Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-13-19 Planning and ED Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting  Planning and Economic Development Committee  Ithaca Common Council  DATE: February 13, 2019  TIME: 6:00 pm    LOCATION: 3rd floor City Hall Council Chambers  AGENDA ITEMS  Item Voting  Item?  Presenter (s) Time  Start  1)Call to Order/Agenda Review 2)Special Order of Business a)Public hearing – Acquisition of the Former Immaculate Conception School Gymnasium 3)Public Comment 4)Updates a)Energy Issues / Green Building Policy 5)Action items (Voting to Circulate) a)Southside Plan 6)Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council) a)Acquisition of the former Immaculate Conception School Gymnasium b)Enforcement of Housing Standards c)Local Control of City Speed Limits and Related Safety Discussion 7)Discussion a)Intercity Busses b)Backyard Chickens c)Infill Development Guidelines d)Priority Work Plan and 2019 Goals 8)Review and Approval of Minutes a)January 2019 9)Adjournment No  Yes  No  No  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  No  Yes  Yes  Seph Murtagh, Chair  Megan Wilson, Senior Planner  Nels Bohn, IURA Director   Robert Sarachan, City Prosecutor  Eric Hathaway, Transportation  Engineer   Eric Hathaway / Jennifer Kusznir  Monika Roth, Chair, PRNR  Commission  JoAnn Cornish, Planning Director  JoAnn Cornish, Planning Director  6:00  6:05  6:15  6:30  6:40  7:00  7:15  7:30  8:00  8:15  8:30  9:00  9:15  9:20  If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact the City  Clerk at 274‐6570 by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, February, 2019.   ** Out of consideration for the health of other individuals, please try to refrain from using perfume/cologne and other  scented personal care products at City of Ithaca meetings.  Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. **  ,ri,:d y.r*,i : : Z,-; =*fr *;,,';: i ;G)&''t Dear staff and various board and committee members of the City of lthaca and Tompkins County, As members of the City of lthaca Planning and Development Board, and in response to the current North Campus Residential Expansion project before us, we find ourselves in need of more tangible and stringent energy code requirements at the City and County level. Our currenl CEQR requirements seem ambiguous and unable to address our specific goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, make our building stock more energy efficient, reduce embodied energy and energy transit, and address upstream energy sourcing. We see the following guidelines available to us now as helpful but not comprehensive or consolidated enough when it comes to the Planning and Development Board's CEQR process: . lthaca Green Buildinq Policv . Citv of lthaca Enerqv Action Plan . Tompkins Countv Enerqv Roadmap . DEC Guidance . Tompkins Countv 239 What we believe to be missing is legislative materialthat is enforceable by the City. We think that the City's goal to phase out fossil fuel use by 2050 needs to be more aggressive and also rooted in strict implementation through the City Building Code, Site Plan Review, and tax incentive programs. We believe that Common Council, the Planning and Development Board, the Board of Public Works, the City Building Department, the Community lnvestment lncentive Tax Abatement Program, the lthaca Urban Renewal Agency, the Planning and Economic Development Committee, the County, and the public all have a vested interested in this issue. As such, we feel strongly that an energy reduction working group should be created with members of all of these entities, and that all of these bodies must uphold whatever standard is created by this working group. The Planning and Development Board would be happy to provide additional resources and ideas to this working group, including but not limited to the foilowing: . https ://aceee. orq/loca l-pol icv/citv-scoreca rd . http://www. hom eenerqy. o rg/s how/bloq/nav/bloq/id/ 1 .1 5B . htt0s:/lnewbuildinqs.orqlnews/new-stretch-code-helps-cities-states/ . htt0s://www1 .nvc.qov/office-ofthe-mavor/news/S89-1 7/transcript-mavor-de-blasio-nvc- wi ll-be-first-citv-mandate-existi nq-buildinqs . https://www.aia.orq/press-releases/6086418-new{oolkit-helps-architect-achieve-high-p As has been noted by the public through the NCRE application process, it is imperative that we take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now. The measures we take to achieve this must be thoughtful and incorporate the expertise and needs of multiple parties. Without these energy reduction requirements, the Planning and Development Board is unable to address the needs of the community as a whole. We require new fossil fuel reduction standards that are able to be upheld by various bodies, are easy to understand for the public and members of board and committees from various backgrounds, and will live in perpetuity within City code. Sincerely, The City of lthaca Planning and Development Board l/n l,V,a- ra0arit)\u;rrrV:/"- t f zzf nI-7 t*'zr!; -i*. c-ra 5 c.ric;a ),a, a-f C-fh 3 PE b<' 45. , .{., {.,' ,t'5 ; r-' tJ nwLfri 6 L S) t /C J io*lT *c- 4/Li t t)g,,xl.r--';2. L*L Zr- ,7!--l- <-/rsct-^t*( c t czt/gzv tf, 'fD ' To: Planning & Economic Development Committee From: Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date: February 5, 2019 RE: Draft Greater Southside Neighborhood Plan In late January, staff distributed the draft Greater Southside Neighborhood Plan, dated December 19, 2018, for review.1 The draft plan was completed and recommended by the Southside Neighborhood Plan Committee in December 2019, and the Planning and Development Board reviewed the draft and recommended it for Common Council adoption as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan on January 22, 2019. The draft plan is now ready for consideration by Common Council. The draft plan was completed over the past two years by the Southside Neighborhood Plan Committee and Planning staff. The Committee included approximately 15 neighborhood residents, and the group identified issues to be addressed in the plan, provided feedback on draft materials, and helped organize public outreach. The first full draft of the plan was made available in September 2018, and public outreach, including community events, neighborhood meetings, and an online survey, was conducted September-November 2018. Following these outreach events, the Committee revised the draft plan to incorporate comments from the community The Greater Southside Neighborhood Plan is the first neighborhood plan to be completed as part of Phase II of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The plan follows the format of Plan Ithaca but addresses the broader issues and goals identified in the Phase I plan at a neighborhood level. The recommendations of the neighborhood plan are more specific and are often clear action steps to implement a goal of Plan Ithaca. Staff will attend the February 13th Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting to present the plan and address any questions before seeking approval to circulate the draft for further comment. The recommendations from the Southside Neighborhood Plan Committee and the Planning and Development Board are attached for your review. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please feel free to contact me at 274-6560 or mwilson@cityofithaca.org. 1 The draft plan is available on the project website at http://www.cityofithaca.org/629/Southside-Neighborhood- Plan CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JoAnn Cornish, Director Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565 E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Southside Neighborhood Plan Committee Recommendation of the Draft Greater Southside Neighborhood Plan to the Planning and Development Board - Adopted December 19, 2018 – WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan outlines a vision for the city’s future and serves as a guide for future decision-making, policies, and funding, and WHEREAS, the City decided to pursue a two-phased approach to its new Comprehensive Plan, where Phase I entailed the preparation of an “umbrella” plan, Plan Ithaca, that sets forth broad goals and principles to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II includes the preparation of specific neighborhood and thematic plans, and WHEREAS, the Common Council adopted Plan Ithaca in September 2015, and the planning process then began to focus on the Phase II plans, and WHEREAS, the Phase II plans provide an opportunity to take a proactive look at specific areas throughout the city, particularly those with significant potential for change, and to implement policies and capital improvements to help implement a shared vision, and WHEREAS, the Southside Neighborhood Plan Committee was formed in September 2016 and has worked with City Planning staff to conduct public outreach and prepare the draft plan, and WHEREAS, the complete draft Greater Southside Neighborhood Plan was made available for public review in September 2018, and the Committee hosted community events, neighborhood meetings, and an online survey to gather public comments on the draft plan, and WHEREAS, following its review of the comments, the Committee revised the draft plan to incorporate public input; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Southside Neighborhood Plan Committee recommends the draft Greater Southside Neighborhood Plan, dated December 13, 2018, for review and consideration by the Planning and Development Board as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Committee has identified the following recommendations as priority actions that should be undertaken to implement the Greater Southside Neighborhood Plan as soon as possible: 1.Allow architecturally compatible infill development within the Traditional Residential, Residential Transition, and Medium-Density Mixed Use areas. (Land Use Recommendation B)2.Zoning Recommendationsa.Revise existing zoning to reflect the desired future land uses of the Greater Southside Neighborhood Plan. (Land Use Recommendation D)b.Adopt a form-based code to ensure that new development is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. (Land Use Recommendation F/Historic PreservationRecommendation G) 3.Work with private property owners to maintain affordability of existing units within the study area. (Housing Recommendation D)4.Install additional pedestrian-scale lighting to improve visibility and security at night. Priority locations include Titus Triangle Park, North and South Titus Avenues, and South Albany Street.