Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-26 CorrespondenceJanuary 20, 1999 I have delivered the letter below to the Press-Citizen, and members of the Riverside Theatre Board of Directors wanted me to send a copy to each of you. We are excited about the prospect of a festival stage in City Park, and we hope you'll look on the project as being a VERY cost-favorable partnership as you consider the mix of potential capital expenditures and the funds projected for them. CITY AfANAG[R'S OFFIC] LETTER TO THE EDITOR One of the most exciting proposals to appear on the Iowa City Council's list of potential capital improvements in a long time is a proposed festival stage in lower City Park. What a great way to draw people into our community, expand the arts, share resources, and increase the use of City Park! The structure would provide an ideal setting for Riverside Theatre's proposed annual Shakespeare festival and numerous other community special events such as concerts, fashion shows, Recreation Department .youth programs, weddings, and touring shows. The festival. arena would comfortably accommodate400-500 audience members in a beautifully simple and elegant open-air structure that would be a tremendous addition to City Park. Riverside Theatre estimates that its inaugural production in the year 2000 would attract more than 2,500 patrons. The company is confident that down the road a couple of years those numbers would grow, and the festival would gain regional recognition. The annual festival, slated for early June, would not only be a boon to the area cultural scene, but also-a great economic development enterprise for the community. Using the formula of the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs, $25,000 in ticket sales would mean at least $75,000 spent in the community as a result of the festival. In addition, Riverside has pledged to give back to the city one dollar for each ticket sold. This makes the proposed budget of $120,000 to build the stage. a real bargain. We strongly encourage the City Council to join in this unique civic and cultural partnership that will benefit the entire community. Alan Swanson, President Riverside Theatre Board of Directors Marcella David, Karin Franklin, Carol Green, Nelson Gurll, Mike Huber, Michael Lensing, Linda Mildenstein, Judy Rhodes, Gayle Sand, Julie Schweser, Joy Smith, Joyce Summerwill, Barbara Vander Woude FROM: OSHA GRAY DAVIDSON -'a19-3~t8-8606 TO: MARION KERR DATE: 1/20/99 TIME: 4:12:48 PM OSHA GRAY DAVIDSON 14 SOUTH GOVERNOR STREET TO: The Iowa City City Council 20 January 1999 Dear City Council Members, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 USA Tel: (319) 3384778 Fax: (319) 338-8606 osha~pobox.com In the past several months, I've talked with several residents who had wanted to speak at a council meeting, but couldn't because they had difficulty arranging childcare. As the father of a lively four-year-old boy (a redundancy), I understand the problem. Every community likes to think of itself as 'Tamily oriented" and Iowa City is no exception. While not all families have children, many do. Yet, these are the very people who arc least able to attend the often-long city council meetings. It's the nature of council meetings not to run on a strict timetable. Despite the mayor's best efforts, therc's never a good way to predict exactly when an agenda item will be taken up. As a result, residents who want to address the council may have to sit for an hour or two until the proper time. Few young children have the ability to sit quietly for such a long period and so their presence at a council meeting would be disruptive. Rather than cause problems, many parents decide not to take part in this important part of civic life. Citizen input is so important to local government, that I believe the city should make it easier for parents to come before the council. This could be accomplished at little expense. During council meetings, the city could make available a small room in the Civic Center for children and their par~ts to wait in. The audio portion of the council meeting could be piped in on a speaker allowing the parent to know when "theft" agenda item is coming up. It would be great if the city could also provide childcare during these meetings, however, I 'm not suggesting anything so ambitious-just making a safe space available would be a great help. I would be willing to donate toys for such a room (I don't think Liam would miss a few) and volunteer to collect more toys if needed. I hope you give the suggestion serious consideration. Such a "child-friendly" environment would allow parents to play a more active role in city governance. Sincerely, January 15, 1999 Iowa City City Council 410 E. Washington Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear City Council Members: JAN 2 0 1999 CITY ld, qNABt'8,8 0FFIC We are writing in opposition to any City Council action to change Benton Street from two lanes to three or four lanes. Our family lives at 1511 West Benton Street, just west of Sunset. Although the current discussion of widening Benton pertains to the street east of Sunset, We are certainly concemed about the undoubted impact to Benton, including the west end of the street where we live. If Benton is widened east of Sunset, it is only a matter of time before the street will be widened west of Sunset. We have two young children, a kindergartner and a preschooler. We use the Hom playground and field for play after school hours and on weekends. Presently, we have great difficulty crossing Benton Street at the Hom school crossing in the at~noon. The traffic is heavy during commuting hours., and we have to wait a long time to cross the street. We camrot imagine letting the children cross by themselves to play or meet friends, or even to go to the houses of children hving north of the school until they are much older due largely to the traffic volume. Certainly, if the street is widened east of Smzset, the volmne of traffic will increase and only exacerbate this problem. It would be a shame to make the school grounds practically hmccessible when it is of most use to us, after school hours. Increased traffic will cause even more division between the neighborhood norlh and soulh of Benton by' creating a barrier to children and families wishing to cross the street to see a friend or go to the school even though it is only a block or two away. Even now, we would like to see a pedestdm~ cross light installed to enable us to use the playground and to cross safely. The speed at which traffic flows is also of great concem to us. The traffic already travels at speeds much higher than the posted 25 mph, and the 20-mph during school hours. We try very hard to follow the speed limit because of school children crossing the street at Roosevelt and Horn, and because of the difficulty to families. We feel like we are in the small minority who obey the speed limit. If the traffic is increased and lanes are added, the traffic speed wiB only increase. We are already disappointed in the lack of police monitoring for speeders. We rarely see a police car on our street. We travel through University Heights daily and see the police officer there nearly every trip. Commuters are aware of the close monitoring of that area and are much better at watching tlieir speed. If we had closer monitoring of Benton it would certainly help slow the traffic down in our area too. No matter what action is taken on Benton we would like to see more police presence to combat speeding on a street with such a high concentration of children crossing to schools. As the parents of small children, we are concerned about the changes to the neighbo~zood that will inevitably follow with increased traffic flow through the neighborhood. Any increased commuting time gained for commuters by widening Benton, is inconsequential in an already short commute. We believe the drive time from Rohret Road to downtown is no more than 7 minutes. People who live west of Mormon Trek Boulevard will only gain 1 or 2 minutes on a widened Benton. They should be encouraged to travel Highway 1 for their commute. The gain to the quality of the commuter' s life by traveling a widened Benton instead of Highway 1 doesn't seem to be comparable to the loss to the neighborhoods on the north and south of Benton. If the street is widened a chasm will be created in the center of the neighborhood. Please consider doing repairs to the street and maldng improvements to sidewalks and adding trees without changing the street from a two lane to a three or four lane road. Thank you for your serious consideration of the needs of the present community that lives along Benton Street. C|11 MAHAGF. R'S OF CE 901 Melrose Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52246 20 January 1999 Iowa City Press-Citizen Editorial Page Editor PO Box 2480 Iowa City, Iowa 52244-248 To the Editor, 1 am writing as a representative of tthe Roosevelt Elementary School PTO to express our deep concern over the proposed widening of Benton Street. A full 413% of our students walk to and from school along Benton Street and 100% of our students use the playgrounds that border it. As it stands now, the pedestrian situation on Benton is perilous. The sidewalks are too narrow to accommodate groups of children walking together and there is a very small buffer zone (parkway) between the sidewalk and the street. One of two well-used crosswalks sits atop a hill at a three-way intersection with severely limited visibility for drivers from all directions. Widening Benton St. to 4 lanes along this corridor will make a bad situation worse. The current plan provides no substantial improvement in either the width of the sidewalk or parkway, and in some areas actually narrows them. Add to this more and faster vehicular traffic, and I'm concerned you have a recipe for disaster. Is this the situation the City chooses to create for our children and the message it wants to send them? We at the PTO therefore endorse an improved two-lane Benton Street with generous sidewalks and parkways, improved signage and lighting, and a message that we put the safety of our children first in deeds and not just in words. cc. Iowa City Council members ~ely yo~_~ Lauren Reece Roosevelt PTO President January 20, 1999 TO the Mayor and the CITY COUNCIL: re: Benton Street construction project In an introductory letter to the Arterial Street Plan for Iowa City, March 20, 1991, Jeff Davidson, Iowa City's Transportation Planner, wrote, "[G]randiose capital improvements which [have] no regard for the scale and integrity of the community" are "clearly unacceptable." "No longer does the identification of a street capacity deficiency carry with it the assumption that the street will be widened." In his November 10, 1998, memorandum to the City Council on the Benton Street reconstruction project, Jeff Davidson reemphasized the need to balance traffic needs against neighborhood impact. Although he recommended a three- or four-lane option for Benton Street, the memorandum reported that "We have continued to emphasize to the neighborhood group that at this point in the pre-design process all of the possible design elements are wide open for discussion. This includes the number of lanes .... " As a member of the neighborhood and a resident of Benton Street, I urge you to approach this important decision with an open mind. I will return to one specific aspect of this decision process, but I first want to make a few comments about the content of Jeff' s memorandum. In his conversations with interested neighbors about this project, he has stressed that other considerations are important but that his primary responsibility is transportation. Thus, it is to be expected that his memorandum to you concentrates on making the case based on traffic considerations. This may leave the unintended impression that the interest on one side of the balance is based on vague and amorphous neighborhood concems whereas the traffic interest is based on hard facts, and I want to raise some questions about just how hard those facts are. A vitally important attachment to the Benton Street memorandum is a map showing traffic counts and a table showing capacities for various configurations of arterial streets. The table is taken from Figure 2 of the Arterial Street Plan that I mentioned earlier. But the table does not itself explain the source of the numbers identified as maximum street capacities. The staff of the City has been extremely helpful to me in trying to understand these figures, but I have been unsuccessful in trying to pin point the source of these numbers or to explain how they were calculated. I do not suggest that these figures are simply made up --I do not believe that at all; but without knowing exactly how they are determined, we do not know what qualifications might be relevant. For me, that means that the hard facts represented by these unyielding numbers do not appear quite so hard. When the Benton Street memorandum speaks of "congestion," and the table from the Arterial Street Plan states that volumes of traffic greater than the listed capacities "result in unacceptable delays for motorists," I wonder exactly what that means and why it seems so inconsistent with my experience. At the posted speed limits at midnight, when there are very few cars on the road, it takes five minutes to drive the two miles from the intersection of Rohret Road and Mormon Trek down Benton Street to the intersection of Benton and Riverside. Using this time as a base line, I experimented by driving this same two mile route several times at or near peak traffic times -- 8:00 in the morning and 5:30 in the evening. It repeatedly took me about seven minutes, and that is through the Riverside intersection on the east-bound trips. I do not think reasonable people can believe that a two-minute delay for a short period twice a day represents an unacceptable delay. And I note in passing that the Arterial Street Plan says, "increased delay and congestion" may be acceptable "if the only altemative is to negatively impact a neighborhood." (page 7) The experience of a driver on the ground should be compared with the map and table in the memorandum in one other way. According to the map and the table, the part of Benton Street that is "congested" is the part between Sunset and Miller and especially between Greenwood and Miller. Yet the only part of Benton Street that a driver experiences as having "congestion" (if you can call it that) is at the light at Riverside Drive where one sometimes might have to wait behind other cars for two traffic light changes. But adding more lanes for traffic on the Benton Street hill may worsen what little congestion actually occurs at that Riverside- Benton Street intersection. That is so because the greater capacity of the wider road will produce an increase in traffic, as seems to be generally agreed,~ and that additional traffic would seem to have no where to go except to wait behind the cars already stopped at the traffic light. There are two partial responses to the questions that I have raised about congestion and delay. One is that two-lane traffic is impeded by those turning left. I do not question that. But, once again, the question is the magnitude of the burden. Those left-turn delays are included in my seven-minute peak-hour drives from Rohret Road to Riverside Drive. Other than the table itself, there are no hard facts to demonstrate the extent of