HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview Application Report & LEAFNorth Campus
Residential Expansion
Review Application Report
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
July 12, 2018
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP
1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 201 Ithaca, New York 14850 ph: 607.277.1400
www.twm.la
July 12, 2018
JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development
Department of Planning and Development
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
Susan Ritter, Director of Planning
Planning Department
Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Brent Cross, Village Engineer
Village of Cayuga Heights
836 Hanshaw Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear JoAnn, Susan, Brent and Members of the respective Planning Boards:
Cornell University is planning the construction of new residence halls on North Campus. The proposed
buildings are located in both the Town and the City of Ithaca. A small portion of site work (sidewalks and
planting) is located in the Village of Cayuga Heights. This action will require state and local environmental
quality review and site plan review.
Enclosed please find a project description and SEQR materials for the project. The Development Review
Applications, Building Permit applications and fees associated with kicking off the action have been provided
under separate cover.
If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to call. We are looking
forward to reviewing the project and answering questions at your July 24th (City), August 7th (Town) and
August 27th (Village) meeting(s). At these meetings we hope to answer questions you may have about the
project and discuss the process of establishing Lead Agency.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Michaels
Principal
Project Consultants
ikon.5 architects
Project Architect
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects
Project Landscape Architect, Municipal Approvals
T.G. Miller, P.C.
Project Civil Engineer
SRF Associates
Traffic Consultant
John P. Stopen Engineering LLP
Project Geotechnical Engineer
Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University
Cultural Resources Consultant
Taitem Engineers
Energy Consultant
WSP
Project Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Engineer
Table of Contents
Location, Setting & Zoning ...................................................................................................9
Project Introduction ............................................................................................................17
Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) City of Ithaca ..............................................35
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) City of Ithaca .................................................39
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Town of Ithaca ...............................................49
Addendum to FEAF ............................................................................................................65
Impact on Land .............................................................................................................67
Impact on Water ............................................................................................................71
Impact on Air ................................................................................................................87
Impact on Plants, Animals & Agriculture ........................................................................87
Impact on Aesthetic Resources ......................................................................................91
Impact on Cultural Resources ......................................................................................143
Impact on Open Space & Recreation ...........................................................................147
Impact on Critical Environmental Areas ........................................................................147
Impact on Unique Natural Areas...................................................................................147
Impact on Transportation .............................................................................................153
Impact on Energy ........................................................................................................167
Impacts from Sound, Odor & Light ..............................................................................213
Impact on Public Health ..............................................................................................219
Impact on Growth & Character of Community ..............................................................223
Consistency with Community Plans .............................................................................223
Impacts from Construction ..........................................................................................229
Appendix .........................................................................................................................235
Geotechnical Report ....................................................................................................237
Archaeology Report .....................................................................................................239
Traffic Study ................................................................................................................241
Circulation Study ........................................................................................................243
Arborist Report ............................................................................................................245
Technical Drawing Set (11x17) .........................................................................................247(separate packet)
9
Location, Setting & Zoning
10
Location
The North Campus Residential Expansion project is located in the North Campus precinct of Cornell University. The project area
is roughly bordered by Jessup Road to the north, by Pleasant Grove Road and Cradit Farm Drive to the east, and by Cradit Farm
Drive to the south.
Figure 1: Location Map
Location, Setting & Zoning
Cornell
University
Project
Location
Ithaca
Commons Pleasant
Grove
Rd
11
Figure 2: Location Map in context with Cornell University
Location, Setting & Zoning
Ag Quad
North
Campus
Beebe Lake
Fall Creek
Sophomore Site
(See Figures 3a & 3b
for detail)
Libe
Slope
Arts
Quad
Hasbrouck
Apartments
A Lot
First-year
Student Site
(See Figures 3a &
3b for detail)
12
Figure 3a: Location Map at site-level context
Two building sites are proposed. Housing for sophomores will be located in what is now the CC parking lot and site of Sigma
Alpha Mu fraternity, west of Robert Purcell Community Center along Jessup Road and housing for first-year students located on
what is now recreational fields along Cradit Farm Drive, north of Appel Commons. A minor amount of grading and sidewalk repair
along Jessup Road will occur in the Village of Cayuga Heights.
Location, Setting & Zoning
Setting
North
Campus
Jessup Rd
Recreational
Fields
CC Lot
Cradit Farm Dr Pleasan
t
G
rove
Rd
Cornell Heights
Historic District
Village of Cayuga Heights
City of IthacaTriphamme
r
RdTown of IthacaCity of IthacaProposed
Sophomore
Housing Site
Proposed
First-year
Student
Housing Site
Thurston AveForest Home
Historic District
A Lot
Beebe Lake
Forest Home Dr
Sigma Alpha Mu
Fraternity
Palmer Woods
13
The proposed building footprints are located within the City and Town of Ithaca. Approximately 77% of the floor area of the
project lies within the City of Ithaca (589,600 square feet) with the remaining 23% located in the Town of Ithaca (177,800 square
feet). Additional detail regarding floor area within each municipality is given below in the illustrated site plan.
Location, Setting & Zoning
Figure 3b: Location Map at site-level context with floor area distribution by municipality
Jessup Rd
Cradit Farm Dr Pleasan
t
G
rove
Rd
Cornell Heights
Historic District
Village of Cayuga Heights
City of IthacaTriphamme
r
RdTown of IthacaCity of IthacaSophomore Site
Residential ~ 299,900 SF
Dining ~ 66,300 SF
Thurston AveForest Home
Historic District
A Lot
Palmer Woods
Beebe Lake
Forest Home Dr
First-Year Student Site / City
Residential ~ 223,400 SF
First-Year Student Site / Town
Residential ~ 177,800 SF
14
Within the City of Ithaca, the project site is zoned U-1. This zone allows for residence halls and buildings of 175 feet in
height, or 15 feet above the maximum height permitted in an adjacent city residential district when within 200 feet of that
district. Building heights within 200 feet of the residential R-3a zone (just west of the project site) are allowed to be 55 feet in
height. Within the Town of Ithaca, the project site is zoned Low Density Residential. This zone allows for residence halls (with a
special permit) and buildings of 38 feet from lowest interior grade, or 36 feet from the lowest exterior grade, whichever is lower.
Within the Village of Cayuga Heights, the project area is zoned Multiple Housing District. There are no buildings proposed
within the Village of Cayuga Heights.
West of the project site in the City of Ithaca is the R-3a zone and the Cornell Heights Historic District. No construction is
proposed within the R-3a Zone or Historic District. Zoning across Pleasant Grove Road in the Town of Ithaca is multiple
residence.
Zoning
Figure 4: Location Map with municipal zoning
City of Ithaca Zoning Town of Ithaca ZoningVillage of Cayuga Heights Zoning
U-1
R-2a
R-3a
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Multiple Residential (MR)
Multiple Housing DistrictGorge Protection
Zone A (GP-A)
Gorge Protection
Zone B (GP-B)
Historic District
Location, Setting & Zoning
North
Campus
Jessup Rd
CC Lot
Cradit Farm Dr Pleasan
t
Grove
Rd
Cornell Heights
Historic District
Village of Cayuga Heights
City of IthacaTr
iphammer
RdTown of IthacaCity of IthacaThurston AveRecreational
Fields
Proposed
Sophomore
Housing
Proposed
First-year
Student
Housing
Forest Home
Historic District
15
16
This page has been intentionally left blank.
17
Project Introduction
Project Introduction
Project Purpose, Need & Benefit
Cornell initiated a Housing Master Planning process in January 2016 to develop a near and long-term strategy for undergraduate
student housing that would optimize the University’s student housing portfolio, improve the student experience, support the
University’s academic mission and support the surrounding community’s goal of providing affordable housing. During the
planning process, multiple stakeholders were consulted including students, faculty, staff, administrators, local residents and
officials from the City and Town of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights and Tompkins County. The additional residence halls to be
developed in the North Campus Residential Expansion will enable Cornell to provide more intentional and consistent support
during the most formative years of the student experience.
The Housing Master Plan demonstrated that Cornell’s greatest housing challenge is the lack of suitable inventory to meet
demand and accommodate students in appropriate living environments that meet their developmental and programming needs.
Campus housing is particularly problematic for undergraduate students, as fierce competition for a limited number of beds has
resulted in a lottery system that creates intense anxiety among first-year students and sophomores and difficulty living in the
same place on campus for more than one year. The sheer number of students living off campus has created tremendous upward
pressure on rents in nearby neighborhoods, especially in the City of Ithaca, without a corresponding increase in the quality of
housing.
The proposed residence halls will allow the University to address multiple issues. Upon completion, the North Campus
Residential Expansion will give Cornell the ability to house 100% of its first-year students in developmentally appropriate
campus housing and 100% of its sophomores in campus residence halls, co-ops, and Greek housing. Cornell also faces
significant deferred maintenance in its residence halls and community buildings. The greatest needs occur in some of the
University’s most iconic, historic residence halls, including Balch Hall, Risley Hall and the West Campus Gothics.
By adding approximately 2000 beds for occupancy by the Fall Semester of 2022, the North Campus Residential Expansion
(NCRE) will:
• Address a deficit of on-campus housing by providing 2004 student beds
• Offer appropriate housing, social and dining spaces to first-year and sophomore students
• Support the program with an additional approximately 75 beds for live-in professional staff, upper-level student resident
advisors (RAs) and faculty-in-residence
• Provide enough housing to implement a two-year residence requirement (all first-year and sophomore students to live
on campus or in Cornell-affiliated housing)
• Provide swing space so that deferred maintenance in older residence halls can be accomplished
• Allow anticipated increases in undergraduate enrollment
• Relieve pressure on the local housing market, particularly in the City of Ithaca
18
Project Program
The North Campus Residential Expansion will help create communities that promote interaction through new dining, recreation,
and open space. Approximately 800 of the new beds will be used for sophomore students, 1,200 for first-year students and
approximately 75 for residential staff.
First-year students will continue to be housed on North Campus as established by the North Campus Residential Initiative
of 2001, but Cornell now will have capacity to house all of them in appropriate housing that focuses on a common first-year
experience and building community.
This project also will provide more sophomore students with the option to remain on North Campus, creating greater continuity
in their student experience. Cornell is enthusiastic about the opportunity to provide an environment which fosters more
mentorship and interaction between first-year and sophomore students outside the classroom, and believes that the introduction
of new residential options will enhance the success of other program-specific residential environments, such as the West
Campus House System.
The project will be developed on two sites on North Campus. The first is the CC parking lot and Sigma Alpha Mu fraternity. The
CC lot is a 386-space parking lot located along Jessup Road across from Jessup Fields. The fraternity sits just south of the CC
lot. The building will be removed as part of this project. The second site will be on a portion of the recreational fields that are
north of Appel Commons (one of Cornell’s Community Centers).
The CC parking lot/Sigma Alpha Mu site will become student housing for sophomores. This site will host approximately 800
new student beds, a 1,200-seat dining hall (with loading dock) and central student lounge/social spaces. The new dining
facility will replace the Robert Purcell Marketplace Eatery in the Robert Purcell Community Center (RPCC). RPCC will continue
to serve as a community and conference center for North Campus. A new fitness space is an integrated element in one of the
sophomore buildings.
The recreation fields’ site north of Appel Commons will become an expanded first-year living community. This site will include
approximately 1,200 new student beds and outdoor recreation amenities. The North Star Dining Room in Appel Commons will
continue to serve students on North Campus.
Consistent with Cornell’s other residence halls, each new building will have a Residence Hall Director (RHD) who is a live-in,
professional staff member. The RHD provides community and program development, administrative management, and support
for his/her residence hall. All new buildings also will have Faculty Fellows who spend time interacting with students, sharing
meals, and attending programs with residents.
Additionally, the new first-year student buildings will each have a Faculty-in-Residence who also lives in the building. This
role helps create a shared experience and supportive environment that fosters academic and intellectual learning and personal
development.
Through creative floor plans, this project provides living spaces that enhance the residential experience, and encourage
interaction and collaboration among students. The buildings aim to draw students out of their rooms and into ample common
areas in support of group study, social interaction, and group programs in spacious lounges and nearby cafés. Seminar and
classroom-style rooms will also be incorporated.
Project Introduction
19
Housing Logistics and Enrollment Growth
Currently, there are approximately 14,900* undergraduates at Cornell. There are approximately 8,400 undergraduate housing
beds available on campus or in affiliated housing (e.g. fraternity and sorority housing, program housing). At the completion of
the NCRE on-campus housing for undergraduates will total approximately 10,400 beds. Cornell’s steady growth in enrollment
without commensurate growth in housing capacity has created a shortage of on-campus housing and challenging conditions for
its students. As previously noted, one goal of the NCRE project is to house more of the undergraduate population and to provide
enough beds to guarantee housing to all first-year and sophomore students.
Another intent of the project is to strategically prepare for enrollment growth by first securing the housing necessary to
accommodate future students. Once additional on-campus housing is available, Cornell will be able to increase the
undergraduate population by approximately 900 students and house all first-year and sophomore students on campus.
In addition, and as noted in the Purpose, Need and Benefit narrative, the new housing can provide swing space to repair existing
housing with deferred maintenance.
A summary of the housing transition plan for North Campus from 2019 to 2022 is as follows:
Fall 2021 – SOPHOMORE SITE OPENS, BALCH CLOSES
• ≈800 new beds will be available to first-year students (this year only)
○≈430 of the beds will be used to offset the closing of Balch for renovations (Balch currently houses first-
year students)
• The requirement that all entering first-year students must live on campus for a minimum of two years takes effect
Fall 2022 – FIRST-YEAR STUDENT SITE OPENS, BALCH REOPENS
• ≈800 beds at the sophomore site will be available to sophomores
• ≈1,200 beds will be available for first-year students at the first-year student site
• ≈430 beds will be back online at Balch Hall
• ≈480 beds in Clara Dickson Hall (currently assigned to first-year students) will be assigned to sophomores
• First-year students will no longer be assigned to the Townhouses.
*Of the ≈14,900 undergraduates, 7,286 are first and second year students (3,431 first year and 3,855 sophomores)
Project Introduction
20
Project Description
The buildings will be between two and six stories using a modern aesthetic that pulls from and expands on the admirable
qualities of many of the existing buildings on the North Campus. Articulated facades, durable quality materials and social uses
on the ground floor will be important features of new residence halls, utilizing innovative design to meet the needs of future
undergraduates and creating a platform for engaging community interactions.
Abundant social spaces such living rooms, lounges, study rooms, wellness rooms, multi-purpose rooms and communal
kitchens are dominant on the ground floor. Lounges and study rooms are also included on each floor of residential living. A
generous amount of glass is intended to be used wherever there are social spaces, creating a strong visual relationship with the
exterior environment and bringing light into the living spaces. Loggias at the ground level are proposed for buildings on both
sites, creating opportunities for interior activities to spill out into the landscape.
With respect to the landscape surrounding the buildings, site planning strategies reflect the important role of open space on
the Cornell campus. A hierarchy of memorable open spaces is being developed. The open spaces will be green, flexible,
accessible, interconnected and designed to enhance social functions. Outdoor plazas and furnishings will accommodate a
range of uses from group activities to individual study. Large open lawns are planned that are suitable for passive recreation
as well as for staging events and possible tent set-up. These flexible open lawns are planned near ground floor social spaces.
Groves of large shade trees and flowering understory trees are planned where residential living units extend to the ground floor.
The vegetation is planned to create a greater sense of privacy while still allowing filtered light and views for security.
Site circulation and grading will optimize accessibility and connectivity across North Campus. At both sites, parking facilities
sufficient to service ADA requirements, residence hall live-in staff and maintenance/delivery access will be provided. Site
lighting will be thoughtfully woven with the rest of the site using LED fixtures that include cutoffs to focus lighting in needed
areas and minimize light spillover onto adjacent areas.
The site for first-year student housing includes an outdoor amphitheater suited for staged dramatic productions, performances
and informal gatherings. The amphitheater is adjacent to a café on the ground floor with at-grade access to the stage area. The
first-year student site also includes a multi-purpose field and one basketball court adjacent to the residence halls. The four
existing tennis courts will remain.
Creative handling of stormwater is envisioned in order to celebrate and make visible the university’s commitment to green
infrastructure. For example on the first-year site, terraced stormwater planters will be integrated as features adjacent to primary
walkways.
The following pages contain building height diagrams, an illustrative site plan and conceptual building images. Schematic
design drawings have also been provided in a separate packet.
Project Introduction
21
Diagram of Sophomore building heights
Project Introduction
2
HEIGHT REGULATION
City of Ithaca
• U-1 District: 175 foot maximum building height
• Within 200 feet of a city residential district, maximum
height is limited to 15 feet more than maximum height
in adjacent City residential district; R-3a maximum
height = 40 feet.
40 feet + 15 feet = 55 foot maximum height
within 200 feet.
U-1 Use DistrictR-3a
Use District
Village of Cayuga Heights
City of Ithaca
Cornell Heights Historic
District Boundary
R-3a
Number of Stories
3
4
5
6
Note: Gradient color change indicates a
change in number of stories due to
topography. See Building Section
Diagram.
200 ft 6 stories
3 stories
9 stories
9 stories
4 stories
2 stories
3 stories
3 stories
4 stories
Building Section Diagram
(Vertical scale is exaggerated)See Building Section DiagramGradient color change
indicates a change in number
of stories due to topography.
Ground plane5 stories2 stories4 stories22
Diagram of First-year Student building heights
Project Introduction
2
U-1 Use District
(City of Ithaca)
Low Density
Residential (LDR)
(Town of Ithaca)
Village of Cayuga Heights
City of Ithaca
Town of IthacaCity of IthacaNumber of Stories
3
4
5
6
Note: Gradient color change indicates a
change in number of stories due
to topography. See Building
Section Diagram.
HEIGHT REGULATIONS
City of Ithaca
• U-1 District: 175 foot maximum
building height
Town of Ithaca
• LDR: Maximum height of 38 feet
from lowest interior grade; 36
feet from lowest exterior grade,
whichever is lower
3 stories
3 stories
3 stories
3 stories
3 stories
3 stories
2 stories
2 stories
3 stories
Gradient color change
indicates a change in number
of stories due to topography.
Ground plane6 stories3 stories5 storiesSee Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
Diagra
m
Building Section Diagram
(Vertical scale is exaggerated)
23
24
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Project Introduction
Illustrated Site Plan
Proposed
Sophomore
Housing
Proposed
First-year
Student
Housing
Jessup Road
Cradit Farm Drive Pleasan
t
Grove
RoadTr
iphamme
r
Road
Carol Tatkon
Center
Helen Newman Hall
Appel
Commons
Mews Hall
Mary Donlon
Hall
Clara Dickson
Hall
Balch Hall
Court Hall
Kay Hall
Bauer Hall
Robert
Purcell
Community
Center
George
Jameson
Hall
Akwe:kon
Delta Gamma
Sorority
Kappa Delta
Sorority
Townhouse Community
Hasbrouck Apartments
High Rise
Low Rise 6
Low Rise 7
Just About
Music
Ujamaa
Jerome Holland
International Living
Center
Jessup Field
Tobin Field
House
Thurston AvenueDining
Building 2
Building 1
Building 1
Building 3
Building 2
Wait Terrace
Wait Avenue
Cooperative
25
26
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Project Introduction
First-year Student Buildings - Concept First Floor Plan First-year Student Site - Concept Perspective
First-year Student Site - Concept Floor Plans and Perspective
Building 1
Building 2
Building 3
Building 1
Building 2
Building 3
27
28
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Project Introduction
First-year Student Site - Concept Perspective Rendering
The rendering above is representative of the
schematic design phase. As such the design
of the buildings and landscape is continuing to
be developed. The final color has not yet been
decided. The rendering is representative of
general building massing, form, size and scale.
Details of the facades, materiality, fenestration and
color will continue to be refined. The landscape
design is also being refined on a parallel track.Perspective Rendering Area
29
30
This page has been intentionally left blank.
31
Sophomore Buildings - Concept First Floor Plan Sophomore Site - Concept Perspective
Project Introduction
Sophomore Site - Concept Floor Plans and Perspective
Building 1
Building 2
Building 1
Building 2
32
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Project Introduction
Sophomore Site - Concept Perspective Rendering
The rendering above is representative of the
schematic design phase. As such the design
of the buildings and landscape is continuing to
be developed. The final color has not yet been
decided. The rendering is representative of
general building massing, form, size and scale.
Details of the facades, materiality, fenestration and
color will continue to be refined. The landscape
design is also being refined on a parallel track.
Perspective Rendering Area
33
34
This page has been intentionally left blank.
35
Short Environmental
Assessment Form (SEAF)
City of Ithaca
36
37
38
This page has been intentionally left blank.
39
Full Environmental
Assessment Form (FEAF)
City of Ithaca
40
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF)
PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION
(prepared by project sponsor/applicant)
NOTE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether proposed action may have a significant
effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form: Parts A through E. Answers to these questions
will be considered part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public
review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is
expected that completion of the FEAF will depend on information currently available and will not involve
new studies, research, or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so
indicate and specify each instance.
Name of Action:
Location of Action:
Name of Applicant/Sponsor:
Address:
City/Town/Village: State:ZIP:
Business Phone: E-Mail:
Name of Owner (if different from applicant/sponsor):
Address:
City/Town/Village: State: ZIP:
Business Phone: E-Mail:
Description of Action:
(607) 277-1400
14853
Humphreys Service Building, Suite 102
(607) 255-2251
Kimberly Michaels, RLA, Principal - Trowbridge Wolf Michaels
1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 201
Ithaca New York 14850
North Campus, Cornell University
kam@twm.la
See attached.
Paul Stemkowski, Project Manager
Cornell University
Ithaca New York
North Campus Residential Expansion
ps522@cornell.edu
CITY OF ITHACA
41
2
A.SITE DESCRIPTION
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1.Present Land Use: Urban Industrial Commercial Public Forest
Agricultural Other: _________________________
2.Total area of project area: _____ acres _____ square feet. (Chosen units also apply to following section.)
Approximate Area (Units in Question 2 above apply to this section.)Currently After Completion
2a. Meadow or Brushland (non-agricultural)
2b. Forested
2c. Agricultural
2d. Wetland [as per Article 24 of Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)]
2e. Water Surface Area
2f. Public
2g. Unvegetated (i.e., rock, earth, or fill)
2h. Roads, Buildings, & Other Paved Surfaces
2i. Other (indicate type): ___________________
3a. What is the predominant soil type(s) on project site (e.g., HdB, silty loam, etc.): _________________
3b. Soil Drainage: Well-Drained: ______% of Site
Moderately Well-Drained: ______% of Site
Poorly Drained: ______% of Site
4a. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? Yes No N/A
4b. What is depth of bedrock? (feet)
4c. What is depth to the water table? (feet)
5.Approximate percentage of proposed project site
with slopes:
0-10% %10-15% %
15% or greater %
6a. Is project substantially contiguous to, or does it
contain, a building, site, or district listed on or
eligible for the National or State Register of
Historic Places?
Yes No N/A
6b. Or a designated local landmark or located in a
local landmark district? Yes No N/A
7.Do hunting and/or fishing opportunities currently
exist in the project area? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” identify each
species: __________________________________
—PLEASE COMPLETE EVERY QUESTION.INDICATE “N/A,” IF NOT APPLICABLE.—
10.1 16.0*
15.5 9.6 Lawn, Landscape
Institutional (University Campus)
Adjacent to Cornell Heights Historic District
25.6
~ 20
Adjacent to Cornell Heights
Historic District
N/A
90
10
86 4
10
Fill layer over dense silt layer,
over glacial till
~ 15
(incl. 1.4 of Artificial Turf)*
CITY OF ITHACA
42
3
A. SITE DESCRIPTION (concluded)
8.Does project site contain any species of plant
and/or animal life identified as threatened or
endangered?
Yes No N/A
According to: _____________________________
Identify each species: _______________________
9.Are there any unique or unusual landforms on
project site (i.e., cliffs, other geological
formations)?
Yes No N/A
Describe: ________________________________
10.Is project site currently used by community or
neighborhood as an open space or recreation
area?
Yes No N/A
If yes, explain: ____________________________
11.Does present site offer or include scenic views
known to be important to the community? Yes No N/A
Describe: _________________________________
12.Is project within or contiguous to a site
designated a Unique Natural Area (UNA) or
critical environmental area by a local or state
agency?
Yes No N/A
Describe: _________________________________
13.Stream(s) within or contiguous to project area:
___________________________________
___________________________________
a. Names of stream(s) or river(s) to which it is a
tributary: ________________________________
________________________________________
14.Lakes, ponds, or wetland areas within or
contiguous to project area:
a. Name(s): _________________________________
b. Size(s) in acres: ___________
15.Has site been used for land disposal of solid
and/or hazardous wastes? Yes No N/A
Describe: __________________________________
16.Is site served by existing public utilities?
a.If “Yes,” does sufficient capacity exist to
allow connection?
b.If “Yes,” will improvements be necessary to
allow connection?
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
Site is marginally visible in views as identified
Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventory
Recreational fields exist on site for
Cornell student use
None N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See LEAF Addendum
CITY OF ITHACA
43
4
B.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate): ______________
1a. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor either in acres: _______ or square feet: _______
1b. Project acreage developed: _________ Acres, initially: Acres, ultimately: ________
1c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: ____________________
1d. Length of project in miles (if appropriate): ___________ or feet: ____________
1e. If project is an expansion, indicate percentage change proposed: _________%
1f. Number of existing off-street parking spaces: Proposed: _____________
1g. Maximum vehicular trips generated (on completion of project) per day: _______ Per hour: ______
1h. Height of tallest proposed structure in feet: _________
1i. Linear feet of frontage along a public street or thoroughfare that the project will occupy: __________
2.Specify what type(s) of natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) and how much will be removed from the
site: _______________________________ Or added to the site: ________________________________
3.Specify what type(s) of vegetation (e.g., trees, shrubs, ground cover) and how much will be removed from
the site: Acres: ___________ Type(s) of Vegetation: _________________________________________
4.Will any mature trees or other locally important vegetation be removed for this project?
Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain: ________________________________________________
5.Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace vegetation removed during construction? ____________
6.If single-phase project, anticipated period of construction: months (including demolition)
7.If multi-phase project, anticipated period of construction: __________ months (including demolition)
7a. Total number of phases anticipated: ____________
7b. Anticipated date of commencement for first phase: month year (including demolition)
7c. Approximate completion date of final phase: month year.
7d. Is phase one financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes No N/A
8.Will blasting occur during construction? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain: _______________
____________________________________________________________________________________
9.Number of jobs generated during construction: __________ After project is completed: __________
10.Number of jobs eliminated by this project: Explain: _____________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
11.
+/- 2,400
41 trees over 12" DBH will be removed, see attached Impact on
Plants, Animals and Agriculture narrative
~55,000 CY
85-110 for the project
(see narrative)
See attached narrative
25.6 25.6 25.6
N/A N/A
1.1% of existing campus acreage
4% by existing campus square footage
The buildings will be between two and six stories; the tallest building will be 77 feet high
Yes
1
0 CY
See attached Impact on Land narrative
37
0
N/A
April 2019
May 2022
257
0
140 average, 75-100
for the majority of time, 280 at peak
Jessup Road: 1,205 feet
Pleasant Grove Road: 505 feet
Cradit Farm Drive: 835 feet
653
7 entering / 3 exiting AM peak
7 entering / 33 exiting PM peak
The Sigma Alpha Mu building will be removed and the fraternity will be relocated
Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain:______________________________________________________
CITY OF ITHACA
44
45
5
B.PROJECT DESCRIPTION (concluded)
12a. Is surface or sub-surface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes No N/A If yes, explain:
__________________________________________________________________________________
12b. If #12a. is “Yes,” indicate type of waste (e.g., sewage, industrial, etc.): ____________________
12c. If surface disposal, where specifically will effluent be discharged? _____________________
13.Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, or other surface waterways be increased or decreased
by proposal? Yes No N/A If yes, explain: _____________________________
14a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to the 100-year
flood plain? Yes No N/A
14b. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to:
Cayuga Inlet Fall Creek Cascadilla Creek Cayuga Lake Six Mile Creek
Silver Creek? (Check all that apply.)