(Public Safety Recommendation D)5.Flooding Recommendationsa.Install backflow preventers for stormwater discharge south of Six Mile Creek to reduce flooding from storm events. (Physical Infrastructure Recommendation G)b.Work with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to establish an approved regular dredging program for Six Mile Creek. (Physical InfrastructureRecommendation H/Water Resources Recommendation B)c.Create a deeper channel in the center of Six Mile Creek to protect the creek walls from additional erosion and damage. (Physical Infrastructure Recommendation I)Moved by: Randall Seconded by: Galbreath In Favor: Galbreath, Hill, Holland, Murtagh, Nguyen, Randall, Whittaker Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: Baker, Briggs, Hicks, Krall, Lewis, McCormick, Rogers, Vidler Planning and Development Board Recommendation of the Draft Greater Southside Neighborhood Plan to the Common Council, Adopted January 22, 2019 WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan outlines a vision for the city’s future and serves as a guide for future decision-making, policies, and funding, and WHEREAS, the City decided to pursue a two-phased approach to its new Comprehensive Plan, where Phase I entailed the preparation of an “umbrella” plan, Plan Ithaca, that sets forth broad goals and principles to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II includes the preparation of specific neighborhood and thematic plans, and WHEREAS, the Common Council adopted Plan Ithaca in September 2015, and the planning process then began to focus on the Phase II plans, and WHEREAS, the Phase II plans provide an opportunity to take a proactive look at specific areas throughout the city, particularly those with significant potential for change, and to implement policies and capital improvements to help implement a shared vision, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State General City Law, the Planning and Development Board is responsible for preparing and recommending a new Comprehensive Plan to the Common Council for adoption, and WHEREAS, formed in September 2016, the Southside Neighborhood Plan Committee was composed of 15 area residents, including a member of the Planning and Development Board, and worked with City Planning staff to conduct public outreach and prepare the draft plan, and WHEREAS, the complete draft Greater Southside Neighborhood Plan was made available for public review in September 2018, and the Committee hosted community events, neighborhood meetings, and an online survey to gather public comments on the draft plan, and WHEREAS, following its review of the comments, the Committee revised the draft plan to incorporate public input, and WHEREAS, at its meeting on December 19, 2018, the Southside Neighborhood Plan Committee voted to recommend the draft Greater Southside Neighborhood Plan, dated December 19, 2018, for review and consideration by the Planning and Development Board as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board recommends the draft Greater Southside Neighborhood Plan, dated December 19, 2018, for review and adoption by the Common Council as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan: Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Petrina In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Proposed Resolution  Planning & Economic Development Committee  February 13, 2019  Acquisition of the Former Immaculate Conception School Gymnasium – Declaration of Lead  Agency    WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council is considering acquisition of a parcel of land  containing the 9,156 square foot gymnasium on the former Immaculate Conception school  campus, located at 320 W. Buffalo Street, Ithaca, NY, and    WHEREAS, the proposed acquisition of less  2.5 acres of contiguous land is an Unlisted Action  under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO), and  WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of CEQRO require that a Lead Agency be established for  conducting environmental review of proposed actions in accordance with local and state  environmental law, and  WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the Lead  Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or  carrying out the action, and  WHEREAS, no other agency than the City of Ithaca Common Council has jurisdiction to approve  or undertake the proposed action; now, therefore, be it   RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for  the environmental review of the proposed acquisition of the former Immaculate Conception  school gymnasium.       j:\planning\community development\admin files\nys\reso ped gym acquisition ‐ lead agency.doc  Proposed Resolution  Planning & Economic Development Committee  February 13, 2019  Acquisition of the Former Immaculate Conception School Gymnasium – Environmental  Significance    WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council is considering acquisition of a parcel of  land containing the 9,156 square foot gymnasium on the former Immaculate Conception  school campus, located at 320 W. Buffalo Street, Ithaca, NY, and    WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council declared itself Lead Agency for the  environmental review of this proposed action, and  WHEREAS, such proposed action for the acquisition of less than 2.5 contiguous acres of land is  an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance  (“CEQR”) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act  (“SEQR”), both of which require environmental review, and  WHEREAS, a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) and supporting information  has been prepared and provided to the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural  Areas Commission for review of the proposed action, and  WHEREAS, the Common Council for the city of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has  reviewed the SEAF prepared by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency and City planning  staff; now, therefore, be it  RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca, as Lead Agency in this  matter, adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth in the SEAF,  and be it further  RESOLVED, that the Lead Agency hereby determines that the proposed action at issue  will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental  review is unnecessary, and be it further  RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that  the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any  attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as  required by law.   j:\planning\community development\admin files\nys\reso ped acquisition of gym ‐ neg dec 2‐13‐19.doc  Proposed Resolution  Planning & Economic Development Committee  February 13, 2019  Revised Allocation of New York State Administered CDBG Program Income  Whereas, New York State requires communities in possession New York State (NYS) Administered  CDBG Program Income to use such funds for CDBG‐eligible uses by March 31, 2019 or return the  funds to New York State, and  Whereas, CDBG program income in the form of loan repayments from this economic development  activity are projected to total over $561,000 by March 31, 2019, and  Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) administers CDBG funds on behalf of the City,  and  Whereas, on November 7, 2018, the Common Council for the City of Ithaca adopted the IURA’s  recommendation to allocate NYS administered CDBG program to the following projects:   $175,000 ‐ Cherry Street public road extension, and   $386,583 ‐S. Aurora Street sidewalk extension (Hillview Place to City/Town line),  and  Whereas, the prospective employer to be served by the Cherry Street road extension has informed  the IURA that they are pursuing an alternative location to address their space needs due to  unforeseen soil conditions at Cherry Street, and  Whereas, the Cherry St. public road project is no longer an eligible CDBG economic development  activity without job creation, and  Whereas, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) has recently negotiated acquisition of  the former Immaculate Conception school campus, and   Whereas, INHS has indicated willingness to sell the former Immaculate Conception school  gymnasium to the City of Ithaca at their pro‐rated cost of $290,000, and  Whereas, the IURA recommends the following revised allocation of CDBG funds:  $0 ‐ Cherry Street industrial park extension $175,000 ‐Acquisition of the former Immaculate Conception school gymnasium, subject to securing $115,000 in match funding If match funding for the gym is not secured, then allocate $175,000 for purchase and installation of pedestrian‐scale, solar lighting in Titus Triangle, Baker, and Conway public parks, and, Whereas, environmental review for acquisition of the gymnasium has been completed; now,  therefore be it   RESOLVED, the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby amends its November 7, 2018  resolution to approve the allocation of NYS‐administered CDBG funds for the following projects:   $386,583 ‐ S. Aurora Street sidewalk extension (Hillview Place to City/Town line),  and  $175,000 ‐ Acquisition of the former Immaculate Conception school gymnasium, subject to securing $115,000 in match funding  If match funding for the gym is not secured, then $175,000 shall be allocated for purchase and installation of pedestrian‐scale, solar lighting in Titus Triangle, Baker, and Conway  public parks, and be it further,   RESOLVED, that the IURA is authorized to request approval from the NYS Office of Community  Renewal for use of CDBG funds.  