the burden, just where on this stretch of road the left turn problem is significant, and how it should be weighed against the burden of a wider road to those living along it. If the problem of the left turning vehicle is thought to be the controlling problem, it is not inevitable that widening street from Orchard to Sunset is the best solution. Stop streets, stop lights, isolated left tuming lanes, restricting access, selective widening where the problem is acute -- perhaps where there is a cluster of access points with heavy traffic -- might be possibilities. I do not advocate any or all of these; I advocate only that the case for widening the street depends on a careful and comparative assessment, not only of the cost to those adversely ~ (1) Anthony Downs; Stuck in Traffic (1992); (2) Mark Hartsen, "Do Highways Generate Traffic?", Access, Number 7, Fall 1995; (3) Bob Krause, DOT planner in Dyersvile: "Widening roads almost always leads to increased traffic flow." "It couild be quite a jump, at least in the double digits [percentage]." Ced Rap Gzt, 11-29-98, p. A-17. He gives as example: 35% on Route 61 between Clinton and Maquoketa. In same article, Jerry Solbeck, DOT, t~nes, agreed. Also to the same effect; (4) Jeff Davidson at Roosevelt School meeting, D~embe~r--10, 1998. :'~ IX:- ~'~ 2 affected (which has not been done), but also of the magnitude of the need justifying the widening and the alternative ways of meeting that need. The other response to my observation that the traffic problem on Benton Street cannot be fairly characterized as having significant congestion and delay is that it will change in the future. And indeed, the Arterial Street Plan does include tables that predict traffic volume into the future -- in 10 and 30 years. Once again, it is very difficult to pin down those predictions. One thing is very clear: they are estimates, predictions, expectations. They are not hard facts. They are based on predictions of where people will live in what numbers and where they will work in what numbers and how many cars they will have and how many trips they will take and what their destinations will be and how they will get there. The last resort of those who advocate a widening of Benton Street is always:... well, if we are going spend money on the "improvement" of Benton Street, we should spend a little more (though exactly how much more is hard to discover) and make it wider. For some, this argument leads to the view that the wider the better. But at this point we have moved well beyond the not- so-hard facts about present congestion and delay to very soft facts indeed. This approach comes close to a deliberate disregard of the City' s own commitment to a careful balancing of traffic needs and neighborhood impacts. It is at least a method of planning that takes a very casual attitude toward interests that the City has committed itself to foster. That brings me back to my point about approaching this decision with an open mind. The recently adopted Iowa City Comprehensive Plan gives very great emphasis to the city as a "community of neighborhoods." And the Comprehensive Plan pointedly recognized the potentially disastrous effect of arterial streets on these communities: "Quality of life in individual neighborhoods will be affected by implementation of [developmental] policies. For example, the City's policies regarding arterial street design should result in a route which is pleasant for motorists to travel, and safe for pedestrians and bicycles; a route that defines the boundaries of neighborhoods and does not direct through traffic into the heart of residential areas." (p. 19) This statement underlines the fact that, although Benton Street is an "arterial" street in Iowa City's traffic plan, it is no ordinary arterial street. No one would charge a rational traffic planner with having purposely chosen Benton Street as an arterial street. Besides violating a fundamental planning principle by cutting through residential areas, it is an odd and ill-conceived artery in many other respects. 1/At its busiest location, it is less than a quarter of a mile from Route 1 and only half a mile from the Melrose-Grand Avenue. 2/Because it cuts through the heart of a residential area and because of its proximity to other arterial streets, neighborhood streets are converted into collector streets and, contrary to the goal of the Comprehensive Plan, these neighborhood-collector streets fail to "slow vehicles and minimize traffic cutting through neighborhoods"; they do just the opposite. 3/Whereas the Comprehensive Plan points out that residential development on arterial streets should be set back at least 40 feet, many houses on Benton Street have very little set back because the use of Benton Street as an artery came afar 3 these houses were built. 4/It divides two schools from their populations and also borders a retirement facility. 5/Although the Arterial Street Plan specifies that speeds on an arterial street should be 35 miles per hour or faster, the two school zones on Benton Street restrict speeds to 20 mph during much of the day (and probably should do so for longer periods). 6/It has a very steep grade, made more dangerous when a setting sun cannot be avoided by west-moving traffic and made treacherous when snow or ice appear. 7/The steep hill contributes to causing and also to raising the stakes of the speed of traffic, which is often well in excess of the posted school zone limits. So the question is, what to do with this very unique arterial street. The Comprehensive Plan explicitly adopts the approach of giving focused attention to each identified planning district in the City. We are in the Southwest District and our District has not yet had its turn for focused attention. There is no urgency of making the Benton Street decision now out of phase with comprehensive planning for the affected district. At one time, the Benton Street improvement project was scheduled for a later date, and the project has been accelerated. Benton Street does need work, but there is no justification urgently requiring that acceleration. The Benton Street decision should be made in conjunction with other major decisions that affect this area of the City and which are integrally related to decisions concerning the street. If a decision is going to be made that drives a stake through the heart of a neighborhood, let that be done after consideration in a deliberate fashion with full citizen participation -- a consideration that has not yet occurred and a consideration that should be required as a condition precedent for such a street widening as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. William Buss 4 January 21, 1999 Iowa City Council Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Benton Street Construction Dear Council Members: I am writing in opposition to the possible widening of Benton Street to three or four lanes on behalf of my wife and I. We are not necessarily opposed to widening Benton to three lanes, but until we are informed specifically as to how a widening project would impact our property, we are opposed to any widening. To date, the representatives of the City that have spoken at neighborhood meetings and that I have spoken to personally have not been able to furnish any specific information that speaks directly to what will happen to our property. Therefore, we cannot suppert any project until we know specifically how it impacts us and our neighborhood. We are opposed to the four lane option under any and all circumstances. Additionally, we are concerned over the increased traffic volume that would likely result from a wider street. While Benton may be designated as an arterial street, in our opinion, the traffic flows extremely well in its present two lane configuration for the majority of the day. Our home is located at the comer of Benton and George streets. I was home this past summer for a six week period and was able to observe the traffic flow on a consistent basis. While the traffic volume was increased during the morning and afternoon "rush", the volume the rest of the weekday was relatively light. Speaking specifically to the two "rush" periods - our home sits exactly two blocks east of Sunset Street and at the peak of the afternoon commute, traffic will back up to our property for the those traveling west. In observing this hack-up more closely, oftentimes a motorist who has had to stop in front of our house can make it through the Sunset light in one cycle of the stoplight. Granted, that is if everything goes just fight in front of them. The worst case scenario has that motorist wait one additional cycle. The time that it takes to get through this Sunset back-up is, in my opinion, much shorter than the one that I experience going west at the Benton and Riverside intersection. One of our Neighborhood Association members has timed the Rohret to Riverside commute and I would encourage you to pay close attention to that information when it is presented. I found it to be very telling of what the practical reality of traveling on Benton really is on a day-in and day-out basis. My point is that while the traffic engineering department may have a number that has been generated by some mechanical device that has counted vehicles, as a practical matter, the traffic flows through on Benton in a relatively efficient manner. Bigger is not always better, and in my experience, people are drawn to Iowa City because it is for the most part a traditional "small town", with some of the big city amenities. In the spirit of brevity, I will not elaborate in detail on the other issues that will be brought to your attention in the coming days and that you have undoubtedly heard countless other times when dealing with street expansion. However, we are concerned over the safety issues that go along with a wider and presumably heavier traveled street to include increased volume and increased speed, children and elderly crossing, the loss of the sense of neighborhood, the loss of property owners yards (while the City may own the right-of-way), people become attached and I personally would never ask someone to give up greenspace so I could get to work two minutes faster. We also have questions regarding snow removal, landscaping, retaining walls, sidewalk width etc.. We understand that part of the equation is allowing for future growth to the west, but we are concerned that to date, no formal plan is in place and no study has been performed that indicates a widening of Benton is even necessary. If that is not the case, we will look forward to hearing about it at the upcoming meetings. We hope that there is more to this than trying to shave a minute or two off commute times for an hour in the morning and an hour in the afternoon in hopes of getting people to their destination a little faster. We thank you for the opportunity to address you and for your consideration in this matter. Mark Madden 1204 W. Benton Street Iowa City, IA 52246 Janua~ 20, 1999 To the Mayor and the City Council: Re: Benton Street reconstruction project I have lived at 723 George Street for 40 years. My four children walked on Benton Street to Roosevelt Elementary School from 1960 to 1972just as the children do today. I have seen and heard the traffic on Benton increase over the years, which has a negative effect on the neighborhood. I feel that Benton Street should be repaved as a two-lane road and stop signs installed at George Street and Greenwood to slow down the traffic. This street needs to be a neighborhood street since it has children and elderly people who use it on daily basis. The majority of the traffic should use the main arterials of Highway 1 and Melrose. Widening Benton would be a detriment to neighborhood. Sincerely, Betty Kann January 20, 1999 To the Mayor and the City Council: Re: Benton Street reconstruction project I grew up in the Benton Street community and am writing for myself and my mother who lives at 723 George Street. I feel that Benton Street should be repaired at this time, but not widened for two reasons: 1) a capital improvement project on Benton Street should be part of the Southwest District comprehensive plan and 2 ) the quality of life in the Benton Street community would be reduced by widening the street without other traffic planning efforts. I understand the City has a successful comprehensive planning process in place and that the Southwest District has not been scheduled yet. I firmly believe that the traffic issues facing the Southwest District can be equitably resolved in the comprehensive planning process. By widening Benton at this time you are eliminating more innovative solutions to the entire traffic problem. The residents in this planning district deserve the time to contribute their ideas to the neighborhood's traffic issues. I know you have heard about the unique issues of Benton Street: the school children, the retirement community and the 11% hill. I want to stress that Benton Street is considered to be in the middle of a neighborhood by the residents. To widen the street would increase the traffic volume and speed. This would decrease the livability of the neighborhood and lead to an increase of rentals. When you vote on the Benton Street reconstruction project you are not voting on a traffic issue, you are voting on whether or not to include the residents in the comprehensive planning process. I urge you to delay the Benton Street reconstruction project until the Southwest District comprehensive plan is complete. Thank you for your consideration, Theresa Kann SCHUBERT & ASSOCIATES P.o. BOX II 540 GLENDALE, AZ 853 I 8- 1540 TELEPHONE/FAX: (602) 547-8537 To~ From2 Date: Members of the ~ City City Council tailed Deer Conflicts in the City o~' Iowa City, January 7, 1998 I have enclosed a copy of comments that I prepared on behalf of the University of Iowa Animal Rights Coalition on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for white-tailed deer management in Iowa City. As I have documented in the comments, the DEA is legally deficient as it fails to: 1) provide credible site-specific information about the deer population in Iowa City; 2) substantiate the alleged purpose and need for the proposed sharpshooting program; 3) objectively evaluate non-lethal deer management strategies; 4) evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives; and, 5) disclose all relevant information and properly evaluate the environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives. My clients continue to believe that there is no credible evidence to justify the need for the proposed sharpshooting program. They believe, and I concur, that a comprehensive, multi- faceted, non-lethal management strategy would provide a more effective, humane, and sensible program for deer management in Iowa City. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review these comments. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at your convenience. SCHUBERT & ASSOCIAllES P.O. BOX I I 540 GLENDALE, AZ 853 i 8- i 54O TELEPHONE/FAX: (602) 547-8547 December 31, 1998 BY TELEFAX AND OVERNIGHT MAIL (DELIVERY 1/4/99) Mr. Ed Hartin, State Director USDA/APHIS/WS 2407 Industrial Drive Columbia, MO 65202 Dear Mr. Hartin: On behalf of the University of Iowa Animal Rights Coalition and The Fund for Animals (hereafter "UIARC and The Fund"), I submit the following comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the Management of White.tailed Deer Conflicts in the City of Iowa City, IA. The UIARC and The Fund strongly and unalterably oppose the proposal by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services (WS) to sharpshoot or otherwise participate in the slaughter of deer in Iowa City, IA. ~ The DEA offers no valid or credible site-specific evidence to justify the proposed killing program, or for that matter, to document that the deer population in Iowa City is in need of any form of lethal management. Indeed, instead of conducting the requisite studies and surveys to gain a greater understanding of the biological and ecological characteristics of the deer herd in this area, including the rates of immigration/emigration, reproduction, and mortality, and without any site-specific data on deer/human impacts, the alleged need for the proposed action cannot be substantiated, and therefore, lethal control strategies must not be implemented. The mere fact that shooting deer may be simpler and less costly than engaging in the requisite biological and sociological studies and surveys to better understand deer management needs in Iowa City is not sufficient justification for implementing the proposed sharpshooting program. ~As presently written, the DEA suggests that WS officials would engage in the sharpshooting of up to 240 deer over bait while city officials may elect to trap and euthanize deer See Appendix C. Conversely, what is likely the case, as is consistent with most urban deer controversies, is that a small minority group of Iowa City residents have begun to raise concerns about the deer and how the deer may impact their lives. In response, instead of attempting to design and implement an effective, long-term campaign to humanely resolve whatever deer-human conflicts exist through the use of non-lethal strategies, including changing human attitudes and behaviors which may contribute to the alleged deer problem, WS has proposed to engage in an unnecessary, inhumane, and ultimately ineffective lethal control program. Moreover, though the DEA provides some discussion of non-lethal management options, this analysis is entirely biased and inappropriate since WS essentially and unjustifiably dismisses many non-lethal management options claiming that they are ineffective or will not provide long-term relief. In addition to the lack of biological justification for the proposed action, the DEA is legally deficient. Not only does it fail to adequately document the purpose and need for the proposed action, and fail to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, but its analysis of the environmental consequences of the action is entirely insufficient. The remainder of this comment letter will discuss the multitude of DEA deficiencies. DISCUSSION: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the basic national charter for the protection of the environment. 40 C.F.R § 1500.a(a). NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of their proposed actions before implementing those actions. Under NEPA, an impact includes "ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, of cumulative." Id. at §1508.8. NEPA requires agencies to identify and assess the "reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment." Id. at § 1500.2(e)(emphasis added). Ultimately, to satisfy the intent of NEPA, federal agencies must "use all practicable means ... to restore and enhance the quality of the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions upon the quality of the human environment." Id at §1500.2(f). Thus, as is clear under NEPA, the actions implemented by a federal agencies must be designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects on the environment. The proposal to sharpshoot deer in various areas throughout Iowa City, IA does not meet this threshold nor does it satisfy other NEPA criteria. These deficiencies and others are evaluated below. 2 WS Did Not Afford the Public a Sufficient Opportunity to Evaluate and Submit Comments on the DEA: While the UIARC and The Fund appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEA,2 they believe that the opportunity for comment was not sufficient to afford interested members of the public, including members of the UIARC, the ability to adequately review and comment on the DEA Indeed, by the time the DEA was received by my clients there was slightly more than two weeks available to evaluate and comment on the document. Considering the time of year and the holiday season, the public's opportunity to participate in the WS decision-making process was, perhaps purposefully, further limited. The failure of WS to provide a sufficient opportunity for public comment, particularly considering the issues identified in the December 23, 1998 letter requesting an extension in the comment deadline, is inconsistent with the public involvement provisions and requirements contained in NEPA. 2. The DEA Fails to Substantiate the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action: The DEA contends that deer in Iowa City, IA are overabundant and require lethal control. The DEA proposes to implement a sharpshooting program to remove a maximum of 240 deer from various unidentified areas within the Iowa City limits. Despite the claims of overabundance, the DEA provides no valid or credible evidence, including no site-specific evidence, to substantiate such claims or to justify the need for lethal control. Instead, the DEA relies on potential impacts to justify the need for lethal deer control. Basing wildlife management decisions, particularly when involving lethal control, solely on speculation of what impacts may occur in the future, may be beneficial to the efforts of WS to expand its killing services, but is biologically reckless and unprofessional. The DEA identified several potential deer impacts including deer/vehicle collisions, damage to landscaping plants, damage to natural vegetation, and impacts to other wildlife species. In addition the DEA contends that the Cultural Carrying Capacity or Wildlife Acceptance Capacity has been exceeded in the Iowa City area. An analysis of each of these claims, however, reveals a nearly complete lack of any site-specific data to document that these impacts are occurring in the Iowa City area. Deer/vehicle accidents: The DEA claims that the number of deer killed on Iowa roadways has increased by 75% to over 11,000 deer/vehicle collisions during 1995. In Iowa City, there have allegedly been 39 reported accidents this calendar year and, according to the local police, the number of deer/vehicle accidents has been increasing each year. While this is the only data specific to Iowa City provided in the DEA, this low number of deer/vehicle accidents does 2It should be noted that the available evidence suggests that WS was not initially planning on providing the public an opportunity to comment on the DEA This opportunity was only gained after the UIARC notified WS of its failure to subject the DEA to public comment in November 1998. not substantiate the need for lethal deer control. Indeed, even if the lethal deer control program were implemented it does not follow that the removal of deer will necessarily reduce the number or rate of deer/vehicle accidents. Not only will the deer population respond to lethal control with an increase in productivity and survival, but shooting will not prevent the surviving deer from crossing roads to access suitable habitat. As long as there are deer, roads, and automobiles, deer/vehicle accidents will occur. As the number of roads and traffic volume increase as a consequence of development, the number of deer/vehicle accidents is also likely to increase regardless of the trend in the deer population. It is entirely inappropriate to initiate a sharpshooting program for deer to compensate for irresponsible planning and development decisions which have, most likely, been the principal cause of deer/vehicle accidents by increasing traffic volume, road density, and by fragmenting deer habitat. Deer/vehicle accident rates can only effectively be reduced by modifying the behavior of the deer and human drivers. Reducing speed limits on those road segments where a preponderance of deer/vehicle accidents have been documented is the most effective means of reducing the rate or severity of such accidents by providing the drivers with more time to respond to deer in the roadway. An educational campaign designed to provide drivers with the tools necessary to drive safely in areas occupied by deer is not only a useful tool to alert drivers to the potential presence of deer on the roadways, but also to provide them with tips on how to minimize the chances of a deer vehicle collision. In addition, temporary warning signs placed in high deer/vehicle accident areas can alert drivers to be more attentive to the potential presence of deer on the roadway. Since most deer/vehicle accidents occur from October through December and typically either at dawn or dusk, restrictions on speed limits, placement of warning signs, or other tools useful to modify driver behavior need only be utilized during a portion of the year to reduce the number and rate of deer/vehicle accidents. Deer behavior near roadways can be modified by utilizing reflector systems to reduce, and in some cases eliminate, the number and rate of deer crossing roadways. Reflector systems have been effective in reducing deer/vehicle accidents rates in various parts of the country. Many municipalities have successfully utilized reflector systems to reduce deer/vehicle accident rates. Though not disclosed in the DEA, even Iowa City apparently has seen a 95 percent cumulative reduction (1994-1997) in deer/vehicle accidents along Dubuque Street since a reflector system was installed in 1994 and a 96 percent cumulative reduction (1995-1998) in deer/vehicle accidents along Dodge Street since a reflector system was installed in 1995. (Attachment 1 and 2). The failure of WS to disclose this information is not only inconsistent with NEPA, but perhaps, was purposeful to prevent the public from using this information to contest the alleged need for lethal deer control. In addition to reflectors, habitat modifications can be used to reduce the attractiveness of road shoulders for deer or to increase the time that drivers have to react to deer. The use of non- palatable vegetation when landscaping road shoulders and the use of de-icing compounds which are not attractive to deer may reduce the attractiveness of road shoulders to deer. The use of salt to treat icy winter roads is particularly troublesome since salt, which is eventually absorbed in the soil and plants along the roadway, is a strong attractant to deer. Increasing the width of the road shoulder by removing large trees and shrubbery will provide the driver more time to react to deer. However, such vegetation removal should only be used sparingly and should be done only after all potential adverse consequences are considered. The key to reducing deer/vehicle accidents is understanding when, where, and why deer/vehicle accidents occur. A reporting or monitoring system is essential in order to identify "hot spots" where the majority of deer/vehicle accidents occur. Once the hot spots are identified each site can be examined individually to determine why the site lends itself to a high deer/vehicle accident rate. In turn, non-lethal management strategies can be devised on a site-specific level to reduce the number and rate of deer/vehicle accidents. In this case, not only has the WS failed to attempt to implement any of the non-lethal strategies effective in reducing deer/vehicle accidents, but there is no evidence to suggest that it, or the City Council, has collected the requisite reporting or monitoring information to identify deer/vehicle accident hot spots. Damage to Landscaping Plants: The DEA provides absolutely no site-specific data to demonstrate that deer in the Iowa City area have had, or continue to have, an adverse impact on ornamental vegetation. IfWS intends to rely on this claim to justify the need for lethal deer control, then surely it must have, or the City Council must have, site-specific survey data demonstrating where and to what severity deer are damaging ornamental plants. If these data doesn't exist, or if there have only been sporadic reports of such damage, this claim should not be used to justify the alleged need for lethal deer control. Deer Damage to Native Vet, elation: The DEA provides absolutely no site specific data to document deer damage to native vegetation in the Iowa City area. Surely, ifWS is intent on using this claim to justify the need for lethal deer control, it must have vegetation productivity, abundance, and composition data over an extended time period from multiple natural areas within the Iowa City city limits to document the alleged impact of the deer to natural vegetation. This lack of data is even more egregious considering that several deer task forces in Iowa, according to the DEA, have explicitly stated that "reducing damage to natural vegetation is an important, and in some cases the primary, reason for attempting to reduce deer numbers." (DEA at 2) Adverse Impacts to Other Wildlife Species: The DEA cites two scientific studies which allegedly document that when deer become overabundant they can cause adverse impacts to other species, including birds and small mammals. WS, however, provides absolutely no-site specific evidence to document such impacts in the Iowa City area. Neither WS, the Iowa City City Council, or the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has ever initiated the requisite studies in the Iowa City area to assess the impact of deer on either the natural vegetation or other species. To demonstrate, for example, that the deer in Iowa City are having an adverse impact on birds, baseline data on the density and composition of birds who nest in deer habitat and credible estimates of the size and distribution of the deer herd would have to be collected and then compared to subsequent data collected over time to ascertain whether changes in the size and distribution of the deer herd corresponded to changes in bird density and composition. In addition, to ensure the credibility of this analysis, other factors which may impact bird nesting activities, including development pressures and the presence and abundance of feral and domestic house cats in the area would have to be considered. There is no question that deer impact natural vegetation because they must consume vegetation to survive. The real question is whether deer, at different densities, adversely impact natural vegetation in a manner which results in long-term and irreversible ecological damage. There is no evidence that deer, even at high densities, cause such irreversible impacts. In this case, however, beyond mere conjecture and speculation there is no evidence that the deer in the Iowa City area have caused any adverse, long-term, or irreversible ecological impacts to the natural vegetation or wildlife in the area. Conjecture and speculation are not appropriate criteria for developing or implementing a lethal deer management strategy. The Deer Herd has Exceeded the Cultural Carrying Capacity: The so-called Cultural Carrying Capacity or Wildlife Acceptance Capacity (WAC) for deer is an entirely subjective measurement based solely on the whims and desires of a specific group of people. The WAC for deer can be different between adjacent neighborhoods, neighbors, and even between