new, future uses for subsequent environmental review. If the intent is to include in the scope of this review any possible rezoning and/or commitment to particular future uses (e.g., commercial), then a much more extensive analysis is needed before making a determination of significance. If the intent is to restrict this review to the decision to alienate and designate substitute parkland, with no assumptions being made regarding future uses of the alienated land, the following changes should be made in the EAF: (a) Items #22 (c) and (d) in Part I state that the "proposed use" is not consistent with present zoning, and that the future zoning "will be commercial." These statements should be deleted. If the proposed action being reviewed here is merely alienation/ substitution, then there is no "proposed use" for the current SW Park (and the intended use of the substitute land as park is not necessarily inconsistent with the Floodway zoning now applied to the property). Both questions should be answered, "Unknown." (b) Similarly, under B-1-c, the amount of"project acreage to remain undeveloped," should be answered "unknown; at least 47 acres," rather than "47 acres." This will confirm that the review is limited to alienation and substitution, and that all that can be said at this time is that the substitute parkland will remain undeveloped; the status of the alienated parkland depends on future land use decisions, subject to additional environmental review. The current answer assumes that all of the current SW Park will be developed. In fact, this 58-acre parcel is not without some significant environmental features, most notably wetlands, mature forest, and remnants of the very special old flood plain forest, along the eastern border and possibly the southern border. A decision to allow any or all of these to be modified or removed for development would require much greater analysisprior to making a determination of significance. 2. In Part I, #15, the estimated total number of acres of wetland appears to be far too small. Wetlands in SW Park alone appear to have more than 10 acres. In addition, the substitute parklands include substantial wetlands. 3. Item #13, in Part II, is answered too simplistically. In terms of quality of the two parcels of land, we agree that the substitute parcel would be superior,but in terms of quantity, it is 11 acres smaller(as now drawn). Furthermore, the answer does not acknowledge that the current SW Park has any significant natural features, yet it clearly does. (See item 1 (b),above.) We recommend that the answer to item #13 acknowledge the fact that loss of parkland status will increase the possibility that any or all of the parcel's important environmental features and open space attributes could be lost to development (rather than note only the "positive benefit" of the substitution). In the attachment, the reviewer could elaborate on the features of the current SW park and should note that this EAF is restricted to alienation alone; any decision on actual future land use would be subject to further environmental review, taking into account the attributes of(the former) SW Park and how they should be treated,thus mitigating any concern at this time. 4. Part II, #19: Public controversy should be checked, "Yes," and put in the "small-to-moderate" column. 5. The map provided is not adequate. It doesn't show the levee or the 100-year flood plain line. A copy of the current zoning map, with the correct boundaries of the proposed parkland drawn on, would be easier to interpret. 6. Regarding the substitute parklands, we recommend that the boundaries be modified as follows. Adding more land to the substitute park will make its size more comparable to what is being alienated, and will make the new park much more viable as a public space. This is more urgent than adding funds to the operating budgets of other parks. No more undeveloped land is being "made;" and we should not let this opportunity to create the most attractive possible park/natural area slip by (especially since land values are probably at the lowest they will be for a long time to come). (a) All of the land that the City has already acquired in the area should be included in the substitute package; this will add the remainder of the so-called "SW-4" parcel (possibly 10 acres?), southerly along the old railroad embankment(along which the proposed bike path will run). (b) Additional land (or development rights) between the proposed 1985 southern boundary of the substitute park and Route 13 should be acquired, to ensure that the park will be adequately.buffered from any adjacent commercial uses. (c) A corridor or right-of-way should be obtained linking the substitute park with Route 13. This is critical in order to provide City residents (and others) with adequate access to the park, particularly the portion of the park south of the Inlet. Without the corridor (and some provision for parking), the only access will be on foot or by bicycle; given the location off Route 13, at the end of a busy commercial strip without sidewalks,pedestrian access will not be a reasonable option for the vast majority. (d) A small area of land bounded by the old railroad embankment, Cayuga Inlet and W. Buttermilk Falls Road should be acquired either by the City or the Town, as this will provide additional access along the Inlet,a direct link to land owned by NYS as part of Buttermilk Falls State Park and space for a potential bike/pedestrian path connecting to W. Buttermilk Falls Road. CONCLUSION: The EAF should be corrected as noted above, prior to making a determination of significance. Consideration should be given to expanding the boundaries of the substitute parkland as recommended. If these changes are made, the Conservation Advisory Council's EAF subcommittee will recommend a negative declaration for the alienation of Southwest Park and designation of substitute parkland.