j:\planning\community development\admin files\nys\resolutions\reso pedc reallocate nys cdbg pi 2‐13‐19.docx  Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project Information Instructions for Completing Part 1 - Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1 - Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: Project Location (describe, and attach a location map): Brief Description of Proposed Action: Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO: State: Zip Code: 1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, administrative rule, or regulation? If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2. NO YES 2. Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other governmental Agency? If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval: NO YES 3.a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? ___________ acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? ___________ acres c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? ___________acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on, adjoining and near the proposed action. 9 Urban 9 Rural (non-agriculture) 9 Industrial 9 Commercial 9 Residential (suburban) 9 Forest 9 Agriculture 9 Aquatic 9 Other (specify): _________________________ 9 Parkland Page 1 of 3 Page 2 of 3 5. Is the proposed action, a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? NO YES N/A 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape? NO YES 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area? If Yes, identify: __________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? b. Are public transportation service(s) available at or near the site of the proposed action? c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? NO YES 9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies: _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? If No, describe method for providing potable water: ______________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 12. a. Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic Places? b. Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area? NO YES 13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency? b. Would the proposed action physically alter, or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody? If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: _______________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: † Shoreline † Forest † Agricultural/grasslands † Early mid-successional † Wetland † Urban † Suburban 15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? NO YES 16. Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain?NO YES 17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non-point sources? If Yes, a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? † NO † YES b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems (runoff and storm drains)? If Yes, briefly describe: † NO † YES _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of water or other liquids (e.g. retention pond, waste lagoon, dam)? If Yes, explain purpose and size: ____________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste management facility? If Yes, describe: _________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 20. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation (ongoing or completed) for hazardous waste? If Yes, describe: __________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name: ___________________________________________ Date: ___________________________ Signature: _______________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 Page 1 of 2 Agency Use Only [If applicable] Project: Date: Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 - Impact Assessment Part 2 is to be completed by the Lead Agency. Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept “Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?” No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur 1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? 2.Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? 3.Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? 4.Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)? 5.Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? 6.Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? 7.Will the proposed action impact existing: a. public / private water supplies? b. public / private wastewater treatment utilities? 8.Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? 9.Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)? 10.Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage problems? 11.Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? Page 2 of 2 For every question in Part 2 that was answered “moderate to large impact may occur”, or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, please complete Part 3. Part 3 should, in sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant. Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting, probability of occurring, duration, irreversibility, geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short- term, long-term and cumulative impacts. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. _________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Name of Lead Agency Date _________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer _________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer) Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 Determination of Significance Agency Use Only [If applicable] Project: Date: Tompkins County Property Viewer Map is user generated and is to be used as a reference only. Data layers are not guranteed to be accurate or up-to-date. © Tompkins County GIS DO NOT USE FOR CONVEYANCE OR NAVIGATION Legend WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere This map was automatically generated using Geocortex Essentials. Your tax dollars at work! Notes Citations To: Common Council  From: Robert Sarachan, City Prosecutor  Date: February 7, 2019  Topic: Enforcement of Housing Standards   For the purpose of improving enforcement of the Housing Standards in Ithaca City Code the following  changes are being proposed.  These changes provide clearer definitions to aid enforcement and  additional incentives for compliance.  They were discussed at the January 9, 2019 Planning and  Economic Development Committee meeting.  Brief Summary of Five Proposals Relating to Enforcement of Housing Standards in Ithaca City Code   1.Certificate of Compliance Presumption‐ IMC §210‐43 Codifies the presumption that a rental property for which a c of c has been issued remains as that use.   This eliminates one element of proof otherwise required for prosecution of a rental property with an  expired c of c.  It does not change the existing law which presumes the use continues until there is  notice of the change, and if the property has changed from rental, the presumption is easily rebutted  simply by giving the building division written notice.  2.Displaced Tenant‐ IMC § §258‐12, 258‐13 This requires a landlord to pay for alternative housing for any tenants displaced from a leased unit from  the landlord’s fault: by over occupancy or by condemnation, both problems within the landlord’s  control.  This reduces financial and mental stress on displaced tenants, and gives landlords additional  financial incentive to comply with housing codes to avoid condemnation, and with zoning laws regarding  over occupancy.  This also mitigates the financial disincentive for tenants to cooperate with the building  division in enforcement.  3.Define Occupant IMC 325‐3 Clarifies what an occupant is for the purposes of enforcing zoning occupancy.  It creates a presumption  that, among other things, a person whose name is on a lease is an occupant of a rental property  4.Penalty for a Landlord Renting a Condemned Property IMC §146‐9 Currently there is no penalty for renting a condemned rental unit.  This creates a penalty for a landlord  who rents a property that has been deemed unsafe for occupancy and condemned by the building  division.      5.Penalties for Over Occupancy IMC §325‐47 Currently the penalty for over occupancy is the same regardless of the number of tenants that exceed  the maximum, which means that even if successfully prosecuted for over occupancy, it can be profitable  for a landlord.  This specifies that for over occupancy, each additional occupant greater than the  permitted number is a separate offense.   