individuals. The WAC may be different between low and high income families and most certainly varies depending on the educational experiential background and values of the persons surveyed. Since it is an entirely subjective measurement, the WAC of an area for deer or other animals can be changed through, among other things, education. An aggressive educational campaign to educate residential property owners about deer biology and ecology and how to live with deer can be instrumental in increasing the WAC in an area. In this case, though the DEA references the WAC, it fails to specify what the WAC is for deer in the Iowa City area, whether the WAC for deer has been exceeded in Iowa City, or, if so, it fails to provide data to substantiate that fact. Since there are no substantive or credible data to document any adverse deer impacts to the residents or properties of Iowa City, the WAC could not possibly have been exceeded Thus, there is no reason to initiate the proposed action or to initiate any other form of lethal deer control. Even if the WAC had been exceeded, due to its subjective nature, it is not an appropriate criteria on which to justify lethal control. Quite simply, based on the evidence provided in the DEA, there is no deer "problem" in Iowa City and there certainly is not a deer "problem" that warrants the use of lethal control to resolve. Finally, in its strained attempts to create a deer "problem" where none exists, WS provides some data on deer numbers conducted during an aerial deer survey in January 1997. This survey 6 of fifteen areas resulted in a determination that the deer density was <25, between 25 and 50, and >50 in 9, 4, and 2 areas, respectively. While these data are interesting they most certainly do not document a deer "problem" which requires the removal of 240 deer through sharpshooting. First, only one survey flight was conducted. Though snow conditions were allegedly adequate for the January survey flights, the DEA concedes that "actual numbers (of deer) were unable to be collected via helicopter count due to inadequate snow cover during the late winter season of 1997/98." Admittedly, then, neither the City Council, Iowa DNR, or the WS have any idea how many deer are in the area nor have any of these parties conducted the requisite studies to determine the distribution or natality rate of the deer population. Second, the DEA fails to provide any explanation of the methodology of the aerial survey flight raising concerns about the accuracy of the collected data. For example, the DEA does not specify whether the aerial survey was conducted during the day or whether it utilized infrared technology or what assumptions were built into the mathematical models used to calculate deer density based on the number of deer observed. Since no survey methodology is without limitations and potential sources of error, the DEA must identify the methodology used and provide some discussion of the potential sources of error and assumptions inherent to the methodology. Third, one survey is not sufficient to document a trend in the deer population. Multiple surveys, using the same methodology, must be conducted over time to determine whether, and at what rate, the deer population is increasing or decreasing. Basing a proposal to slaughter 240 deer on a single aerial survey is not only irresponsible and unprofessional but it most certainly does not meet the minimal scientific criteria necessary to justify such a program. The DEA Fails to Objectively Evaluate and Consider Non Lethal Management Strategies to Resolve White-tailed Deer Management Conflicts in Iowa City: The proposed action in the DEA is to implement an Integrated Deer Damage Management Plan. This integrated plan, at least on paper, is intended to utilize both lethal and non-lethal management strategies with non-lethal methods given "first consideration in the formulation of each damage control strategy." DEA at 6. Instead of properly considering non-lethal strategies for use in this case, as its own policy suggests, WS quickly dismisses nearly all of the potential non-lethal strategies, including fencing, frightening devices, chemical repellents, claiming that they either are aesthetically displeasing, detract from the quality of living in an area, or may be ineffective. These findings are particularly troubling and entirely inexplicable since the preferred alternative (i. e., using sharpshooters to kill deer attracted to bait sites), has the same drawbacks or adverse impacts. Moreover, though the DEA specifies that a number of non-lethal management strategies "have been implemented at various problem areas within the State," there is no evidence provided to indicate that WS, the City Council, or any other entity has attempted to implement a 7 comprehensive non-lethal deer management program, including an educational campaign, prior to electing to pursue lethal control options. To the extent that the City Council has implemented any of its non-lethal management strategies as identified in Appendix C, initiating lethal control now prior to determining if these strategies have resolved the problem or if these strategies must be further augmented with other non-lethal strategies, is unwarranted. The DEA contends that nonlethal techniques alone are not adequate to reduce conflicts caused by deer to an acceptable level. DEA at 11. While my clients completely disagree with this claim and strongly dispute the argument that deer need to be killed, nowhere in the DEA does the WS identify or define what constitutes an "acceptable level" of deer conflicts. If WS intends to use these criteria to decide which management strategy is appropriate and to determine when a particular management strategy can be terminated, then clearly some reasonable definition of an "acceptable level" of deer conflicts must be provided. Without objective, measurable criteria to determine when this standard has been met, the determination is entirely subjective and can be easily manipulated to meet the personal needs/desires of the person or persons implementing the program. Though the DEA suggests that the removal of up to 240 deer is the goal of the program, there is no evidence to suggest that this amount of killing will reduce deer conflicts to an acceptable level or if less killing could achieve the same objective. Though my clients believe that the entire proposal should be rejected in favor of a aggressive and multi-dimensional non-lethal campaign, at a minimum, the proposal to iethally control deer in Iowa City must be delayed until and unless all non-lethal strategies are comprehensively implemented and tested to resolve deer/human conflicts. The disregard for the objective and fair analysis and consideration of non-lethal management strategies in the DEA is symbolic of the WS program which attempts to mislead the public into believing that it desires to resolve conflicts using non-lethal means, when, in reality this is merely lip-service designed to placate the public while lethal control strategies are the principal tool of choice. This analysis should be rejected and a new analysis, either in a far more substantive DEA or Environmental Impact Statement, should be prepared which provides an objective and thorough review of the effectiveness and feasibility of the many non-lethal alternatives available to resolve deer/human conflicts. 4. The DEA Does Not Evaluate a Reasonable Range of AIternatives: The alternatives evaluated in the DEA are the standard alternatives used by WS. In this case, the WS failed to evaluate at least two reasonable alternatives. The first is the implementation of an aggressive campaign to educate private property owners about how to live with deer while utilizing non-lethal deer control strategies to immediately address whatever, if any, serious ongoing conflicts may exist. The second alternative would permit lethal deer control through the use of depredation permits provided to individual landowners by the Iowa DNR while the WS would implement a comprehensive non-lethal deer management program. While the UIARC and The Fund fully endorse the former alternative (i. e., educational campaign with non-lethal management), neither supports the latter alternative which is simply provided as an example of the failure of WS to consider all reasonable alternatives. As previously stated, educating the public about deer biology, ecology, and how to harmoniously live with deer provides a unique tool to increase public value in, and tolerance for, deer, while also increasing the public's general knowledge about, and appreciation for, nature. Such an educational campaign could consist of written materials, videotapes broadcast on a local cable access station, exhibits and presentations at community events, and pre-arranged meetings in those neighborhoods most concerned about deer issues. Such educational programs could consist of both a discussion of deer ecology and biology as well as a demonstration on how to install, maintain, or otherwise use some of the non-lethal management tools available for resolving deer/human conflicts. In addition to such an aggressive educational program, existing non-lethal strategies could be implemented immediately in identified problem areas to address human/deer conflicts. To implement such a program, a monitoring and reporting system may have to be established to collect the requisite data to identify the deer "hot spots" in the Iowa City area. Once the hot spots are identified, site-specific management strategies could be designed for each area depending on the specific problem identified. Such a strategy -- targeting only those areas where deer have been reported as a problem -- is far more effective than implementing a sharpshooting program which may result in a lot of dead deer but may not ultimately resolve deer/human conflicts in the short or long-term The second alternative, utilizing the Iowa DNR deer depredation permit process is, as previously stated, not supported by either the UIARC or The Fund. It should, however, be evaluated as a reasonable alternative. Unlike the proposed action, which uses federal employees to kill deer presumably randomly throughout the Iowa City area, the use of deer depredation permits would be done by the person experiencing the damage and would target those deer who theoretically were responsible for the damage. While lethal control, even if targeted at specific individuals, is still an ineffective short or long-term strategy (see below), it puts the burden of the control on the complainant and is far preferable to a control program which is far broader in scope. The DEA Fails to Disclose Relevant Information and to Properly Evaluate the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Other Alternatives: Though the analysis of the environmental consequences of a proposed action and alternatives is a critical component of any NEPA document, in this case, WS, in its attempt to 9 mislead the public into believing that lethal deer control in Iowa City is warranted, has neglected to fully disclose all the relevant information and to properly evaluate the environmental consequences of the proposed action and the other alternatives. Neither the UIARC or The Fund support the proposed alternative so these deficiencies are provided as examples only and should not be interpreted as support for sharpshooting. Such deficiencies include: A. A failure to disclose when, where, or how the proposed sharpshooting program would be conducted. The DEA fails to identify the location or locations of the proposed bait piles over which the deer would be shot, when the shooting would occur, or other procedures to be followed by those participating in the program to ensure a dean and rapid kill. The public, particularly those who may reside near areas where the killing may occur, have a right to know about such activities, particularly considering public safety concerns. Details on the location of the shooting, when the shooting program may be initiated, what time shooting will be conducted, and other procedures associated with the program, including what will happen if a deer is wounded but not retrieved by the shooters, must be disclosed for the public to consider when preparing comments on the DEA. A failure to provide such information compromises the ability of the public to submit informed and substantive comments on the proposal. B. As stated, the proposed sharpshooting program will involve the use of bait to attract deer to specified areas for slaughter. The DEA, however, fails to identify the type of bait to be used nor does it consider the potential impact of the bait on other wildlife, including rats, mice, other small mammals, and birds in the area. The presence of artificial feed in and around residential areas, even if entirely cleaned after each shooting operation, may serve to increase the population of rats and mice which may reside in the area. If the bait is left over the duration of the seasonal shooting program, the likelihood that the bait will impact other species is even greater. Information about what kind of bait will be used, how the bait will be used, and how the bait may impact other species must be included in the DEA C. Any program which involves the use of firearms in or near residential areas raises serious public safety concerns. The DEft,, however, fails to provide any meaningful analysis of the public safety concerns associated with the proposed program. There is, for example, no discussion of how- the shooting program will be conducted in a manner to reduce the risk to public safety, whether the public in the vicinity of a shooting operation will be informed of the program before it is initiated, what steps will be taken to ensure the safety of the public during the shooting operation, and what emergency measures will be implemented should a resident be injured, killed, or traurnatized by an errant bullet. Such information must be disclosed in the DEA and the public must be permitted an opportunity to review and comment on such information before the plan is implemented. Given the City Council's concern about the impacts of the deer on public safety, one would hope that it would have equal if not greater concern about the potential impact of the shooting program on public safety and would demand that a comprehensive public safety plan be prepared prior to initiating the shooting program. 