14c. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to wetlands as
described in Article 24 of the ECL? Yes No N/A
14d. If #14a., b., or c. is “Yes,” explain: __________________________________________________
15a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes No N/A
15b. If #15a. is “Yes,” will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes No N/A
15c. If #15b. is “Yes,” give name of disposal facility: and location:
____________
15d. Will there be any wastes that will not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain: ___________________________________
15e. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? Yes No N/A
If “Yes,” explain: ___________________________________________________________________
16.Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” specify: ____________
17.Will project affect a building or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic
Places, or a local landmark, or in a landmark district? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain:
_________________________________________________________________________________
18.Will project produce odors? Yes No N/A If yes, explain: ________________________
19.Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise-level during construction?
Yes No N/A After construction? Yes No N/A
20.Will project result in an increase of energy use? Yes No N/A If yes, indicate type(s):
___________________________________________________________________________________
21.Total anticipated water usage per day in gals./day: Source of water:
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Casella Waste Management
N/A
See attached narrative on energy
104,000 GPD Fall Creek
Steuben County Landfill
CITY OF ITHACA
6
C.ZONING & PLANNING INFORMATION
1.Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? Yes No N/A
If yes, indicate the decision(s) required:
Zoning Amendment Zoning Variance New/Revision of Master Plan Subdivision
Site Plan Review Special Use Permit Resource Management Plan
Other: ____________________
2.What is the current zoning classification of site? ________________________
3.If site is developed as permitted by current zoning, what is the maximum potential development?
___________________________________________________________________________________
4.Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? Yes No N/A
5.If #4 is “No,” indicate desired zoning: _________________________
6.If site is developed by proposed zoning, what is the maximum potential development of the site?
___________________________________________________________________________________
7.Is proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans?
Yes No N/A If “No,” explain: _____________________________________________
8.What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a ¼-mile radius of the project?
(e.g., R-1a, R-1b) _____________________________________________________________
9.Is proposed action compatible with adjacent land uses? Yes No N/A Explain: _________
___________________________________________________________________________________
10a. If proposed action is the Subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? _______________
10b. What is the minimum lot size proposed? __________
11.Will proposed action create demand for any community-provided services? (e.g., recreation, education,
police, fire protection, etc.)? Yes No N/A Explain: _____________________
If “Yes,” is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Yes No N/A
Explain: _____________________________
12.Will proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels?
Yes No N/A
If yes, is existing road network adequate to handle additional traffic?
Yes No N/A Explain: _____________________________________
U-1 Use District, City of Ithaca; Low Density Residential (LDR), Town of Ithaca;
Multiple Housing District, Village of Cayuga Heights
N/A
N/A
U-1, R-2a, and R-3a Use Districts, City of Ithaca; Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR),
and Multiple Residence (MR), Town of Ithaca; Multiple Housing District, Village of Cayuga Heights
The site is already developed for undergraduate housing.
N/A
N/A
Increase in fire protection & police services
N/A
See attached traffic narrative
See paragraph below
Cornell's Department of Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) responds to between 600-700 medical emergencies and 300-400
fire alarms per year. At the completion of the North Campus project, EH&S estimates that the addition of 2,000 beds on campus will
result in an increase of approximately 42-49 medical emergencies and 21-28 fire alarms. The Cornell University Policy department
responded to approximately 1,520 service calls during the 2017-18 academic year. At completion of the North Campus project, the
Cornell Police estimate that the addition of 2,000 beds on North Campus will result in an increase of approximately 110 calls for service
per year.
CITY OF ITHACA
46
7
D.APPROVALS
1.Approvals: ______________________________________
2a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes No N/A Specify: _________________
2b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes No N/A
If “Yes,” specify:__________________________________
2c. Local and Regional Approvals:
Agency Yes No Type of
Approval Required
Submittal
Date
Approval
Date
Common Council
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Planning & Development Board
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC)
Board of Public Works (BPW)
Fire Department
Police Department
Director of Code Enforcement
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
(IURA)
Other: _____________________
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
SEQR & Site Plan Review
(Town, City & Village)
Emergency Access Review
Building Permit (Town & City)
SWPPPNYS DEC
Village of Cayuga Heights
(Village Engineer)
Sidewalk Work Permit, Stormwater Approval
7/12/2018
Tompkins County GML 239
CITY OF ITHACA
47
48
49
Full Environmental
Assessment Form (FEAF)
Town of Ithaca
50
Page 1 of 13
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Part 1 - Project and Setting
Instructions for Completing Part 1
Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,
are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to
any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist,
or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to
update or fully develop that information.
Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that
must be answered either “Yes” or “No”. If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, complete the sub-questions that follow. If the
answer to the initial question is “No”, proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any
additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the project sponsor to verify that the information contained in
Part 1is accurate and complete.
A. Project and Sponsor Information.
Name of Action or Project:
Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map):
Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need):
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO: State:Zip Code:
Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO:State: Zip Code:
Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO:State: Zip Code:
North Campus Residential Expansion
North Campus,Cornell University
See attached.
Kimberly Michaels,RLA,Principal;TWMLA
607-277-1400
kam@twm.la
1001 West Seneca Street,Suite 201
Ithaca NY 14850
Paul Stemkowski,Project Manager;Cornell University
607-255-2251
ps522@cornell.edu
Humphreys Service Building,Suite 102
Ithaca NY 14853
Cornell University
Ithaca NY 14853
TOWN OF ITHACA
51
Page 2 of 13
B. Government Approvals
B.Government Approvals, Funding, or Sponsorship.(“Funding” includes grants, loans, tax relief,and any other forms of financial
assistance.)
Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s)
Required
Application Date
(Actual or projected)
a. City Council, Town Board, 9 Yes 9 No
or Village Board of Trustees
b. City, Town or Village 9 Yes 9 No
Planning Board or Commission
c. City Council, Town or 9 Yes 9 No
Village Zoning Board of Appeals
d. Other local agencies 9 Yes 9 No
e. County agencies 9 Yes 9 No
f. Regional agencies 9 Yes 9 No
g. State agencies 9 Yes 9 No
h. Federal agencies 9 Yes 9 No
i. Coastal Resources.
i.Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway?9 Yes 9 No
ii.Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program?9 Yes 9 No
iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area?9 Yes 9 No
C. Planning and Zoning
C.1. Planning and zoning actions.
Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of a plan, local law, ordinance, rule or regulation be the 9 Yes 9 No
only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed?
•If Yes, complete sections C, F and G.
•If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1
C.2. Adopted land use plans.
a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site 9 Yes 9 No
where the proposed action would be located?
If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action 9 Yes 9 No
would be located?
b. Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway 9 Yes 9 No
Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan;
or other?)
If Yes, identify the plan(s):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, 9 Yes 9 No
or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan?
If Yes, identify the plan(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SEQR and Site Plan Review (City,Town,Village)July 12,2018
Fire Dept.Emergency Access Review
Tompkins GML 239
NYS DEC -SWPPP
Dormitory Authority of the State of NY -Funding
TOWN OF ITHACA
52
Page 3 of 13
C.3. Zoning
a.Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. 9 Yes 9 No
If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit?9 Yes 9 No
c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes,
i.What is the proposed new zoning for the site? ___________________________________________________________________
C.4. Existing community services.
a. In what school district is the project site located? ________________________________________________________________
b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c.Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d.What parks serve the project site?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D. Project Details
D.1. Proposed and Potential Development
a.What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include all
components)?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? _____________ acres
b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed?_____________ acres
c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor?_____________ acres
c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use?9 Yes 9 No
i.If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g., acres, miles, housing units,
square feet)? % ____________________ Units: ____________________
d.Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes,
i.Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed?9 Yes 9 No
iii.Number of lots proposed? ________
iv.Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum __________ Maximum __________
e.Will proposed action be constructed in multiple phases?9 Yes 9 No
i.If No, anticipated period of construction: _____ months
ii.If Yes:
•Total number of phases anticipated _____
•Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) _____ month _____ year
•Anticipated completion date of final phase _____ month _____year
•Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may
determine timing or duration of future phases: _______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Ithaca:U1;Town of Ithaca:Low Density Residential;Village of Cayuga Heights:Multiple Housing District
Ithaca City School District
Cornell Environmental Health &Safety,Cornell Police,City of Ithaca Fire &Police,Village of Cayuga Heights Fire &Police,Tompkins County Sheriff
Cornell EH &S,Cornell Police,City of Ithaca Fire &Police,Village of Cayuga Heights Fire &Police,Tompkins County Sheriff,Bangs Ambulance
None
25.6
25.6
+/-2,400
1.1%of campus acreage 2,079 beds
37
University Campus -Undergraduate Student Housing
TOWN OF ITHACA
4% by campus
square footage
53
54 Page 4 of 13
f.Does the project include new residential uses?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes, show numbers of units proposed.
One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family (four or more)
Initial Phase ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________
At completion
of all phases ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________
g.Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes,
i.Total number of structures ___________
ii.Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: ________height; ________width; and _______ length
iii.Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: ______________________ square feet
h.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any 9 Yes 9 No
liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage?
If Yes,
i.Purpose of the impoundment: ________________________________________________________________________________
ii.If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: 9 Ground water 9 Surface water streams 9 Other specify:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: ____________ million gallons; surface area: ____________ acres
v.Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: ________ height; _______ length
vi.Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g., earth fill, rock, wood, concrete):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D.2. Project Operations
a. Does the proposed action include any excavation, mining, or dredging, during construction, operations, or both? 9 Yes 9 No
(Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated
materials will remain onsite)
If Yes:
i .What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? _______________________________________________________________
ii.How much material (including rock, earth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site?
•Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ____________________________________________
•Over what duration of time? ____________________________________________________
iii.Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials?9 Yes 9 No
If yes, describe. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v.What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _____________________________________acres
vi.What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? _______________________________ acres
vii.What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feet
viii.Will the excavation require blasting?9 Yes 9 No
ix.Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: _____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment 9 Yes 9 No
into any existing wetland, waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area?
If Yes:
i.Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name, water index number, wetland map number or geographic
description): ______________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Excavation for site prep,grading,utilities,and foundations
~55,000 CY
37 months
Clean fill
Groundwater is relatively deep but variable.Dewatering is expected to be needed for installing the deepest utilities and lowest
building levels in certain locations.All dewatering operation discharge will be to approved erosion and sediment control practices.
25.6
Greater than 5
~25
See attached project details
~ 2,079 beds (see attached)
A dining hall is included in the buildings (see attached)
TOWN OF ITHACA
Page 5 of 13
ii.Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland, e.g. excavation, fill, placement of structures, or
alteration of channels, banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Will proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? 9 Yes 9 No
If Yes, describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Will proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
•acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: ___________________________________________________________
•expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion:________________________________________
•purpose of proposed removal (e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control, boat access): ____________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
•proposed method of plant removal: ________________________________________________________________________
•if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify product(s): _________________________________________________
v.Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i.Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: __________________________ gallons/day
ii.Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
•Name of district or service area: _________________________________________________________________________
•Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal?9 Yes 9 No
•Is the project site in the existing district?9 Yes 9 No
•Is expansion of the district needed?9 Yes 9 No
•Do existing lines serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No
iii.Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
•Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
•Source(s) of supply for the district: ________________________________________________________________________
iv.Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No
If, Yes:
•Applicant/sponsor for new district: ________________________________________________________________________
•Date application submitted or anticipated: __________________________________________________________________
•Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: _______________________________________________________________
v.If a public water supply will not be used, describe plans to provide water supply for the project: ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi. If water supply will be from wells (public or private), maximum pumping capacity: _______ gallons/minute.
d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i.Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: _______________ gallons/day
ii.Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and
approximate volumes or proportions of each): __________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
•Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: _____________________________________________________________
•Name of district: ______________________________________________________________________________________
•Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project?9 Yes 9 No
• Is the project site in the existing district?9 Yes 9 No
• Is expansion of the district needed?9 Yes 9 No
104,000
Cornell University,Fall Creek
See attached section on Impact on Water
Fall Creek
Average 104,000
Sanitary wastewater.
Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility
N/A
TOWN OF ITHACA
55
Page 6 of 13
•Do existing sewer lines serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No
•Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
•Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ____________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
•Applicant/sponsor for new district: ____________________________________________________________________
•Date application submitted or anticipated: _______________________________________________________________
•What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? __________________________________________________
v.If public facilities will not be used, describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposed
receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge, or describe subsurface disposal plans):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi.Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: _______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point 9 Yes 9 No
sources (i.e. ditches, pipes, swales, curbs, gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater) or non-point
source (i.e. sheet flow) during construction or post construction?
If Yes:
i.How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel?
_____ Square feet or _____ acres (impervious surface)
_____ Square feet or _____ acres (parcel size)
ii.Describe types of new point sources. __________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e. on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties,
groundwater, on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
•If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: ________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
•Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties?9 Yes 9 No
iv.Does proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater?9 Yes 9 No
f. Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site, one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel 9 Yes 9 No
combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations?
If Yes, identify:
i.Mobile sources during project operations (e.g., heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Stationary sources during construction (e.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Stationary sources during operations (e.g., process emissions, large boilers, electric generation)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above), require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit,9 Yes 9 No
or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit?
If Yes:
i.Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet 9 Yes 9 No
ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year)
ii.In addition to emissions as calculated in the application, the project will generate:
•___________Tons/year (short tons)of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
•___________Tons/year (short tons) of Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
•___________Tons/year (short tons) of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
•___________Tons/year (short tons) of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
•___________Tons/year (short tons)of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs)
•___________Tons/year (short tons)of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
See attached section on Impact on Water
5.93
25.6
No new point sources.
Stormwater management facility/structures.See section on Impact on Water
Ultimately runoff will discharge to Fall Creek,a fifth-order stream.See section on Impact on Water
Construction Equipment
None anticipated.
The project will utilize Cornell's off-site combined heat and power plant and lake source cooling
TOWN OF ITHACA
56
Page 7 of 13
h. Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants,9 Yes 9 No
landfills, composting facilities)?
If Yes:
i.Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ________________________________________________________________
ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g., combustion to generate heat or
electricity, flaring): ________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes, such as 9 Yes 9 No
quarry or landfill operations?
If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust):
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
j. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial 9 Yes 9 No
new demand for transportation facilities or services?
If Yes:
i.When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): Morning Evening Weekend
Randomly between hours of __________ to ________.
ii.For commercial activities only, projected number of semi-trailer truck trips/day: _______________________
iii.Parking spaces: Existing _____________ Proposed ___________ Net increase/decrease _____________
iv.Does the proposed action include any shared use parking?9 Yes 9 No
v.If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads, creation of new roads or change in existing access, describe:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi.Are public/private transportation service(s) or facilities available within ½ mile of the proposed site?9 Yes 9 No
vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electric 9 Yes 9 No
or other alternative fueled vehicles?
viii.Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing 9 Yes 9 No
pedestrian or bicycle routes?
k. Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand 9 Yes 9 No
for energy?
If Yes:
i.Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or
other):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Will the proposed action require a new, or an upgrade to, an existing substation?9 Yes 9 No
l. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply.
i.During Construction:ii.During Operations:
•Monday - Friday: _________________________•Monday - Friday: ____________________________
•Saturday: ________________________________•Saturday: ___________________________________
•Sunday: _________________________________•Sunday: ____________________________________
•Holidays: ________________________________•Holidays: ___________________________________
~5 per day
653 257 396
New driveway to Akwe:kon is proposed,Sisson Place will no longer provide through access.
See Impact on Energy narrative.
Cornell Combined Heat and Power
Municipal permitted hours
If needed
If needed
If needed
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
Closed some holidays
TOWN OF ITHACA
57
Page 8 of 13
m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction,9 Yes 9 No
operation, or both?
If yes:
i.Provide details including sources, time of day and duration:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen?9 Yes 9 No
Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
n.. Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? 9 Yes 9 No
If yes:
i.Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen?9 Yes 9 No
Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
o.Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearest
occupied structures: ______________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
p.9 Yes 9 No Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum (combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons)
or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage?
If Yes:
i.Product(s) to be stored ______________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Volume(s) ______ per unit time ___________ (e.g., month, year)
iii.Generally describe proposed storage facilities: ___________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.e., herbicides,9 Yes 9 No
insecticides) during construction or operation?
If Yes:
i.Describe proposed treatment(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices?9 Yes 9 No
r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal 9 Yes 9 No
of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)?
If Yes:
i.Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility:
•Construction: ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
•Operation : ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
ii.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste:
•Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
•Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site:
•Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
•Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
During construction only,typical construction machinery,no blasting will occur.See section on Impacts of Sound,Odor and Light
See attached section on Impacts of Sound,Odor and Lighting
If necessary,IPM practices will be used.
TOWN OF ITHACA
58
Page 9 of 13
s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i.Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (e.g., recycling or transfer station, composting, landfill, or
other disposal activities): ___________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Anticipated rate of disposal/processing:
•________ Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment, or
•________ Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment
iii.If landfill, anticipated site life: ________________________________ years
t. Will proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous 9 Yes 9 No
waste?
If Yes:
i.Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility: ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ___________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/month
iv.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: ____________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v.Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes: provide name and location of facility: _______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E. Site and Setting of Proposed Action
E.1. Land uses on and surrounding the project site
a. Existing land uses.
i.Check all uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project site.
9 Urban 9 Industrial 9 Commercial 9 Residential (suburban) 9 Rural (non-farm)
9 Forest 9 Agriculture 9 Aquatic 9 Other (specify): ____________________________________
ii.If mix of uses, generally describe:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site.
Land use or
Covertype
Current
Acreage
Acreage After
Project Completion
Change
(Acres +/-)
•Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervious
surfaces
•Forested
•Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (non-
agricultural, including abandoned agricultural)
•Agricultural
(includes active orchards, field, greenhouse etc.)
•Surface water features
(lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, etc.)
•Wetlands (freshwater or tidal)
•Non-vegetated (bare rock, earth or fill)
•Other
Describe: _______________________________
________________________________________
Institutional (University Campus)
10.1 16.0*+5.9
Lawn and Landscape 15.5 9.6 -5.9
TOWN OF ITHACA
*includes 1.4 acres of artificial turf
59
Page 10 of 13
c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation?9 Yes 9 No
i.If Yes: explain: __________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed 9 Yes 9 No
day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site?
If Yes,
i.Identify Facilities:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Does the project site contain an existing dam?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i.Dimensions of the dam and impoundment:
•Dam height: _________________________________ feet
•Dam length: _________________________________ feet
•Surface area: _________________________________ acres
•Volume impounded: _______________________________ gallons OR acre-feet
ii.Dam=s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________
iii.Provide date and summarize results of last inspection:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility,9 Yes 9 No
or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility?
If Yes:
i. Has the facility been formally closed?9 Yes 9 No
•If yes, cite sources/documentation: _______________________________________________________________________
ii.Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: __________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Have hazardous wastes been generated, treated and/or disposed of at the site, or does the project site adjoin 9 Yes 9 No
property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste?
If Yes:
i.Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any 9 Yes 9 No
remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site?
If Yes:
i.Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site 9 Yes 9 No
Remediation database? Check all that apply:
9 Yes – Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________
9 Yes – Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________
9 Neither database
ii.If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures:_______________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database?9 Yes 9 No
If yes, provide DEC ID number(s): ______________________________________________________________________________
iv.If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cornell's Childcare Facility =+/-1,000 feet,Bridges Cornell Heights =+/-1,150 feet
TOWN OF ITHACA
60
Page 11 of 13
v.Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses?9 Yes 9 No
•If yes, DEC site ID number: ____________________________________________________________________________
•Describe the type of institutional control (e.g., deed restriction or easement): ____________________________________
•Describe any use limitations: ___________________________________________________________________________
•Describe any engineering controls: _______________________________________________________________________
•Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place?9 Yes 9 No
•Explain: ____________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site
a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? ________________ feet
b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes, what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? __________________%
c. Predominant soil type(s) present on project site: ___________________________ __________%
___________________________ __________%
____________________________ __________%
d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: _________ feet
e. Drainage status of project site soils: 9 Well Drained:_____%of site
9 Moderately Well Drained: _____% of site
9 Poorly Drained _____%of site
f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: 9 0-10%:_____% of site
9 10-15%: _____% of site
9 15% or greater: _____% of site
g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes, describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Surface water features.
i.Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers,9 Yes 9 No
ponds or lakes)?
ii.Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes to either i or ii, continue. If No, skip to E.2.i.
iii.Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal,9 Yes 9 No
state or local agency?
iv.For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site, provide the following information:
•Streams: Name ____________________________________________Classification _______________________ •Lakes or Ponds:Name ____________________________________________Classification _______________________•Wetlands: Name ____________________________________________Approximate Size ___________________ •Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) _____________________________
v.Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired 9 Yes 9 No
waterbodies?
If yes, name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _____________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Is the project site in a designated Floodway?9 Yes 9 No
j. Is the project site in the 100 year Floodplain?9 Yes 9 No
k. Is the project site in the 500 year Floodplain?9 Yes 9 No
l. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i.Name of aquifer: _________________________________________________________________________________________
~20
Made land 100
Fill soils over glacial till over bedrock
~15
90
10
86
4
10
TOWN OF ITHACA
61
Page 12 of 13
m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: ______________________________
______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________
n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i.Describe the habitat/community (composition, function, and basis for designation): _____________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Source(s) of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________
iii.Extent of community/habitat:
•Currently: ______________________ acres
•Following completion of project as proposed: _____________________ acres
•Gain or loss (indicate + or -): ______________________ acres
o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as 9 Yes 9 No
endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species?
p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of 9 Yes 9 No
special concern?
q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing?9 Yes 9 No
If yes, give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: ___________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site
a. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to 9 Yes 9 No
Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304?
If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: _________________________________________________________________
b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present?9 Yes 9 No
i.If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? ___________________________________________________________________________
ii.Source(s) of soil rating(s): _________________________________________________________________________________
c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to, a registered National 9 Yes 9 No
Natural Landmark?
If Yes:
i.Nature of the natural landmark: 9 Biological Community 9 Geological Feature
ii.Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ___________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area?9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i.CEA name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Basis for designation: _____________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Designating agency and date: ______________________________________________________________________________
Common suburban fauna:squirrels,
crows,etc.
The EAF Mapper identified Lake Sturgeon,but the project does not include a water body.
TOWN OF ITHACA
62
63
64
This page has been intentionally left blank.
65
Addendum to FEAF
66
67
Impact on Land
68
69
Impact on Land
Impact on Land
The proposed site has previously been developed and pavements currently cover approximately one third of the project area.
The remaining area is covered with a tree and lawn landscape and recreational fields. Previous development on North Campus
has included significant earthwork resulting in fill soils at the top of the soil profile. Based on soil borings performed by Stopen
Engineering, bedrock is approximately 20 feet below existing grade and the water table is at least 15 feet below grade.
Due to the construction of underground facilities, the project will result in a net removal of approximately 55,000 cubic yards of
asphalt and soil. Excavation and demolition shall be done in accordance with approved construction practices and according to
the contract documents. Demolished materials, cleared vegetation, excess fill, and excess excavation material will be properly
disposed of off site. Topsoil on site will be stockpiled for reuse.
The project will employ a number of temporary measures to prevent the erosion of disturbed soils and prevent sediment from
leaving the site during earthwork operations and until soils are stabilized. The erosion and sediment controls strategies and
practices that will be used during construction are described in the Construction Impacts section.
Due to the amount of earth removal necessary for construction of the project, a moderate impact on the land is anticipated. For
temporary impacts related to construction, see the Construction Impacts section.
70
This page has been intentionally left blank.
71
Impact on Water
72
73
Impact on Water
Impact on Water
Overview
Fall Creek is located to the south of the proposed project. Topographically, the project sites are situated upslope from Fall Creek
Gorge and Beebe Lake, approximately 150 feet above the elevation of Fall Creek (at the Thurston Avenue bridge) and 65 feet
above Beebe Lake. The southern section of the contract limit line for the first-year student housing site is closest to the Fall
Creek Gorge, however, it is separated from lands immediately adjacent to the gorge by Cradit Farm Drive (see figure below). A
vegetative buffer exists along the walls and along the rim of the Fall Creek Gorge south of Cradit Farm Drive. As required by
NYS DEC, an erosion and sediment control plan will be developed for the projects and will fully mitigate possible construction
impacts to the creek.
Project Location with respect to Fall Creek and Beebe Lake
Beebe Lake
Vegetated BufferVegetated
Buffer
360
f
t
Jessup Rd
Cradit Farm Dr Pleasan
t
G
rove
Rd
Cornell Heights
Historic District
Village of Cayuga Heights
City of IthacaTr
iphamme
r
RdTown of IthacaCity of IthacaThurston AveForest Home
Historic District
A Lot
Forest Home Dr
Proposed
First-year
Student
HousingProposed
Sophomore
Housing
Fall CreekFall Creek
Palmer Woods
74
Storm Water Management
Introduction
The North Campus Residential Expansion project is located on lands within the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Village of
Cayuga Heights, all of which administer stormwater discharges regulations locally as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4s).
The project will disturb approximately 25.6 acres of land that will require the preparation of a full Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-15-002).
The SWPPP will also need to comply with the Stormwater Regulations for the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga
Heights, which in certain instances are more restrictive than the NYSDEC standards. The SWPPP will need to be reviewed and
approved by the Stormwater Management Officers (SMO) of all three municipalities acting on behalf of the MS4s prior to the
start of soil disturbance on the site. The project will likely disturb more than five acres at any one time which also requires the
authorization of the MS4s.
The SWPPP will require the installation of temporary practices to provide erosion and sediment controls during construction
as well as permanent stormwater practices to treat and manage stormwater runoff following completion of the project. All
temporary practices will be designed in accordance with the July 2016 New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion
and Sediment Control (aka Blue Book). All permanent practices will be designed in accordance with the NYSDEC January 2015
Stormwater Management Design Manual.
The lands to be disturbed by the project have been previously developed and disturbed. The greenspaces have been previously
graded and the top soil levels are fill soils. The project is considered “redevelopment” as defined in the NYSDEC Stormwater
Design Manual. Per the manual, redevelopment projects “conserve natural resources in less impacted areas by targeting
development to areas with existing services and infrastructure. At the same time, redevelopment provides an opportunity to
correct existing problems and reduce pollutant discharges from older developed areas that were constructed without effective
stormwater pollution controls.”
Description of the Watershed, Subareas and Outfalls
As shown on the attached Watershed Maps (see Technical Drawing Set, drawings WS1, WS2) for the existing and proposed
conditions, the project is located within a larger approximate 70-acre watershed which covers a large portion of North Campus
extending as far east as the Hasbrouck Apartment complex east of Pleasant Grove Road. Five separate subareas within the
watershed and their associated outfalls have been identified.
Subareas one and two are generally located along the George Jessup Road corridor with their respective outfalls discharging
toward the north and west. Significant portions of these subareas are within the Village of Cayuga Heights and City of Ithaca, with
a relatively minor area to the east within the Town of Ithaca. Stormwater runoff from these subareas discharges to University storm
sewers on the north side of Jessup Road before flowing generally within open channels and gorges through the Village and City
and ultimately discharging to Cayuga Lake to the west. The lands within these two subareas impacted by the project are located
generally along the north edge of the proposed sophomore site.
Stormwater runoff from subarea three is collected by University storm drainage systems before discharging to the City storm
sewer collection system at the outfall on Triphammer Road. The runoff flows in the City system generally to the south and
east before discharging to the Fall Creek Gorge below the Thurston Avenue Bridge. All the buildings and a majority of the site
improvements associated with the sophomore site are located with subarea three. Most, if not all, areas of the subarea are within
the City of Ithaca.
Subareas four and five cover a large area of North Campus generally to the east. Project improvements associated with the first-
year student site are located within these subareas. The outfalls for these subareas are located to the south where stormwater
Impact on Water
75
runoff discharges to Beebe Lake on Fall Creek. The vast majority of lands within subarea four are within the City of Ithaca.
Subarea five straddles the City-Town corporation line with most lands, including the upper reaches, falling within the Town of
Ithaca. The outfalls for both subarea four and five are located within the City. Prior to discharging to Beebe Lake, stormwater
runoff from the subareas is treated by two existing hydrodynamic treatment facilities installed upstream of each outfall. Fall Creek
at this location is classified by the NYSDEC as a fifth order stream.