For example, renting to ten people in a rental until zoned for a  maximum of three unrelated people would be seven offenses instead one offense.   This enhances the  financial incentive for landlords to comply with zoning requirements.   ORDINANCE __-2019 An Ordinance Revising Chapter 210-43 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code WHEREAS, Chapter 210-43 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code establishes procedures and requirements for save rental housing to promote public safety; and, WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has a significant tenant population, and; WHEREAS, all rental dwellings must hold a valid certificate of compliance as required in §210- 43, and; WHEREAS, the city of Ithaca recognizes and affirms that obtaining a certificate of compliance for a rental dwelling helps to ensure the health and safety of tenants in the city; and WHEREAS, it is incumbent upon each property owner of a rental dwelling to first obtain and the periodically renew their certificate of compliance, and; WHEREAS, the presumption proposed will aid in the enforcement of the requirement of renewing certificates of compliance; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office and the Building Division have proposed recommendations to Common Council to add a provision for a presumption of rental status; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that the safety of the public will be better served by requiring rental dwellings to renew expired certificates of compliance, and to enforce that requirement. Section 2. Additions to Chapter 210-43. § 210-43 A. … (3) Any rental dwelling that has obtained a valid certificate of compliance shall be presumed to continue being a rental dwelling or rental unit thereafter, regardless of the expiration of the certificate of compliance or until such time that the owner provides a written statement to the Building Division that the dwelling or unit is no longer rented and it is inspected by the Building Division to confirm that it is no longer rented. Section 3. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication as provided for in the City Charter.  ORDINANCE __-2019 An Ordinance Revising Chapter 258 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code WHEREAS, Chapter 258 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code establishes procedures for equitable landlord-tenant relations, and; WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has a significant tenant population, and; WHEREAS, there are circumstances where tenants must vacate a premises which have been leased through no fault of the tenant due to zoning violations committed by the landlord, and; WHEREAS, there are circumstances where tenants must vacate a premises which have been leased because the property has been declared unsafe for occupancy due to failure of the landlord to provide proper housing conditions, and; WHEREAS, the city of Ithaca recognizes and affirms that occupation of a building that has been declared unsafe risked the health and safety of our citizen’s within the city, and; WHEREAS, the Common Council desires to impose a remedy for tenants who are displaced due to violations of the housing code, of the zoning rules, and/or other violations of city, state or national codes, rules, and regulations during a lease term, and; WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office and the Building Division have proposed recommendations to Common Council to add a provision for alternative housing for displaced tenants; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that the safety of the public will be better served by enacting a provision for a landlord to provide alternative housing for tenants who are displaced from their leased premises due to violations of housing code and/or violations of zoning rules. Section 2. Additions to Chapter 258. Article III Displaced Tenants §258-12 Definitions DISPLACED TENANT A tenant, as defined in this chapter, who cannot occupy the premises that the tenant is entitled to due to the landlord’s failure to adhere to any applicable provision, statute, rule or regulation relating to the rental unit, including but not limited to the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, and Chapters 210 and 325 of the Ithaca City Code. §258-13 Landlord’s Obligation The landlord is responsible for the cost of providing housing that is of at least equal value and in a comparable location to every displaced tenant for the time period beginning from the date of displacement until the expiration date of the tenant’s lease term or until all deficiencies have been corrected and inspected by the Building Division and the Building Division has determined that the until is suitable for occupancy, whichever date comes first. Section 3. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication as provided for in the City Charter.   ORDINANCE __-2019 An Ordinance Revising Chapter 325-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code WHEREAS, Chapter 325-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code defines occupant for the purposes of determining compliance with zoning rules and regulations throughout the City, and this definition has been found to be ambiguous as to what constitutes an occupant and; WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the statute is to ensure safe living standards for each Ithaca resident, and secondarily to protect the quality of Ithaca neighborhoods, and; WHEREAS, the city of Ithaca recognizes and affirms that safely occupied residences are a priority for the city as a matter of protecting our citizen’s safety and safety of the residences within the city, and; WHEREAS, the Common Council desires to clarify the penalty in this chapter to remove any ambiguity in what constitutes an occupant for compliance and violation of the provisions of this chapter, and thereby meet the legislative intent, and; WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office has proposed recommendations to Common Council to define occupant in this chapter; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that the safety of the public will be better served by clarifying the definition of occupant in this chapter. Section 2. Amendments to Section 325-3. Section 325-3 shall be amended as follows: § 325-3 Definitions and word usage B. OCCUPANT (1) For the purposes of determining the number of occupants for all provisions of this chapter, an occupant is defined as person that has the right to occupy a dwelling unit or building notwithstanding actual occupation. Such a right to occupy may be demonstrated by any one of the following: (a) payment of rent; (b) being a lessee; (c) having permission of the owner to occupy a dwelling unit or building; (d) other evidence of a right to occupy (2) [Added 1-8-1990 by Ord. No. 90-2] In R-2c Zones only, a person that is permitted to occupy a dwelling unit or building in an R-2c Zone. (a) The number of such occupants that are permitted to legally occupy a dwelling unit or building is based on the amount of habitable space in the dwelling unit or building and on the basis of lot size. The minimum amounts of habitable space that are required for occupancy by one or more persons are as follows: [1] In R-2c dwelling units, the maximum number of occupants shall be limited to the number determined on the basis of lot size and on the basis of the floor areas of habitable space, other than kitchens, as shown in the following table: Number of Persons Type of Space 1 2 3 4 or more Sleeping room, minimum square feet 80 120 180 240, plus 60 for each additional person Dwelling unit (other than kitchen), minimum square feet 150 250 350 450, plus 100 for each additional person [2] In any other lodging units permitted in R-2c Zones, the maximum number of occupants shall be limited to the number determined on the same basis as for dwelling units. (b) Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the maximum size of any room in a dwelling unit. Bedrooms that exceed the minimum square footage in the above chart may not sleep more persons unless the appropriate lot size requirements are met. (c) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, once an R-2c dwelling unit is constructed and legally occupied, the term "occupant" shall not include additional family members or members of a functional family unit that are added to a household. Section 3. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication as provided for in the City Charter. ORDINANCE __-2019 An Ordinance Revising Chapter 210-43 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code WHEREAS, Chapter 210-43 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code establishes procedures and requirements for save rental housing to promote public safety; and, WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has a significant tenant population, and; WHEREAS, all rental dwellings must hold a valid certificate of compliance as required in §210- 43, and; WHEREAS, the city of Ithaca recognizes and affirms that obtaining a certificate of compliance for a rental dwelling helps to ensure the health and safety of tenants in the city; and WHEREAS, it is incumbent upon each property owner of a rental dwelling to first obtain and the periodically renew their certificate of compliance, and; WHEREAS, the presumption proposed will aid in the enforcement of the requirement of renewing certificates of compliance; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office and the Building Division have proposed recommendations to Common Council to add a provision for a presumption of rental status; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that the safety of the public will be better served by requiring rental dwellings to renew expired certificates of compliance, and to enforce that requirement. Section 2. Additions to Chapter 210-43. § 210-43 A. … (3) Any rental dwelling that has obtained a valid certificate of compliance shall be presumed to continue being a rental dwelling or rental unit thereafter, regardless of the expiration of the certificate of compliance or until such time that the owner provides a written statement to the Building Division that the dwelling or unit is no longer rented and it is inspected by the Building Division to confirm that it is no longer rented. Section 3. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication as provided for in the City Charter.  ORDINANCE __-2019 An Ordinance Revising Chapter 325-47 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code WHEREAS, Chapter 325-47 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code establishes the penalties for offenses for over-occupancy violations throughout the City, and the city code provision providing for penalties has been found to be ambiguous as to whether there is a penalty for each occupant over the limit per day or just one overall penalty per day, and; WHEREAS, the city court has found the penalty for over-occupancy violations to be applied for each additional occupant over the permitted number, as each additional occupant places an additional burden on the residence and neighborhood, and; WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the statute is to ensure safe living standards for each Ithaca resident, and secondarily to protect the quality of Ithaca neighborhoods, and; WHEREAS, the city of Ithaca recognizes and affirms that safely occupied residences are a priority for the city as a matter of protecting our citizen’s safety and safety of the residences within the city, and; WHEREAS, the Common Council desires to clarify the penalty in this chapter to remove any ambiguity that the penalty applies per occupant in violation of this chapter, and thereby meet the legislative intent, and; WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office has proposed recommendations to Common Council to add that the penalty for over-occupancy applies per occupant in violation of this chapter; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that the safety of the public will be better served by clarifying the penalty applicable to violations of this chapter. Section 2. Amendments to Section 325-47. Section 325-46 shall be amended as follows: § 325-47 Penalties for offenses. [Amended 8-1-1984 by Ord. No. 84-12] A. If a property is in violation of any provision of this chapter, the owner of the property shall be guilty of an offense. In addition, any other person who shall violate any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of an offense. Each day's continued violation constitutes a separate offense unless otherwise provided herein. For any violation of over- occupancy provisions herein, each additional occupant over the maximum shall constitute a separate offense. [Amended 2-8-1994 by Ord. No. 94-1] Section 3. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication as provided for in the City Charter.   1 To: Common Council From: Eric Hathaway, Transportation Engineer Date: 2/13/2019 Re: City Speed Limit Change The Engineering Office has evaluated speeds at roughly 20 locations as part of the City’s traffic calming program. One finding from this work is that traffic speeds on many of these streets is almost entirely under the city-wide speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Considering this, along with the residential nature of almost all of Ithaca’s streets, it is our conclusion that it would be appropriate to reduce the speed limit to 25 miles per hour on the majority of Ithaca’s roadway network and to 20 miles per hour in some locations. A recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that a City-wide speed limit reduction in Boston from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour resulted in lower speeds. This was independent of roadway infrastructure changes. Average speeds were not greatly impacted, but the number of vehicles traveling over 35 miles per hour was reduced by 29.3 percent. It is well documented that speeds in this range represent a danger to pedestrians. Unfortunately, New York state law does not currently allow communities to establish city- wide speed limits under 30 miles per hour. The attached resolution would establish that Common Council believes this is not appropriate. The attached resolution states that an appropriate state law would permit the City of Ithaca, and all other cities and villages in New York State, to establish appropriate city-wide and individual street speed limits, based on accepted engineering practices. Through my conversations with Barbara Lifton’s office, this resolution would be the first step towards requesting that the state law be changed to allow communities to establish appropriate speeds in their community. I do want to clarify that setting a city-wide speed limit of 25 miles per hour does not preclude setting individual speed limits higher than 25 miles per hour. It is likely that some roadways in the City would remain posted at 30 miles per hour; however, they would be the minority of roadways. Therefore, a 25 mile per hour area speed limit would be more appropriate and efficient for city-wide signage. A Resolution Supporting the Reduction of the City-wide Default Speed Limit From 30 Miles Per Hour to 25 Miles Per Hour WHEREAS, the observed speeds that citizens report as feeling unsafe in their communities has been shown to be less than 30 miles per hour through speed evaluations, and WHEREAS, Federal Highway Administration methodologies recommend speed limits 25 miles per hour and under on the type of roadways common in the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety demonstrated that a City-wide speed limit reduction in Boston from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour resulted in lower speeds, especially in excess of 35 miles per hour, and WHEREAS, reduced speeds minimize stopping distance of vehicles and the likelihood of injury or fatality as a result of a collision with a pedestrian, and WHEREAS, reduced speeds narrow the difference in operating speeds of vehicles and bicycles, which can improve safety for these vulnerable users of the roadway network, and WHEREAS, lower speeds provide greater flexibility in roadway design, and WHEREAS, a reduction in speed from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour represents an increase in travel time of only 24 seconds per mile under free flow conditions, and WHEREAS, the State Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1643 prohibits cities and villages from establishing area-wide speed limits below 30 miles per hour and also prohibits establishing any speed limit under 25 miles per hour on any roadway (except school zones), and WHEREAS, in some cases, this law prevents the City from establishing appropriate speed limits based on accepted engineering practices; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca hereby requests that the State of New York amend Vehicle and Traffic Law Title 8, Article 38, Section 1643 to allow all communities to establish a city-wide speed limit as low as 25 miles per hour. Further, on roadways where established FHWA methodologies for establishing speed limits recommend speed limits lower than 25 miles per hour, cities and villages should be permitted to post speed limits lower than 25 miles per hour. 1 To: Common Council From: Eric Hathaway, Transportation Engineer Date: 2/13/2019 Re: Vision Zero Initiative I am writing to request that Common Council consider adopting the attached resolution and officially embrace a “Vision Zero” strategy for the City’s roadway network. Vision Zero is a methodology to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries occurring on the roadway network. Vision Zero is a non-traditional approach to safety that requires a shift in how communities approach decisions, actions, attitudes and safe mobility. Vision Zero’s innovative “Safe Systems” approach acknowledges that people make mistakes and focuses on influencing system-wide practices, policies, and designs to lessen the severity of crashes. The three core elements for all Vision Zero communities are described below: Core Elements Leadership and Commitment  The Mayor, elected officials, and leaders within transportation, public health and police, commit to the goal of eliminating fatalities and serious injuries by a specific timeframe. These leaders work collaboratively toward this goal.  