10 D. The DEA fails to properly evaluate the environmental consequences of lethal deer control. As has been extensively documented in the scientific literature, the lethal removal of animals, including deer, from a population generally results in increase productivity and survival of the remaining animals. Thus, far from being a solution to deer/human conflicts, lethal deer control, unless repeated indefinitely, does not provide a long-term solution to such conflicts because the targeted deer populations will quickly recover to, or in excess, of pre-control levels. Lethal control is also ineffective in the short-term since the removal of deer in an area will not necessarily stop the surviving deer from crossing roads, eating ornamental shrubbery, or consuming native vegetation. Indeed, the initiation of lethal control to address deer/human conflicts may provide a psychological benefit to those who want to see deer destroyed, but ultimately creates a situation where lethal control will be necessary indefinitely to limit the deer herd to a pre-determined and entirely arbitrary size. The suggestion that lethal control will only be used initially and then non-lethal strategies will be used to reduce the need for lethal control represents a convenient excuse for WS to immediately engage in lethal control while making promises about implementing non-lethal strategies at some future date. Considering the alleged deficiencies with many non-lethal strategies, as stated in the DEA, there would appear to be no reason to implement such defective strategies unless these strategies suddenly become more acceptable once the deer herd has been substantially reduced through lethal control. The DEA fails to provide the public with any analysis of the short and long-term effectiveness of lethal control strategies. The limitations of lethal control, particularly in regard to causing a short or long-term reduction in deer/human conflicts, must be disclosed in the DEA. E. The DEA suggests that the potential for the condition of individual deer to deteriorate makes Alternative 3 (non-lethal only) unacceptable. This statement demonstrates the failure of WS to understand and apply basic ecological and biological concepts to its management strategies. The deteriorating condition of a deer may reflect disease, undemourishment caused by an abundance of deer, or age. While death through or as a consequence of starvation is not considered by humans as an appropriate way to die, it is a critical component of the cycle of life in the natural world. Wild animals, from both hunted and unhunted populations, die from starvation and the consequences of malnourishment (i. e., disease) every winter. Instead of allowing this natural process to ol:erate, wildlife managers have arbitrarily decided that preventing natural mortality by permitting animals to be killed by sport hunters is preferable. In unhunted populations, the mere fact that individual deer may be smaller and in poorer condition is not cause for concern. Rather, such conditions reflect a population that is attempting to balance itself in relation to its habitat. Since, under such conditions, there is insufficient forage available to the surviving deer, the natural mortality rate it likely to increase while the natality rate will decrease due to a lack of sufficient energy for gestation In time, these factors if allowed to operate 11 without interference through sport hunting, will permit the population to reach an equilibrium with its habitat. In addition, the mortality of an animal as a result of natural factors is of significant benefit to the ecosystem as that animal deteriorates and its nutrients are recycled into the earth. The removal of animals through a sharpshooting programs eliminates that potential benefit. The DEA must provide a more objective analysis of the potential impacts due to the deer population of each and every alternative which does not embrace lethal control as the preferred management strategy F. The DEA suggests that if lethal control is not implemented as proposed, the result will be an increased risk of people contracting Lyme disease. The DEA provides no evidence to substantiate this claim. In reality, there is no compelling scientific evidence to document an absolute cause and effect relationship between an increased density of deer and an increase in human cases of Lyme disease. Since the tick who carries Lyme disease has a number of animal hosts, including cats, dogs, horses, mice, small mammals, and birds, reported cases of human Lyme disease can increase even in the absence of an abundant white-tailed deer population. Since the principal animal host for the tick is the white-footed mouse, an area which provides suitable habitat for an abundant rodent population represent a greater risk for the contraction of Lyme disease than an area inhabited primarily by deer. This risk is even greater considering that the larval and nymphal life stages of the tick (the life stages that are the smallest in size and most difficult to detect) primarily use the white-footed mouse as their hosts while the adult tick (a larger size which is more easily detectable) uses the white-tailed deer. Indeed, since an abundant deer population may consume undergrowth reducing the suitability of the site as rodent habitat, an area with an abundant deer population may pose a lower risk of Lyme disease transmission than areas with lower deer densities Moreover, according to statistics provided by Iowa State University (Attachment 3), the reported incidence of Lyme disease in Iowa is quite low. In Johnson County, for example, where Iowa City is located there have only been nine reported cases of Lyme disease between 1983 and 1997. It is believed that most, if not all, of these reported cases were actually contracted outside of Johnson County. Since Johnson County does not have a Lyme disease problem and the disease may not even be endemic to this area, the notion that an increasing deer herd may increase the incidence of Lyme disease appears to be far-fetched and may be intended only to mislead the public into supporting WS' proposal for lethal control. CONCLUSION: As the foregoing evidence demonstrates, the DEA is woefully inadequate. Not only does it fail to provide any credible site-specific data to justify the alleged need for the proposed lethal 12 deer control program, but it fails to consider all reasonable alternatives, fails to disclose relevant and important information, and its evaluation of the environmental consequences of the proposed action and its alternatives is deficient. The evidence provided in the DEA reveals that there is no deer "problem" in Iowa City, IA. Consequently, there is absolutely no justification for the proposed sharpshooting program. Instead, the UIARC and The Fund fully endorse Alternative 3 (non-lethal management only) or an alternative which combines Alternative 3 with the development and implementation of an aggressive educational campaign to teach people about the biology and ecology of deer and how they can employ non-lethal strategies to peacefully coexist with deer. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, L D.J. Schubert Wildlife Biologist cc: lowa City City Council members 13 ATTACIt]~IENll IOWA CITY WILDLIFE REFLECTOR SYSTEM REPORT DUBUQUE STREET: % MILE INSTALLED SEPTEMBER 1994 199311994 Average fifty (S0) deer vehicle accidents reported by citizen to police and animal control. 1994 after reflectors !n~talled: 2 recordmi accidents (1) during daylight (1) broken reflector 199~ (2) during daylight (3) broken reflector 1996 (l) broken reflector 1997 (2) bent poles 1998 6 recorded accidents 2 recorded acchients 2 recorded acciden~ ATTACt~N]' 2 DODGE STREET 15~ MII,E INSTALLED SEPTEMBER 1995 1993/1994 AVERAGE 2 DEER PER MONTH HIT BY VEHICLES 1994 Just prior to imtallation (all night time accidents) 6 accidents reported 199~ I 1996 0 1997 (1) daylight hours (1) bent post 1998 0 NUMBERS DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANIMALS INVOLVED OU'I~IDE THE REFLECTED AREAS, THESE ACCIDENTS HAVE INCREASED ALONG INTERSTATE 1-80. NO NOTICABLE INCREASE OR DECREASE IN ACCIDENTS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED JUST OUTSIDE THE REFLECTED AREAS AI'TACHMENI' 3 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: January 21, 1999 To: From: Re: The Honorable Mayor Ernest W. Lehman and Members of the City Council Lisa Handsaker, r i Memorandum from D. J. Schubert on the Draft Environmental Assessment Prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture Attached please find a memorandum sent by D. J. Schubert criticizing the draft environmental assessment prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") regarding its involvement in the City's deer management plan. As you know, the City of Iowa City contracted with the USDA to perform sharpshooting of deer this winter. As a federal agency, the USDA was required to prepare an environmental assessment under the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA). Despite Mr. Shubert's comments to the contrary, it is my understanding that the USDA has met all its requirements under NEPA and is authorized to sharpshoot on behalf of the City. Mr. Schubert's comments basically involve disagreement with the City of Iowa City over the best way to manage the City's deer problem. As you know, the Deer Management Committee spent a considerable amount of time exhaustively studying the problem. This issue has been well publicized and the City Council has provided the public with plenty of opportunity for input. Many of the suggestions raised by Mr. Schubert have already been incorporated into the City's long- term plan. As part of the long-term plan, it is the City's goal to encourage and educate people on how to live with deer. To accomplish this purpose, the City has begun distributing brochures which describe the City's deer management plan and suggest ways to live with deer. The City is also broadcasting this information on government channel 4. The Deer Management Committee's strong desire to encourage people to live with deer is reflected in their recommendation to set the maximum deer population density goal at 35 deer per square mile, which was adopted by the Council as part of the City's long-term plan. Typically, communities set that number in the range of 20 to 25 deer per square mile. The City has been tracking deer-vehicle collisions the past several years in an effort to help pinpoint problem areas. Despite the use of deer reflectors in problem areas of the City at a cost of $10,000.00 per mile, deer-vehicle collisions increased 78% from 1997 to 1998. I would note that the areas near the Peninsula, including Interstate 80, North Dubuque Street and Foster Road, accounted for 15 of the 50 reported deer-vehicle accidents the past year. In addition, deer reflectors are only effective at night. Another helicopter survey of deer in Iowa City was conducted by the Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") on Tuesday, January 19, 1999. The DNR's initial calculations indicate an increase of approximately 55% in the City's deer population since the last survey was conducted two years ago. This number is consistent with the DNR's projections for Iowa City. This rate of increase will likely continue, along with the increase in deer-vehicle collisions, if lethal reduction is not performed. Safety is the USDA's and City's top priority with regard to sharpshooting. Sharpshooting will not occur within 200 yards of any residence. Door hangar notices were posted at each residence in this area. In addition, the City has placed numerous "No Trespassing" and "No Entry" signs along the perimeter of the City-owned property on the Peninsula. Sharpshooting will only occur after dusk in locations where there is a backdrop and hollow point bullets will be used to minimize ricochets. All sharpshooters have passed a proficiency test and have been instructed that safety is the top priority. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give either of us a call. cc: Steve Atkins, City Manager Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Marian Karr, City Clerk dennis\mem\ccdeer.doc City Council of Iowa City, Iowa Emie Lehman, Mayor Conhie Champion Dee Norton Karen Kubby Mike O'DormeH Dean Thornberry Dee Vanderhoef Stephen J. Atldm, City Manager 1108 Tower Court Iowa City, Iowa 52246 January 18, 1999 Re/Parking Restrictions on Tower Court: In the fall of 1998 a number ofpwperty owners on Tower Court expressed concem about a growing parking problem on this residential street. This concern was precipitated by an ever increasing parking concentration during the day and what I will describe as "storage" parking of vehicles that are parked and not moved for several days. After much discussion between property owners the problem was eventually expressed to Mr. Doug Ripley, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner who conducted a survey of residents on the street. The result of that survey revealed a majority of the residents was in favor of some form of restricted parking be established. Recently we received information from Mr. Ripley that even though more than a majority of the residents on Tower Court favored a parking restriction plan the request was deferred by the City Council due to "input" from this neighborhood. I later was informed by a neighbor and from Mr. Ripley this "input" was initiated by a few people who were against such parking restrictions in the first place and contacted a Council Member to delay such action. It was also mentioned, in correspondence (12/31/98) from Mr. RipIcy, "The City Council decided, based on input from your neighborhood, to defer action on the parking issue and instructed staff to investigate implementing a residential parking permit system for Tower Court". I don't understand how this "parking permit system" became the basic request from the majority of reside.nts who wished restricted parking on the street. I feel this was a "smoke screen" request from a few to serve as a basis for deferring the original request. The ori~nal discussion of this problem among residents was to have a system of restricted parking 8-5 weekdays and unlimited parking during the evening hours and on the week-end to stop all day parking of university employees and students. When I see people park on our street at 7-7:30 in the morning and remove a bicycle from their car or track and ride away it leads me to believe our street is being used as a non-revenue parking lot. This situation becomes an even greater problem in the winter when snow removal is restricted because of parked vehicles or "stored" vehicles. This last large snow storm was a prime example of the problem when a vehicle was "stored" parked for approximately two weeks before the snow and then was plowed in for another week before being ticketed and removed but not before it restricted the entrance to our street. Some of us also find it extremely difficult if not impossible to get out of our driveways under such circumstances when cars are parked directly behind our driveways. I am very disappointed that a decision which a majority of the residents had previously approved can be side tracked based on a political maneuver. My wife and I, as residents of Tower Court since 1964, are supportive of a restricted parking and "storage" policy being enacted for our neighborhood. As I drive through the many neighborhoods of Iowa City I see parking systems in place that could also apply to our neighborhood thus eliminating the request or need to establish a "new" parking system for Tower Court. City Council of iowaCiC~~~ .