Impacts on Stormwater Runoff
The project, as described elsewhere, contains two sites; the sophomore site, located on the western side of the project site
within subareas one, two and three, and the first-year student site, located on the eastern side of the project site within subareas
four and five. Tables summarizing the soil cover and size of the sites and subareas under existing and proposed conditions are
provided on the attached Watershed Maps (see Technical Drawing Set, drawings WS1, WS2). The proposed impervious soil
cover areas in the tables include all proposed roofs and pavements and do not account for the possible installation of pervious
pavement by the project for either site.
Sophomore Site (Subareas one, two and three)
The sophomore site will disturb approximately 12.0 acres of land within subareas one, two and three. Existing soil cover within
the limits of the site is predominately impervious, with approximately 58% of the area consisting of buildings, pavements and
walkways. The remainder of the site consists mainly of lawn panels and landscape beds. As currently designed, the project will
result in a net increase of approximately 0.15 acres of impervious cover which is an increase in imperviousness of approximately
1%. Under existing conditions, the impervious areas of the site are predominately higher polluting roads and parking area,
whereas under proposed conditions the impervious soil cover will be predominately lower polluting building roofs. The
sophomore site improvements will result in only minor changes in the boundaries between the three impacted subareas.
First-year Student Site (Subareas four and five)
The first-year student site will disturb approximately 13.6 acres of land within subareas four and five. The existing site is
predominately pervious, with 77% of the area of disturbance consisting of lawn panels, landscape beds, and recreation fields.
Soil cover on the remaining 23% of the site consists of buildings, pavements, and walkways. The project will increase the areas
of roofs and pavements on the site by approximately 4.4 acres resulting in an increase in imperviousness from approximately
23% to 55%. If considered impervious, the 1.4-acre artificial turf field increases site imperviousness to approximately 65%. The
project is also expected to result in relatively small changes in the subarea boundaries with an approximate 1.9-acre increase
in the size of subarea four and a commensurate reduction in subarea five. Overall, the rates and volumes of runoff from both
subareas are expected to increase due to the increases in impervious surfaces.
Stormwater Mitigation
Temporary Erosion and Sediment Controls
The SWPPP will include erosion and sediment control plans and details with requirements for the practices to be employed
and maintained during construction until all areas of the site have been stabilized. The temporary practices will likely include
silt fence, stabilized entrances, drainage inlet protection, erosion control blanket and sedimentation basins. Discharges from
all excavation dewatering operations will be to geotextile filter sacks or other approved practices. All stormwater runoff from
un-stabilized areas of the site will be required to pass through control practices before discharge. The SWPPP will include
sequencing requirement and regular inspections and reporting, in accordance with the SPDES General Permit and MS4
regulations.
Permanent Stormwater Management
In general, redevelopment projects are required to provide Water Quality Volume (WQv) treatment equivalent to 25% of the
existing impervious soil cover plus 100% of any increase in impervious cover. Projects that result in no increases in impervious
soil cover or changes to hydrology are exempt from requirements related to quantity controls and runoff reduction.
Projects that result in an increase of impervious cover are required to provide controls for both stormwater quality and quantity
Impact on Water
76
including runoff reduction. In this case, the management practices provided are required to be sized in accordance with criteria
in the Design Manual related to Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv), Channel Protection Volume (Cpv), Overbank Flood (Qp) and
Extreme Storm (Qf) requirements. Projects that discharge directly to fifth order streams and larger are exempt from the Channel
Protection Volume, Overbank Flood and Extreme Storm requirements.
Sophomore Site (Subareas one, two and three)
The project will increase site imperviousness on the sophomore site by approximately 1% (0.15 acres). As required by the
Redevelopment Standards, the project will install water quality practices to provide quality treatment equivalent to 25% of
the existing impervious cover plus 100% of the additional impervious cover.
Treatment on the sophomore site is expected to be provided primarily with the installation of bioretention filter practices.
The site design will prioritize the treatment of runoff from the higher pollution elements of the site which in this case
are the proposed parking, roadways and loading dock areas. Treatment of runoff from roofs and pedestrian paths will be
included to meet the minimum WQv requirements.
Relative to stormwater quantity, the project will maintain or improve the existing hydrology within subareas one, two and
three, and maintain or reduce the peak rates and volumes of runoff to each outfall. The proposed filter practices will help
to reduce the rates and volumes of runoff from the site, and modeling of the practices will be included in the SWPPP.
Other strategies and practices to attenuate the rates of discharge from the site will include pervious pavements and over-
sizing of the proposed filter treatment practices. The SWPPP will include a comprehensive hydrological analysis for each
subarea to confirm the project results in no impact to the existing downstream storm drainage facilities and channels.
Most of the existing drainage systems on the site will be removed and replaced by the project, and the new drainage
facilities will be designed to have sufficient capacity to pass peak flows from storm events with a 10- year return
frequency or greater. Storm sewers in certain locations will be designed for 100-year or greater storm events especially
where flooding of buildings is a concern. In other locations, the grading will be designed to provide overland flow paths
where runoff rates exceed the 10-year peak capacity of the below-grade storm sewer system. Overland flow paths will
also be provided where smaller sewers are more susceptible to clogging. In all cases, the storm sewers and grading will
be designed to safely pass runoff from 100-year storm events without flooding buildings or causing damage to critical
facilities.
First-year Student Site (Subareas four and five)
The project will increase the amount of pavement and building on the first-year student site by approximately 4.4 acres,
from 3.1 acres to 7.5 acres, and the playing field will introduce approximately 1.4 acres of new artificial turf field on
the site. In accordance with the Design Manual, the project will provide water quality treatment volume equivalent to
25% of the existing impervious soil cover plus 100% of the additional impervious cover. The artificial turf as well as all
pavements and buildings will be considered impervious for determining the required WQv for the site.
Similar to the sophomore site, treatment on the first-year student site will mainly be provided by installing bioretention
filter practices integrated into the site landscape at several locations. Again, similar to the sophomore site, the design will
prioritize the treatment of runoff from the higher pollution elements of the site such as the parking and roadways. To meet
the minimum WQv and RRv requirements, treatment of runoff from roofs and pedestrian paths will also be provided. Other
management practices to be employed will include pervious pavements, surface sand filter practices and stormwater
planters.
Stormwater runoff from subareas four and five discharges to Fall Creek, which at this location is a fifth order stream. In
accordance with the General Permit, the portions of the project within these subareas are exempt from providing quantity
controls for the CPv (1-year return frequency storm), Qp (10-year storm) and Qf (100-year storm). The requirements for
runoff reduction are not exempt, and practices to provide the minimum RRv volume will be provided by the project.
Most of the existing drainage systems on the site will be removed and replaced by the project, and as described above for the
Impact on Water
77
sophomore site, the drainage improvements and grading will be designed to safely pass runoff from 100-year storm events
without flooding buildings or causing damage to critical facilities. For the SWPPP, a full hydrological and hydraulic analysis
will be completed to determine peak rates of runoff and assess drainage system capacities. It should be noted that although
considered impervious for determining quality treatment, the artificial turf, pervious pavement and any green roof will reduce
the volume and peak rates of runoff from the site by increasing detention and retention of stormwater. The quantity reductions
associated with these surfaces and all other management practices will be accounted for in the analysis.
Impacts on the existing University storm sewer systems to remain, which are located generally between the site and the two
outfalls, will also be assessed. Based on preliminary estimates, the existing sewers are believed to be adequate to carry the
increases in rates of runoff. However, improvements to increase sewer capacity by replacement and upsizing of piping, and/or to
attenuate flows with below-grade storage, will be implemented if determined necessary.
Better Site Design
In addition to New York State requirements, certain MS4 regulations require projects to apply as many as four site design
practices from a list of techniques described in the April 2008 NYSDEC “Better Site Design” publication. These techniques
incorporate non-structural and natural approaches to new and redevelopment projects to reduce effects on watersheds by
conserving natural areas, reducing impervious cover and better integrating stormwater treatment. A list of the Better Site Design
techniques expected to be employed by the project include the following
• Preservation of Undisturbed Areas / Locating in Less Sensitive Areas
The project is located on previously disturbed lands as opposed to existing undeveloped lands.
• Pavement Reduction
Pervious pavement may be used in place of traditional pavements for certain areas of the project site. The porous pavement
would reduce the amount of runoff generated by these areas, along with providing stormwater treatment and some detention.
• Building-Footprint Reduction
All proposed buildings are multi-story which will reduce the total building footprint and therefore the amount of impervious
roof area on the site.
• Bioretention
Stormwater treatment will be provided throughout the project with the use of bioretention filters.
• Rooftop Runoff Reduction Mitigation
Runoff from portions of the rooftop will be directed to bioretention filters.
• Tree Planting
The tree planting credit can be taken for preserving existing trees or planting new ones. As part of the design for this project
320 new trees will be planted and 264 existing trees will be maintained throughout the site.
Summary
The North Campus Residential Expansion project will comply with all applicable State and local stormwater regulations. Prior
to issuance of a building permit a Full SWPPP (including NOI and MS4 SWPPP Acceptance Forms) will be prepared consistent
with the SPDES General Permit (GP-0-15-002), the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual and the Stormwater
Regulations for the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights. After review and approval of the SWPPP by the
SMOs, a Notice of Intent will be filed with the NYSDEC in order to obtain coverage under the General Permit. Implementation
of the SWPPP will be ensured through the performance of regular inspections and reporting by qualified inspectors during
construction. Long-term operation and maintenance of all permanent practices will be performed by the University in
accordance with the design standards and as agreed to with the MS4s.
Impact on Potable Water Supply
Cornell University maintains its own potable water system (Public Water Supply #NY5417686) that serves campus and portions
Impact on Water
78
of the surrounding community. Water to the system is drawn from Fall Creek and treated at the Cornell Water Filtration Plant on
Caldwell Road. During normal operations, all treated water is pumped from the clear well at the plant to the 1.0-MG (million
gallon) ground storage tank on East Campus that maintains pressure in the Zone 1 pressure distribution grid. Water at the ground
tank is also pumped a second time by the Zone 2 pumping station to the 1.5-MG Hungerford Hill Tank which maintains pressure
in the Zone 3 distribution grid. Water to the Zone 2 distribution grid is supplied from the Zone 3 grid through the Zone 3 to Zone
2 pressure reducing valve (PRV) station. The Zone 2 pumping station and Zone 3 to Zone 2 PRV station are located adjacent to
the ground tank. The zones and potable water supply infrastructure described above are shown in the Cornell Water Distribution
System Diagram on the following page.
In general, the Zone 3 grid serves areas of campus highest in elevation located south of Dryden Road. The Zone 2 grid serves
the next highest areas of Main Campus, East Campus and North Campus. The Zone 1 grid serves the areas of Main Campus and
West Campus as well as areas of Cornell Heights in the City which are lower in elevation. A copy of the “Water Systems of the
Ithaca Area – Draft Emergency Readiness Schematic” is included in the appendix. The schematic shows in elevational view the
different pressures zones and interconnections for the systems supplied by Cornell, the City of Ithaca and the Southern Cayuga
Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (aka Bolton Point). See the Cornell Water Distribution System Diagram, below.
As currently configured, water to the easterly areas of North Campus is supplied through the Zone 2 distribution grid with a single
crossing over Fall Creek on the bridge in Forest Home. The Zone 2 water to North Campus is supplied through mostly 10-inch
mains on Forest Home Drive owned by the Town of Ithaca. Agreements between the Town and Cornell to transmit water in the
Town mains to North Campus date as far back as 1964. In return, Cornell supplies water to the Town residents in the Forest
Home neighborhood. Significantly smaller amounts of water to the Zone 2 grid on North Campus are also supplied by Bolton
Point through the Cornell-owned Pleasant Grove Road PRV station and Town service connected to the Bolton Point transmission
main (T-Main).
Water for the westerly areas of North Campus is currently supplied from the Zone 1 pressure grid with a crossing over Fall Creek
on the Thurston Avenue Bridge. When completed later this year, the North Campus Water Main Replacement Project (NCWMRP)
will switch over the westerly areas of North Campus from the Zone 1 grid to the Zone 2 grid. The project will allow opening the
currently closed-between-pressure (CBP) valves on North Campus and provide a second feed across Fall Creek to Zone 2 with a
crossing on the Thurston Avenue Bridge. The improvements will increase pressures for the areas currently supplied by the Zone
1 grid, and increase overall system capacity and redundancy on North Campus.
With a hydraulic grade of approximately 1068 at the discharge of the Zone 3 to Zone 2 PRV Station, the normal working pressures
on North Campus (following completion of the NCWMRP) will range from a low of approximately 60 psi on the Hasbrouck site to
a high of 118 psi at Risley Hall to the west. On the sophomore site, the estimated normal working pressure is approximately 90
psi measured at the ground floor elevation of 853. On the first-year student site, the normal working pressure is estimated to be
approximately 74 psi at a grade elevation of 890.
Following completion of the NCRE improvements, the North Campus PRV Station and the Town of Ithaca service connection
to the Bolton Point T-Main will be maintained to supplement flows to the Zone 2 grid especially during significantly high flow
events. The PRV station is needed to maintain minimum pressures at the higher elevations in the general area of the Hasbrouck
Apartments. Based on current computer modeling, without the Pleasant Grove station in operation, fire flows greater than
approximately 1,250 gpm on North Campus can result in residual pressures approaching the minimum 20 psi at the high point
on the site of the Hasbrouck Apartments. With the PRV station in operation, available fire flows increase significantly to well over
3,000 gpm in most areas of North Campus except in the Hasbrouck area where available flows generally range between 750 gpm
and 1,000 gpm. The modeling assumes an approximate base domestic flow of approximately two times average. The capacity
of the system in the Hasbrouck area is generally limited by the mains local to the area, and the operation or non-operation of the
PRV station does not appreciably change available fire flows in the area.
The current Design Average Day Demand for water on North Campus is approximately 191,000 gpd based on FY2017 meter
Impact on Water
797
Impact on Water
Cornell Water Distribution System Diagram
Zone 3
Zone 2
Zone 1
Zone 1
Through meter to
City
Zone 1
To be switched to
Zone 2
Bolton Point East
Hill Tank
Cornell University
Hungerford Hill Tank
Water
Filtration
Plant Cornell
Ground Tank
Zone 3 to Zone 2
PRV Station
Zone 2
Pumping
Station
Pleasant Grove Road
PRV Station
Dryden
R
oa
d
Beebe Lake
Fall Cr
e
e
k
Fall Creek
Pine
T
ree
RoadLinn StreetN Tioga StreetN Cayuga StreetCascadilla CreekTr
iphamme
r
Road
Forest Home Town
residences on Zone 2
CU Water
80
This page has been intentionally left blank.
81
readings and omitting the months of June and July when classes are generally not in session. Based on historic water usage
for North Campus residential and dining facilities, the per-resident water demand is approximately 42 gpd per student. Using a
conservative design average day rate of 50 gpd per resident, the NCRE will increase the average day demand by approximately
104,000 gpd for a total Future Design Average Day Demand of approximately 295,000 gpd, or 205 gpm. The Maximum Day
Demand and Peak Demand are estimated to be approximately 307 gpm and 820 gpm by applying peak factors of 1.5 and 4.0,
respectively, to the Future Design Average Day Demand.
Although most water to North Campus is supplied from the Cornell Filtration Plant, meter readings taken at the Pleasant Grove
PRV Station over the last 4.5 years indicate the Bolton Point system supplies on average approximately 3,840 gpd to the system.
This amount represents approximately 2.0% of total consumption on North Campus. The largest quarterly reading during the
Table 1 – North Campus Domestic Water Demands
Current Design Average Day Demand 191,000 gpd FY2017 August to May Average
Increase in Design Average Day Demand 104,000 gpd 2,079 additional beds at 50 gpd
per bed
Future Design Average Day Demand 295,000 gpd
= 205 gpm
Maximum Day Demand 307 gpm Estimated Peak Factor=1.5
Peak Demand 820 gpm Estimated Peak Factor=4.0
period was 921,000 gallons in the fall of 2014, which equates to an average of approximately 10,100 gpd or approximately 5.3%
of the average day demand. Most of the Bolton Point water is believed to be supplied for relatively short time periods during
main breaks and when large flows associated with system flushing operations and fire pump testing occur. During normal
operating conditions, little if any water is expected to be supplied from the Bolton Point system, and completion of the housing
expansion project is not expected to increase the amount.
The Cornell Filtration Plant and pumping systems have more than sufficient reserve capacity to deliver the additional volume
of water to the system. Treatment and pumping capacity at the plant is 3.60 mgd which is significantly greater than the daily
average rate of production of 1.21 mgd during 2016 and 2017. Compared with the maximum day production of 2.30 mgd over
the 2-year period, the system has a reserve capacity of approximately 1.30 mgd, which far exceeds the increase in demand of
0.10 mgd estimated for the housing expansion project. The capacity of the Zone 2 Pump Station is approximately 2.13 mgd,
and based on the 2-year maximum day consumption of 1.44 mgd, reserve capacity is estimated to be approximately 0.69 mgd,
which again, is more than sufficient to supply the increase in demand. The combined water storage volume for the two Cornell
tanks is 2.50 mg. With an estimated future average day demand of 1.31 mgd, the tanks will provide a reserve fire volume of 1.19
mg calculated in accordance with the Ten State Standards, even without additional supply to the system.
With completion of the NCWMRP improvements to the distribution system and continued operation of the Pleasant Grove Road
PRV Station, the system is more than adequate to supply both domestic and fire flow demands to North Campus including the
increase in domestic demands associated with the proposed housing expansion project.
Impact on Water
82
Impact on North Campus Fire Loop System
The North Campus fire loop is supplied by a 1,000-gpm fire pump system located in Appel Commons. The pump system is
supplied by a service from the Zone 2 distribution grid and pressurizes a dedicated 8-inch looped distribution grid with service
connections to the fire-suppression systems in most of the buildings on North Campus. A second pump system is planned to
be installed in Balch Hall to generally increase system redundancy and facilitate maintenance. Similar to existing buildings
on North Campus, the fire suppression systems in the proposed project buildings will be supplied by the fire loop system. The
fire suppression systems in the new buildings will be designed based on the pressure and flow characteristics of the fire pump
and fire loop system. The housing expansion project is not expected to have any adverse impact on the North Campus fire loop
system.
Impact on Sanitary Sewer Systems
Sanitary sewer flows from North Campus discharge to the existing north side interceptor jointly owned by the City of Ithaca and
Town of Ithaca. The interceptor, at its upstream end, starts on Thurston Avenue north of the Fall Creek bridge. The upper portion
of the interceptor is comprised of mainly 10-inch and 16-inch sewer pipe which run along Thurston Avenue, Stewart Avenue and
Needham Place to Kline Road. Two relatively short sections of the upper portion of the interceptor are 18-inch pipe immediately
upstream and downstream of the Thurston Avenue Meter Station located in the street between Wait Avenue and Wyckoff Avenue.
The meter station, maintained by the City, monitors sewage flows to the interceptor from North Campus as well as areas
upstream on Main Campus and other lands as far west as the hamlet of Varna.
The interceptor also includes a branch 12-inch sewer to Sisson Place with connection to the Thurston Avenue sewer upstream of
the meter station. Sanitary sewer flows from the Cornell collection system on North Campus discharge to the interceptor through
one 12-inch and one 8-inch main connection on Thurston Avenue, and through a 12-inch main connection at the upper terminus
of the branch sewer on Sisson Place. The lower portion of the interceptor, with pipes ranging in size from 10-inch to 24-inch,
runs along Kline Road from Needham Place to the downstream terminus at Lake Street. Sewage from Cayuga Heights discharges
to the interceptor at the Kline Road/Needham Place intersection where flows from the Village are monitored by the existing Kline
Road Meter Station which is owned and maintained by the Village of Cayuga Heights.
Thurston Avenue to Kline Road Sewer
Based on monthly meter readings between 2003 and 2006 at the Thurston Avenue Meter Station, the Design Average Flow to the
Table 2 – Filter Plant, Pumping and Storage Capacities
Cornell Filtration Plant Capacity 3.60 mgd Both treatment and pumping capacity
Current Average Day Production 1.21 mgd 2-year average, 2016 and 2017
Maximum Day Production 2.30 mgd 2-year maximum day, 2016 and 2017
Reserve Treatment/Pump Capacity 1.30 mgd Capacity minus maximum day
Zone 1 to Zone 3 Pump Station Capacity 2.13 mgd
Current Average Day Pumping 0.48 mgd 2-year average, 2016 and 2017
Maximum Day Pumping 1.44 mgd 2-year maximum day, 2016 and 2017
Reserve Treatment/Pump Capacity 0.69 mgd Capacity minus maximum day
Combined Storage Capacity 2.50 mg Ground Tank and Hungerford Hill Tank
Future Average Day Consumption 1.31 mgd
Reserve Fire Volume 1.19 mg
Impact on Water
83
upper section of the interceptor from Thurston Avenue to Kline Road is estimated to be 761,000 gallons per day (gpd), which
is the maximum monthly (Feb 2005) reading over the 4-year period. The readings were provided by City staff and are believed
to be representative of current flows in the system including inflow of surface stormwater and infiltration of groundwater. More
recent meter readings are either not available or are in question given issues with equipment at the station. In general, the
City has seen a decrease in flows over the past several years due to the continual introduction of low-flow plumbing fixtures
connected to the system and the raising of environmental consciousness of the users. Improvements to the City’s meter
stations, including the one on Thurston Avenue, are to be completed later this year.
The North Campus Residential Expansion project is expected to increase the Design Average Flow by approximately 104,000
gpd based on an increase of approximately 2,079 new residents and a conservative per-resident design water use of 50 gpd
per resident. Metered water consumption figures indicate water use for all residential and dining facilities on North Campus is
approximately 42 gpd per bed or resident. The resultant estimated Future Design Average Flow following completion of the NCRE
is 865,000 gpd. Given the current construction materials and methods to be employed for the sanitary sewer improvements on
the project site, the NCRE is not expected to increase the rates or volumes of inflow and infiltration (I&I) reaching the interceptor.
Sewer capacity is assessed using the Design Peak Hourly Flow which is estimated by applying a peak factor to the Design
Average Flow in accordance with methods described in the Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (aka Ten-State
Standards). From Figure 1 of the Ten-State Standards a peak factor of 3.1 is suggested in this case. With a Future Design
Average Flow of 864,000 gpd and peak factor of 3.1 the Future Design Average Flow is estimated to be approximately 2.68
million gallons per day (mgd).
The capacity of the upper section of the interceptor, from Thurston Avenue to Kline Road, is limited by a section of 10-inch pipe
with a capacity of approximately 3.23 mgd, leaving a reserve capacity for future growth of 0.55 mgd. Capacities in the other
sections of 10-inch pipe generally range between 3.50 mgd and 5.00 mgd. Capacities in the 16-inch sections of the sewer are
estimated to be greater than approximately 3.51 mgd. Design drawings of the interceptor have not been located, and the slopes
and capacities of the individual sections of sewer have been determined based on estimated existing grades at the manholes.
In summary, the section of the north side interceptor from Thurston Avenue to Kline Road has sufficient capacity to carry the
sewage flows from the service area including the additional flows from the proposed project and still maintain some capacity for
future growth.
Table 1 – Thurston Avenue to Kline Road Sewer
Current Design Average Flow 761,000 gpd Maximum month over 4-year period
Increase from Project 104,000 gpd 2,079 additional beds at 50 gpd per bed
Future Design Average Flow 865,000 gpd
Future Design Peak Hourly Flow 2.68 mgd Peak factor=3.1 per Fig 1, Ten-State Standards
Limiting Sewer Capacity 3.23 mgd
Reserve Sewer Capacity 0.55 mgd
Impact on Water
84
Kline Road Sewer
Sewage flows in the interceptor on Kline Road between Needham Place and Lake Street include flows from the Cornell Heights
neighborhood as well as from the Village of Cayuga Heights. Flows from the Village are monitored by the Kline Road Meter
Station located at the Kline Road/Needham Place intersection. Monthly average meter readings taken in 2015 (the most current
data available is from 2015) at the Kline Road Meter Station range from a low of 115,000 gpd to a high of 252,000 gpd. Based
on an estimated population of 800 residents and a design water use of 50 gpd per resident, the additional domestic water use
for Cornell Heights is estimated to be approximately 40,000 gpd. To account for I&I, an additional flow of 100,000 is assumed.
Calculations for determining the Future Design Peak Hourly Flow of 3.77 mgd are provided in Table 3.
Sewer capacity in the Kline Road Sewer is limited to a maximum flow of approximately 4.80 mgd by a section of 10-inch pipe
with a slope of approximately 11.5%. Reserve capacity in the sewer is therefore estimated to be approximately 1.03 mgd.
The section of the North Side Interceptor on Kline Road has sufficient capacity to carry the sewage flows from the service area
including the additional flows from the proposed project and still maintain some capacity for future growth.
Impact on Water
Table 2 – Sisson Place Branch Sewer
Current Design Average Flow 120,000 gpd Metered water consumption
Increase from Project 40,000 gpd 800 additional beds at 50 gpd per bed
Future Design Average Flow 160,000 gpd
Future Design Peak Hourly Flow 0.56 mgd Peak factor=3.5 per Fig 1, Ten-State Standards
Limiting Sewer Capacity 3.80 mgd 12” sewer, minimum slope=2.75%
Reserve Sewer Capacity 3.24 mgd
Sisson Place Branch Sewer
The current Design Average Flow to the 12-inch interceptor branch main from Thurston Avenue up Sisson Place is estimated
to be approximately 120,000 gpd based on monthly water meter readings for 2017 for the buildings sewered by the system.
The estimated design flow omits the relative low-flow months of June and July when regular classes are not in session. The
estimated flow also does not include I&I, but such flows are not expected to be highly significant given stormwater connections
to the sanitary systems have generally been eliminated on North Campus, and given much of the piping and manholes are not
excessively old.
The North Campus Residential Initiative Expansion project will add approximately 800 residents in the buildings connected to the
Sisson Place branch sewer with an estimated increase in design flow of approximately 40,000 gpd. The increase will result in
an estimated Future Design Average Flow to the branch sewer of 160,000 gpd. With a peak factor of 3.5 from Figure 1 of the Ten
State Standards, the future Design Peak Hourly Flow is estimated to be 0.56 mgd.
Based on an estimated minimum pipe slope of 2.7%, the capacity of 12-inch branch sewer is limited to a maximum of
approximately 3.8 mgd, which leaves a reserve capacity of over 5 times the estimated Future Design Peak Hourly Flow. In
summary, the portion on the interceptor represented by the 12-inch branch main from Thurston Avenue up Sisson Place has
sufficient reserve capacity to carry increases well beyond the addition flows from the proposed project.
85
Table 3 – Kline Road Sewer
Thurston Avenue to Kline Road Sewer 760,000 gpd Current Design Average Flow
Kline Road Meter Station 252,000 gpd Current Design Average Flow
Cornell Heights, water use 40,000 gpd Estimated water use
Cornell Heights, I&I 100,000 gpd
Current Design Average Flow 1,152,000 gpd
Increase from Project 104,000 gpd 2,079 additional beds at 50 gpd per bed
Future Design Average Flow 1,256,000 gpd
Future Design Peak Hourly Flow 3.77 mgd Peak factor=3.0 per Fig 1, Ten-State Standards
Limiting Sewer Capacity 4.80 mgd
Reserve Sewer Capacity 1.03 mgd
Summary
Although adequate to carry the estimated future peak design flows, certain sections of the interceptor are approaching capacity.
Above Kline Road, the estimated reserve capacity is approximately 17% of the limiting sewer capacity, and for the sewer on Kline
Road, the reserve capacity is closer to 21% of capacity. The assessment has generally been confirmed by observations made by
City Department of Public Works staff that surcharging and/or outflow from the interceptor has not occurred in the recent past.
Impact on Water
86
This page has been intentionally left blank.