Meaningful and accessible community engagement is employed with a focus on equity  An action plan is developed with goals and strategies for achieving them  Projects are prioritized that have safety benefits Safe Roadways and Safe Speeds  Streets are designed to create safe, well-connected transportation network for all users  Proven speed management policies are used to achieve safe conditions for all users February 13, 2019 2 Data-Driven Approach, Transparency and Accountability  Commitment is made to equitable approach and outcomes, prioritizing engagement and investments in under-served communities  A proactive, systems-based approach is used to identify and address risk factors  Map of fatal and severe injury crashes is developed to prioritize projects  Findings are shared with decision makers and the public I believe that the core elements described above represents a comprehensive approach to traffic safety that would effect change in our community. The natural question to ask; however, is whether we have a problem worth solving. What I have described above is a significant effort and represents a change from how most communities approach safety. The engineering office has begun a city-wide evaluation of the crash trends for a 10 year period using a state-wide database. We have found a record of 11,525 crashes, 1,393 (12%) injury crashes, 178 (1.5%) severe injury crashes and 5 fatalities. Based on these numbers, I do believe that the City of Ithaca has room to improve safety and that a comprehensive approach is justified. Next Steps If Common Council and Mayor Myrick adopt Vision Zero, below are some of the initiatives that I would undertake to move towards a safer transportation network. I invite further suggestions as well.  Conduct a kick-off meeting with at least the following stakeholders to discuss Vision Zero, partnership opportunities and key components of an action plan. o Jan Lynch, Executive Director of Finger Lakes Independence Center o Lisa Monroe, Director of Tompkins County Office for the Aging o Nydia Boyd, Executive Director Southside Community Center o Pete Tyler, Police Chief o Dr. Luvelle Brown, Superintendent ICSD o David Smith, NYSDOT Region 3 Regional Director o Fernando DeAragon, Executive Director ITCTC o Frank Kruppa, Public Health Director Tompkins County o Victoria Armstrong, Bike Walk Tompkins o Bridgette Brady, Senior Director of Transportation Cornell University o Scot VanderPool, TCAT Operation Manager o Gary Ferguson, Downtown Ithaca Alliance o Member of Common Council o Member of Board of Public Works o Member of MATCOM o Member of Way2Go o A representative from all active neighborhood groups February 13, 2019 3  Create a working group, made up of representatives from the Ithaca Police Department, Public Health Department and the Transportation Engineer to meet quarterly on initiatives and report back annually to the group listed above.  Conduct Public Outreach Meetings with a focus on existing community groups and communities that have not already requested traffic calming improvements. These meetings would focus on anecdotal safety information not available from crash data such as near-misses or places where people avoid walking or biking due to safety concerns.  Send an open invitation to neighborhoods that would like to welcome the Transportation Engineer to walk their streets with them and discuss their concerns  Engage with the public health community to bring a new perspectives and information to the issue of traffic crashes. Some communities have partnered with hospitals to collect additional information on crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists, as this information is often under-reported in traditional crash records. The health community could also bring an epidemiological perspective to identify risk factors in crashes.  Develop a complete streets design policy in coordination with the City’s upcoming Transportation Plan  Further evaluate crash records resulting in severe injuries and fatalities to find trends and associated systemic countermeasures  Investigate locations with higher crash occurrences and rates to identify location specific countermeasures  Seek grants to install advanced traffic signal equipment that can better detect and react to vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian behavior  Update existing traffic signal controllers and communications network to optimize vehicle progression at speeds of 25 miles per hour  Continue to pursue jurisdictional realignment that would grant the City control over traffic signal operation and roadway design in downtown Ithaca along Green Street and Seneca Street An Immediate Action The first action I recommend under the Vision Zero initiative is to pursue lowering the area- wide speed limit from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour. The Engineering Office has evaluated speeds at roughly 20 locations as part of the City’s traffic calming program. One finding from this work is that traffic speeds on many of these streets is almost entirely under the city-wide speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Considering this, along with the residential nature of almost all of Ithaca’s streets, it is our conclusion that it would be appropriate to reduce the speed limit to 25 miles per hour on the majority of Ithaca’s roadway network and to 20 miles per hour in some locations. February 13, 2019 4 A recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that a City-wide speed limit reduction in Boston from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour resulted in lower speeds. This was independent of roadway infrastructure changes. Average speeds were not greatly impacted, but the number of vehicles traveling over 35 miles per hour was reduced by 29.3 percent. It is well documented that speeds in this range represent a danger to pedestrians. Unfortunately, New York state law does not currently allow communities to establish city- wide speed limits under 30 miles per hour. The attached resolution would establish that Common Council believes this is not appropriate. The attached resolution states that an appropriate state law would permit the City of Ithaca, and all other cities and villages in New York State, to establish appropriate city-wide and individual street speed limits, based on accepted engineering practices. Through my conversations with Barbara Lifton’s office, this resolution would be the first step towards requesting that the state law be changed to allow communities to establish appropriate speeds in their community. I do want to clarify that setting a city-wide speed limit of 25 miles per hour does not preclude setting individual speed limits higher than 25 miles per hour. It is likely that some roadways in the City would remain posted at 30 miles per hour; however, they would be the minority of roadways. Therefore, a 25 mile per hour area speed limit would be more appropriate and efficient for city-wide signage. Conclusion I believe that, by the City adopting Vision Zero as a philosophy, we have an opportunity to better understand traffic safety issues and will be better equipped to improve safety. A Resolution Supporting the City of Ithaca’s Vision Zero Plan to Eliminate all Traffic-Related Fatalities and Serious Injuries WHEREAS, traffic crashes are among the leading cause of death and injury within the United States, and WHEREAS, traffic crashes are the leading cause of injury related death, second leading cause of injury related hospitalizations and third leading cause for injury related emergency department visits in New York State. On average, three New Yorkers die every day due to a traffic-related crash. The combined hospitalization and emergency department charges average $1.1 billion, annually, and WHEREAS, from 2008 to 2017 the City of Ithaca had a total of 182 serious injury crashes including 5 fatalities, and WHEREAS, the City is hereby recognizing that these crash statistics are not acceptable for citizens, commuters, and tourists who live, work and play in the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, death and injury on our streets is unacceptable and many serious crashes are preventable, and WHEREAS, traffic deaths and serious injuries in the United States have disproportionately impacted pedestrians, cyclists, people of color, low-income households, older adults and youth, people with disabilities, and households with limited vehicle access, and WHEREAS, the City will hereby commit to decreasing these crash statistics by endorsing Vision Zero, which is a safe systems approach and strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca will create a Vision Zero action plan that focuses on safety as a primary objective in designing transportation projects; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca hereby adopts a goal of eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries; and endorses Vision Zero as a comprehensive and collaborative approach that involves several City departments in order to achieve this goal, and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Common Council directs The Department of Public Works and the Ithaca Police Department to create and pursue a Vision Zero Action Plan for future consideration by the Common Council, based upon a comprehensive analysis of traffic deaths and injuries in the City of Ithaca, and, be it further RESOLVED, That Common Council directs the Transportation Engineer to oversee the Vision Zero Action Plan to addresses traffic deaths and serious injuries through a collaborative combination of engineering, enforcement, education, and evaluation, with public engagement and other stakeholders. Page 1 of 3 To: Planning and Economic Development Committee Members From: Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner Date: February 7, 2019 Re: Inter City Bus Service on Green Street (Submitted to give a planning perspective of the downtown intercity bus service.) This memo is intended to provide information regarding the intercity bus service on Green Street. In October of 2018, the Common Council directed staff to enter into an agreement with the intercity bus providers in order to allow them to use the Green Street stop for a period of six months. The current agreement is scheduled to expire in six month and staff has prepared an evaluation of this program in order to allow for the Common Council to determine whether or not to renew the permits. Inter City Bus Service Evaluation Positive Impacts  The City has received positive feedback from many riders and downtown businesses on the relocation of the buses to Green Street.  