~ ~ 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 1101 Tower CourPJ'[Y MP, N GEP,'$ OFFICE Iowa City, IA 52246 January 11, 1999 Dear Council Members, In November of 1998 several residents of Tower Court made a request to Mr. Doug Ripley to have parking restricted on Tower Court. The reasons for this request were: 1) residents of adjoining University Heights (where on-street parking is no longer permitted) and University Hospital employees are routinely using Tower Court for shod and long term parking and, 2) the consequence of this practice is that leaf removal, snow removal and garbage pickup are often difficult to impossible (especially leaf and effective snow removal). Mr. Ripley conducted a mail survey of residents and established that a clear majority of the residents on the street preferred that on-street parking not be permitted from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on weekdays. Apparently this preference was objected to by a minority who submitted a petition to the council to issue "on- street parking permits" to Tower Court renters (one house on the street is rented to 4+ University students without adequate off-street parking for their 4 + vehicles). As the city apparently has no precedent for "permit parking" on public streets, the original plan for restricted parking was tabled for "study" and we are now back to square one with vehicles free to park with virtually no limits (48 hour parking limits have seldom been enforced). While we appreciate the difficulties for the renters, the students are ephemeral and their parking problems should not weigh equally with the concerns of the long term, tax-paying, owner-residents on the street. Seven owners on the south side of Tower Court (parking is permitted only on the south side) have paved dual drives to accommodate multiple vehicles in off-street parking. On the north side of Tower Court (where parking is not permitted), only one resident has widened the drive to accommodate multiple cars. With snow accumulation, it is difficult for residents on the north side of the street to back out of their drives when cars are parked opposite their drives on the south side. Also, with the street not plowed to full curb-to-curb width, travel on the street is limited to one-way traffic and safety is compromised. We ask that the City Council revisit the issue of parking on Tower Court and heed the wishes of the majority of home owners on the street. Let Iowa City function as a democracy. Sincerely, Keene & Joan Swett dVd, f god ood Co , d of Representing Iowa City Neighborhood Associations January 14, 1999 City of Iowa City City Council 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear City Council members: In addition to the Neighborhood Council members list on this letterhead, the following who attended the Neighborhood Council meeting on January 14, 1999 endorse the idea that there needs to be 'a comprehensive plan in place for the Southwest District before .any decisions are made regarding changes in lane configuration on streets in that district. Chuck Felling Longfellow Margaret Felling Longfellow Ann Freerks Longfellow George Haskell Melrose Nukhet Yarbrough Ty'n Cae cc: Karin Franklin Jeff Davidson 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 ATTN: Marcia Klingaman Neighborhood Services Coordinator (319) 356-5237 JAN 2 2 1999 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 1104 Tower Court Iowa City, IA 52246 January 20, 1999 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Iowa City Council Members: As residents of Tower Court for 35 years, we are dismayed that you feel the need to investigate a residential parking permit system for Tower Court. We oppose that system. We have observed the system that works for the rest of the City when the majority in a survey request a change in parking. We believe in everyone having imput, but majority-rule has been the policy. We do not need to provide storage for cars on our short, dead-end street. We request that you grant us the system that works in other neighborhoods: that is, to prohibit parking on the south side of Tower Court from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Dan E. Branson cc: Mr. Doug Ripley Fredine Branson i January 21,1999 ATTENTION: TO ALL IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: - O In regard to the widening of Benton Street. I am writing this letter to represent the hundreds of the very young and even the unborn children who cannot state their case,but who will be involved in the future. This is especially true for children who will or are now attending the Roosevelt Grade School. These children's lives are or will be at stake. Not only will some be killed, but many others may be chrippled for life, from pedestrian vehicular accidents The present two lane Benton Street is as safe as you can make it. If you want to update Benton Street, and widen it to include a safe bicycle lane, this would be the best way to go. As it is now, there is not a sidewalk on the South side of Benton Street between Miller Ave. and Greenwood Drive , but there is a sidewalk on the North side of Benton, between Miller Ave. and Greenwood Drive. The children are using this North sidewalk, with no problem, but if you put a sidewalk on the South side of Benton Street, then the children who live on the South side of Benton Street will be using the South sidewalk and may be crossing Benton Street in the middle of the hill, to get to and from Roosevelt School. When M. Braverman wanted to develop the land South of Benton Street and across from Roosevelt School, it was determined that it would a very dangerous place to put a street corner, into his duplex development, so his development was either voted down or he decided to withdraw at that time. There is talk of building a pedestrian overhead bridge or walkway over Benton Street, just across from Roosevelt School, so all the children will be safe at all times, when they cross Benton Street. This is not true. How can you guarantee that the children, using the South sidewalk will always use the overpass, especially when school is not in session. I can envision children coming from the South sidewalk, who are in a hurry to get to Roosevelt school or playground and crossing right in the middle of the hill. If you widen Benton Street to three or four lanes, it will be a greater danger to the children, as the more lanes they have to cross the more dangerous it will be. Think about the lives of the parents,and the driver of the vehicle, after the child is injured while crossing Benton Street. They will have to live with your decision on the proposal to widen Benton Street. WHATEVER YOU DO, PLEASE DO NOT PUT A SIDEWALK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BENTON STREET, BETWEEN MILLER AVENUE AND GREENWOOD DRIVE!!!!I! Marian Karr From: Sent: To: Subject: Judy L. Pfohl I'judypfohl@compuserve.com] Saturday, January 23, 1999 9:20 AM Iowa City Council Benton Street Widening To City Council I am writing this as an individual, not as representing my neighborhood which is split on the issues. I have been wondering why the Benton Street problem is treated differently from the Eastside Kirkwood traffic problem? Kirkwood became a busy street with driveways exiting to it too. Kirkwood traffic calming by stop signs reduced traffic and changed it to the highway. Might the same solution work for Benton? >From the West many of us find Mormon Trek to Melrose or to the highway preferable to the bad pavement and slippery hill on Benton to go East. I know University heights and Melrose Ave. might not like this but the road is already wider. A West turning lane or second straight lane on Melrose from Mormon Trek is needed to have traffic move better at the light. Making Mormon Trek 4 lanes out to the highway and 2 West turning lanes would encourage the bypass. Also, there are too many lights on the highway or they are not timed for straight traffic between Riverside and Mormon Trek. Maybe a frontage road behind the buildings connected at only two lights would help. If the problem is too much density on the Westside then promoting increased density on Rohret will only add to the problems. Increased density south of Mormon Trek and the highway might be encouraged because it would exit out onto the highway. I don't need a response. Judy Pfohl Marjan Karr From: Sent: To: Subject: Unclemts@aol.com Saturday, January 23, '1999 12:51 PM council@blue.weeg .uiowa.edu (no subject) I would just like to remark on some comments made by Mayor Lehman in the Jan. 23 edition of the I.C. Press Citizen in regards to the individuals and organizations opposed to the "deer shoot". First, his characterization of the university students as a "small, vocal minority", with "no stake in the community", and as a "group of kids who really don't know what they're talking about", was both irmacurate and an unfair demonization of voter citizens he diagrees with. His immoderate remarks belie his otherwise admiration of the student population's economic contributions to the community, which he is undoubtably aware of as a local businessman. He appears to feel that students are a benefit only as long as they spend their money downtown, but keep their mouths shut on the issues. I speak as a 25 year, home-owning, property tax paying member of the city, former U.I. student who decided in my time to remain here because of a percieved positive atmosphere towards students to stay and make a contribution. If our Mayor feels times have changed and students should now study, spend, and then get out, he couldn't broadcast them better than he did in today's paper. Secondly, regardless of the merits of the "deer shoot" plan, the council majority and the city attorney either must have know that, or been informed that local and regional animal rights groups would become involved and use their legal resources to derail the plan. If not, it demonstrates a impressive degree of naivete at best, or ignorance at worst on the part of our elected representatives. And begs the question of their competance on other matters. So please don't be "vexed" when council shortsightedness demonstrates council shortcomings. And please leave the tawdry devices of insult and demonization of opponents to the U.S.House and Senate, where they have been perfected to a degree you can only dream of. Mark T. Shea 1306 Keokuk St, Iowa City. Mississippi Rivor * _ Rovival "A River for All Life" P.O. Box 315, Winona, MN 55987-0315 Honorable Mayor Emie Lehman Iowa City 410 Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED , JAN 2 5 1999 gift MANAGER'S OFFICE Re: NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE CITIZEN ACTION Dear Mayor Lehman, Please be advised that the Mississippi River Revival (MRR), which, since its inception in 198 1, has been a citizen environmental group dedicated to the publids use and enjoyment and the environmental health of the Mississippi River and its watershed. MRR is based in Winona, MN with chapters in Bellevue, Davenport, Dubuque and members throughout Iowa. Its Iowa members use and enjoy Iowa's rivers and streams for recreational activities and value not only the aesthetic beauty but also the ecological importance of each. This letter is to provide you with notice of Environmental Advocates, an Iowa City environmental organization, and Mississippi River Revival's intent to commence legal action against Iowa City pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1365 of the Clean Water Act and Iowa Code section 455B.11 l(1)(a). This action will be commenced at least 60 days after receipt by you of this notice as required by 33 U.S.C. 1365(b) and Iowa Code section 455B.111(2) if the violations described below are not abated and necessary action is not taken. The legal action which Environmental Advocates and Mississippi River Revival intends to commence is based upon the failure of Iowa City, in the past and currently, to comply with the Clean Water Act, Iowa City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and Iowa Code 455B.186 and 567 IAC 64.3(1). Specifically, the basis for this action is as follows: 1. The Failure To Comply with NPDES Permit #IA0042617. North Plant - Outfall 001: Iowa City's NPDES permit # IA0042617 sets discharge limits for biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) at: 7 day average of 40 mg/1 with a 30 day average of 25 mg/1 and a 7 day average of 3139 lbs/day with a 30 day average of 1962 lbs. The effluent monitoring records which you have submitted to the Department of Natural Resources show that you discharged CBOD on the following day in the following concentration: Date Max. Con. Avg. Con. Max Quan. Ave. Quan. 11/97 27.6 mg/l Iowa City's NPDES permit # IA0042617 sets discharge limits for total suspended solids (TSS) at a 7 day average of 45.0 mg/l with a 30 day average of 30.0 mg/l and a 7 day average of 2354 lbs./day with a 30 day average of 3532 lbs./day. The effluent monitoring records which you have submitted to the Department of Natural Resources show that you discharged TSS on the following days in the following concentrations: Date Max. Con. Avg. Con. 11/97 33.6 mg/l 12/97 65.7 mg/ 4/98 Max QUan. 2769 lbs./day Ave. Quart. Iowa City's NPDES permit # IA0042617 sets discharge limits for total ammonia at a daily maximum of 1094 lbs./day / summer season (April - October) and 2700 lbs./day / winter season / (November - March). The effluent monitoring records which you have submitted to the Department of Natural Resources show that you discharged total ammonia on the following days in the following concentrations: Date Max. Quan. 10/16/97 1407 lbs./day 10/22/97 1137 lbs./day 10/24/97 1172 lbs./day 10/26/97 1125 lbs./day 10/30/97 1152 lbs./day 58/98 115 1 lbs./day 5/12/98 1325 lbs./day 8/98 1204 lbs/day Iowa City's NPDES permit # IA0042617 sets discharge limits for total cyanide at a daily maximum of .0360 mg/1 with a 30 day average of .0240 mg/1 and a daily maximum of 2.20 lbs./day with a 30 day average of 1.40 lbs. The effluent monitoring records which you have submitted to the Department of Natural Resources show that you discharged total cyanide on the following days in the following concentrations: Date Max. Con. Avg. Con. Max Quan. Ave. Quan. 2/98.0430 mg/l 3.15 lbs./day 3/98.0630 mg/l 4.21 lbs./day 4/98.0n.~.0 mg/l 3.76 lbs./day .5/98.1540 mg/1 0400 mg/l 9.93 lbs./day 2.59/1bs. 7/98.0430 mg/l 4.08 lbs./day Iowa City's NPDES permit # IA0042617 sets discharge limits for total copper at a daily maximum of .0480 mg/l with a 30 day average of .0320 mg/1 and a daily maximum of 3.40 lbs./day with a 30 day average of 2.30 lbs. The effluent monitoring records which you have submitted to the Department of Natural Resources show that you discharged total copper on the following days in the following concentrations: Date Max. Con. Avg. Con. Max Quan. 11/97 .0370 mg/l 12/97.0530 mg/1 .0~.~.0 mg/l 3/98 .0350 mg/l 4/98.0900 mg/l .0400 mg/l 7.69 lbs./day 5/98 Ave. Quan. 2.33 Ibs. 2.40 lbs. 3.65 lbs. 2.59 lbs. Iowa City's NPDES permit # IA0042617 sets discharge limits for flow at a daily maximum of 21.32 MGD with a 30 day average of 9.4100 MGD The effluent monitoring records which you have submitted to the Department of Natural Resources show that you discharged flow on the following days in the following concentrations: Date Max. flow Ave. flow 3/98 11.4000 MGD 7/98 10.26 MGD Iowa City's NPDES permit # IA0042617 sets discharge limits for total residual chlorine at a daily maximum of .0480 mg/l and a daily maximum of 2.70 lbs./day. The effluent monitoring records which you have submitted to the Department of Natural Resources show that you discharged total residual chlorine on the following days in the following concentrations: Date Max Con. Max. Quan. 10/97.200 mg/1 5/98. 