87
Impact on Air
Impact on Plants, Animals & Agriculture
88
89
Impact on Air, Plants, Animals & Agriculture
Impact on Air
Due to the expected operations (housing, dining) within the proposed project, it is not anticipated that significant sources of air
emissions will be generated. No fume hoods or regulated HVAC emission sources are planned.
The proposed project will have no significant impact on air.
Impact on Plants, Animals and Agriculture
There are a total of 555 trees of all sizes within the project limits. Of these, 458 have a DBH of less than 12” and 97 have a
DBH of greater than 12”. The project will result in the removal of 250 smaller trees and 41 mature trees. A tree inventory was
conducted by a certified arborist in the winter of 2018 and the results are summarized below. The full report can be found in the
appendix.
The project is in an existing highly-developed area. No significant impacts to any plant or animal habitats or species are
anticipated. The existing planted trees, vegetation and lawn that will be removed from the developed project area will result in
the loss of the suburban local habitats represented by these trees and plants.
The project is not in an area zoned or appropriate for agriculture and will not impact agriculture or agricultural land use. There
are no significant agricultural impacts.
No significant impact on animals or agriculture will occur.
A moderate impact on plants is expected as a result of this project. However, the removal of trees will be mitigated by the
installation of new landscape. The planting of 320 new large canopy trees is proposed as part of the project. Landscape
planting will also include low grasses and woody plants in bioretention areas as well as ornamental grasses, shrubs, and smaller
multi-stem trees throughout the project site.
DBH Class Total Trees Trees to Remain Trees To Be Removed
0” - 12”458 208 250
13”+97 56 41
Total 555 264 291
Summary of the potential tree impacts
Condition Total Trees Trees To Remain Trees To Be
Removed
Potential
Transplants
Good 389 184 205 17
Fair 124 57 67 -
Poor 42 23 19 -
Total 555 264 291 17
Potential tree impacts, sorted by tree condition
90
This page has been intentionally left blank.
91
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
92
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
This section contains images and detailed descriptions of existing and proposed views of the proposed project. Please refer to
Figure 0.1 for these viewpoint locations. Photographs of existing conditions were taken during the late winter and early spring of
2018. The photographs were taken prior to the budding of trees and vegetation in order to capture the maximum visual impact,
with the exception of views eight, 10 and 11 (which were requested after the trees broke leaf).
The components of the proposed project are similar to the current land use patterns. The proposed buildings and landscape
are adjacent to existing residential facilities within Cornell University’s North Campus precinct. Proposed building heights are
consistent with existing limits in the City and Town of Ithaca and are similar to the adjacent buildings on North Campus. The
visualizations presented in this section are representative of the schematic design phase. As such the design of the buildings
and landscape is continuing to be developed. The final color has not yet been decided; as such the buildings are modeled in
grey. The visualizations are representative of general building massing, form, size and scale. Details of the facades, materiality,
fenestration and color will continue to be refined. The landscape design is also being refined on a parallel track.
While the visible components of the proposed project will not eliminate or significantly reduce the enjoyment of the aesthetic
qualities of the area, the addition of the project will cause changes to views along Jessup Road, Pleasant Grove Road, Cradit
Farm Drive, and Triphammer Road.
The Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventory identifies one Distinctive View (D 24) and one Noteworthy View (N19) which
are near the project site. Neither of these views will be significantly changed by the project. The Tompkins County Scenic
Resources Inventory also identifies Forest Home Drive Road as a Scenic Byway. The Cornell University Campus Master Plan
identifies three Important Views near the site. All of the above noted views are included in this report.
In addition, the project is consistent with design guidelines presented in Cornell University’s Campus Master Plan, which
recommend that “development adjacent to a gorge should not be visible from the bottom of the gorge itself.” In this case, the
project is nearby, but not adjacent to a gorge, and the project will not be visible from the bottom of the gorge.
Twenty-two views circumnavigating the site were selected as representative views from public rights-of-way, community trails
and noted visual resources. Proposed views were simulated for this analysis by overlaying geolocated computer modeling of the
proposed project on geolocated photography.
The location and direction of each view included in the study are marked on the Figure 0.1 Viewpoint Diagram.
93
94
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Jessup RoadTr
iphamme
r
Road
Cradit Farm Drive
Forest Home Drive Pleasan
t
Grove
Road
Thurston Avenue
W
ait
A
v
e
n
u
e
Beebe Lake
Town of IthacaCity of IthacaVillage of Cayuga Heights
City of Ithaca Town of IthacaVillage of Cayuga HeightsSophomore Site
First-year
Student Site
Cornell Heights
Historic District
Boundary
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
22
19
20
11 12
1
2
1
2
3
D24
N19
Viewpoints :
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Herbert F. Johnson Museum looking East
University Avenue looking Northeast
Thurston Avenue looking Northeast
Beebe Lake Foot Bridge looking Northeast
Beebe Lake looking Northeast
Triphammer Road looking Northeast
Sisson Place looking East
Jessup Road looking East
Triphammer Road looking Southeast
Jessup Road looking East
Jessup Road looking Southwest
Jessup Road looking Southwest
Jessup Road looking Southwest
Pleasant Grove Road looking Southwest
Pleasant Grove Road looking Southwest
Pleasant Grove Road looking Southwest
Fuertes Observatory looking North
Observatory Stairs looking Northwest
Forest Home Drive looking West
Forest Home Park looking Northwest
Forest Home Drive looking North
Beebe Lake Trail Loop looking North
Municipal Boundary
Historic District Boundary
Proposed Building
D24 - Tomkins County Scenic Resources:
Distinctive View (looks Northeast)
Tomkins County Scenic Resources:
Forest Home Drive Scenic Road
N19 - Tomkins County Scenic Resources:
Noteworthy View (looks South)
Cornell University Masterplan:
Important View
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
Figure 0.1 Viewpoint Diagram
95
96
This page has been intentionally left blank.
This page has been intentionally left blank.
View Point 01: Herbert F. Johnson Museum Looking East
Existing View
The existing view looks east from the top floor of the Herbert F. Johnson Museum. In the immediate foreground the east facade of
Olive Tjaden Hall is visible. In the background, the skyline of North Campus buildings can be seen.
See Figure 01.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground will remain unchanged.
In the background, the upper floors of the sophomore site and first-year student site buildings will be visible in the North
Campus skyline.
See Figure 01.2 Proposed View
98
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
01.1 Existing View
01.2 Proposed View
99
Existing View
The view from the intersection of University Avenue and Thurston Avenue looks northeast across the Thurston Avenue Bridge.
The view is of the Thurston Avenue Bridge, including its sidewalk, crosswalk, and stone-clad wall in the immediate foreground.
In the view’s midground, the Cornell Center for Intercultural Dialogue is seen beyond the bridge’s eastern barrier rail and steel
arch. The north shore of Beebe Lake can be seen beyond the Thurston Avenue Bridge, as well as the top of Beebe Dam. In the
background, one can see the southwest facade and roof line of Balch Hall, the vegetated hill rising from Beebe Lake’s north shore
and the Weinhold Chilled Water Plant.
See Figure 02.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground view will remain unchanged.
A small portion of the south and west facades of buildings one and two of the first-year student site will be visible in the
background during the winter months beyond the Cornell Center for Intercultural Dialogue.
See Figure 02.2 Proposed View
View Point 02: University Avenue looking Northeast (Encompasses Tompkins County Distinctive View 24)
100
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
02.1 Existing View
02.2 Proposed View
101
View Point 03: Thurston Avenue looking Northeast
Existing View
The view from the intersection of Thurston Avenue and Cradit Farm Drive looks northeast up Cradit Farm Drive toward Balch Hall
and Helen Newman Hall. Thurston Avenue is visible in the immediate foreground. In the midground of the view, the southwest
facade and archway of Balch Hall with the building’s sloping lawn are visible. In the distant background, portions of Appel
Commons can be seen through the trees adjacent to Helen Newman Hall. The vegetated embankment adjacent to Helen Newman
Hall slopes down toward Beebe Lake, which is not visible from this viewpoint.
See Figure 03.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The proposed project will not be visible from this viewpoint.
See Figure 03.2 Proposed View
102
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
03.1 Existing View
03.2 Proposed View
103
View Point 04: Beebe Lake Foot Bridge Looking Northeast
Existing View
The view looking northeast is taken from the southern entrance to the Beebe Lake pedestrian bridge. In the foreground, the dam
and falls are visible. In the midground Beebe Lake and its north bank are visible. In the background the steep and vegetated north
slope with the south and west facades of Helen Newman Hall are visible.
See Figure 04.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The proposed project will not be visible from this viewpoint.
See Figure 04.2 Proposed View
104
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
04.1 Existing View
04.2 Proposed View
View Point 04: Beebe Lake Foot Bridge Looking Northeast
Existing View
The view looking northeast is taken from the southern entrance to the Beebe Lake pedestrian bridge. In the foreground, the dam
and falls are visible. In the midground Beebe Lake and its north bank are visible. In the background the steep and vegetated north
slope with the south and west facades of Helen Newman Hall are visible.
See Figure 04.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The proposed project will not be visible from this viewpoint.
See Figure 04.2 Proposed View
105
View Point 05: Beebe Lake Looking Northeast (Encompasses a Cornell Campus Master Plan Important View)
Existing View
The view looking northeast is taken from the bottom of the slope leading onto the north bank of Beebe Lake, to the east of Noyes
Lodge. This view has been identified in the Cornell University Campus Master Plan as an Important View. In the foreground, the
Beebe Lake Loop Trail is visible. In the midground the lake shore is visible. In the back ground the southwest and west facades of
Helen Newman Hall are visible above the vegetated slope.
See Figure 05.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The proposed project will not be visible from this viewpoint.
See Figure 05.2 Proposed View
106
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
05.1 Existing View
05.2 Proposed View
107
View Point 06: Triphammer Road Looking Northeast
Existing View
The view looking northeast along Triphammer Road is taken at the intersection of Triphammer Road and Wait Avenue. In the
foreground the sidewalk along the southwest side of Triphammer Road is visible, to the northwest the vehicular entrance to the
Wait Avenue Cooperative is visible. In the midground the western facades of Clara Dickson Hall, Kappa Delta, Delta Gamma and
Sigma Alpha Mu are visible as well as the intersection at Sisson Place. In the background the western facade of George Jameson
Hall is visible.
See Figure 06.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground and the midground will remain unchanged.
The west and southwest facades of building 1, sophomore site will be visible behind Kappa Delta and Delta Gamma. Building 1
replaces views of Sigma Alpha Mu (10 Sisson Place) and parking. In the far background, the top story of George Jameson Hall
will be the only portion of the tower visible.
See Figure 06.2 Proposed View
108
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
06.1 Existing View
06.2 Proposed View
109
View Point 07: Sisson Place Looking East
Existing View
The view looking northeast along Sisson Place is taken from the pedestrian sidewalk at the intersection of Triphammer Road
and Sisson Place, north of the entrance to Kappa Delta. In the foreground the southside of Sisson Place pedestrian sidewalk
and a mature oak tree are visible. In the midground a stand of trees, lawn and the entrance to the Delta Gamma parking lot are
visible. In the background the northwestern facade of Clara Dickson Hall, the south and southwestern facade of George Jameson
Hall and the eastern facade of Sigma Alpha Mu are visible. In the background center an oak is visible, behind that in the distant
background the eastern facade of Mary Donlon Hall is partially visible through a stand of trees.
See Figure 07.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground and midground view will remain unchanged.
In the background the western facade of building 1 and its loading dock on the sophomore site will be visible. Building 1
replaces views of Sigma Alpha Mu (10 Sisson Place), crosses Sisson Place and removes the oak tree in the background of the
view.
Enhancements
As the project develops beyond Schematic Design (upon which this visualization is based), the site plan will be modified to
provide visual screening of the loading dock using evergreen trees in addition to the fence already shown. This enhancement will
be included in the Site Plan Review submission.
See Figure 07.2 Proposed View
110
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
07.1 Existing View
07.2 Proposed View
111
View Point 08: Triphammer Road Looking Southeast
Existing View
The view looking southwest along Triphammer Road is taken from the sidewalk along the western side of Triphammer Road
to the east of the front entrance to a private residence at 434 Triphammer Road. In the foreground, Triphammer Road and the
western sidewalk adjacent to the road are visible. In the midground, the large sculpture titled ‘Richard Evans, 2nd III’ is visible.
To the south of the sculpture the fence around the Jessup Field and the northern most flood light for the field are visible. In the
background George Jameson Hall and the roof line of Clara Dickson Hall are both visible.
See Figure 08.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground and midground view will remain unchanged.
The northern and northwestern facades of buildings 1 and 2 on the sophomore site will be visible below the roof line of George
Jameson Hall.
See Figure 08.2 Proposed View
112
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
08.1 Existing View
08.2 Proposed View
113
View Point 09: Jessup Road Looking East
Existing View
The view looking east is taken from the pedestrian sidewalk at the intersection of Triphammer Road and Jessup Road. In the
foreground Triphammer Road is visible. In the midground the Tobin Field House and Akwe:kon are visible. In the background the
CC parking lot and Jessup Road are visible.
See Figure 09.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground and midground view will remain unchanged.
The northwestern facade of building 2 on the sophomore site will be visible past the roof line of Akwe:kon.
See Figure 09.2 Proposed View
114
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
09.1 Existing View
09.2 Proposed View
115
View Point 10: Jessup Road Looking East
Existing View
The view looking east is taken from the southern sidewalk along Jessup Road. The view is taken approximately 220’ east of
Akwe:kon. In the foreground the asphalt sidewalk along Jessup Road is visible. In the foreground and midground the CC parking
lot is visible. In the background from south to north, Mary Donlon Hall, George Jameson Hall, Robert Purcell Community Center
and High Rise Tower 2 are visible.
See Figure 10.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The northern facade of Building 2 on the sophomore site will be visible. A new stair connecting the sidewalk along Jessup Road
and the entry court into the site are visible. This image shows the corner of the building at its nearest point to the street. The
building is set back 70’ from the southern curb of Jessup Road at this point. The building mass will close the open views from
Jessup Road into the existing CC parking lot.
See Figure 10.2 Proposed View
116
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
10.1 Existing View
10.2 Proposed View
117
View Point 11: Jessup Road Looking Southwest
Existing View
The view looking west is taken from the southern sidewalk of Jessup Road approximately 380’ east of Akwe:kon. In the
foreground, the tree lawn, asphalt sidewalk, and Jessup Road are visible. In the midground, the CC parking lot is visible with
Akwe:kon visible in the background. North of Jessup Road, on the right of the image, the southernmost fence surrounding Jessup
Field is visible leading toward the Tobin Field House opposite Akwe:kon.
See Figure 11.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The proposed project will change the foreground view with the addition of a vehicular pull off located on Jessup Road, and new
sidewalks connecting to a proposed entry serving the sophomore site. Existing mature and young trees will remain.
The north facade of Building 2 on the sophomore site will be visible, filtered by existing and proposed trees. A small seating
terrace will be visible along the proposed facade. The building is set back between 70’ and 110’ from the curb line along Jessup
Road. Near the left edge of the image, the building is approximately 90’ from the curb line. The building mass will close the open
views from Jessup Road into the existing CC parking lot.
See Figure 11.2 Proposed View
118
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
11.1 Existing View
11.2 Proposed View
119
View Point 12: Jessup Road Looking Southwest
Existing View
The view looking southwest along Jessup Road is taken from the sidewalk on the south side of Jessup Road. In the foreground,
the asphalt sidewalk, tree lawn and Jessup Road as well as the Robert Purcell Community Center parking lot are visible. In the
midground, the northern facade of George Jameson Hall is visible. In the background, Jessup Field and the western edge of the
CC parking lot are visible.
See Figure 12.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground will remain unchanged.
The eastern and northern facades of Building 2 on the sophomore site will be visible. The east corner of the building is set back
110’ from the curb line of Jessup Road. The building mass will close the open views from Jessup Road into the CC parking lot.
See Figure 12.2 Proposed View
120
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
12.1 Existing View
12.2 Proposed View
121
Existing View
The view looking south at the intersection of Jessup Road and Pleasant Grove Road is taken from the pedestrian curb ramp on the
north side of the crossing. The view includes the south and east facades of the Hasbrouck Apartment complex, the north south
pedestrian crossing of Jessup Road and the basketball courts. In the midground an open lawn populated with white pine and
sugar maple can be seen. In the background the recreation fields are visible.
See Figure 13.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground will remain unchanged.
In the midground the new recreation field and basketball court will be visible. In the background the eastern facade of buildings 1
and 3 on the first year student site will be visible.
Enhancements
As the project develops beyond Schematic Design (upon which this visualization is based), the site plan will be modified to
provide attractive landscape treatments at this corner. We will explore adjustments to the outdoor recreation and grading to
create more greenspace for landscape screening.
See Figure 13.2 Proposed View
View Point 13: Jessup Road Looking South
122
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
13.1 Existing View
13.2 Proposed View
Existing View
The view looking south at the intersection of Jessup Road and Pleasant Grove Road is taken from the pedestrian curb ramp on the
north side of the crossing. The view includes the south and east facades of the Hasbrouck Apartment complex, the north south
pedestrian crossing of Jessup Road and the basketball courts. In the midground an open lawn populated with white pine and
sugar maple can be seen. In the background the recreation fields are visible.
See Figure 13.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground will remain unchanged.
In the midground the new recreation field and basketball court will be visible. In the background the eastern facade of buildings 1
and 3 on the first year student site will be visible.
Enhancements
As the project develops beyond Schematic Design (upon which this visualization is based), the site plan will be modified to
provide attractive landscape treatments at this corner. We will explore adjustments to the outdoor recreation and grading to
create more greenspace for landscape screening.
See Figure 13.2 Proposed View
View Point 13: Jessup Road Looking South
123
Existing View
The view from Pleasant Grove Road looking southwest across the campus is taken from the shoulder on the northbound side of
Pleasant Grove Road. Pleasant Grove Road is in the immediate foreground. A large oak and small pine tree stand beside the road
on the southbound side. The midground is an extensive grass playing field, beside which is an asphalt path with pedestrian-scale
lighting along the edge. Just beyond the midground, some Cornell buildings can be seen, including Appel Commons, Helen
Newman Hall, The Olin Chemistry Research Lab, Mews Hall and Just About Music. The distant background is of Ithaca’s West
Hill.
See Figure 14.1 Existing View
Proposed View
In the proposed view the new recreational field is located northward and raised in elevation. Along with proposed plantings which
include woody and herbaceous massing and new deciduous and evergreen trees, the first-year buildings 1 and 2 fill out the
remainder of the midground.
Enhancements
As the project develops beyond Schematic Design (upon which this visualization is based), the site plan will be modified to
provide additional landscape in this view.
See Figure 14.2 Proposed View
View Point 14: Pleasant Grove Road Looking Southwest (Identified in the Cornell Campus Master Plan as an
Important View)
124
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
14.1 Existing View
14.2 Proposed View
125
View Point 15: Pleasant Grove Road Looking Southwest
Existing View
The view looking southwest along Pleasant Grove Road is taken from the east side of the road in front of the south end of the
east facade of building number 29 at the Hasbrouck Apartment complex. In the foreground Pleasant Grove Road is visible. In
the midground the Appel Commons building and the recreational fields and tennis courts are visible. In the background to the
southwest the driveway to the Fuertes Observatory is visible. To the southeast the Olin Chemistry Lab is visible against the
skyline.
See Figure 15.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground in the view will remain unchanged.
In the midground and background the eastern facades of building 3 on the first year student site will be visible. Half of the top
story of building 2 will be visible over the roof line of building 3.
See Figure 15.2 Proposed View
126
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
15.1 Existing View
15.2 Proposed View
127
View Point 16: Pleasant Grove Road Looking Southwest
Existing View
The view looking southeast along Pleasant Grove Road is taken from the east side of the road in front of the Bess Brown Center.
In the foreground Pleasant Grove Road is visible. In the midground the Appel Commons building and the recreational field and
tennis courts are visible. In the background the Olin Chemistry Research Lab is visible.
See Figure 16.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground in the view will remain unchanged.
In the midground the eastern facades of buildings 1 and 3 on the first year student site will be visible.
See Figure 16.2 Proposed View
128
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
16.1 Existing View
16.2 Proposed View
129
View Point 17: Fuertes Observatory Looking North
Existing View
The existing view, looking north from the vehicular loop around the Fuertes Observatory, is of the gravel drive and adjacent
lawn in the immediate foreground. Rows of Austrian pines, oaks, maples, and a sweetgum tree comprise the midground. The
background extends from Appel Commons at image left to the tennis courts at image right and recedes back to the basketball
courts at the corner of Jessup Road and Pleasant Grove Road. The parking lot adjacent to Appel Commons can be seen beyond
the trunks of the midground trees. The tower and roof line of North Campus Residential Building HR5 can be seen through the
midground tree canopies.
See Figure 17.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground and midground remains unchanged.
The southern facade of building 3 and the parking lot will be partially visible through the line of existing Austrian pines. In the
distant background the new recreational field will be visible.
See Figure 17.2 Proposed View
130
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
17.1 Existing View
17.2 Proposed View
131
View Point 18: Observatory Stairs Looking Northwest
Existing View
The existing view looking northwest is taken from the top of the staircase at the Beebe Lake Loop trail. In the foreground an
asphalt path and a cluster of small deciduous trees are visible. The midground shows a turf lawn sloping up, away from the
viewer toward Fuertes Observatory. The background shows a row of Austrian pines.
See Figure 18.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground and midground view will remain unchanged.
A very small portion of the roof line of the southern facade of building 3 on the first year student site will be visible through the
row of Austrian pines.
See Figure 18.2 Proposed View
132
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
18.1 Existing View
18.2 Proposed View
133
Existing View
The existing view looking northeast is taken from the west side of the Beebe Lake Trail on Forest Home Drive, adjacent to the
northwest corner of the of the property line belonging to the private residence at number 2, The Byway. In the foreground the
slope down towards the gorge is visible. In the background, sloping upwards and across the gorge, the heavily vegetated east
bank of the gorge is visible. The view is within Tompkins County’s Designated Forest Home Drive Scenic Road.
See Figure 19.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The proposed project will not be visible from this viewpoint.
See Figure 19.2 Proposed View
View Point 19: Forest Home Drive Looking West
134
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
19.1 Existing View
19.2 Proposed View
135
View Point 20: Forest Home Park Looking Northwest (Encompasses Tompkins County Noteworthy View 19)
Existing View
The view looking north from Forest Home Park is taken at the eastern edge of the park along Forest Home Drive. In the
foreground Forest Home Park and Forest Home Drive are visible. In the midground the vehicular bridge crossing Fall Creek at the
intersection of Forest Home Drive and Pleasant Grove Road is visible. In the background the sharp rise of Pleasant Grove Road
heading north and distant densely vegetated slope along the north bank of Beebe Lake are visible. The view is within Tompkins
County’s Designated Forest Home Drive Scenic Road.
See Figure 20.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The proposed project will not be visible from this viewpoint.
See Figure 20.2 Proposed View
136
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
20.1 Existing View
20.2 Proposed View
137
View Point 21: Forest Home Drive Looking North (Forest Home Drive Scenic Road)
Existing View
The view looking northwest from the trailhead at the Beebe Lake Loop shows wayfinding signage in the immediate foreground as
well as turf lawn and several large deciduous trees. In the midground, a stacked stone wall bisects the image and terminates in a
cluster of evergreen trees. The background is comprised of Beebe Lake and the northern and western banks of Beebe Lake which
rise into a hill with a densely vegetated ridge line. Helen Newman Hall can be seen in the distant background at the left of the
image. The view is within Tompkins County’s Designated Forest Home Drive Scenic Road.
See Figure 21.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground and midground view will remain unchanged.
A small portion of the top of the southern facades of buildings 2 and 3 on the first year student site will be barely visible in the
winter months through the densely vegetated canopy growth on the north bank of Beebe Lake.
See Figure 21.2 Proposed View
138
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
21.1 Existing View
21.2 Proposed View
139
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
View Point 22: Beebe Lake Trail Loop Looking North
Existing View
The existing view, looking northeast from the Beebe Lake Loop trail, is of Beebe Lake in the foreground. In the midground, a hill
extends from the image and recedes into the background at the Sackett Foot Bridge, with Forest Home Drive seen beyond. Three
homes can be seen along Forest Home Drive.
See Figure 22.1 Existing View
Proposed View
The foreground and midground view will remain unchanged.
The top of the southern facades of buildings 2 and 3 on the first year student site will be partially visible in the winter months
through the densely vegetated canopy growth on the north bank of Beebe Lake.
See Figure 22.2 Proposed View
140
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
22.1 Existing View
22.2 Proposed View
141
142
This page has been intentionally left blank.
143
Impact on Cultural Resources
144
Impact on Cultural Resources
Impact on Cultural Resources
Historic Resources
The west side of the project is adjacent to (but not within) the Cornell Heights Historic District in the City of Ithaca. The district
is also listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The majority of buildings within the district are listed as contributing
elements in the National Register nomination. Buildings within the historic district closest to the project are illustrated in the
figure on the following page. The Forest Home Historic District is within 360 feet of the project, but not adjacent (see location
maps included with the Project Introduction).
No changes to properties in either historic district are proposed as part of the project. The sophomore site will be visible from
the intersection of Triphammer Road and Sisson Place. See discussion of Visual Impacts.
Archaeological Resources
The following is a summary of the findings of an archaeological study for the project site conducted by the Public Archaeology
Facility at Binghamton University. The full report is included as an appendix.
The project is situated on sloping uplands north of Fall Creek gorge. Work on the Cornell University campus indicates that the
A horizon is shallow and deeply buried cultural deposits are unlikely. Comparisons with USGS quads, aerial photos, and earlier
survey maps show the parcels have been heavily modified by development. Soil boring records show that the project areas
contain deep fill deposits.
The first-year student site (eastern project area) consists of playing fields and basketball courts which are built atop fill
from previous construction on North Campus. The southern two-thirds of this parcel has been altered at least twice, once
by the construction of a large apartment complex and secondly by the construction of Cradit Farm Drive and the fields. The
geotechnical analysis demonstrated that this area contains deep fill. It is unlikely that intact A horizon soils exist beneath the fill
either within or adjacent to the fields and courts. The basketball court area at the northern end of the parcel was archaeologically
surveyed prior to the construction of the court and did not contain cultural deposits. The former location of the Moore house and
its rear yard were impacted by the construction of a playing field. The vicinity of the northern yard appears relatively undisturbed
with larger trees and a less sculpted topography than in the remainder of this parcel.
The corridor between the first-year student and sophomore sites has been previously disturbed by the construction of paths,
stairs, and the installation of existing utilities.
The sophomore site (western project area) consists of a parking lot, as well as adjacent grassy medians and the Sigma Alpha
Mu house and parking lot. The majority of this portion of the project area has been disturbed by cutting and filling, and the
geotechnical evaluation confirmed that deep fill deposits exist in much of the area. The shallow A horizon found elsewhere on the
Cornell University campus is unlikely to remain intact beneath the parking lot, and the geotechnical evaluation did not identify
the presence of topsoil or A horizon beneath the fill. The geotechnical report suggests that the fill is somewhat shallower in the
vicinity of the fraternity house, which is an area that does not appear to have been heavily modified when the parking lot was
built.
Investigation at the Sigma Alpha Mu site demonstrated that much of the lot contains 20 inches or more of deep fill. The
underlying soils south and east of the house were cut prior to the deposition of the fill, so no intact cultural deposits remain in
these areas. The back of the property does not appear to have been scraped though portions of this area do contain deep fill
deposits. Shovel test pits within the areas that contained intact soils did not yield any cultural material.
No impacts to archeological resources are anticipated at the project site.