The increased foot traffic helps to support local businesses, with a significant positive impact on the businesses located on the south side of Green Street and on the Commons.  The convenience of the location allows for easy transfers to and from other forms of transportation.  Having all the intercity buses in one location is convenient and easy to understand for passengers.  Visitors are brought to the heart of downtown for easy access to goods, services, and attractions.  Some of the bus providers have contracted with the Green Street Pharmacy to provide convenient nearby ticket sales for customers.  On most days during the trial period there have not been significant issues and all of the buses have been able to use the street. In fact many of the challenges listed below are limited to a handful of heavy travel days or days with unexpected weather related issues (snow, ice, delays) Challenges  In order to fit two buses in front of Urban Outfitters, buses must encroach on the bike lane, which is currently not active but is scheduled to be reinstated once City Centre is completed (early summer 2019).  The pull out in front of the Mental Health building is heavily used by Gadabout and taxis, and Mental Health has asked that it not be used for buses during regular business hours. CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JoAnn Cornish, Director Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565 E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Page 2 of 3  There are 15 times during the week, using current schedules, when three intercity buses need to be staged concurrently.  Large snowfalls are problematic, as there is no place to put snow, so it has to be completely removed from the sidewalk and the bus pullout to not impact bus parking and passenger access.  Before and after holidays, high demand results in additional non-scheduled buses, which this site cannot accommodate simultaneously. Some buses have double parked to load/unload passengers.  The intercity buses sometimes park in the area set aside for TCAT.  The City required that loading/unloading of luggage only take place on the curb side of the bus, however, staff has observed buses violating this rule and passengers standing in or close to traffic.  The City has added signage to communicate where passengers should be loaded/unloaded. However, staff observed violations by cars and intercity buses, resulting in safety hazards, confusion, and the inability of buses to pull into their pickup areas. Enforcement is challenging, since cars only stand for a few minutes, which is not long enough to write tickets, but is long enough to prevent a bus from pulling into their space and cause a traffic back up. True enforcement would likely require a dedicated CSO in the vicinity for numerous hours.  Buses have blocked the Tioga Street stub on the south side of Green Street, which has interfered with emergency access to the Mental Health Building.  During heavy traffic days, large crowds of bus patrons can fill the sidewalk blocking the entrances to the Mental Health Building and to the retails shops.  There are currently no bathroom or indoor waiting facilities for passengers.  The City has limited ability to enforce rules and parking regulations with current staffing during regular hours and has no staff available during evenings and weekends. Recommendations If the City decides to continue allowing intercity buses to service Green Street, staff recommends that the following actions be considered in order to maintain healthy traffic flows and a successful public experience:  City staff would convene a meeting with bus providers to discuss necessary changes that need to be made in order to continue with Green Street intercity bus service. The bus companies will also be informed that there is no room for expansion of future service at this location so that they can make an informed decision of whether this space meets their needs now and in the future.  Due to the limited capacity for schedule flexibility or expansion, the number of bus providers that can use the street should be limited. Buses that don’t require on-site ticket sales, or that require greater schedule flexibility should not be permitted to use this location. The remaining providers rely on ticketing services that are offered at Green Street Pharmacy, so the Green Street location is critical to their operation. Staff can assist these bus providers in locating alternate locations, which would likely have to include agreements with private lots.  In order to ensure that snow is removed before buses arrive, this block of Green Street should be seasonally contracted for private early morning snow removal, with a requirement that the snow be removed off site. Page 3 of 3  Consider limiting the hours that the space in front of the Mental Health building can be used for bus service to off-peak times (after 5pm or before 9am).  Consider whether to create one shared bus lane (TCAT and InterCity) on Green Street.  Require bus companies to specify dates that will have additional buses (holidays, student arrival and departure dates) and to provide on street staff on these dates to direct customers to their buses, and to direct bus drivers to the appropriate locations.  Consider if the City needs to have a CSO assigned to this area during heavy traffic times in order to issue tickets.  Require bus companies to provide accommodations for their passengers. This can be accomplished through and an agreement with an existing facility, but they will need to show proof that they have permission to use existing facilities.  The bus permit agreement should continue to allow for revocation for failure to comply with requirements. There would be no tolerance of unloading luggage on the street side, encroaching on the bike lane, unloading from a travel lane or any other behavior deemed unsafe by the City.  City staff will work with NYSDOT to assess whether changes can be made to Green Street that would allow for greater flexibility for buses at the curb and to improve the distance between the bike lane and merging buses or consider whether the bike lane should be removed.  The following infrastructure improvements should be explored in order to accommodate the buses: o Move curb line along Urban Outfitters pull-off away from the street by four feet to allow buses adequate space to not encroach on the adjacent bike lane. This could impact the existing trees offset from the curb by four feet. o Consider whether to construct a new bus shelter o Improve lighting in the waiting area o Rebuild curb ramps crossing the Tioga Street stub o Relocate existing utilities and fire hydrants to accommodate curb line relocation o Paint all bus lanes in a solid color (red or blue) to assist buses and drop-off vehicles in wayfinding. Costs The Engineering Department has estimated costs for the suggested improvements to be between $200,000-350,000, depending on what improvements are deemed necessary. In addition, a snow removal contract is estimated to be a $15,000 annual contract. If a dedicated CSO is requested for this location, it would be an annual cost of $62,000. Contribution by Inter-City Buses Per the current agreement with the City, Greyhound, Trailways and Coach USA contribute a combined annual fee of $51,220.00 1 To: Common Council From: Eric Hathaway, Transportation Engineer, Tim Logue, Director of Engineering, Peter Messmer, Director of Parking Date: 2/8/19 Re: Inter-City Bus Trial We are writing this memorandum in advance of April 1, when the Green Street intercity bus six month trial will end. We identify the positive and negative impacts of having the buses at this location and discuss various changes that could be made, along with the expected impacts of those changes. We hope this will help Common Council decide whether to continue to have intercity buses use this location and under what conditions. In short, if Green Street is to continue to be used as an intercity bus location, the City will need to provide additional funding to create a functional space and will need to limit the number of bus companies that can use the space. The Positives  The City has received positive feedback from many riders and downtown businesses on the relocation of the buses to Green Street.  The increased foot traffic helps to support local businesses, with a significant positive impact on the businesses located on the south side of Green Street and on the Commons.  The convenience of the location allows for easy transfers to and from other forms of transportation.  Having all the intercity buses in one location is convenient and easy to understand; passengers and drivers don’t have to think about which bus company in order to know where to go.  Visitors are brought to the heart of downtown for easy access to goods, services, and attractions.  On most days during the trial period there have not been significant issues and all of the buses have been able to use the street. February 13, 2019 2 The Challenges  In order to fit two buses in front of Urban Outfitters, buses must encroach on the bike lane, which is currently not active but which will be reestablished once City Centre is completed (early summer 2019)  The pull out in front of the Mental Health building is heavily used by Gadabout and taxis, and Mental Health has asked that it not be used for buses during regular business hours (8:30 AM - 4:30 PM, M, TH, FR, 8:30 AM – 6 PM, TU, W)  Residents of apartments near the bus stop have complained of noise and pollution related to the buses.  