200 mg/l 4.45 lbs./day Iowa City's NPDES permit # IA0tM2617 sets discharge limits for total mercury at a daily maximum of .13 ug/1 with a 30 day average of .08 ug/l and a daily maximum of 8.20 lbs./day with a 30 day average of 5.40 lbs. The effluent monitoring records which you have submitted to the Department of Natural Resources show that you discharged total mercury on the following days in the following concentrations: Date Max Con. Max. Quan. 6/96 .44ug/l 9/96 .79ug/l 10/96 .21ug/l 3/97 .3ug/l 4/97 .33 ug/l 11/97 .229 ug/1 1/98 .224 ug/1 Environmental Advocates and Mississippi River Revival believes and alleges that a history of permit violations has continued from 10/97 to the present. Such violations are known to IDNR and Iowa City, and may be included in future legal action by Environmental Advocates and Mississippi River Revival. Please further be advised that, at the close of the sixty (60) day notice period we intend to file, on behalf of the Environmental Advocates and Mississippi River Revival, a citizen suit under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act and Iowa Code 455B. 111, against and Iowa City for injunctive relief and for the statutory maximum penalty of $25,000 per day for each violation. We also intend to seek recovery of costs, attorney and expert witness fees and such other relief as may be appropriate. During the sixty (60) day notice period, we will be available to discuss a resolution of this matter, including payment of penalties and fees and effective remedies and actions that will assure and Iowa City's future compliance with the terms of its permit. In addition, we can discuss whatever facts you believe are relevant that are not set out in this letter. If you wish to avail yourself of this opportunity, please contact us. Sincerely, Sol Simon, Director MRR 507-457-0393 cc: Paul Johnson, DNR Director, Burla Jackson-Johnson, EPA Region 7, Matt Siler, EPA CID, David Riley, Environmental Advocates, Del Holfand~ Environmental Advocates JAN ~ 5 1999 j CITY MANAGER'S OFfiCE ~ear 6' GonG/~ lea~e hovs; ~ nei fn~u~be.,c. ell :! ~4d SZ NVP 66 820 Kirkwood Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 January 13, 1999 City Council Members City of Iowa City 410 Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Members: As a property owner along Benton Street I am concerned about the recent consideration to widen Benton Street for traffic accommodation. This seems to be a repeat of the Kirkwood Avenue widening project where Highway 6 is just a few short blocks away. We have the same situation now where Highway 1 parallels Benton Street. Highway 1 should be taking care of the thru traffic rather than widening Benton Street for more traffic. Another concern is that staff proposes to widen Benton Street when the Comprehensive Plan for this part of town has not been updated. Logically, shouldn't the Comprehensive Plan be done first? Also, the Comprehensive Plan is the only staff document that speaks for the people, the quality of life and the integrity of neighborhoods. Traffic planning staff only address moving cars as efficiently as possible and does not seem to consider the people issues. Your role seems to be to balance traffic and neighborhood quality. So I would encourage you to delay the consideration of any widening plans for Benton Street until the Comprehensive Plan is updated. Then please consider very carefully the impact on the Benton Street neighborhood and schools. Thank you. Sincerely, .; ~Iohn A. Gross l JAN 1999 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 904 Denbigh Drive Iowa City, IA 52246 January 24, 1999 Dear Councilors: I am writing to urge you to vote no on the proposal to widen Benton Street beyond its present two lanes. There are many arguments to be made against the widening, but I would like to address the hardships and dangers it would pose to the large number of us who walk along Benton Street every day--to work, to school, or to other neighborhood destinations. One of the effects of widening the street would be to reduce the width of the parkways between the street and sidewalks. The past month' s accumulation of snow amply demonstrated how difficult it is for householders to maintain sidewalks that are very close to the road. Sidewalks along the south side of Benton, along the Horn School grounds and eastward, were impassable for some days at~er the plows threw a two or three foot wall of packed snow on them. Snow thrown by plows after lesser snows also creates a barrier that householders can have difficulty clearing for three or four days. In wet weather, walkers on sidewalks near the road are regularly sprayed with water as cars run through puddles they can't avoid. Sidewalks with narrow parkways are more dangerous for school children or for neighborhood children riding tricycles or playing on the sidewalks in front of their homes. Three feet or so isn't much protection for a group of young children playing or walking to school. Finally, the wider the street, the more difficult and dangerous it is to cross. Even now, with the Roosevelt and Hom neighborhoods divided by Benton, there are problems which would be gravely exacerbated by a widened street. School children cross with the help of crossing guards, but it takes a brave crossing guard to walk out into the middle of Benton Street on a curve or at the bottom of the Benton hill. For those of us crossing by ourselves, or perhaps with a young child or two and a dog or a bike, the expedition to a park or a school yard playground can be pretty exciting even across two lanes. Traffic lights, with the "no right turn on red" signs that would be essential to ensure safe crossings, would probably slow traffic down enough to offset any expected gain in efficiency from widening the street, and they couldn't possibly be frequent enough to prevent Benton Street from becoming a serious hazard dividing our neighborhoods. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. I hope you will choose to vote against widening Benton Street. Sincerely, Carol Hunsicker Dear Mayor and City Council, Jl~ ~ 0 1999 ,~ gITf mktlkGaZ'S On'ICE I'm writing you a little note to tell you about how wonderful my Christmas was this year. I thought you would be interested because you are indirectly responsible. This year, I did all my shopping at the new Coralville Mall. It was great! I didn't have to look hard for a parking space or get caught in a gigantic traffic jam in the parking structures. I didn't have to pay extra (in the form of meters or parking tickets) for the privilege of spending my money. I have all of you to thank for this, for your lack of any real incentive to get people to come downtown and for your punishment for being 5 minutes late getting back to my car. Thanks for your disdain for shoppers and your obstacles. I've learned my lesson, thanks to you. I hope you have a nice 1999, although I won't be sharing it with you. I'll be at the mall. Sincerely, /' ,~ -' ,/' /" :",~ .... ,/L....d._- ....', /. Paul Rudolph Coralville P.S. Perhaps it would generate a little confidence in your sincerity if you would enforce all the parking laws. On Sunday afternoons and evenings, cars are always parked illegally on Jefferson Street south from Clinton. I almost ran into the back end of one of them. It would be nice if you didn't give favorite's treatment to these cars. They are there every week. Apparently your police officers can't see them. Or maybe they have a special license to park there illegally. If so, why can't we all get a special license to park illegally? I mention this, not in the belief that you will actually do anything, but as just another reason I won't shop downtown any more. Marian Karr From: Sent: To: Subject: SUSAN C. MILLER [SCM651 @UIHCJES2.UIHC.UIOWA.EDU] Monday, January 25, 1999 12:33 PM Council@blue.weeg.uiowa .edu Benton Street Project Dear Council Members, I would like to express my thoughts and concerns regarding the possible widening of Benton Street. Living on Benton Street for the past ten years has always been an acceptable place for me and my family to have a home. However, with the possible plans to widen the street, it has made me think that I would no longer like to live there. My three children have artended Horn School through their elementary years and I still have a 2nd grader who walks back and forth across Benton Street to get to Horn School. The traffic on that street has always made me leary to have them cross the street. With the possible widening of that street, I foresee the increase of traffic, and with that will come an increased speed, making it unsafe for the children on the south side of Benton Street to cross. There have already been incidences where the adult crossing guards have had to pull children to safety because a car has not stopped or slowed down to allow the children to cross. I am sure that you do not want to endanger elementary student's lives by making them cross a busier street. If they were your children, I am sure you would think about this. I really think that if the speed limit was enforced at the 25mph and 20mph speed that the traffic should be traveling at, that this would cause people to seek a speedier route. This option should be Highway 6, which should be the faster and would be if someone would time the traffic lights correctly so that you could make it from one end of town to the other without having to stop at every stoplight. I make every effort to never go over the speed limit on Benton Street and it is amazing how many cars line up behind me quickly. There are rarely police on that street giving speeding tickets. I really think that if people were made to drive at the speed limit that there would not be a traffic problem and the street would not need to be widened. It is a residential area with two schools and two parks. It should not be a thoroughfare. My suggestion is to enforce the speed limit strictly for 6 months and then evaluate the traffic problem again. If you still find that there is a need to widen the street for increased usage, then bring it to discussion again. Several years ago the council looked at widening Kirkwood Blvd. It is similar to Benton Street in the fact that it goes parallel to Hwy 6 and leads to the east of Riverside Drive. It is also heavily travelled and during rush hour traffic the cars have backed up at stop signs there. It does not have two schools and parks located right on it. What was the reasoning for it to not get widened? I had heard that it was because a city council member lived on that street during the discussion. If this is so, then think how you would feel if you lived on Benton Street...a street that you considered a residential street in your neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Susan Miller 1717 West Benton Iowa City, Iowa Julie Lansing and Robert Wheeler 804 Hudson Ave Iowa City, Iowa 52246 January 25, 1999 To: All City Council Members RE: Benton Street Improvement Project Hello, my name is Julie Lansing and together with my husband, Robert Wheeler, we reside at the corner of Hudson and Benton Street. I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to share with you our experiences within the Benton Street neighborhood. Our purpose in writing this is not to persuade or dissuade you from any specific Benton Street plan or proposal, but rather to provide you with some personal insight regarding the Benton Street issue. Robb and I have both expierenced the transitory nature of residency in Iowa City. I came to school here in 1983 and continued to reside in Iowa City after graduation. It was only recently that I found permanent residence. It was quite refreshing to finally find a sense of pride and community within our neighborhood. During our search for a home to purchase in late 1996 we visited many houses in many neighborhoods throughtout Iowa City. It was however, our current homes location that we found what we were looking and hoping for. We found this very unique house affordable, close in proximity to my place of work at the V.A. Hospital and to Roosevelt school. Since purchasing our home we have spent countless hours and thousands of dollars improving not only the inside but, also the outside of our property in an effort to beautify not just our home but the neighborhood and community as well. I can't believe how many compliments we have recieved in regards to the improvements to our exterior and how it is much more pleasing to see a young couple taking time to improve the looks of the neighborhood. I was also suprised at how many people actually drive by and have told me later that they saw me out doing yard work. Certainly many people do use this Street. A sense of communtiy is an important factor to us as we make plans for a family and our future. This idea of a "village" if you will, is not the prevalent concern we must deal with as we struggle with the question of whether to begin a family in our "cute little brown house" at the bottom of the Benton Street hill. As we have expressed to you in a previous letter to the council, the safety of ourselves and future family is something that keeps me awake at night. Some prospective plans have indicated traffic much closer to our house than currently is. When you combine the steep grade on Benton with the frequently excessive speed of vehicles traveling that grade, the mixture is a dangerous stituation that will eventually lead to a tragedy of some sort! I understand that you, as representatives of the communtiy as a whole cannot place the needs of individual home owners above the people in Iowa City, I ask you to view me, not as an indiviual home owner, but as a fair and equitable representative of the first time home owner hoping to raise Subj: PPPPP [#6421309] Page 2 a family in a safe and supportive enviorment within the communtiy we love. The decsions you make on t~he proposed expasslon of the Benton Street corridor are life changing to the residents of our neighborhood. As you make you assement please put yourselves in the shoes of those whose lives will be affected by that very decsion. In closing, I would like to leave you with an image that defines more clearly than any other the things that are at stake here. That image is of the many tennis, basketballs, and the other assorted toys we continually find in the street in front of our house. To me, these don't represent just play things carelessly tossed over the fence during recess periods at Roosevelt school, but instead the carefree lives of the present and future children of our community, that we as adults are entrusted to protect. Thank you for you time and consideration in this matter. Julie Lansing Marian Karr From: Sent: To: Subject: Barbara M. Buss [72703.2457@compuserve.com] Tuesday, January 26, '1999 4:30 AM Iowa City City Council Meeting on the 25th To the City Council of Iowa City: Word of your action concerning Benton Street at your informal meeting on the 25th has reached us here in Australia, and I am writing in response. The whole process of working through the design of the Benton Street Project has been, as we were promised - an open and participatory one. No one promised that it would be easy or smooth, and I have no illusions that your recent decision is one you will necessarily hold for all time. For now I want to acknowledge how open the Council - as a group and as individuals - has been in listening to the neighborhood - as individuals and as a group. I feel as though I have just taken part in participatory democracy at its best - at the grassroots, where you know the players without a program. With appreciation, Barby Buss FROM · SCHUBERT &ASSOCIATES FAX NO.: 1GI~47EI537 Jan. 2G 1999 I~3:52PM P2 January 26, 1999 BY TELEFAX AND MAIL SCHUBERT & ASSOCIATES P.o. Box ii 540 GLENDALE, AZ 853 I 8- 1540 TELEPHONf**/FAX: (~O2} 547-0537 Mayor Ernie L~hman Mcmbe~ of the lowa City City Council Civic Center 410 E. Wasl~n~ton Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor Ldmum and Council Members: I am writing on behalfoft. he University of Iowa Animal