145
¾Ø
LAKE STTH UR STON AVE
SISSO N PL
FOREST HOME DR
KLINE R DFALL CREEK DR WYCKOFF AVEWAITE AVE
K
E
L
V
I
N PLHIGHLAND AVEDEAR B O R N P L
W A IT AVERIDGEWOOD RDHEIGHTS CT TRI
PHAMMER RDTHE KN
OLL
ROBERTS PL
L
ODGE WAYNEEDHAM PL
BARTON PLE D G E C L IF F P L
BALCH DRRISLEY DR
H ELE N N E W M A N H A L L D R IV E W A Y
N WILLARD WAYWE
S
T
B
OURNE LA
A
L
P
H
A
DEL
TA PHI
DRIVEWAYJ E S S U P R D
CHI P
SI DRIVEWAY
DO
NLON H A L L L O O PBROOK LACornell Heights With Correction 2012
Historic Districts: Ithaca, NY
NY State Plane, Central GRS 80 Datum
Map Source: Tompkins County Digital Planimetric Map 1991-2012
Data Source: City of Ithaca Department of Planning and Development, 2005
Map Prepared by: GIS Program, City of Ithaca, NY, March 2012
0 200 400100 FeetÊ
¾Ø Local Landmark
Building
Parcel
Road
Historic District Boundary:
Local Designation (1990)
National Register Listing (1989)
Border
Water
¾Ø
LAKE STTH UR ST ON AV E
SI S SO N P L
FO REST HOME DR
KLINE RD
F A LL CREEK DR WYCKOFF AVEWAITE AV E
K
E
L
V
I
N PLHIGHLAND AVEDEAR B O R N P L
W AIT AVERIDGEWOOD RDHE IGHT S CT TRI
PHAMMER RDTHE KN
OLL
ROBERT S P L
L
ODGE WAYN
EEDHAM PL
BARTON PLEDGECLIFF PL
BALCH DRRISLEY DR
H E L E N N E W M A N H A L L D R IV E W A Y
N WILLARD WAYWE
S
T
B
OURNE LA
A
L
P
H
A
DEL
TA PHI
DRIVEWAYJ E S S U P R D
CHI P
SI DRIVEWAY
D
O
NLO
N H A L L L O O PBROOK LACornell Heights With Correct ion 2012
His toric Dist ricts: Ithaca, NY
NY Stat e Plane, Cen tra l GRS 80 Datum
Map Sour ce: Tom pkins County Digital Plan imet ric M ap 1991-2012
Data So urce : City of Ithaca Departmen t of Pla nnin g and De velop men t, 2 005
Map Prepared b y: GIS Program, City o f Ith aca, NY, Ma rch 201 2
0200400100FeetÊ
¾Ø Local Landmark
Building
Parcel
Road
Historic D istrict Boundary:
Local Designation (1990)
National Register Listing (1989)
Border
Water
Cornell Heights Historic District Map (Project site added)
Source: City of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Website
Impact on Cultural Resources
Proposed Project
Akwe:kon
Proposed Project
Delta Gamma
Sorority
Kappa Delta
Sorority
Wait Avenue
Cooperative
Wait Terrace
Sigma Alpha Mu
Fraternity
Delta Delta
Delta Sorority
Pi Delta Psi
Fraternity
Triphammer
Cooperative
See map inset for detail
146
147
Impact on Open Space & Recreation
Impact on Critical Environmental Areas
Impact on Unique Natural Areas
148
Impact on Open Space & Recreation, CEAs and UNAs
Impact on Open Space & Recreation
There are no public parks or lands within the project site. Four existing tennis courts on site will remain. The proposed project
will result in the elimination of two multipurpose recreational fields and one basketball court on campus. These facilities
serve Cornell University students and as such the decrease does not result in a major reduction of open space to the broader
community.
The reduction will not have a major impact on Cornell students despite the increase in student residents in the vicinity. The
three current fields are natural turf and with our local climate they are occasionally too wet for activities. The single field that will
replace them will have artificial turf that allows quick drying and drainage from the surface.
On North Campus, Cornell provides additional recreational opportunities through outdoor basketball, tennis and volleyball courts,
as well as a disc golf course and ready access to trails in natural areas. Outdoor recreation is complemented by fitness centers
in Helen Newman Hall, and Appel Commons. In addition the NCRE will include a fitness center.
The project’s landscape design acknowledges the important role of open space on the Cornell campus. Interstitial spaces
between the residence halls are designed to encourage both passive and active recreation. Plaza and landscape areas included
in the project provide green, flexible, accessible, interconnected spaces that enhance social functions.
No significant negative impacts to public open space or recreation are anticipated. However, the 2008 Campus Master Plan
explored the first-year student site as the substantial southern portion of a North Campus Greenway connecting Beebe Lake to the
Robert Trent Jones Golf Course and Palmer Woods (a Cornell Unique Natural Area and Tompkins County Unique Natural Area).
This proposed landscape initiative (L05) will be truncated by the NCRE development.
Impact on Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs) and Unique Natural Areas (UNAs)
According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation there is one Critical Environmental Area (CEA) in
Tompkins County. The Coy Glen CEA is located approximately three miles to the southwest of the project location. This project
will have no impact on Coy Glen.
Tompkins County has designated Unique Natural Areas, a number of which are part of, or adjacent to, the Cornell campus. One
UNA is proximate, but not adjacent to the project. The sites chosen for the first-year student and sophomore residence halls are
located between 825 and 75 feet north of the Beebe Lake Woods/Gorge Unique Natural Area (UNA-132). A second UNA (UNA-
104), which includes Palmer Woods is the next closest to the project, located 350 feet away to the north.
The proposed action will not reduce the quantity or quality of the unique natural area, nor will it impact the function or enjoyment
of the resource. No adverse impacts to the Beebe Lake Woods/Gorge UNA or Palmer Woods are anticipated. The diagrams
below illustrate the location of the project site in relation to UNA-104 and UNA-132.
149
Impact on Open Space & Recreation, CEAs and UNAs
UNA Locations
UNA-132
UNA-131
UNA-104
UNA-134
Project
Location
150
Relationship of proposed project to Unique Natural Areas
Impact on Open Space & Recreation, CEAs and UNAs
Proposed
Sophomore
Housing
Proposed
First-year
Student
Housing
Jessup Rd
Cradit Farm Dr Pleasan
t
Grove
RdTr
iphamme
r
RdThurston AveBeebe Lake Woods and Gorge
UNA-132
825 ft
335 ft
75 ft
Palmer Woods
UNA-104
350 ft
151
152
This page has been intentionally left blank.
153
Impact on Transportation
154
Impact on Transportation
Impact on Transportation
There are approximately 45 miles of roads within the Cornell Campus Master Plan Boundary. Of these roads, 17.5 miles are
maintained by Cornell, 10 by the City of Ithaca, and 6.5 by the Town of Ithaca. The remainder of roads are maintained by New
York State, Tompkins County, or neighboring municipalities. Analysis of local roadways by SRF Associates revealed there will
be no significant adverse impacts to intersection levels of service as a result of increased population on North Campus plus
background growth.
Cornell University maintains approximately 11,000 parking spaces. The NCRE project will result in a reduction of 396 parking
spaces which will be accommodated within the surplus parking inventory on campus.
TCAT has acknowledged the need to evaluate service levels as a result of the NCRE. Preliminarily, in mid-range planning efforts
using the current construct of routes, they project there could be a need to increase transit capacity with the addition of two
buses. During current strategic planning efforts, TCAT also acknowledges the need to perform optimization studies to realize
efficiencies in right-sizing services and fleet.
Among North Campus students, walking is a preferred mode of transport. A recent survey indicated 51% of North Campus
student residents prefer to walk to central campus over other modes of transport, many stating the opportunity for exercise as the
primary factor driving the choice. Efforts to identify and enhance the optimal pedestrian and bicycle routes have been part of the
ongoing planning for NCRE. Encouraging active transportation is a high priority for Cornell.
Transportation and Parking Overview
Cornell employs comprehensive management policies for transportation and parking in order to provide a safe, pleasant
pedestrian environment and minimize traffic impacts on the character of the campus and surrounding areas, while
accommodating the transportation and parking needs of its community. Highlights of transportation and parking at Cornell are:
Public Transit
In 1996, Cornell, the City of Ithaca, and Tompkins County forged a public-private partnership, Tompkins Consolidated Area
Transit (TCAT). In 2005 TCAT became a non-profit organization. Nearly 75% of TCAT’s passenger trips are accounted for by
the Cornell community. Cornell provides funding to TCAT to subsidize the cost of Cornell’s OmniRide bus pass available to
employees and students (first-year students receive a complimentary pass and all registered Cornell students can ride TCAT
at no fare cost after 6 p.m. weekdays and anytime Saturdays and Sundays) as well as to enable Cornell staff and faculty to ride
TCAT at no fare cost within designated routes on and near campus.
In June 2017, Cornell reaffirmed its support of TCAT through June 2021. The most recent agreement increases Cornell’s
approximately $3.1 million annual fare payment by 1.5 percent each fiscal year from 2019 through 2021 for a total increase
of $141,334. In addition, the University provides $837,432 in annual contractual payment as Cornell’s equal share of the
investment in TCAT made by the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County and Cornell and $152,090 for Cornell’s equal annual share of
capital expenses.
Cornell is an active participant with the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) in regional transportation
planning. Efforts are underway to enhance existing community park-and-ride lots served by public transit, and to site new
locations for additional community park-and-rides.
Transportation Demand Management
Cornell’s nationally recognized Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs encourage walking, bicycling, transit use,
and other alternatives to single-occupant vehicle commuting by all members of the campus community. Over 30% of faculty
and staff commute by public transit or carpool. Over 50% of graduate students and 40% of undergraduate students have transit
passes, while 15% of graduate and professional students and 5% of undergraduate students purchase parking permits.
155
Cornell currently offers two primary TDM programs: OmniRide and RideShare. OmniRide is a transit program where employees
agree to forgo a parking pass and in doing so gain the following benefits:
• Unlimited access to TCAT buses anywhere in Tompkins County
• Reduced-cost bus pass for out-of-county transit
• Occasional-use, one-day parking permits
• Flexible short-term parking options
• Ithaca Carshare membership discount
As described above, first-year students receive the transit benefits of the OmniRide program for free. Other students can join the
program by purchasing an OmniRide pass for $200.
The RideShare commuter program is designed for Cornell employees who do not live in campus housing and share their ride to
the Ithaca campus at least three times a week. Benefits of the program include
• Discounted parking fees
• Flexible parking options
• Occasional-use, one day permits
• Pre-tax payroll deduction for parking fees
• Ithaca Carshare membership discounts
As of Fall 2017, the OmniRide program has approximately 5,700 undergraduate students, 4,600 graduate students, and 2,000
employees participating. The RideShare program has approximately 1,200 employee participants.
2017 TDM Participants Undergraduate Students Graduate Students Employees Total
Transit 5,733 4,629 1,978 12,340
RideShare 0 0 1,186 1,186
Total TDM Participants 5,733 4,629 3,164 13,526
Parking
The management of Cornell’s parking system is a dynamic process. Over the years, the system has embraced opportunities
to enhance the supply, usability, landscaping, and safety of parking by proactively redesigning and expanding existing parking
areas to maximize parking efficiencies. This has enabled Cornell to face the challenge of losses in parking on central campus
as buildings have been constructed or expanded. These processes are ongoing. By closely managing demand through TDM
programs (as described above) and monitoring and maintaining a supply that corresponds to anticipated need, Cornell avoids
cumulative adverse parking-related impacts of new construction while at the same time accommodating the transportation and
parking needs of its community.
Impacts to Parking
Parking at Cornell University is managed by the Transportation and Delivery Services Department. On an annual basis Cornell
delivers a compliance report regarding parking to the City of Ithaca looking at it from a campus-wide perspective. This report
provides annual parking updates based on the following calculations:
• 1 parking space per 7 full-time undergraduate students;
• 1 parking space per 2 full-time graduate and professional students;
• 3 spaces per 4 full-time employees;
• 1 space per 25 people for total undergraduate students, graduate/professional students, and employees.
Impact on Transportation
156
Participants in a transportation demand management program are subtracted from the above calculations. As of Fall 2017,
Cornell currently has 11,364 parking spaces. Based on the metrics above, Cornell should be providing a minimum of 7,745
spaces.
The planned increase in undergraduate students will generate a modest increase in required parking. Additionally, the proposed
project will result in the net removal of 396 parking spaces from North Campus. These two components together will affect the
parking supply; however, due to the current surplus in parking no replacement or additional parking is necessary.
Building-specific parking needs such as accessible spaces, loading zones, or parking for service vehicles will be accommodated
in the proposed development. Parking facilities sufficient to service ADA requirements, residence hall live-in staff, and
maintenance/delivery access are noted in the attached diagrams.
A summary of the anticipated parking changes on North Campus as a result of the project is given below.
Sophomore Site
Parking Lot Existing Spaces*Proposed Spaces*Delta
RPCC 32 103 71
Donlon Hall 42 10 -32
Akwe:kon 11 13 2
Service: New Dining 0 5 5
Sigma Alpha Mu Lot 20 0 -20
CC Parking Lot 386 0 -386
Subtotals 491 131 -360
*Spaces do not include motorcycle or loading spaces
First-year Student Site
Parking Lot Existing Spaces*Proposed Spaces*Delta
Program House Drive 53 42 -11
Appel Commons 102 77 -25
Service: Mews Hall 5 5 0
Service: Appel Commons 2 2 0
Subtotals 162 126 -36
*Spaces do not include motorcycle or loading spaces
Summary
Existing Spaces Proposed Spaces Delta
Sophomore Site 491 131 -360
First-year Student Site 162 126 -36
TOTAL 653 257 -396
As shown in the above summary, the North Campus will see a reduction in overall parking. The CC Lot will be replaced by
the sophomore housing development. These parking spaces will not be replaced. Parking will be expanded at Robert Purcell
Community Center (RPCC) to accommodate visitors and conference attendees. The figures on the following pages show existing
parking and proposed parking that is part of the project.
Impact on Transportation
157
158
This page has been intentionally left blank.
159
Appel Commons Lot
5 ADA
97 Remaining Motorvehicle
102 Total
2 Motorcycle
Appel Commons Loading Area
2 MT Permit
2 Total
Program House Dr Lot
2 ADA
6 Reserved w/ Plate #
45 Remaining Motorvehicle
53 Total
1 Motorcycle (MC)
MC
MC
R#
R#
Mews Hall Lot
2 ADA
2 Reserved w/ Plate #
1 MT Permit
5 Total
1 Drop off Zone
Donlon Service Lot
4 MT Permit
4 Total
Clara Dickson Service Lot
2 Reserved w/ Plate #
2 MT Permit
4 Total
Purcell Roundabout Lot
2 ADA
2 Total
1 Motorcycle
6 Loading (30 min.) R#
Donlon Lot
4 ADA
5 Reserved w/ Plate #
3 MT Permit
30 Remaining Motorvehicle
42 Total
1 Loading Zone
R#R#
R#
L
L
LEGEND
ADA accessible parking
Reserved parking, with
license plate number
Motorcycle parking
Loading
MT Permit parking
Parking area modified by
project
R#
MC
L
MT
CC Lot
386 Motorvehicle
386 Total
Purcell Lot
1 ADA (ParkMobile)
1 Reserved w/ Plate #
1 Car Share
14 ParkMobile
13 Remaining Motorvehicle
30 Total
Akwe:kon Lot
1 ADA
10 Remaining Motorvehicle
11 Total
1 Loading Zone (L)
Sigma Alpha Mu Lot
1 ADA
19 Remaining Motorvehicle
20 Total
Impact on Transportation
Existing Parking
160
This page has been intentionally left blank.
161
MT
MC
R#
MT
MC
R#
L
MT
L
MC
L
Appel Commons Lot
13 ADA
2 Reserved w/ Plate #
62 Remaining Motorvehicle
77 Total
2 Motorcycle
Program House Dr Lot
6 ADA
10 Reserved w/ Plate #
2 MT Permit
24 Remaining Motorvehicle
42 Total
1 Loading Zone
1 Motorcycle
L
New Dining Service Lot
2 ADA
3 MT Permit
5 Total
Akwe:kon Lot
2 ADA
1 Reserved w/ Plate #
10 Remaining Motorvehicle
13 Total
1 Loading Zone
Purcell Lot
6 ADA
3 Reserved w/ Plate #
1 Car Share
14 ParkMobile
79 Remaining Motorvehicle
103 Total
1 Motorcycle
4 Loading Zone
Donlon Lots (Proposed)
4 ADA
2 Reserved w/ Plate #
4 MT Permit
10 TotalMT
R#
R#
Clara Dickson Service Lot
2 Reserved w/ Plate #
2 MT Permit
4 Total Mews Hall Lot
2 ADA
2 Reserved w/ Plate #
1 MT Permit
5 Total
1 Drop off Zone
Appel Commons Loading Area
2 MT Permit
2 Total
R#R#
R#
R#
LEGEND
ADA accessible parking
Reserved parking, with
license plate number
Motorcycle parking
Loading
MT Permit parking
Proposed parking
Existing parking,
replaced in-kind
R#
MC
L
MT
Donlon Service Lot
1 ADA
2 Reserved w/ Plate #
1 MT Permit
4 Total
Impact on Transportation
Proposed Parking
162
This page has been intentionally left blank.
A September 2018 sample survey indicates that there are approximately 20 staff and maintenance vehicles and 90 students who
utilize the CC Lot on a daily basis. The CC parking lot utilization rates are very low, so it is expected that parking displacement
at this site will not impact overall parking on North Campus. On average, Cornell’s entire parking system has more than 1,000
available parking spaces each day.
Cornell experiences a tremendous influx of visitors for the one-day event of Fall Move-in. Although it is an exciting time of the
year, it’s not without transportation challenges. Cornell Student and Campus Life and Transportation Services recognize the loss
of the CC Lot will compound the challenges, and operations for North Campus move-in will need to be modified accordingly.
Planning to minimize the parking challenges of North Campus move-in has begun with conversations surrounding but not
limited to, enhanced coordination amongst the hundreds of volunteers to assist in the quick unload of vehicles, creating a more
streamlined queuing process for vehicles arriving to unload and utilizing Cornell-owned lawn areas adjacent to the A Lot and
North Campus buildings for overflow parking. As plans are more fully developed, Cornell may deem it necessary to extend Fall
move-in from one day to several days in order to adequately accommodate our students.
Cornell also hosts special events that create transportation challenges such as Commencement, Reunions and Homecoming.
Just as with the Move-in planning, Student and Campus Life and Transportation Services will work together to identify
alternative parking areas in which to direct the influx of vehicles that are otherwise displaced by the loss of the CC Lot. Possible
considerations are the use of shuttles from remote lots located off of North Campus and the use of a Cornell-owned lawn area
adjacent to the A Lot for overflow parking.
Impacts to Vehicular Traffic
The discussion of vehicular traffic impacts below is an executive summary of a traffic report prepared by SRF Associates. The
full report is included in the Appendix.
In an effort to define traffic impact, the report identifies existing traffic conditions, future background traffic conditions including
area growth, and determines the future traffic operations that result from the proposed development. Future traffic volumes and
operating conditions are evaluated. Parking generation and demand associated with the proposed development are evaluated. In
addition, an assessment of pedestrian circulation, transit service, and bicycle infrastructure are discussed. For convenience this
document will refer to “approximately 2000 beds” in the narrative, however, all of the analysis was conducted for 2079 beds.
The study area intersections include:
1. Thurston Avenue/University Avenue-Forest Home Drive
2. Thurston Avenue/Cradit Farm Drive
3. Thurston Avenue/Wait Avenue
4. Triphammer Road/Wait Avenue
5. Triphammer Road/Jessup Road/Dearborn Place
6. Northcross Road/CC Lot Driveway
7. Pleasant Grove Road/Jessup Road-Hasbrouck Circle
8. Pleasant Grove Road/Cradit Farm Drive-Hasbrouck Circle
9. Pleasant Grove Road-Forest Home Drive/Judd Falls Road
10. Forest Home Drive/Warren Road
11. Forest Home Drive/Caldwell Drive
12. Triphammer Road/Hanshaw Road
13/14. Triphammer Road/Hanshaw Road/East Upland Road
15. Pleasant Grove Road/Hanshaw Road
16. Triphammer Road/East Upland Road
The proposed NCRE will be constructed and operational within four years (2022). The Town and City of Ithaca and Village of
Cayuga Heights were contacted to discuss any other specific developments that are currently approved or under construction
Impact on Transportation
163
that would generate additional traffic in the study area. The identified projects were the Maplewood Graduate Student housing
development, the potential East Hill Village project and the Community Corners Medical Office. In addition, the Cornell
University Tang Welcome Center opened in May 2018 within the study area.
Traffic related to the Community Corners Medical Office development was added to the study intersections. To account for
normal increases in background traffic growth, Maplewood Graduate Student Housing development, the Tang Welcome Center,
the East Hill Village development, and any other unforeseen developments in the project study area, a growth rate of 1.5% per
year has been applied to the existing traffic volumes, based upon historical traffic growth for the four-year build-out period.
The report considers the following transportation and operational components:
• Existing traffic conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hour intervals.
• Future background traffic conditions during the same peak intervals four years into the future considering general area
growth patterns and nearby developments.
• Parking generation by future residents.
• New traffic generated by the proposed project.
• Distribution of site generated traffic.
• Development of future traffic conditions during the previously noted peak intervals, assuming the site fully built and
operational.
• Transportation Demand Management strategies.
• Multi-modal considerations (i.e., walking, biking, transit).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the projected site generated traffic volumes and projected levels of service, the proposed North Campus Residential
Expansion will not have a significant adverse impact on existing traffic operations in the area, as documented in the report.
The analyses contained in the report indicate that the existing road network can adequately accommodate the projected traffic
volumes and resulting impacts to study area intersections. The following conclusions are based upon the results of the analyses:
1. The North Campus will see a reduction in overall parking as a result of development of this new housing. The existing
CC Lot (a 386-space parking lot on Jessup Road) will be replaced by the sophomore housing. These parking spaces
will not be replaced. Parking will be enhanced at the RPCC to accommodate visitors and conference attendees. At both
sites, parking facilities sufficient to service ADA requirements, residence hall live-in staff, and maintenance/delivery
access will be provided. Accessible parking and service needs will be redistributed into small lots throughout North
Campus. A Lot will continue to operate as it currently does serving as the primary satellite parking for staff as well as
faculty and visitors.
2. Vehicles currently parking in CC Lot were projected to be relocated to A Lot, Hasbrouck, Anna Comstock North Lot, and/
or Hurlburt House Lot. Traffic currently entering and exiting CC Lot during the peak hours [10(10) entering and 4(42)
exiting during the AM (PM) peak hours] were re-distributed to these four lots based upon the size of each lot and ability
to accommodate additional parked vehicles.
3. The effects of this project on the surrounding transportation network and internal circulation system of North Campus
will be minimal. The analysis contained in the report focuses on morning and afternoon peak intervals that overlap with
surrounding commuter traffic. These are peak intervals when students are going to or coming from class. As such, very
little if any new student vehicles will be added to the surrounding system, during the critical peaks.
4. It is recognized that there will be vehicular activity related to both students and staff as a result of the proposed
development. The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 7 entering/3 exiting vehicle trips
during the weekday AM peak hour and 7 entering/33 exiting vehicle trips during the PM peak hour which will be spread
throughout the transportation network.
5. Based on a review of existing pedestrian flows and student residential information, it is estimated that approximately
210 pedestrian trips will be added to the surrounding roadway network during the peak 15 minute time period during
Impact on Transportation
164
the A.M. commuter peak.
6. There are four (4) locations that experience decreases in levels of service (LOS) as a result of the traffic changes
associated with the proposed development:
a. Eastbound on University Avenue at Thurston Avenue: The delay increases 0.4 seconds per vehicle resulting
in a change in level of service from “D” to “E” during the PM peak hour. This is a result of the background
borderline condition as the threshold between LOS “D” and “E” is 55 seconds per vehicle. This change will be
imperceptible to users of this intersection.
b. Westbound on Hasbrouck Circle at Pleasant Grove Road: The delay is projected to increase 1.5 seconds
resulting in a change from LOS “B” to “C” during the PM peak hour due to the borderline condition for this
approach. The threshold between LOS “B” and “C” is 15 seconds per vehicle. Motorists will notice very little,
if any, changes in operating conditions at this intersection as a result of the proposed housing development.
c. Southbound left turn movement on Triphammer Road at Hanshaw Road: The delay is projected to increase 2.7
seconds resulting in a change from LOS “B” to “C” during the AM peak hour due to the borderline condition
for this approach. The threshold between LOS “B” and “C” is 15 seconds per vehicle. Motorists will notice
very little, if any, changes in operating conditions at this intersection as a result of the proposed housing
development.
d. Southbound left and through movements from the Express Mart driveway at Pleasant Grove and Hanshaw
Roads: These movements are expected to operate at LOS “D” and “F” respectively with moderate to long
delays (on the order of 27 to 50 seconds per vehicle) during the AM peak hour. It is noted that the volume of
traffic executing these movements is extremely low (only 3 vph) and these operating conditions are reasonable
for this driveway.
7. Continue to promote and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) actions, all the while continuing
to advance the goals and strategies outlined in the June 2008 Cornell University Transportation Impact Mitigation
Strategies report and seek to develop new programs/policies as information and technology becomes available.
8. The proposed project will not result in any potentially significant adverse traffic impacts to the study area intersections.
Impacts to Pedestrians, Bicyclists and Bus Service
A Circulation Study by Kimley Horn (see Appendix) identifies and analyzes the existing pedestrian, bicycle and bus network on
North Campus. While the network of sidewalks, bus routes/stops and bicycle routes are robust and functional on North Campus,
there are areas where site interventions could improve circulation. The addition of approximately 2,000 new students to the area
will increase the need for improvements in key locations. TCAT has already acknowledged the need to add two buses to the
North Campus routes to accommodate the increase in student population. Other mitigation measures are noted below.
• Widen Cradit Farm Drive (a Cornell-owned road) in front of Appel Commons and Helen Newman Hall to provide bicycle
lanes, bus pull-offs on both sides and improve pedestrian crossings. This section of Cradit Farm Drive is the only
section without bicycle lanes. Cradit Farm Drive is along major bus routes and has heavy pedestrian traffic.
• Provide a larger bus pull-off on Jessup Road (Cornell owned) in front of RPCC. The bus pull-off as currently shown
accommodates only one bus at a time.
• Provide improved crosswalks along Jessup Road between the project site and the Townhouses to the north.
• Together with the City of Ithaca, work to develop and approve a reasonable pedestrian improvement plan for the
intersections of Thurston Avenue (City owned) and Cradit Farm Drive and Thurston Avenue and Wait Avenue (City
owned). Cornell would fund and manage the project once approved by Cornell and the City.
• Together with the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County, explore the possibility of Cornell realigning the intersection
of Cradit Farm Drive and Pleasant Grove Road (County owned) to direct traffic more readily to the Cornell Campus.
Cornell would fund and manage the project once approved by Cornell, the Town of Ithaca, and the County.
Impact on Transportation
165
166
This page has been intentionally left blank.
167
Impact on Energy
168
Impact on Energy
Energy Overview
As a part of its responsibility for teaching, research and outreach, Cornell has made a commitment to sustainability including
achieving carbon neutrality for the Ithaca campus by 2035. This is detailed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP, www.ClimateAction.
Cornell.edu). Cornell faculty, students, and staff developed the CAP in 2009 with funding from the state energy authority,
NYSERDA. Cornell’s CAP, updated periodically since that time, incorporates enhancement of the university’s core mission of
education, research, and outreach.
Reducing carbon emissions to zero is an ambitious goal, and requires extraordinary measures, but the University is making
steady progress in the right direction. Cornell has taken broad actions that reduced campus Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions
by over 36% compared to a 2008 baseline and by nearly 50% compared to a 1990 baseline. Meanwhile, Cornell has begun
integrating renewables into the energy mix and plans to achieve 100% renewable energy. These collective actions are significant
steps forward and have established Cornell as a national leader among universities that have committed to carbon neutrality.
A major focus of the University’s CAP is the reduction of GHG emissions from energy use within buildings on campus. To
support the primary mission of teaching, research, and outreach, Cornell needs to provide electricity for power and lighting and
cooling and heating for building occupant comfort and domestic hot water use, in addition to energy for research and outreach
needs. These energy uses are a significant portion of the campus carbon footprint. The approach to controlling and reducing
GHG impacts for this energy use follows a common approach at the building level, including the following three primary
elements:
• Sustainable Development: Limit development as practical and require all new development and major renovations
to meet stringent energy standards. Cornell has developed energy standards for all major campus construction and
continues to tighten those standards as proven systems become available.