There are 15 times during the week, using current schedules, when three intercity buses need to be staged concurrently.  Large snowfalls are problematic, as there is no place to put snow, so it has to be completely removed from the sidewalk and the bus pullout to not impact bus parking and passenger access. City staff are unable to remove all of the snow after a large snowfall as their focus is on getting streets and sidewalks opened. This results in buses encroaching further into the bike lane and even into the travel lane.  Before and after holidays, high demand results in many more buses than usual, which this site cannot accommodate simultaneously. Some buses have double parked to load/unload passengers.  The intercity buses sometimes park in the area set aside for TCAT, which can interfere with their operations during peak times.  Although the City was careful to include language in the agreements with the bus companies that loading and unloading of luggage cannot take place on the street side of the bus, we have continued to receive complaints that this continues to happen, and passengers are standing in or close to traffic.  The City has invested significant effort in signing and communicating to drop-off vehicles and to bus operators where they should load and unload passengers. However, we continually see these rules violated by cars and inter-city buses, resulting in a significant safety hazard, gridlock, confusion and inability of buses to pull into their pickup areas o Enforcing no cars in the bus zone - In time it takes to spot an offender and get to car, it will typically drop off or pick up and be gone. In a minimum number of cases is it possible to write a ticket. o Enforcing passenger drop of/pickup in 15 min zone (north side of street) - Requires constant vigilance. Difficult to prevent parkers other than bus customers, from using it. Would require a CSO in vicinity for long hours with limited enforcement results. o Enforcing Commercial Bus rules would require constant vigilance to enforce limited violations of unpredictable frequency.  Staff have received complaints that buses are not staying on their permitted routes and are cutting through areas such as the 600 block of E Seneca Street. February 13, 2019 3  Buses have blocked the Tioga Street stub on the south side of Green Street, which has interfered with emergency access to the Mental Health Building.  Mental Health Building staff have reported that large groups of pedestrians waiting for buses have created accessibility concerns for individuals trying to access their building via the Green Street sidewalk.  There are currently no bathroom or indoor waiting facilities for passengers.  The City has very limited ability to enforce rules and parking regulations with current staffing during regular hours. The City has no ability to enforce rules during evenings and weekends. Necessary Changes  Buses that don’t require ticketing (Big Red Bullet and OurBus) should be required to relocate as soon as practicable. The remaining providers rely on ticketing services that are offered at Green Street Pharmacy, so the Green Street location is critical to their operation. An updated schedule showing bus demand without OurBus and Big Red Bullet is attached). With this revised schedule, a maximum of two buses would occupy the space at any given time.  The City could help OurBus and Big Red Bullet connect with owners of downtown plazas or large parking lots, such as the DMV or Northside Plazas, or stores in Southwest, to see if they can make arrangements to use excess spaces there.  This block of Green Street should be contracted out for private snow removal, with a requirement that the snow be removed rather than simply pushed somewhere where it will become someone else’s problem.  Designate the pull-off space in front of the County Mental Health building as drop-off only. No inter-city buses would be permitted during weekdays 8 AM – 6 PM.  The bus permit agreement should require that on holidays and other days with increased demand, each bus company must have on-street staff to direct customers to their buses, and to direct bus drivers to the appropriate locations. Note however, that this bus company staff would not be authorized to enforce the parking regulations and therefore the aforementioned challenges in this area would remain unmitigated, unless a city CSO person were assigned (see notes below about this option).  The bus permit agreement should require the bus companies to provide accommodations for their passengers. This can be accomplished through and an agreement with an existing facility, but they will need to show proof that they have permission to use existing facilities.  The bus permit agreement should continue to allow for revocation for failure to comply with requirements. There would be no tolerance of unloading luggage on the street side, encroaching on the bike lane, unloading from a travel lane or any other behavior deemed unsafe by the City.  City staff would convene a meeting with Greyhound, Coach USA and Trailways to discuss necessary changes to the existing schedule that would allow the Urban Outfitters location to accommodate demand. The bus companies will also be informed that there is no room for expansion of future service at this location so that they can February 13, 2019 4 make an informed decision of whether this space meets their needs now and in the future.  City staff will work with NYSDOT to assess whether changes can be made to Green Street that would allow for greater flexibility for buses at the curb and to improve the distance between the bike lane and merging buses.  The following infrastructure changes would be needed by 2020 to provided adequate long-term viability of this space to accommodate passengers and traffic operations: o Move curb line along Urban Outfitters pull-off away from the street by 4 feet to allow buses adequate space to not encroach on the adjacent bike lane. This could impact the existing trees offset from the curb by 4 feet. o Build a bus shelter o Improve lighting in the waiting area o Rebuild curb ramps crossing the Tioga Street stub o Relocate existing utilities and fire hydrants to accommodate curb line relocation o Paint all bus lanes in a solid color (red or blue) to assist buses and drop-off vehicles in wayfinding Costs The above needed changes on Green Street will come with a cost, so we want to make you aware of the investment the City would be required to make to accommodate the buses in the near-term and long-term. Aside from significant investment of staff time, the following are the estimated up-front and ongoing costs to make this space viable for inter-city bus operation: Infrastructure changes described above - $200,000-$350,000 Annual maintenance of above investments – $15,000 Annual snow removal contract - $15,000 Community Service Officer Needs – $62,000 for One Additional Full Time CSO would be needed (current CSO staff is at capacity, especially with school crossing guard duties). Enforcement demand during normal days and hours would be unpredictable and low, and high on holidays and holiday weekends. Therefore, the additional CSO would have to be assigned other duties on normal days and attempt to return regularly to Green Street to catch violations. On holidays regulatory enforcement needs would be at the highest demand. However, it would be a difficult position to fill and manage, if all holidays (which inherently include overtime) would be required work time, throughout the year. This would create a management challenge overall, likely negatively impacting the incumbent staff as well. Contribution by Inter-City Buses Per the current agreement with the City, Greyhound, Trailways and Coach USA contribute a combined annual fee of $51,220. Existing Bus Schedule 024681012 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 Number of TCAT buses Number of intercity buses Green St buses by hour of day - Sunday Coach USA Greyhound Trailways OurBus BRB TCAT 024681012 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 Number of TCAT buses Number of intercity buses Green St buses by hour of day - Monday Coach USA Greyhound Trailways OurBus BRB TCAT 024681012 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 Number of TCAT buses Number of intercity buses Green St buses by hour of day - Tuesday Coach USA Greyhound Trailways OurBus BRB TCAT 024681012 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 Number of TCAT buses Number of intercity buses Green St buses by hour of day - Wednesday Coach USA Greyhound Trailways OurBus BRB TCAT 024681012 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 Number of TCAT buses Number of intercity buses Green St buses by hour of day - Thursday Coach USA Greyhound Trailways OurBus BRB TCAT 024681012 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 Number of TCAT buses Number of intercity buses Green St buses by hour of day - Friday Coach USA Greyhound Trailways OurBus BRB TCAT 024681012 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 Number of TCAT buses Number of intercity buses Green St buses by hour of day - Saturday Coach USA Greyhound Trailways OurBus BRB TCAT Bus Schedule without OurBus and Big Red Bullet