Rights Coalition (Coalition), The Fund for Animals (The Fund), the Animal Protection Institute (API), and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to request that you rescind your previous approval authorizing lethal deer comrol in Iowa City. In addition, my clients asks that you not take aw] new action to permit the resumption of lethal deer control by any person, organization, or agency, until and unless the need for such a program is properly documented, the environmental impacts properly assessed, and the public has an adequate opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. The rco~t decision by the U.S. Department of Agticulture's Wildlife Se~dce division to suspend its sharpshooting program is an implicit ariafission that its previous Environmental Assessment (F,A), as the Coalition had argued, was in,sufficient. As documented in the comments that I prepared for the Coalition and The Fund - a copy of which was scat to each of you - the USDA/WS failed to properly document the alleged need for the killing program, failed to provide site-specific data about the deer herd and deer/human conflicts, inappropriately dismissed legitimate non-lethal alternatives to the shsrpshooting program, and failed to adequately evaluate the environmental impacts of the dccr slaughter plan. Indeed, based on the evidence presented in the EA, there is no apparent deer "problem" in Iowa City and the use of sharpshooting or any other lethal management strategy cannot be justifi~. Because of the deficiencies in its EA, the USDA/WS has promised that if it is to resume its deer control program it will prepare a new, legally sufficient, environmental document and will provide the public with a sufficient opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. It is unclear, however, whether the Iowa City City Council intends to continue to work with the USDAJWS or pursue aa alternative strategy for addressing the allegod, but completely tinsubstantiated, need for lethal deer control. Given the lack of evidence to justify the need for lethal deer control, the Coalition, The Fund, API, and HSUS respectfully requests that the City FROM: SCHUBERT &ASSOCIATES FAX 140. : 1GI~P5478537 Jan. 26 1999 83:5"JPM P3 Mayor Emie Lehman Member of the Iowa City City Council Page Two January 26, 1999 Council rescind its previous authority to permit the killing ofde~r by the USDA/WS and not take any new action to permit the implorecreation of an alternative deer killing strategy. lf, despite the lark ofevld~nce, the City Council elects to resume the ki11ing program by contracting with an entity other th~ the USDA/WS or any other federal agency, my clients demand that the Council, prior to authorizing such a preEnre, comprehen~ively document the alleged need, impacts, and alter~tivcs to the program in a report to be made available for public review and comment. The report must contain site=specific information about the Iowa City deer population and its impact on Iowa City residents. Though my clients are not aware of any law requiring the preparation of such a report ira non-federal party is to conduct deer control, given the controversy associated with this program in and outside of Iowa City and the lack of published evidence to justify such a control program, suoh a report is clearly warranted. In addition, my clients trust that the City Council understands the importance of formally soliciting public comment and public participation in the decision- making process and will en~re that the report is available for public review before any final decisions are made. Ultimately, my clients do not believe that there is suffleient evidence to justify the need for le~-h~ deer control in Iowa City, IA. Indeed, the de~isio~ by the USDA/WS to stop its sharpshooting program provides an opportunity for the City Council to reassess the need for deer control and to consider alternatives to a lethal deer manaSement strategy. Instead of continuing to promote unnecessary, inhumnnez and ifieffective l~!] deer control strategies, the Coalition, The Fund, API, and the HSUS strongly urge the City Counoil to implement a comprehensive non- lethal management strategy to humanely resolve and reduce human/deer conflicts. My clients are prepared to provide assistance to the City Council and/or the Iowa City Deer Task Force to develop and implement a comprehen~;-ve non-lethal deer w, anagement strategy in Iowa City. Thank you for your mediate attention to this request. Should you have any questions or ifyou are interested in leaminE morc about potential non-lethal strategies for addressing human/deer conflicts, please advise. Sin~°'el , DJ Wildlife BiolO~t ~ SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION REPORT REGARDING EXPANSION OF THE SENIOR CENTER IN THE IOWA AVENUE PARKING RAMP January 25, 1999 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Iowa City, Iowa 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 re: Expansion of Senior Center Iowa Avenue Parking Ramp Dear Mayor Lehman & City Council members: The Senior Center Commission submits this report in support of the request by the Commission that the City Council set aside for the expansion of the Senior Center eight thousand (8,000) square feet on the second floor of the proposed Iowa Avenue parking ramp. It is assumed that the Council is aware of much of the information contained in this report but in order to present our position, as much information has been included as was thought necessary. The Commission has unanimously concluded that additional space for the Senior Center is needed if the Center is to fulfil the commitment given it by the City Council when the Senior Center was established. The Commission has concluded that the only avenue available for Center expansion is to the north of the existing building. Since the City Council is proposing to construct the Iowa Avenue parking ramp to the north of the Center, the only option is to obtain space on the second floor of the ramp. In requesting this space, the Commission is aware that there will be a large expense in setting aside 8,000 square feet for the Center plus additional costs to furbish the area for use by Seniors and the cost of a skywalk between the ramp and the Senior Center. The Commission feels that the cost of the additional space will be more than offset by the benefits to current and future senior citizens and the community. The Commission respectfully asks that the City Council grant this request and authorize the city staff to implement this in the planning of the Iowa Avenue parking ramp. q~.~~~tted Terri Miller Chair Senior Center Commission GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Space availability in the ramp. At the present time, as reported by Joseph Fowler, plans for the Iowa Avenue parking ramp call for making 22,000 square feet available in the Iowa Avenue parking ramp for use for retail or office space. To the north of the Senior Center, there will be approximately 16,000 square feet available. The other space will be available in the area of Iowa Avenue and Gilbert streets. In the Linn street area, present plans call for two area's of about 4,000 square feet on the ground floor and 8,000 square feet on the second floor. 2. Interest in the available space. The Cottage has expressed a desire to have 4,000 square feet of space on Linn street about at their present location. It has been reported that Richard Pattschull has expressed some interest in the other 4,000 square feet located in the corner area of Iowa Avenue and Linn street and possibly in the 8,000 square feet on the second floor of the ramp in the Linn street area. The Senior Center Commission has strongly endorsed its request for the space on the second floor of the ramp in the Linn street area. 3. Prior requests. Linda Kopping, Coordinator of the Senior Center, presented a memorandum to the City Manager on December 18, 1998 regarding the desire of the Commission to have the space on the second floor of the ramp designated for the expansion of the Senior Center. At that time it was the intent of the Commission that 5000 square feet on the second floor of the ramp be designated for the Senior Center expansion. Now that the Commission is aware that 8,000 square feet is available, the request is for designation of the entire 8,000 square feet. Other than the square footage request, the Commission endorses the statements contained in Linda's memorandum. Additionally, Terri Miller, now chair of the Commission, presented a memorandum to the City Council on May 28, 1998 regarding the need for parking for the Seniors. The Commission endorsed the statements contained in Terri's memorandum regarding the needs of the Center in the area of parking in addition to the request for additional space. 4. Availability of downtown retail space. At the present time in downtown Iowa City, retail space is not at a premium. Space is available in several locations in the downtown area much of it within less than a block of existing parking ramps. 5. Expansion of Senior Center volunteers and programs. The Senior Center programs have seen a great deal of expansion in the past few years. Since 1989 the number of volunteers working in various capacities has increased from 392 to 746 annually. This is an increase of 91%. The volunteer hours have increased from 19,043 to 36,643 annually, an increase of 93%. In 1990, the Senior Center offered 231 programs for Seniors. The average number of programs offered between 1994 and 1997 was 356 programs. This averages out to 125 additional programs a year. Figures presented to the City Council previously demonstrate that the Center annually is visited more than 50,000 times by seniors using the Center. Further the number of Seniors using the Center is increasing each year. 6. Organizations and tenants using the Senior Center. Although the basic use of the Senior Center is programs for Seniors, the Senior Center provides office and program space for other organizations. These organizations include the Elderly Services Agency, Visiting Nurses Association, AARP, Johnson County Task Force on Aging, Senior Health Insurance Information Program, Senior Peer Counseling, Police Citizen's Review Board, Low Vision Support Group, and Senior Dining which serves a large number of Senior's daily and also on many holidays. The Senior Center meeting rooms are also used on a space available basis by community groups and civic organizations including the City Council, Planning & Zoning, and the Johnson County Council of Governments. 7. Programs. The number of programs has increased as shown in paragraph 5. They are as varied as can be imagined. The calendar each month is filled from early morning to late afternoon and is printed in the "Post" (the Senior Center Publication which has a circulation of 6,000). The Center also sponsors more than 60 volunteer led activity and planning groups. Like the New Horizon band which involves a large number of community members who meet for instruction and rehearsals twice weekly, these groups contribute both to the participants and the community. 8. Expansion of the existing building. The City Architect has reported that the existing building cannot be expanded upward and that any expansion to the south would produce limited if any benefit. 9. Future use of the Senior Center. Based upon past experience and general projections of the future population growth of seniors in Iowa, the Senior Center will be expected to serve more seniors with more programs in the future. DISCUSSION IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST The City Council of Iowa City and the Board of Supervisors of Johnson County established the Senior Center and mandated several goals for the Center and the Senior Center Commission. One of these goals is to "encourage full participation of senior citizens in Senior Center programs and activities" In order to effectively meet this goal, it is imperative the Senior Center have adequate space in which to administer and house the various programs which will allow and encourage full participation in offerings at the Senior Center. Without question, if there is not adequate space to operate in the Senior Center, the Center and the Commission will be unable to meet the goal mandated by the City Council. It is therefore imperative that space in the Senior Center be adequate to allow full participation in the activities of the Center. At the present time, there is not enough space to meet demands for Senior Center programs and storage. With the projected growth in the senior population, this situation will become worse. In addition, office space for the Elderly Services Agency and Senior Dining is severely overcrowded and all in house agencies lack adequate storage space. Programs and use of the Center cannot continue to increase without additional space and as shown by the information sheet, the present building cannot be expanded or remodeled to provide this space. With the need for more space apparent, there is only one available expansion. That is to the north. City Council plans provide for office and retail space in the Iowa Avenue parking ramp. If some of this space is not allocated to the Senior Center, there will be no possibility of expanding the Center. Programs and usage will be limited and seniors who could use the Center will be left out. This situation should not be permitted. The Commission recognizes that there are costs involved with allocating to the Center 8,000 square feet of space on the second floor of the ramp and the construction of a skywalk. We hope that much of this cost if not all of the construction costs could be a part of the bond issue for the parking ramp. This would make it possible to spread the cost over several years and not put a strain on the general fund or the bonded indebtedness of the City. At the same time, cost is not the only thing that must be considered. The costs should be measured against the benefit that will be derived by the Seniors and public using the Center. The Commission believes that the cost/benefit ratio clearly favors allocation of the 8,000 square feet of space on the second floor to the Senior Center. The Commission knows the City Council members are committed in their support of the Senior Center. We understand that the City Council has many priorities which it must choose between in setting the course for the City. We firmly believe that seniors should have a high priority. As people age, many need assistance and outlets so that they have the opportunity to participate in an array of lifelong learning experiences that promote wellness, community involvement and personal growth. The Senior Center Commission is committed to assist seniors to reach this goal. The Commission respectfully asks that the City Council of Iowa City grant this request for the allocation of 8,000 square feet of space in the Iowa Avenue parking ramp and instruct the city staff to proceed to implement this in the planning of the Iowa Avenue parking ramp. The Commission and the Senior Center staff will be available to meet with the Council at any time convenient to discuss this matter and answer any questions that the Council may have. In closing, the Commission urges the City Council to act on this request both favorably and as soon as is practicable so the Commission can work with the city staff in planning and implementing the uses and design of the 8,000 square feet in the Iowa Avenue parking ramp.