• Energy Conservation: Provide a rigorous campus-wide program of energy conservation projects, continuous
commissioning (“tuning” mechanical and control systems to optimize efficiency), and education on sustainable
occupant behavior to limit energy use in buildings. These approaches have helped keep campus energy use
approximately flat since 2000, despite a 20% growth in campus building square footage. While the NCRE will increase
building square footage on campus by 4% it will only increase energy use on campus by approximately 1.4%.
• Energy Generation: Replace high-carbon energy sources with low-carbon energy sources. Cornell’s solar farms and
hydroelectric plant supply 10% of the Ithaca campus’ net annual electricity, and Cornell is actively pursuing more
wind and solar pv development. The highly efficient combined heat and power plant heats the campus with left over
heat from electricity generation that would otherwise be wasted, and Lake Source Cooling eliminates refrigerants and
drastically reduces electricity needed for campus air conditioning by tapping into naturally cold lake water.
Unlike homes and unlike most businesses and institutions in our region, Cornell provides electricity, heat, and cooling through a
169
Impact on Energy
campus “district energy system.” District energy provides unique opportunities to reduce GHGs centrally. This system generally
involves acquiring or producing energy at central locations and distributing that energy to all buildings on campus. Cornell
uses its district energy systems to distribute electricity (through a “microgrid”), heat (through steam and hot water distribution
piping), and chilled water. District energy strategies are most common for countries taking an aggressive approach to carbon
neutrality, like France, Denmark, Iceland and Norway.
In accordance with the Cornell Climate Action Plan, Cornell University continues to refine its energy efficiency standards for
campus buildings. The intent is to establish aggressive, but achievable targets for each major project and incorporate these
goals as contractual obligations into architectural and engineering agreements. Coupled with an aggressive space management
program, Cornell’s building energy standards can help the university reduce emissions. These strategies are critical to Cornell’s
goal of carbon neutrality by 2035. The NCRE design incorporates these carbon neutrality strategies.
Design Approach
Cornell University has identified energy usage goals for the NCRE design. The performance of the design with respect to these
targets is being substantiated through a rigorous energy modeling process, in addition to certification through Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). The project will pursue a minimum of Silver-level certification under the LEED v4
system, which includes new sustainability initiatives such as energy performance standards. Below is a list of the building and
campus level design approaches that will be included in the project to manage energy consumption:
Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Equipment
• Connecting to the highly-efficient University district energy system uses less source energy than heat pumps
• Heating system temperature aligned to accommodate future renewable energy sources
• Electronically commutated motors (ECM) for four-pipe fan-coil units
• Energy recovery for 100% outdoor air ventilation systems
• Demand controlled ventilation for variable speed air-handling units
• Occupancy-based setback strategies
• Low-flow fixtures
• Overall lighting power use 35% less than current code
• Exterior lighting power use 50% less than current code
Building Envelope
• Reduced window-wall ratio, 22% for residential portions
• High-performance glazing (window) performance, U-value 0.27
• High-performance wall insulation, R-25.5 continuous
• High-performance roof insulation, R-49
Internal Loads
• Reduced lighting power density
• Occupancy and vacancy sensors in common spaces
• Energy Star® appliances
• Demand control dryer exhaust
• Regenerative elevators: motor transforms mechanical power into electrical power
• Residential Sustainability Engagement Program (see below)
Residential Sustainability Engagement Program
• Utilize community-based social marketing strategies to foster sustainable behaviors among building occupants such as
using cold water for laundry, taking shorter and colder showers, and turning off lights and electronics.
• Educate students and residential staff through climate change and sustainability literacy initiatives such as waste and
energy reduction competitions.
• Integrate new, and highlight existing, sustainable practices within student housing policies, rules, and procedures such
170
Impact on Energy
as unplugging and defrosting mini fridges over winter break.
• Maximize engagement amongst students and residential staff through sustainability leadership programs such as
sustainability reps, compost managers, program steering committees, campus green teams and internships.
District Heating and Electricity
The project will tie in to campus district utilities to serve space heating, domestic hot water and electricity needs. There is
capacity in the system to accommodate this project.
Cornell University’s highly-efficient Central Energy Plant uses a pair of 15 MW turbines driven by natural gas to provide power
for campus. The super-hot exhaust gases from each turbine pass across a series of water tubes in a large boiler called a Heat
Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG). Within the HRSG units, the “waste” heat is transferred to water to generate steam. Some
of the steam generated in this process then passes through a steam turbine to generate additional electricity before being
distributed at lower pressures through a set of underground insulated pipes to campus for building heat and domestic hot water
generation.
This dual use of the same initial energy – first for electric, and then for heating, is called Combined Heat and Power. When
electric and heating needs are well matched, this is an extremely effective use of energy; up to about 80% of the source energy
can be converted to some useful form (electricity or heat), as opposed to about 33% in a standard gas turbine-generator (a
typical source of grid electricity). Because loads aren’t always so well matched, typical efficiencies may be a bit lower – but still
much better than plants that don’t utilize the waste heat at all.
171
Impact on Energy
Chilled Water Cooling at Cornell
The project will utilize the University’s chilled water loop to cool the buildings. There is capacity in the system to accommodate
the new buildings.
Cornell’s chilled water system is the most efficient of any campus in the nation. Most other campuses use mechanical
refrigerant-based chillers to produce cold air or water for building cooling; larger systems typically also need to consume large
quantities of clean water (in a cooling tower) to get rid of excess heat developed in the process.
Cornell’s base cooling load is handled by Lake Source Cooling, so that Cornell requires only a few chillers for backup and peak
needs several hours a year. Lake Source Cooling uses Cayuga Lake’s deep water passing through a heat exchanger to cool
campus chilled water. The same water (typically raised in temperature from about 39°F to 45-55°F) is then returned directly to
the lake, without addition of any chemicals or other materials. Lake Source Cooling has the following advantages:
• It is much more energy efficient than typical chiller options – about six times more energy efficient since no
compressors are needed, only circulating pumps.
• It uses essentially no potable water – no cooling towers are needed for LSC.
• It uses no refrigerants. Refrigerants are powerful GHGs and some are ozone-depleting.
• It is environmentally benign. A multi-year study overseen by the NYSDEC provided confirmation that LSC does not
impair lake quality.
• LSC significantly reduces peak electric use. Even though NY’s grid electricity includes significant zero-carbon sources
(primarily from hydro and nuclear power, but with some inroads from wind and solar power in recent years), regional
electric usage peaks during peak cooling times (hot and humid days). At these times, transmission losses increase,
more non-baseload power from less-efficient gas turbines is needed, and grid emissions are at their highest. Because
LSC is so efficient (only needing modest increases in pump speed to ramp up production), it has a minimal increase in
electric usage for peak cooling.
Lake Source Cooling System Concept Diagram
District Energy Systems: Pros and Cons
While not practical at a small scale, district energy systems offer important advantages over single-building heating and
cooling supply and generation methods.
• Centralized efficiency. An advantage of a district energy system is that efficiency or carbon improvements made
to the central energy systems create efficiency improvements for the whole campus. The disadvantage is that such
improvements typically require more planning and capital, since they tend to be of larger scale.
• Transmission losses. A campus like Cornell that generates its own electricity can do so with higher overall efficiency,
because there are lower transmission and distribution losses from power source to building. However, a district system
172
Impact on Energy
has losses associated with transmission of heat or cooling compared to a typical facility that has those services right at
the building; good planning and design practices and regular maintenance are needed to reduce those impacts.
• Impact of innovation. A well-designed district energy system can help with the integration of innovative technology
in several ways. First, energy inputs can often be added anywhere within the network without negative grid impacts.
True innovation (like Lake Source Cooling) can also be integrated on a campus-wide scale – something not practical
with building-by-building systems.
• Maintaining peak operations. Energy systems require specialized support to maintain high efficiency. With district
energy systems, specialty support can be focused at the central plant; the relative lack of complexity at the building
level (individual buildings don’t need dedicated heat pumps, chillers, cooling towers, boilers, etc.) significantly
reduces the complexity of maintenance and reduces many common safety issues within buildings (for example, from
potential gas or refrigerant leaks). Generally, it is easier and more cost-effective to monitor a few large central systems
than to track the performance of hundreds of energy units spread across campus. It is also easier to enforce a high
level of efficiency and quality at one central location.
Cornell’s Future Energy Systems
Cornell’s CAP includes an expansive and ambitious net-zero energy future that requires extensive integration of sustainable
energy sources. That future includes the Earth Source Heat (ESH) initiative, an area being actively researched for bringing
geothermal heat for direct campus heating. Similar to Lake Source Cooling, ESH researchers are exploring the potential for using
water circulated through hot rocks accessed through deep wells to transfer heat directly to a campus heating loop, eliminating
the need for fossil fuels for heating. Cornell’s CAP also includes a goal to match all of the Ithaca campus net annual electricity
needs with power from new wind, water, and solar photovoltaic generation facilities. The power from projects located off campus
will feed into the state electricity grid, offsetting electricity used on campus.
Preparing for a Carbon-Zero (or Low-carbon) Future as Part of Campus Development
For a project like the North Campus Residential Expansion, Cornell has included the following design elements to help us
continue on our path to sustainability as defined within the CAP:
• Energy Building Standards. Cornell is requiring the NCRE buildings to incorporate low energy use intensities (EUIs).
These EUI standards limit the present and future energy needs. The energy use is being documented through detailed
energy modeling (see following section).
• Hot Water, not Steam, Distributed to Buildings. The North Campus Residential Expansion project represents
the first Cornell project required to meet new low-temperature heat requirements. Previously, because heat was
distributed as steam, building designs included radiators and heating coils that operated at 180°F or higher. This
higher temperature rating allowed for slightly smaller radiators and coils to minimize cost. Cornell is now requiring
projects like North Campus to design building heat transfer equipment for lower temperatures (130°F max), and Cornell
will supply the new facilities with heat via hot water instead of steam. This decision does add incrementally to the cost
of the buildings (more radiator and coil surface area is required) but allows Cornell to continue on its CAP path in the
following ways:
○Since heat will be supplied as hot water to each building, the buildings will be ready for a future Cornell-wide
hot water distribution system (to replace the current distribution system, which is mostly steam-based). This
future hot water distribution system is part of the CAP and other portions of campus have similarly been
converted already.
○Lower temperature systems allow more options for waste and renewable heat integration. Basic physics make
energy transfer to lower-temperature systems much more efficient and effective; prospects for transferring
such heat to a steam system is much more limiting. This will improve prospects for Earth Source Heat, waste
heat integration, solar hot water, and heat pump integration into Cornell’s district energy systems.
173
In summary, low-energy designs that incorporate lower temperatures, utilizing the constantly improving district energy system,
are important to our goals of sustainability. This approach allows Cornell to integrate low-carbon or carbon-free energy as it
becomes available while significantly cutting distribution losses. In the future, the University envisions the central heating system
will incorporate renewable energy sources such as Earth Source Heat.
Energy Analysis | Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Comparison with Air & Ground Source Heat Pumps |
Alignments with Outside Rating Systems & Local Guidelines
Taitem engineers conducted an energy analysis of the project. Their report, included in its entirety, is provided in the pages
following. The executive summary is included below.
This report describes the energy and emissions impact of the proposed North Campus Residential Expansion project at Cornell
University. The building layout and how the buildings will be heated and cooled are described. The emissions impact of the
construction process and the operation of the buildings are calculated in metric tons of CO2 emissions. We also compare the
proposed buildings to alternative heating and cooling options, to local energy and emissions guidelines and policies, and to
well-known energy and sustainability rating systems.
Our analysis concludes that the proposed buildings align nicely with Cornell’s Climate Action Plan and community climate and
energy goals. The buildings alone will use significantly (over 30%) less energy than current code requirements and have less
(over 50%) of a greenhouse gas emissions impact than equivalent buildings built to 2008 code requirements (over 25% better
than current code). The project as a whole will have less (over 40%) of a greenhouse gas emissions impact than an equivalent
project built to 2008 code requirements (and nearly 20% better than current code).
Impact on Energy
174
Energy and Emissions Impact Assessment of the North
Campus Residential Expansion at Cornell University
Prepared by: Taitem Engineering
Date: 7/6/18
175
2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ 2
1. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 4
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4
3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 5
4. Description of Proposed Work.................................................................................................... 5
Sophomore Site ........................................................................................................................... 6
First-Year Student Site ................................................................................................................ 7
Proposed Building Components ................................................................................................. 7
Building Envelope .................................................................................................................. 7
Vertical Transportation ........................................................................................................... 8
Mechanical Systems................................................................................................................ 8
Electrical Systems ................................................................................................................... 9
Plumbing Systems ................................................................................................................. 10
Kitchen Equipment ............................................................................................................... 11
5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact ........................................................................................... 11
Construction Emissions ............................................................................................................ 11
Proposed Cornell Housing Emissions ................................................................................... 12
Operating Emissions ................................................................................................................. 12
Furthering Local Climate Action Plan Goals ............................................................................ 14
Supporting Information on the Emissions Calculations ........................................................... 15
Assumptions Used for Calculation of Emissions from Energy Consumption .......................... 17
6. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 19
Building Design and Operation Measures ............................................................................ 19
Efficiency or Mitigation Measures for On-site GHG Sources.............................................. 21
Site Selection and Design Measures ..................................................................................... 22
Transportation Measures ....................................................................................................... 23
Waste Reduction or Management Measures......................................................................... 25
7. Energy Use and Conservation ................................................................................................... 25
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 25
Energy Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 25
Energy Conservation Measures Not Included in this Project ................................................... 29
Re-orienting Buildings to maximize solar access ................................................................. 29
Window-to-Wall ratio ........................................................................................................... 29
176
3
Other Roof Strategies ............................................................................................................ 30
External Shading ................................................................................................................... 30
Ground Source and Air Source Heat Pumps......................................................................... 30
Comparison with Outside Rating Systems and Local Guidelines ............................................ 32
LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC) ............................................................................ 32
Passive House ....................................................................................................................... 32
The Proposed Ithaca Green Building Policy ......................................................................... 33
The Tompkins County Energy Recommendations for New Construction ........................... 33
On-Site Renewables .................................................................................................................. 35
Solar Thermal Feasibility ...................................................................................................... 35
Solar PV Installation ............................................................................................................. 36
8. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 36
177
4
1. Executive Summary
This report describes the energy and emissions impact of the proposed North Campus Residential
Expansion project at Cornell University. The building layout and how the buildings will be heated
and cooled are described. The emissions impact of the construction process and the operation of
the buildings are calculated in metric tons of CO2 emissions. We also compare the proposed
buildings to alternative heating and cooling options, to local energy and emissions guidelines and
policies, and to well-known energy and sustainability rating systems.
Our analysis concludes that the proposed buildings align nicely with Cornell’s Climate Action
Plan and community climate and energy goals. The buildings alone will use significantly (over
30%) less energy than current code requirements and have less (over 50%) of a greenhouse gas
emissions impact than equivalent buildings built to 2008 code requirements (over 25% better than
current code). The project as a whole will have less (over 40%) of a greenhouse gas emissions
impact than an equivalent project built to 2008 code requirements (and nearly 20% better than
current code).
2. Introduction
Cornell University is undertaking the North Campus Residential Expansion project to increase the
amount of on-campus housing available for first-year and sophomore students. When the project
is complete, Cornell will have the ability to house 100% of its first-year students in appropriate
campus housing and 100% of its sophomores in on-campus or affiliated housing.1
In this report, we describe the proposed buildings; present calculations of the expected emissions
from constructing the project and from the buildings once they are occupied; and discuss the
projected energy consumption of the buildings.
The information in this report is based on schematic design documents and energy modeling
prepared by ikon.5 architects and WSP, the project architect and design engineering firm
respectively. Modeling and design refinements will continue as the project is finalized.
Information from Cornell staff and the following Cornell documents were also used:
• Cornell University Design and Construction Standards, dated 11/16/17.
• The Cornell Climate Action Plan Options for Achieving a Carbon Neutral Campus by
2035, published in September 2016 by Cornell University.
• Cornell Central Energy Plant Fast Facts (2017), published by Cornell University.
1 From: https://scl.cornell.edu/about-us/housing-master-plan/north-campus-residential-expansion
178
5
3. Methodology
The methodology in this report is consistent with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in an Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter “the NYS DEC Guide”). In Section
5 of this report, we describe the greenhouse gas emissions impact, including both direct and
indirect emissions during and after construction. We also estimate the emissions from waste
generation. Post-construction, occupied emissions were calculated using the results of an eQUEST
energy model prepared by WSP and information provided by Cornell and the project team. Section
6 of this report reviews the list of mitigation measures found in the DEC Guide and discusses how
each measure applies to the North Campus Residential Expansion project. Finally, Section 7
presents the inputs and results of the whole-building energy model and describes the proposed
energy conservation measures.
4. Description of Proposed Work
The proposed construction on the North Campus at Cornell University will focus on the creation
of additional housing for first-year and sophomore students. The sophomore site, identified in blue
below, will consist of two buildings that will house approximately 800 students. The first-year
student site, identified in red below, will consist of three buildings that will house approximately
1,200 students.
Figure 1: Proposed Site Locations
179
6
Sophomore Site
The two buildings proposed on the sophomore site will be interconnected by corridors at the
basement level. They will share generous first floor common spaces and amenities, including a
fitness center, dining hall, lounges, study space, bicycle storage facilities, and various other
associated spaces to support residential living (shared kitchens, small lounges, etc.).
Figure 2: Sophomore Site- Isometric Drawing
The sophomore site building area and heights are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Sophomore Site Size and Occupancy
Building Stories (#) Area (GSF)
Building 1 (Housing + Dining Hall) 4 177,504
Building 2 (Housing Only) 5 188,698
Site Total Area (GSF): 366,199
Student Occupancy: 821
180
7
First-Year Student Site
The first-year student site will consist of three separate buildings. Each building will have some
shared common spaces such as lounges, communal pantries and bicycle storage, but there will be
no dining hall.
Figure 3: First-Year Student Site
The first-year student site building area and heights are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: First-Year Site Size and Occupancy
Building Stories (#) Area (GSF)
Building 1 (Housing Only) 3/5 138,189
Building 2 (Housing Only) 6 161,538
Building 3 (Housing Only) 3 101,473
Site Total Area (GSF): 401,200
Student Occupancy: 1,244
Proposed Building Components
Building Envelope
The building envelope for all the buildings in this project will be primarily made of precast
insulated wall panels with a continuous R-value of R-25.5. The panels will have integral colored
concrete and cast-in place terracotta tiles. The roof will have R-49 insulation.
The average proposed window U-value will be 0.27 with a solar heat gain coefficient of 0.25.
Basis of design windows will include:
• Curtain Wall Systems with Low-E glazing with custom extrusions
• Aluminum Windows: Glazed operable window with screen
181
8
Vertical Transportation
Regenerative elevators will be used for residents in each of the buildings. The sophomore site will
have three elevators for residents, and the first-year student site will have six. The sophomore site
will also have two hydraulic service elevators dedicated to serving the dining hall and associated
kitchen.
Mechanical Systems
Heating and Cooling
The Cornell central plant will supply hot water and chilled water to each of the buildings. Heat
exchangers inside the buildings will be used to transfer energy from the campus hot and chilled
water loops to the building loops. Hot water and chilled water consumption will be metered at each
building.
Student residential suites will be served by a four-pipe fan coil system fed by chilled and hot water.
Each residential suite (serving five occupants) will be served by a single fan coil unit. The
residential suites will have operable windows.
The piping to the fan coil units transfers heating and cooling energy more efficiently than forced
air systems that supply heated or cooled air throughout the building via ductwork.
The sophomore site dining hall and associated kitchen will be served with a dedicated air handling
system, which will in turn serve variable air volume terminal units, providing zone level
temperature control.
Social and community spaces in the basement and first floor, such as the lounge and study spaces,
will be served by four-pipe fan coil units. The fitness and laundry areas will be served with
dedicated small air handling units. Electrical and telecom/data rooms will be cooled with outside
air when possible and dedicated chilled water fan coil units when necessary.
Ventilation
In general, ventilation air for residential areas will be provided by energy recovery units, located
in interior mechanical rooms, with supply air ducted to the residential suites. Special exhaust
systems will be required for the dining hall and associated kitchen. These will not include energy
recovery due to the potential for cross contamination from grease in the kitchen exhaust stream.
Dedicated makeup air units will be provided to offset the exhaust from these spaces, and potentially
for spot exhaust implemented at laundry, dishwashing and other miscellaneous portions of the
building.
High occupancy and/or variable occupancy spaces served by variable air volume air-handling
units, such as the dining hall will have carbon dioxide sensors providing demand control
ventilation, which will reduce the amount of outside air provided to the space when there are few
or no occupants.
182
9
The sophomore site will include five energy recovery units to bring in outside ventilation air and
three large air handling units with economizers. The first-year student site will include eight energy
recovery units. Energy recovery units are expected to be 75% effective at design conditions.
Controls
The control system will be an extension of the campus direct digital control (DDC) system. It will
be web-based and remotely accessible. DDC controls will be provided to all HVAC equipment,
including suite fan coil units. This will include alarm points, status and complete communication
and display of all packaged controls. Alarm points will include select lighting, plumbing and
electrical systems. The control system will allow for close control of indoor conditions, reducing
energy waste. It will also enable the building operators to rapidly identify any problems and take
actions to correct them, limiting opportunities for energy intensive malfunctions and increasing
the probability that systems can be repaired rather than replaced.
Monitored systems include:
• Air Handling systems and other major HVAC
• Space controls (occupancy sensor, demand control ventilation, thermostat and humidistat
status, when applicable)
• Building Energy Efficiency Dashboard (power and flow meters, historical energy usage,
heating/cooling/electric and water consumption, networked and publicly available online
for student and academic use)
Electrical Systems
Power
Each building except buildings two and three on the first-year student site will be served by its
own transformer. Buildings two and three on the first-year student site will be served by one
transformer. Power will be provided to each transformer by Cornell’s distribution system, which
provides electricity from various sources as described in Section 5 below. Three-phase power will
be available, and all panelboards will be provided with integral meters to monitor power
consumption.
Power meters are currently planned for all panels and equipment; they will allow the building
operators to determine plug loads, lighting loads and equipment power use.
Emergency Power
Each site will have a dedicated diesel generator. In the event of a power failure, the generators will
automatically start and provide power to emergency egress lighting, elevators and other critical
systems as per the National Electric Code.
Lighting
Lighting in the residential suites will be occupant controlled (no occupancy sensors). Lighting
throughout the rest of the building will be controlled through a combination of manual override
switches, preset control stations, occupancy and vacancy sensors, and a networked timeclock-
based lighting control system. Occupancy controls are expected in corridors, lounges and other
183
10
code required spaces, and overall lighting power use is expected to be 35% less than ASHRAE
90.1 2013 baseline values.
LED light fixtures will be installed, complying with Cornell University Design and Construction
Standards, which require LEDs with a CRI of 80 or more, a color temperature of 3500 K, an
efficacy of 80 lumens/watt, and fixtures that are Design Lights Consortium listed.
Exterior lighting is expected to operate at 50% lower power than a comparable code compliant
building.
Plumbing Systems
Domestic Hot Water
The domestic hot water for each building will be supplied from the central plant via a water-to-
water heat exchanger that produces domestic hot water using a dedicated branch from the campus
hot water loop. Backup systems will be installed for redundancy. Water to the taps will be
temperature controlled with a BMS-enabled mixing valve. Each vertical line of residential suites
will have a riser, and a circulation pump will maintain water temperature at the farthest tap.
The sophomore site dining hall kitchen facilities will have a separate hot water loop that is expected
to have a peak DHW consumption of 2,000 MBH. The separate kitchen service will supply
domestic hot water for dishwashing and other process loads, some of which utilize electric point-
of-use boosting systems to increase the water temperature as needed. The expected domestic hot
water (DHW) loads are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Expected DHW Loads
Site Space Service Peak Load Notes
Sophomore Site Building 1
Dining 2,000 MBH Gas meter and supply chain for
dining hall kitchen appliances
will be sized to accommodate
4,000 MBH. Residence 2,250 MBH
Building 2 Residence 3,250 MBH
First-Year
Student Site
Building 1 Residence 2,500 MBH
Building 2 Residence 2,650 MBH
Building 3 Residence 2,350 MBH
Natural Gas
A new natural gas service will be installed to serve the dining hall kitchen cooking appliances in
Building 1 on the sophomore site. The peak load is anticipated to be 4,000 MBH. Natural gas is
typically used in commercial food preparation2 as it provides the client with the ability to prepare
the widest possibility of cuisines for a diverse population over the lifespan of the facility.
2 Note that it is generally accepted that commercial kitchens require gas. For example, the Ithaca Green Building
Policy Final Project Report proposes that the Green Building Policy include a provision for requiring new buildings
to be free of fossil fuels starting in 2030. However, "the fossil‐fuel‐free requirement will allow exceptions for
commercial cooking and industrial applications for which no electric options are available, such as emergency
generators." (Section 2.14.4)
184
11
Kitchen Equipment
Kitchen equipment in both the dining hall kitchen and the residential kitchenettes will be Energy
Star® rated and is expected to save 20% more energy than non-Energy Star® rated kitchen
equipment.
5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
The following emissions information was prepared by following the NYS DEC Guide and using
the results from the energy model of the new buildings, which was developed using eQUEST 3.65
energy modeling software.
The greenhouse gas emissions have been calculated for this project and are shown in metric tons
(MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). One metric ton equals 1,000 kilograms. Emissions are
generated as a building is constructed. However, over the life of the building, the operation and
maintenance required generates significantly more emissions. We present calculations of both the
construction and the operation emissions in this section.
Construction Emissions
Constructing the buildings will produce a one-time release of greenhouse gas emissions. Table 4
provides an estimate of how much emissions would be created during construction. This includes
the energy that goes into preparing the site and putting up the buildings, and also accounts for the
projected vehicle miles of the construction workers to get to the site from their residences. The
electrical usage calculations include the emissions from the Cornell Central plant, which is
expected to provide power to the contractors during construction.
185
12
Table 4: Emissions During Construction
Category
GHG
Emissions3 Notes
Direct Emissions
from Stationary
Sources
N/A No stationary emitting sources are planned on the site during
construction
Direct Emissions
from Non-Stationary
Sources
1,299 MT
CO2e
Emissions based on reported construction equipment use
Excludes energy embodied in construction materials4
Indirect Emissions
from Stationary
Sources
4,612 MT
CO2e
Electricity Usage during construction. Roughly 25% of the
direct construction activities GHG emissions are from on-site
construction vehicles and other equipment/activities. The
remaining 75% is attributed to on-site electrical use5
Indirect Emissions
from Mobile Sources
2,678 MT
CO2e Vehicle miles of contractors
Methane Emissions from Landfills Not Applicable
Estimated Emissions
from Waste
Generation
179 MT
CO2e
Emissions from the demolition of the Sigma Alpha Mu
fraternity.
Total 8,768 MT
CO2e
See Table 7 below for more details and descriptions of what each category encompasses.
Embodied energy within the materials used to construct the buildings is expected to generate
roughly 10,800 equivalent tons of CO2e emissions, and transportation of the non-locally sourced
materials will contribute another estimated 25 equivalent tons of CO2e emissions.
Proposed Cornell Housing Emissions
For the Cornell North Campus Expansion project, the proposed construction would generate a one-
time release of 4.25 MT CO2e per student bed.
Operating Emissions
Once the buildings are occupied, emissions will continue to be generated each year. Table 5
compares the annual emissions from the operation of equivalently sized and functioning buildings
designed to meet minimum code requirements and the proposed North Campus Residential
buildings. This table includes the energy that will be used to heat and cool the buildings, the energy
that will be used maintain the complex (fleet vehicles, etc.), and the emissions that will be
generated by handling the waste that is created by the occupants. It also includes the emissions
3 Greenhouse gas emissions are presented in CO2e = CO2 equivalent, or the combined effects of various emissions, presented as an equivalent
number of metric tons of CO2
4 Primary data source for hourly GHG emissions of various construction vehicles:
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/cdd/energy.Par.84463.File.dat/Lucerne_Valley-Appn-B-Emission-Calculations.pdf
Check sum calculations based off distribution of emissions for various construction activities as compared with embodied energy and CO2 of
construction materials per:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277896062_Greenhouse_gas_emissions_during_the_construction_phase_of_a_building_A_case_study
_in_China and applied to rough estimates of construction, including embodied energy as determined via
http://buildcarbonneutral.org/calculated.php
5https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277896062_Greenhouse_gas_emissions_during_the_construction_phase_of_a_building_A_case_study
_in_China First corrected based on national emissions factors, and then adjusted to reflect emissions produced by the Cornell central plant for an
equivalent amount of electric power. No credit was taken for excess waste heat generated by the central plant while supplying construction
electric demands.
186
13
that will be generated by vehicle travel and additional public transit need to meet the commuting
requirements of the occupants.
Table 5: Annual Operating Emissions
Category
GHG Emissions
Notes
Baseline
(MT
CO2e/yr)
Proposed
(MT
CO2e/yr)
Improve-
ment
(%)
Direct Emissions
from Stationary
Sources
-3.436 -9.83 286.6%
Includes natural gas consumption by
on-site process loads, excludes
consumption by the central plant.
Negative number is due to avoided
emissions from demolished building
that was on the grid
Direct Emissions
from Non-
Stationary
Sources:
7.9 7.9 0% Maintenance, fleet vehicles
Indirect
Emissions from
Stationary
Sources
2,765.86 2,048.7 25.9%
Electric and natural gas emissions
based on energy consumption of new
buildings, provided by the central
plant (95%) and electric grid (5%).
Includes avoided emissions from
demolished building that was on the
grid
Indirect
Emissions from
Mobile Sources
357.3 357.3 0% Commuter and public transit
emissions7
Methane
Emissions from
Landfills
Not Applicable
Estimating
Emissions from
Waste Generation
520 520 0% Waste, recycling, composting8
Totals
3,647.6 MT
CO2e per
year
2,924.1 MT
CO2e per
year
19.8%
See Table 7 below for more details and descriptions of what each category encompasses.
6 Baseline stationary energy consumption is based on the site baseline consumption used in the design consultant’s energy model (ASHRAE
90.1-2013).
7 Assumes two buses will be added to current North Campus routes when school is in session, one bus during out of session periods. Usage is
based on diesel buses at the reported average fleet MPG efficiency (source: https://www.tcatbus.com/content/uploads/2015/06/Download-2014-
PDF.pdf)
8 Based on 2013 US discarded and recovered materials in US Municipal Waste Stream (source: https://edg.epa.gov/data/Public/OSWER/ORCR )
and Proposed Site data provided by Cornell anticipating tons of waste and recycling for the new buildings.
187
14
Furthering Local Climate Action Plan Goals
The 2015 Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan has a target of reducing the 2008 Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) emission levels by 20% by 2020 and a minimum of 80% by 2050. To understand if
the buildings in this project will help Tompkins County reach its GHG reduction goals, we
compared the emissions from the proposed buildings to the emissions that would be generated if
equivalently-sized buildings were built to the 2008 code minimum. The baseline used in the energy
model is compliant with ASHRAE 90.1-2013, so we applied a conversion factor to calculate the
ASHRAE 90.1-2008 baseline consumption, as shown in Table 6. Note that only the emissions
that come from energy consumption needed to be converted to the 2008 baseline. Emissions like
those from commuting and waste generation were not converted since changes in the code do not
affect them.
Table 6: Annual Emission from Buildings and other Sources (2008 Code)
Category
GHG Emissions (MT CO2e per year) Notes
2013
Baseline
2008
Baseline Proposed Improvement
Building
Emissions 2,762.4 4,316.3 2,038.9 26.2% (2013)
52.8% (2008)
Emissions from
operating the
buildings
All other
Emissions 885.2 885.2 885.2 0%
Commuter, waste,
all mobile
emissions
Total 5,201.5 2,924.1 43.8%
The emissions from this project are 43.8% lower than if it was built to 2008 code, more than double
the 2020 goal of a 20% reduction. Cornell reported campus energy emissions of 214,000 metric
tons of CO2e annually as of 2016; the GHG savings from this site decrease the overall campus
emissions by approximately 1%.
Cornell reports that as of 2016 they have reduced emissions by more than 30% over 2008 levels 9.
This is consistent with their goal to achieve 80% GHG emission reductions by 2050. Cornell is
aggressively pursuing improvements to the central energy system, including via the deep earth
energy project and other future solutions. The buildings in this project are planned for
compatibility with various future central plant upgrades and any improvement made to the central
plant will instantly reduce campus-wide emissions.
9 http://www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/initiatives/climate-action-plan
188
15
Supporting Information on the Emissions Calculations
Information on each of the categories shown in Table 4 and Table 5 are presented in Table 7.
Table 7: Emissions Notes and Explanation of Categories
Category Explanation/Discussion
Direct Emissions from
Stationary Sources
Direct Emissions from Stationary Sources result from combustion of fossil fuels for heat, hot
water, steam generation, on-site generation of electricity, or industrial processes. This category can
include (but is not limited to) boilers, heaters, furnaces etc.
The occupancy phase results for the proposed and baseline sites are negative, since they are both
served by the Cornell central plant (which is considered an indirect emission source) but replace an
existing fraternity, which was served with local natural gas (thus resulting in a net reduction in
direct stationary emissions as the avoided emissions from the demolished fraternity are no longer
being produced).
Direct Emissions from
Non-Stationary Sources
Direct Emissions from Non-Stationary Sources includes fleet vehicles owned and operated by the
project owner and associated with the project. Fleet vehicles should be widely defined to include
freight trucks, delivery trucks, on-site mobile equipment such as fork lifts, tractors, maintenance and
security vehicles and other non-stationary equipment used on-site whose operation involves
combustion of carbon containing fuels.
Amounts exclude embodied energy in construction materials
Direct emissions from non-stationary sources during construction were determined by applying
known typical GHG/hr emission factors for anticipated construction tasks and equipment (dump
trucks, front end loaders, excavators, dozers, forklifts, backhoes, crane and worker transportation
over the anticipated construction duration.
Emissions factors for all anticipated construction vehicles were sourced from a report10 on a
construction project with activities for which emissions had been collected and contained tabulated
into hourly emissions factors for each general category of equipment11, as well as into more detailed
sub-groupings (such as by equipment horsepower). When unspecified the composite emissions
factor for a piece of equipment was used for the analysis.
Duration of use (days), hours of use per day and number of vehicles of each type on site were as
reported by the contractor, or when unspecified, based on engineering judgement and typical
operating practice applied to the anticipated construction schedule for the project.
10 http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/cdd/energy.Par.84463.File.dat/Lucerne_Valley-Appn-B-Emission-Calculations.pdf
11 Primary data source for hourly GHG emissions of various construction vehicles:
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/cdd/energy.Par.84463.File.dat/Lucerne_Valley-Appn-B-Emission-Calculations.pdf . Check sum
calculations based off distribution of emissions for various construction activities as compared with embodied energy and CO2 of construction
materials per:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277896062_Greenhouse_gas_emissions_during_the_construction_phase_of_a_building_A_cas e_study
_in_China and applied to rough estimates of construction, including embodied energy as determined via material inventory and checked (order of
magnitude accuracy) with http://buildcarbonneutral.org/calculated.php
189
16
Category Explanation/Discussion
Indirect Emissions from
Stationary Sources
Indirect Emissions from Stationary Sources should include emissions generated by off-site
energy plants supplying energy used on the site of the proposed project during its operation, such as
the off-site production of electricity, heating, or cooling which will be used on-site. Most often this
is electricity purchased through a utility, however for this project it includes energy produced by the
Cornell Central Plant which provides most of the projects electric and heating needs.
An emissions credit is included in this calculation to account for the avoided emissions eliminated
by the demolition of a fraternity located on the project site. This credit is applied equally to the
proposed and baseline usage, and is based off the average of the last two years of energy
consumption by the fraternity in question.
Construction phase electric emissions would include sources such as temporary HVAC (fans,
pumps, space heating systems), construction and security lighting, equipment charging and use
(including larger electrically powered equipment such as battery powered scissor lifts or
compressors).
On-site construction emissions can be roughly split between direct emissions from non-stationary
sources (i.e. Fuel burning construction equipment) and indirect emissions from stationary sources
(on-site electric use). Although unique for every project, a rough disaggregation of 75% from on-
site electric and 25% from construction vehicle emissions can be projected for this project based on
a reported break down of emissions by source recorded on a similar project12. Extrapolating from
the previously calculated direct emissions from non-stationary sources, we can use this 75:25 split
to calculate our anticipated on-site electrical use during construction. These emissions are then
converted back to electric use (using US National average electric grid emissions rates) and the
emissions necessary for the Cornell central plant to generate an equivalent amount of power
calculated.
Indirect Emissions from
Mobile Sources
Indirect Emissions from Mobile Sources include trips generated by vehicles that are associated
with the proposed project but are not owned and operated by the project developer or owner. For
construction emissions, this includes the commuting of construction workers to and from the site.
For annual emissions, this would include trips of commuting employees, residents,
suppliers/vendors, and customers/users of the project as well as the transportation of waste
generated at the site. These were calculated based on CO2e emissions per gallon of gasoline,
estimated or know distances traveled, and average mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency of different
vehicle classes provided by the EPA (22 MPG for typical passenger vehicles) and The Alternative
Fuels Data Center13
Additionally, the impact of increased public transit use on North Campus was evaluated.
Discussions with Matthew Yarrow, Service Development Manager for TCAT determined that
approximately two buses would need to be added to North Campus routes and operated from 7am-
12pm, and 7am-2am respectively to meet the increased demand during the school semester. A
single additional bus, running from 7am-1am (the average of the two run schedules) was assumed
during off-semester operation. The baseline assumptions are that the two buses would be operating
on diesel, at 3.81 MPG (per TCAT fleet average for diesel).
The construction stage indirect emissions from mobile sources as calculated here are directly
attributable to worker transportation. We assumed that local workers would make up the majority of
on-site personnel and that there would be an average of 140 workers per weekday. Workers are
anticipated to be drawn from companies based within 2 hours of the site with an estimated average
daily round trip commute of 1 hour. The average commute and number of workers were converted
to miles, at an average commute speed of 45 MPH, to determine total vehicle miles traveled for all
commuting worker each day. This was applied to weekdays during the construction period and
multiplied by the EPA emission factor of 368.4 grams CO2 per mile traveled.
Methane Emissions from
Landfills Methane emissions from landfills does not apply to this site.
12https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277896062_Greenhouse_gas_emissions_during_the_construction_phase_of_a_building_A_cas e_stud
y_in_China
13 https://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10310
190
17
Category Explanation/Discussion
Estimating Emissions
from Waste Generation
Estimating Emissions from Waste Generation applies to all types of proposed projects that will
generate waste. Emissions from waste generation are considered to be indirect GHG emissions.
Waste and recycling emissions during the occupancy phase are based on rough ton/week
information on each provided by Cornell, which was then disaggregated into various material
categories, based on 2013 US discarded and recovered materials in US Municipal Waste Stream
(source: https://edg.epa.gov/data/Public/OSWER/ORCR ). The resulting quantities of each material
were entered into the EPA’s WARM tool (v14)14
Construction waste emissions include materials removed as part of Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity
demolition and parking lot reclamations. Materials from the Sigma Alpha Mu fraternity were
estimated by Daniel Traina of Welliver at 400 tons total, with a 50% rate of recycling and
designation of building materials to various general construction material categories by weight per
Taitem best engineering judgement. Construction waste and recycled materials from the non-
building demolition activities were provided as an estimate in tons, by general material category by
the project team. Waste emissions for these construction materials were calculated using the EPA’s
WARM tool (v14).
Assumptions Used for Calculation of Emissions from Energy Consumption
Cornell uses a unique mix of on-site cogeneration, central heating, hydro power, rooftop solar,
Lake Source Cooling, grid electricity and offsite renewables. Although the emissions impact of
the energy consumption of the proposed buildings will vary as the amount of grid electricity used
varies, our calculations assume that the mix of energy sources will continue as they have been in
recent history.
To calculate the annual operating emissions of the buildings in this project, the annual building
energy consumption from the development team’s energy model was used. For each type of energy
used in the project (chilled water, steam, electricity), efficiency and distribution loss factors were
applied to calculate how much natural gas was used by the central plant to generate the energy
used in the buildings, and how much was supplied by other sources such as the regional electric
grid. Finally, an emissions factor was applied to estimate the emissions emitted per unit of energy
consumed from each source.
14 The Waste Reduction Model (WARM) was created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to help solid waste planners and
organizations estimate GHG emission reductions from several different waste management practices as shown here:
http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/warm/SWMGHGreport.html
191
18
Electric Assumptions
• The cogeneration plant will supply 95% of the electricity used by the proposed buildings.
• The cogeneration plant has an electrical efficiency of 31.5%15 and an emissions factor of
0.000573 metric tons of CO2e per kWh.
• The regional power grid will supply 5% of the electricity used in the proposed buildings,
as well as 100% of the electricity needed to drive the Lake Source Cooling.
• The regional power grid has an emissions factor of 0.000134 metric tons of CO2e per kWh
for Upstate New York16. Grid transmission losses are 4.5%.
• The chilled water needs are primarily met by the Lake Source Cooling system. The
supplemental chillers (used only during periods of peak load) and pumps associated with
this cooling system are included in the efficiency rate of 0.147 kW/ton.
• The amount of excess electricity sold back to the grid remains constant at its current levels
in both the baseline and proposed.
• Natural gas consumption by the Cornell central plant will increase as needed to meet the
electric needs of the proposed and baseline buildings, (in practice Cornell may choose to
sell less electricity and keep the natural gas consumption steady).
Non-Electric (Heating, Cooling, Steam) Assumptions
• The district chilled water system, which includes Lake Source Cooling, has a Coefficient
of Performance (COP) of 23.9. The electricity used for Lake Source Cooling is supplied
by the electrical grid.
• Space heating and domestic hot water is supplied by the central steam plant on campus;
steam is converted to hot water and circulated through the buildings.
• The central steam plant runs on natural gas. Natural gas has an emissions factor of 0.0053
metric tons of CO2 per therm17.
• 81% of the steam used for heat and hot water in the buildings is provided by the waste heat
from the cogeneration process. No emissions were added for this heat or gas consumption
because the emissions are accounted for in the production of the electricity. The electricity
generation that generates this waste heat consumes 90.3% of the natural gas used by central
plant15.
• The duct burners burn gas at an annual efficiency of 97% by utilizing waste heat from the
turbine generators. They supply 16% of the steam needed by the site, meeting most of the
steam needs that are not supplied by the cogeneration electrical generation process, while
consuming just 7.7% of the gas consumed by the central plant15.
• The remaining steam use (4%) is provided by dedicated heating boilers which have an
efficiency of 85% and are used primarily during periods of peak demand15.
• Distribution losses of the district steam system are currently 22%15. These losses are
calculated for the new steam required, before accounting for steam generating efficiencies.
15 As per 2017 Cornell Fast Facts data sheet and information provided by Cornell facilities staff.
https://energyandsustainability.fs.cornell.edu/em/fastfacts/default.cfm
16 Emissions factors for the grid electricity production are based on 2016 regional (Upstate NY) data used by the EPA, sourced from the
Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID), which is a comprehensive source of data on the environmental characteristics of
the power generated in many regions of the US. The particular rate used is the eGRID subregional annual CO2 equivalent total output emission
rate, provided as 295.942 lbs CO2/MWh. Marginal emissions factors are much higher, but the total (average) emissions factor is used in this
report, as described in the NYS DEC Guide .
17 Per EPA Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator support pages: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-
calculations-and-references
192
19
6. Mitigation Measures
The following sections describe measures that can reduce energy consumption, demand, and
greenhouse gas emissions in new facilities. The list of measures is drawn from pages 12-14 of the
Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an Environmental Impact
Statement that is published by the New York State Department of Environmental Consideration.
Not all of these measures will be practicable or feasible for all proposed projects. Instead, the listed
measures are a menu of possible options, and are not intended to be exclusive. After each measure
is a description of how these measures are being implemented for Cornell’s North Campus
Residential Expansion project.
The following lists are based on information provided by the project team and Cornell.
Building Design and Operation Measures
1. Design an energy efficient building envelope to reduce cooling/heating requirements
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Included in design, contributes approximately 8% or more to the overall 30% savings
compared to code baseline.
2. Install high-efficiency HVAC systems
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Four-pipe fan coils using low-temperature hot water and chilled water from the
campus central plant are planned. Ventilation is provided by Energy Recovery Ventilators (ERVs).
More details in description in earlier section of report.
3. Construct green roofs
Status: Not incorporated.
Discussion: Not planned for this project. This strategy would not significantly impact energy use
in our climate.
4. Eliminate or reduce use of refrigerants in HVAC systems
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Cooling will be provided by Cornell’s District Energy System, which uses refrigerant-
free Lake Source Cooling to significantly reduce the use of refrigerant based chillers.
5. Use high-albedo roofing materials
Status: Not incorporated.
Discussion: Not planned for this project. This strategy would not significantly impact energy use
in our climate.
6. Maximize interior daylighting
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Perimeter spaces (not including dormitories) will have photocell controls for daylight
harvesting.
7. Reduce energy demand using peak shaving or load shifting strategies
Status: Incorporated on a campus-wide basis.
Discussion: The Cornell District Energy System incorporates peak shaving and load shifting on a
campus-wide basis. Strategies include the use of Lake Source Cooling w hich substantially
eliminates summer peaks and chilled water storage. Other load -shifting strategies are being
considered. Existing campus wide initiatives are not included in our emissions calculations for this
project.
8. Incorporate window glazing to optimize daylighting, heat loss and solar heat gain
Status: Incorporated.
193
20
Discussion: A balance between increasing heat requirements and providing daylighting so that
lights can be turned off during the day will be sought. LEED V4 Daylighting credit being sought.
9. Incorporate super insulation to minimize heat loss
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Insulation levels will be above code requirements. R-49 roof insulation is used instead
of code-required R-30, and the proposed walls have R-values of 25.5 versus the combined R-15.2
required by code.
10. Incorporate motion sensors and lighting and climate control
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: LEED V4 Thermal Comfort credit being considered. Lighting controls being installed
in many of the common spaces. Each suite will have its own thermostat.
11. Use efficient, directed exterior lighting
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: LEED V4 Light Pollution Reduction credit is being pursued.
12. Use water conserving fixtures that exceed building code requirements
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: LEED V4 water use reduction prerequisites pursued, additional indoor and outdoor
water use reductions to reach 30% savings are planned.
13. Re-use gray water and/or collect and re-use rainwater
Status: Not incorporated.
Discussion: Although a formal gray water or rain water program is not included in the project,
LEED V4 Water Use Reduction credits will be pursued, no permanent irrigation is included in the
project and roof and surface runoff will be directed to stormwater bio-retention basins to the extent
practical.
14. Provide for storage and collection of recyclables (including paper, corrugated cardboard, glass,
plastic and metals) in building design
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Cornell maintains a comprehensive recycling and waste reduction program for the
campus. Collection of recyclables is planned for, and trash/compost/recyclable collection facilities
are included in the design.
15. Re-use building materials and products
Status: As Feasible.
Discussion: Some equipment will be reused from the existing dining facility. Furnishings and
appliances from Sigma Alpha Mu may be salvaged.
16. Use building materials with recycled content
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: LEED V4 material sourcing credits being considered. Steel, Concrete, Precast,
Aluminum, Carpet and Ground Concrete all expected to contain recycled content.
17. Use building materials that are extracted and/or manufactured within the region
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: LEED V4 material sourcing credits being considered. The exterior building wall
panels will be manufactured approximately 325 miles away. Other materials will be locally
sourced as much as practicable.
18. Use rapidly renewable building materials
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: The project will use bamboo flooring in faculty-in-residence and residence hall
director apartments.
194
21
19. Use wood that is locally produced and/or certified in accordance with the Sustainable Forestry
Initiative or the Forestry Stewardship Council's Principles and Criteria
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: LEED V4 material sourcing credits being considered. Project team plans to use locally
produced and/or certified wood in accordance with the Sustainable Forestry Initiative or the
Forestry Stewardship Council’s Principles and Criteria.
20. Conduct 3rd party building commissioning to ensure energy performance (e.g. LEED)
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: This project will pursue commissioning credits through LEED V4, which will include
3rd Party commissioning.
21. Track energy performance of building and develop strategy to maintain efficiency
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Building energy use will be tracked by Cornell energy managers and will also be
publicly available online for student and academic use.
22. Provide construction and design guidelines to facilitate sustainable design for build-out by
tenants
Status: Not applicable.
Efficiency or Mitigation Measures for On-site GHG Sources
1. Use energy efficient boilers, heaters, furnaces, incinerators, or generators
Status: Incorporated system wide.
Discussion: Although not within the project boundaries, the central plant will be used; the
cogeneration of steam and electricity makes the plant efficient.
2. Use process design efficiency for industrial process sources
Status: Not applicable.
3. Incorporate co-firing of biomass or use of bio-fuels
Status: Not applicable.
4. Collect biogas and use for power generation
Status: Not applicable.
5. Use biodiesel or bioheat for heating fuel or in vehicles/equipment
Status: Not Incorporated.
Discussion: The NCRE project will not directly incorporate bioheat since buildings are connected
to the district energy systems for heating and the central plant does not currently utilize liquid fuels
except for emergency use. Similarly, Cornell maintains a diverse auto fleet that inc ludes electric
and hybrid vehicles, but does not generally dedicate individual vehicles for specific residential
facilities, nor does the fleet include diesel vehicles that could use biodiesel. Integration of
bioenergy into the campus heating loop has been proposed as part of the Hybrid Earth Source Heat
project scope, but that project is still in the planning stage. Similarly, biodiesel has been
periodically blended for use in vehicles by Farm Services, but we are not aware of any active
commitment to such future use and this practice is not connected to the NCRE project.
6. Incorporate on-site renewable energy sources into project, such as wind or solar
Status: Incorporated on a system-wide basis.
Discussion: Hydro power and rooftop solar are already part of Cornell’s campus electrical system.
Cornell also supports offsite photovoltaic. Existing campus wide initiatives are not included in our
emissions calculations for this project.
195
22
7. Incorporate combined heat and power (CHP) technologies
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Existing cogeneration plant expected to provide central heating and electricity to new
buildings
8. Pursue carbon collection, capture, and reuse or sequestration
Status: Not Incorporated.
Discussion: Since Cornell centrally produces heat and electricity, there are no opportunities for
any significant carbon capture or sequestration directly associated with the project. There have
been several academic studies of the potential for sequestration at the central plant. Specifically,
Cornell scientists and engineers have explored central plant options but have not identified any
proven, cost-effective solutions to date. Through our academic leadership Cornell will continue to
evaluate potentially viable sequestration solutions which might be pr oposed
Site Selection and Design Measures
1. Provide access to public transportation
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: The Site is served by several TCAT routes.
2. Minimize energy use through building orientation
Status: Not applicable for this project.
Discussion: Site orientation defined by space limitations, although the design of window
overhangs and other solar-related building features do consider orientation and will be refined as
the project continues.
3. Select brownfields or greyfields for redevelopment to minimize vegetation/forest loss
Status: Not applicable
4. Incorporate mixed-use design to promote short commutes for employment and shopping
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Residence halls, dining halls, fitness, small stores, postal services and café located in
same general area.
5. Provide permanent protection for open space on the project site
Status: Not applicable.
6. Manage forested areas for carbon sequestration
Status: Not applicable.
Discussion: No forested spaces on existing site.
7. Select site with potential for carbon sequestration (for large CO2 generators)
Status: Not Incorporated.
Discussion: Site must be on existing Cornell campus
8. Conserve and restore natural areas on-site
Status: Not Applicable.
Discussion: No existing natural areas on proposed site.
9. Minimize building footprint
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Efficient use is made of the available land considering zoning regulations,
programmatic needs and aesthetic considerations.
10. Design project to support alternative transportation (walking and bicycling)
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Project is intended to be pedestrian and bicycle oriented.
196
23
11. Use low impact development for stormwater design
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: There will be no increase in impervious surface area on sophomore site; first-year
student site increases impervious areas. The project will incorporate treatment systems to comply
with New York State standards for stormwater management.
12. Design water efficient landscaping
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: No permanent irrigation is anticipated.
Transportation Measures
1. Locate new buildings in or near areas designated for transit-oriented development (TOD)
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: The site is served by several TCAT routes. Route alterations and expansion are
anticipated, particularly to the 81 route.
2. Incorporate TOD principles in employee and customer activity patterns
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Transportation Demand Management programs reduce the need for personal vehicle
usage and ownership, and can reduce the need for surplus parking supply on campus.
3. Purchase alternative fuel and/or fuel efficient vehicles for fleet, including the range of maintenance
and operation vehicles used on-site.
Status: Incorporated campus wide.
Discussion: Cornell already includes alternative-fuel vehicles in its fleet and will continue that
practice. Existing campus wide initiatives are not included in our emissions calculations for this
project.
4. Incorporate idling reduction policies
Status: Incorporated
Discussion: “No Idling” signage will be posted in delivery/service areas.
5. Join or form a Transportation Management Association
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Cornell TDM Program – Continue to advance the goals and strategies outlined in the
June 2008 Cornell University Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies report. Transportation
Demand Management provides other methods to reduce the number of vehicles on the roadway
including carpooling, bike share, car share, ride sharing, and more. Cornell joined with the City of
Ithaca and Tompkins County in forming and operating TCAT.
6. Provide new transit service or support extension/expansion of existing transit (buses, trains,
shuttles, water transportation)
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: TCAT officials were contacted to discuss the capacity of the system at the site. Route
alterations and expansion are anticipated, particularly to the 81 route.
7. Support expansion of parking at Park-n-Ride Lots and/or transit stations
Status: Not Applicable.
8. Develop or support multi-use paths to and through site
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Active Transportation, which includes walking, bicycling and transit, will be
promoted, especially due to the close proximity of Cornell University. LEED Walkable project site
innovation credit being investigated.
197
24
9. Size parking capacity to meet, but not exceed, local parking requirements and, where possible, seek
reductions in parking supply through special permits or waivers
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Parking is being reduced by 396 parking spaces in this project. Alternative
transportation modes reduce the need for personal vehicle usage and ownership, and can reduce
the need for surplus parking supply.
10. Pursue opportunities to minimize parking supply through shared or banked parking
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Cornell has a parking management program for the campus
11. Develop a parking management program to minimize parking requirements such as parking cash -
out, parking charges, preferential carpool or vanpool parki ng, limiting parking available to
employees
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Cornell has a parking management program for the campus
12. Develop and implement a marketing/information program that includes posting and distribution of
ride sharing transit information
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Transit Coordination – Continued coordination with TCAT on transit ridership and
marketing for the nearby routes will boost ridership through increased awareness coupled with
improved service. Transportation Alternatives Information – Bus schedules, walking and bicycling
maps, neighborhood and on-site wayfinding will be made readily available.
13. Subsidize transit passes
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: See the following link posted on Cornell University’s website regarding
transportation for students using transit:
https://transportation.fs.cornell.edu/commuting/busservices/students.cfm
14. Provide for the use of pre-tax dollars for non-single occupancy vehicle commuting costs
Status: Not Applicable.
15. Reduce employee trips during peak periods through alternative work schedules, telecommuting
and/or flex-time
Status: Incorporated campus wide.
Discussion: Cornell University provides flexible work arrangements for staff campus-wide as
described in Policy 6.6.13: Flexibility in the Workplace (source:
https://www.dfa.cornell.edu/policy/policies/flexibility-workplace). Existing campus wide
initiatives are not included in our emissions calculations for this project.
16. Provide a guaranteed ride home program
Status: Incorporated campus wide (during business hours).
Discussion: Cornell University provides “emergency ride” services to encourage all employees to
leave their personal vehicles at home and take part in transportation demand reduction programs
(source: https://fcs.cornell.edu/content/support). Existing campus wide initiatives are not included
in our emissions calculations for this project.
17. Provide on-site amenities such as banks, dry cleaning, food service, childcare
Status: Included in project.
Discussion: Site is on campus, and already includes dining halls, childcare (for staff) and laundry
facilities in the residence halls.
18. Provide bicycle storage and showers/changing rooms
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Indoor and outdoor bicycle storage will be provided on-site in safe, convenient and
well-lit areas. Showers will be available in residence halls.
198
25
19. Roadway improvements to improve traffic flow
Status: Not Applicable.
Discussion: Traffic study indicates no significant impact to public roadways and no roadway
improvements are part of the project.
20. Traffic signalization and coordination to improve traffic flow and support pedestrian and bicycle
safety
Status: Not Applicable.
Discussion: No signalized intersections exist within the project. Existing traffic flow is targeted
towards pedestrian and bicycle transportation.
Waste Reduction or Management Measures
1. For landfills, recover organics from waste streams, enhance landfill gas collection, use flaring, or
use landfill gas for energy production
Status: Not Applicable
Discussion: Cornell owns and operates its own composting program that includes dining hall food
wastes.
2. Utilize composting
Status: Incorporated
Discussion: Cornell owns and operates its own composting program that includes dining hall food
wastes.
3. Promote and facilitate recycling
Status: Incorporated
Discussion: The project will emphasize reuse and recycling as part of Cornell’s campus-wide
waste reduction program.
4. Incorporate internal environmental accounting practices to promote waste reduction
Status: Incorporated.
Discussion: Cornell reports publicly on waste reduction metrics. This project is also expected to
pursue construction waste management strategies.
7. Energy Use and Conservation
Introduction
To estimate the annual energy use and emissions of the Project, an ener gy model was developed
by WSP, the design engineer on this project. In this section of the report, we present the results
from the WSP energy model, including a discussion of each Energy Conservation Measure that
was included. Then we compare this project with the requirements for LEED for New
Construction, Passive House certification, the upcoming Ithaca Green Building Code, and the
Tompkins County Energy Recommendations for New Construction. Finally, we discuss the
results of the analysis for implementing renewable energy on this project.
Energy Analysis
The energy consumption of the buildings in this project was modeled using eQuest DOE-2
software, a standard in the industry. eQuest version 3.65 was used to establish baseline energy use
and to determine energy and demand savings for a package of Energy Conservation Measures.
This advanced program allows the modeler to enter key characteristics of the project, including
the building shell construction type, internal gains, mechanical and electrical systems, and
199
26
operating schedules. The interactions between the different building loads and thermal systems are
then simulated in hourly time intervals using typical long-term average weather data18 to provide
a detailed estimate of energy consumption and demand. Please note that the algorithm behind the
DOE 2.2 engine is not available, so we cannot provide the calculations.
The baseline calculation of building energy consumption was modeled based on the schematic
design. Refinements will continue through the design process to document compliance with the
current NYS Energy Conservation Construction Code. To calculate the energy use reduction that
can be achieved using energy conservation measures (ECMs), each ECM was modeled and the
interactive savings from all ECMs was calculated.
The following table summarizes the energy performance and related parameters that used in the
baseline and proposed models.
Table 8: Model Assumptions
ASHRAE 90.1-2013 Baseline Proposed Design
Building Envelope (Construction Assemblies)
Roofs
R-30 continuous insulation above
deck (U-0.048)
Reflectance = 0.3
R-49 continuous insulation above
deck (U-0.020)
Reflectance = 0.3
Walls
Steel Framed with R-13 insulation
between studs and R-7.5 continuous
(U-0.064 overall)
Insulated Precast wall panels with
R-25.5 (U-0.039)
Fenestration and Shading
Window-to-Wall Ratio
Site 1: (Sophomore Site)
Building 1: 39.3 %
Building 2: 39.3%
Site 2: (First-Year Site)
Building 1: 32.4% glazing
Building 2: 37% glazing
Building 3: 31.5% glazing
Vertical Glazing U-factor U-0.45 U-0.27 (glass+curtainwall)
Vertical Glazing SHGC 0.4 0.25
HVAC (Air-side)
Primary HVAC Type
(All spaces except for
guest rooms
Dorm Units = 4-pipe Fan Coil Units
with HW and CHW
Common Areas = 4-pipe variable
air volume system with reheat;
system per floor
Dorm Units = 4-pipe fan coil units
with EC motors; ventilation via
energy recovery units
Dining and Common Areas: 4-pipe
variable air volume units with hot
water reheat
Fan System Operation
All systems on continuously during
occupied hours and cycled to meet
load during unoccupied hours.
Energy recovery units on
continuously. Fan coil units cycled
to meet load.
Total System Fan Power
(Conditioned) Per ASHRAE 90.1-2013 G3.1.2.9 Per ASHRAE 90.1-2013 G3.1.2.9
FCUs equipped with EC Motors
18 The Binghamton, NY Edwin Airport – TMY3 (Typical Meteorological Year) weather file was used in the energy model for
this project.
200
27
ASHRAE 90.1-2013 Baseline Proposed Design
Energy Recovery Ventilator
Effectiveness 50% Effective 75% Effective
Domestic Water Heating
DHW Flow Standard Flow Hot Water Fixtures Low Flow Hot Water Fixtures
(Assumes 30% savings)
Lighting
Interior Lighting Power
Density by Building Area
(watts/square foot)
Dorm Units = 0.38 w/sf
Dining = 0.65 w/sf
Office = 1.11 w/sf
Mech/elec = 0.42 w/sf
Dining hall kitchen = 1.21 w/sf
Corridor = 0.66 w/sf
Lobby = 0.9 w/sf
30% reduction from ASHRAE:
Dorm Units = 0.27 w/sf
Dining = 0.46 w/sf
Office = 0.78 w/sf
Mech/elec = 0.40 w/sf
Dining hall kitchen = 1.21 w/sf
Corridor = 0.85 w/sf
Lobby = 0.63 w/sf
Lighting Control Sensors
Occupancy sensors only where
required by code. (Not required in
corridors and lobby)
Occupancy sensors in corridors and
lounges in addition to all code-
required spaces. (Additional 5%
savings claimed for lighting
controls.)
Miscellaneous
Receptacle Equipment Dorm units = 0.5 w/sf
Dorm units = 0.5 w/sf
Energy Star equipment will be
utilized where applicable
Elevators 40 kW elevator per building 40 kW elevator per building;
elevators are regenerative
Dining Hall Kitchen
Equipment Estimated
Average Operating Load
75 kW electric + 175,000 gas for
dining hall kitchen.
75 kW electric + 175,000 gas for
dining hall kitchen.
(Kitchen equipment assumed 20%
savings)
Table 9 shows the calculated energy consumption of the baseline model and the proposed model.
It also shows the percent reduction in energy consumption that is estimated to occur because of
the proposed energy conservation measures.
201
28
Table 9: Modeled Annual Site Energy Consumption and Estimated Savings
Annual Site Energy A Consumption
(MMBtu/yr) Overall %
Savings BaselineB Proposed
Sophomore Site: Building 1 (Includes the Dining Hall)
Electricity 3,456 2,490
30%
Electricity (Process/unregulated) 2,018 1,741
Natural Gas (Process/unregulated) 610 488
Chilled Water 2,841 2,139
Hot Water 6,853 4,184
TOTAL 15,778 11,042
Sophomore Site: Building 2
Electricity 2,227 1,665
33%
Electricity (Process/unregulated) 958 860
Natural Gas (Process/unregulated) 0 0
Chilled Water 1,998 1,688
Hot Water 4,703 2,399
TOTAL 9,886 6,612
First-Year Student Site: Building 1-3
Electricity 4,750 3,551
33%
Electricity (Process/unregulated) 2,043 1,834
Natural Gas (Process/unregulated) 0 0
Chilled Water 4,260 3,600
Hot Water 10,029 5,116
TOTAL 21,082 14,100
North Campus Residential Expansion
PROJECT TOTAL 46,746 31,754 32%
A Site energy is specifically defined as energy used within the building and does not include distribution
losses or energy generation efficiencies.
B The baseline is modeled as being compliant with current code (ASHRAE 90.1-2013).
Energy modeling for proposed projects is generally used to allow the design team to compare the
relative energy use of the various efficiencies of the building systems under consideration. It is
not meant to be an accurate prediction of how much energy the building will consume once
constructed. There are many variables that can affect the energy consumption of the building once
it is occupied, including occupant actions that are impossible to predict and beyond the control of
the building operator.
However, the energy model does provide an estimate of how much energy the proposed buildings
will consume. Using that estimate, the buildings of the North Campus Residential Expans ion
project will increase the natural gas consumption of Cornell’s central utility plant by approximately
1.4%. For this calculation we assumed that the current mix of energy sources will continue to be
used once the buildings are operating, specifically that 5% of the electricity used on campus is
supplied by the grid, the overall amount of electricity sold to the grid is unchanged, and that the
ratio of electricity produced by the central plant to steam consumed on campus remains the same
(allowing most of the heating needs of the proposed buildings to be met with waste steam from
202
29
the cogeneration plant). Any additional natural gas used by Cornell’s central plant would be
supplied through Cornell’s existing connection to the regional gas pipeline and would not constrain
other users downstream or require any additional infrastructure.
A full analysis of the central utility plant is outside the scope of our analysis. However, according
to Cornell Facilities staff, the central plant is producing less electricity than its full capacity and is
currently selling electricity to the grid. It may therefore be possible to supply some or all of the
electricity needed for the proposed buildings without increasing the gas consumption of the plant;
less electricity would then be sold to the grid. It is important to understand that because the new
buildings are consuming energy, even if Cornell’s central plant does not increase its natural gas
consumption, regional energy consumption will increase.
Energy Conservation Measures Not Included in this Project
Re-orienting Buildings to maximize solar access
Re-orienting the buildings to maximize solar access can save a small amount of energy. However,
this is not feasible due to constraints of the topography and other design requirements. For
example, the current layout of the buildings supports the formation of interior quads with open
views, as is the style on the rest of Cornell’s campus.
Other design requirements include creating a space that supports new students in their transition
to campus life. To that end, a solar access study was performed by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels to
evaluate the distribution of natural light on site as well as on and into the buildings.
Finally, the decision to employ flat roofs offers the ability to maximize solar access (for potential
use of photovoltaics or solar thermal arrays) independent of the building/block orientation.
Window-to-Wall ratio
The window-to-wall ratio (WWR) calculates how much window area there is in relation to the
overall wall area. In this project, vertical glazing is 31.6-39.3% of the total wall area. (See Table
8 above for the WWR for each building.)
The typical window-to-wall ratio for the residential sector is 15% to 25%. Daylighting savings
and heat losses cancel each other out around 15% WWR in our climate. When the WWR is
between 6% and 15%, the amount of energy saved by turning off the lights is more than the heat
lost through the windows. As the WWR increases above 15%, heat losses increase while savings
from daylighting stay constant.
The residential floors of all the buildings in this project have a WWR of 22%. The ground floors,
including the dining hall, have a significantly higher WWR because they are social spaces where
providing extra daylight is high priority. High-performance windows were selected to help offset
the heat loss through the windows.
203
30
Other Roof Strategies
In some green buildings, skylights, green roofs, or cool roofs are installed. Green and cool ro ofs
result in minimal energy savings for buildings in the Upstate New York climate. Skylights increase
heat loss through the envelope while providing minimal daylighting benefits in high rise buildings
like the buildings in this project.
External Shading
External shading is under consideration, but because the project is still in the early stages of design,
most of the planned protrusions are not currently shown on the drawings. Some shading will be
provided by the building envelope: windows are set five inches back from the outermost surface
of the building. Protrusions, horizontal screens, and louvers are planned for the lower levels and
dining hall, but the final dimensions have not yet been determined. Due to the relatively short
cooling season the energy savings from external shading were not modeled by WSP.
Ground Source and Air Source Heat Pumps
The performance of the buildings was also evaluated replacing the proposed fan coil units with air
source heat pumps (ASHP) and ground source heat pumps (GSHP). To calculate the whole-
building energy use if heat pumps were installed, average heat pump efficiencies were applied to
the site energy consumption as calculated by the energy model. We then converted the site energy
of the buildings to source energy consumption by applying an efficiency factor for the generation
of the energy and for the distribution losses incurred to get the energy to the buildings. This
allowed us to compare the total energy needed to operate the buildings heated with ASHP s,
GSHPs, and the proposed fan-coil system.
The heat pump efficiencies we used are shown in Table 10, and the results of our calculation are
presented in Table 11. Note that the calculations assume all of the electricity for the heat pumps
is generated by the central plant, and that none of the waste heat generated by the turbines is used
in the proposed buildings.
Table 10: Assumed Heat Pump Efficiencies
ASHP 2.68 Annual average heating COP
18.0 btu/Watt-hour cooling SEER
GSHP 4.2 year-round COP
204
31
Table 11: Total Building Source Energy Use and Emissions
Source Energy Use
(MMBtu/yr) GHG Emissions (MT
CO2e per year)
Proposed Fan Coil Units 42,445 2,296
Air Source Heat Pumps 59,722 3,230
Ground Source Heat Pumps 56,084 3,034
Note that the source energy and emissions of the proposed fan coil system are
calculated assuming that 96% of the heat used in the buildings is produced as a by-
product of the generation of the electricity used in the building. For this comparison,
all electric use is assumed to be provided from the Cornell central plant.
It is standard practice to compare building performance using the site energy use. However, for
projects with central utility plants like the one on Cornell’s campus, the site energy is not the best
comparison method because it does not account for the fact that much of the heating energy
required for the buildings is provided as waste heat from the generation of the electricity used in
the buildings.
Site energy use is defined as the energy consumed within the building. It does not include the
efficiency of any of the generation of that energy that occurs outside the building (as would be
included in a comparison of source energy use). For example, on Cornell’s campus, the projected
site energy consumption of the proposed buildings does not include the efficiency of Cornell’s
central utility plant or the efficiency of the distribution system.
Source energy, on the other hand, is defined as the energy required to produce and deliver all of
the energy used in the building. For the proposed buildings in this project, the calculation includes
a factor for the efficiency of the central utility plant and a factor for the losses that occur in the
campus distribution system. It also includes a factor for the efficiency of the natural gas
distribution grid. For any electricity purchased from the grid, it also includes the efficiency of the
utility’s power plant and the losses occurring in the distribution of the electricity from the plant to
the buildings. The conversion from site to source energy focuses on energy consumption, not on
greenhouse gas emissions.
Another way to compare the environmental impact of the various options is to compare the
emissions impact of each. Emissions are calculated from site energy by applying efficiency factors
to account for the generation and distribution efficiencies, and then by multiplying by conversion
factors to account for how much greenhouse gas emissions are generated for each unit of energy
produced.
Both air source and ground source heat pumps use only electricity to provide heating and cooling.
Heat produced by Cornell’s central plant as a by-product of electricity generation can be used on
site, making the combined process more efficient than standard electricity generation techniques.
In the proposed system, much of the heat produced as a by-product of electricity generation will
be used on site. If a heat pump system were installed, there is no use at the building for the waste
205
32
heat produced by the central plant, which drastically increases the amount of source energy
consumed.
It is difficult to provide ASHP heating of the domestic hot water load for dormitory buildings like
these, because they have such a large demand at certain times of the day. A very large amount of
storage would be required to have it even be feasible. We assumed that it was feasible, and used
the same COP as used for heating. As shown in Table 11, the proposed system uses less energy
than the building heating with ASHPs even with these assumptions.
When the heat produced as a by-product of electricity generation cannot be used on campus, the
regional electric grid is more efficient than the central plant. However, even when all the electricity
used in the buildings under the heat pump scenario is from the regional grid, the proposed system
served by the central plant uses less source energy.
The Cornell Climate Action Plan includes a long-term plan for producing electricity and heat
without the use of natural gas. The most likely method to achieve that is the proposed Hybrid
Earth Source Heating project, which proposes using emerging technology to extract energy from
the heat deep beneath the surface of the Earth. If this plan is achieved, it will be most efficient to
heat the buildings with heat from the Earth Source system rather than having to convert the heat
to electricity to power air source heat pumps. If the Earth Source project is not implemented, a
ground source system could be installed to heat the proposed buildings in the future. The buildings
are being designed with a low temperature hot water supply design temperature, which enables the
future incorporation of either of these options.
Comparison with Outside Rating Systems and Local Guidelines
LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC)
This project is planning to earn sufficient points to achieve at least LEED Silver certification. The
planned list of energy conservation measures shown in Table 10 will reduce the energy
consumption of the buildings by 33.5% over ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (which is the reference baseline
required by LEED). This project will therefore receive 13 points in the Optimizing Energy
Performance category for LEED V4. The project also plans to earn three points for Enhanced
Refrigerant Management and Green Power and Carbon Offsets, along with 0-6 additional points
for Advanced Energy Metering, Demand Response, and Renewable Energy Production. LEED-
NC has numerous other sustainability points that are not related to building energy consumption
or greenhouse gas production; points from these other areas will bring the project to more than 50
points for LEED Silver certification.
Passive House
The project was also evaluated per the Passive House guidelines. The comparison of all the ECMs
implemented in this design versus the Passive House criteria is tabulated as follows:
206
33
Table 12: Comparison of ECM Package with Passive House Criteria
Total Source Energy
Demand (kBtu/sq/yr)
Performance with proposed fan coil units 46.1
Performance with GSHP 61.8
Performance with ASHP 64.3
Passive House performance target 38.0
This project is unlikely to meet Passive House requirements without significant changes to the
design. Note that although it is not common, other Passive House projects have used natural gas
for some energy needs, such as DHW; examples include Cornell Tech and Morris 2. Multifamily
buildings like the residential buildings in this project have a very high domestic hot water demand
(DHW) in the mornings as many people shower in a relatively short period of time. To meet
Passive House requirements while using natural gas DHW heaters, the projects have converted the
energy used by the DHW heaters to the equivalent amount of electricity and offset that with solar
PV.
The Proposed Ithaca Green Building Policy
In spring of 2018, the Town and City of Ithaca voted to adopt the recommendations outlined in the
Ithaca Green Building Policy Report. Although no code has yet been drafted or adopted, the policy
report recommends that all newly-constructed buildings follow either the Easy Path or the Whole-
Building Path. The report also recommends that the City and Town of Ithaca “consider evaluating
an institutional compliance path, to address such issues as institution‐wide renewable energy
capacity (and allocating such capacity to specific new buildings) and district heating systems.”19
This institutional compliance path may offer a more appropriate option for projects like the
proposed North Campus Residential Expansion. Additionally, the report recommends that the
City and Town "develop requirements for buildings with large internal loads (such as labs), which
might not be able to comply with the proposed whole‐building requirements, in cooperation with
large local institutions."20 This alternate path may apply to Building 1 on the sophomore site
because of the internal load of the dining hall kitchen.
The Tompkins County Energy Recommendations for New Construction
Tompkins County Energy Roadmap outlines seven recommendations for new construction
projects. The discussion below addresses how this project approaches the recommendations.
1 – Install water fixtures that meet EPA’s Water Sense requirements and install Energy Star rated
appliances. This project plans to install water fixtures that are 30% more efficient than baseline.
Water Sense fixtures are 20% more efficient. Energy Star® rated appliances will be specified for
the dining hall kitchen, the shared micro kitchens, and the laundry rooms.
19 Ithaca Green Building Policy Final Project Report, 4/25/18, Section 2.20
20 ibid.
207
34
2 – Electrify the heating, cooling, and domestic hot water systems of the building by using air- or
ground-source heat pumps for heating and cooling, and air source heat pump hot water heaters.
The North Campus Residential Expansion project does not plan to use heat pumps. Instead, energy
for heating and domestic hot water will be supplied by Cornell University’s central utility plant,
which uses a gas-fired combined heat and power plant and additional gas-fired steam boilers to
generate steam for heating and electricity. The overall efficiency of this plant is higher than the
efficiency of the regional electric grid or using heat pumps because the waste heat from electricity
generation is used on campus.
Cooling will be provided by the campus chilled water system that includes Lake Source Cooling.
The system has a COP of over 20 and runs entirely on electricity.
3 – Design solar-ready roofs and install maximum solar collection systems on roofs. All five
buildings in this project have a flat roof, which allows for potential solar collection in the future
regardless of building orientation.
4 – Optimize the building envelope by:
a. Designing the window-to-wall ratio to be less than 25%. The residential floors of all the
buildings in this project have a WWR of 22%. The ground floors, including the din ing
hall, have a significantly higher WWR because they are social spaces where providing
extra daylight is high priority.
b. Avoid unusually complex building shapes. The buildings in this project are comprised of
long narrow rectangles that are joined together at right angles.
c. Install insulation with an R-value 20% higher than required by code. The current code
requires R-15.2 in the walls, R-30 in the roof, and R-15 in the slab. The walls in this project
will be R-25.5 (68% better than code), and the roofs will be R-49 (63% better than code).
The slab insulation will be R-20 (33% better than code).
d. Minimize infiltration and stack effect.
• Infiltration will be minimized in several ways: The precast wall panels are air tight, and
as part of the design process, the panel size is being maximized to reduce the number
of panels required, which will further reduce leakage because there will be fewer joints
between panels. Connections between the panels will be sealed on both the inside and
the outside.
• Stack effect will be minimized by firesafing procedures: all penetrations in the slab will
firesafed and therefore airsealed. All shafts for systems which pass through the slab
will be fully enclosed and then firesafed.
5 – Minimize the energy used by the lighting systems by:
a. Designing to a space-by-space lighting power density of 15% less than required by code.
The project is currently modeled as having a lighting power density that is 30% lower than
ASHRAE 90.1-2013.
b. Require occupancy sensors on indoor and exterior fixtures; require a short off-delay; and
require commissioning of lighting controls. Occupancy sensors will be installed in all
corridors, lounges, and code-required spaces. The off-delay has not been determined.
Commissioning is a primary focus of Cornell’s Climate Action Plan and will also be
performed as part of the LEED certification process.
208
35
6 – Maximize the efficiency of the heating and cooling systems by:
a. Install heating and cooling plants with rated efficiencies at least 15% higher than required
by the energy code.
• Heating will be provided by the central plant. Therefore, minimum code required
efficiencies are not applicable to this project. The central plant is highly efficient
because it produces electricity and useful heat from the same input.
• Cooling will be provided by Cornell’s Lake Source Cooling system. Code does not
cover systems like that, so there is no direct requirement for the efficiency of the
cooling system. For a water-cooled, chiller-based system, the code requires an
efficiency of 0.585 kW/ton or less at full load and an integrated part load value
efficiency of 0.38 kW/ton or less. The Lake Source Cooling system has an
efficiency of 0.15 kW/ton, which is significantly more efficient than even the high-
efficiency cooling systems available for purchase.
b. Install domestic hot water heaters with rated efficiencies at least 15% higher than required
by the energy code. DHW will be provided by the central plant, and as above, code
requirements are also not defined. DHW is produced as a byproduct of the steam turbines
that are used in the central plant to generate electricity.
c. Put the distribution system in heated space and specify efficient distribution systems. Some
losses in the distribution system will occur as the energy travels from the central plant to
the building. Once in the building, the hydronic distribution system minimizes losses.
d. Use energy recovery ventilation systems in air conditioned buildings. Separate the
ventilation system from the heating and cooling systems. Heating and cooling will be
provided by pipe fan coils and variable air volume units. Ventilation will be supplied by
energy recovery units.
e. Seal ductwork for heating, cooling, and ventilation systems. The HVAC ductwork
throughout the project will be sealed.
f. Install heating and cooling systems that can be individually controlled within each space.
Each suite will be heated and cooled by a four-pipe fan coil that is controlled by the
occupants. Public and shared spaces are heated and cooled by four-pipe variable air
volume units.
7 – Use a whole building energy model to optimize building energy consumption. This project is
being modeled as part of the process to become LEED certified, which includes a whole-building
model.
On-Site Renewables
Solar Thermal Feasibility
Solar thermal heating of the project’s domestic hot water (DHW) load was not considered feasible
by Cornell. Peak DHW consumption typically occurs in the morning, when the supply of heat
from a solar system is at its lowest. Additionally, peak demand in residential buildings is
substantially higher than the average load. Both of these factors mean that large storage tanks
would be required. The large storage tanks and the maintenance required for the freeze protection
system make solar thermal not feasible for this project.
209
36
Solar PV Installation
The maximum amount of solar PV that could be installed on the roofs is approximately 1,600 kW.
The flat roofs can be utilized for solar PV no matter the orientation of the building.
To offset the total energy use of the entire project, including the fossil fuel used to supply the
heating, cooling, and domestic hot water loads converted to the equivalent amount of electricity,
as well as the electricity consumed in the buildings (lights, appliances, plug loads, pumps, fans,
etc.), 8,450 kW of solar PV capacity21 would need to be installed. To offset just the electricity
consumed in the buildings, 3,310 kW22 of solar PV would need to be installed.
Cornell is committed to purchasing solar energy, as evidenced by its large offsite solar farms. For
Cornell, onsite solar is less cost-effective overall than offsite solar. Cornell is continuing to
investigate a wide range of options for inclusion of renewables (including PV) at the campus level
and beyond.
8. Conclusion
Cornell University’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) outlines the steps that Cornell will take to achieve
carbon neutrality on campus by 2035. The buildings proposed in the North Campus Residential
Expansion project will have an impact on Cornell’s carbon emissions and therefore should meet
the goals outlined by the Climate Action Plan.
Because energy consumption is the main driver of operational emissions, our evaluation of CAP
goals focuses on the energy consumption and efficiency of the proposed design.
Cornell’s Climate Action Plan called for the establishment of more comprehensive Building
Energy Standards as an action within its Green Development Wedge to limit the energy required
for new and significantly renovated buildings on campus23. The Green Building Guidelines section
of Cornell’s Design and Construction Standards was updated as a direct result and now includes
several specific energy metrics defined by the CAP, including energy savings targets:
“The project shall, without consideration for our central efficient supply side
energy systems and renewables, use not more than 70% of the ENERGY
required for building operation as determined by the Option 1 modeling
protocols described in Section 018130 – Energy Modeling Guidelines. Where
cost effective, projects should strive to achieve a 50% energy savings using
the same methodology. Project integrated renewable energy systems shall be
considered part of achievement of this requirement.”24
In other words, the CAP requires a 30% reduction in energy consumption over an equivalent
building built to code-minimum standards.
21 Assumes panels produce 1,100 kWh/yr per kW of capacity.
22 ibid.
23 http://csc-production.s3.amazonaws.com/2012/08/07/11/19/12/131/CAPUpdate2011.pdf
24 https://cds.fs.cornell.edu/file/018110_greenbuildingguidelines.pdf
210
37
Based on the analysis of the building energy consumption alone, without consideration of
efficiencies from supply-side energy systems, Building 1 on the sophomore site (which includes
the glass-enclosed dining facility) is saving 30%, and the other buildings are saving 33% over
ASHRAE 90.1-2013. These buildings are not only meeting the energy savings goal specified by
Cornell’s Climate Action Plan, but they also exceed current state energy code requirements.
211
212
This page has been intentionally left blank.
213
Impacts from Sound, Odor & Light
214
215
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sound pressure
level (dB)
Sound Event / Description Subjective Impression
Threshold of hearing
Light rainfall, Rustle of leaves, Whisper
Average person’s threshold of hearing
Just audible
Whisper 5 feet away
Very quiet
Household refrigerator, Quiet office
Light traffic 100 feet away
Typical conversation 3 feet away
Inside an automobile at 50 MPH
Vacuum cleaner 10 feet away Loud
Moderate
Painful
Very loud
Automobile horn 10 feet away
Subway train 20 feet away
Jack hammer 50 feet away
Diesel truck at 40 MPH, 50 feet away
Jet takeoff 200 feet away
Rock band with amplification
Uncomfortably loud
Riveting machine
Jet engine 75 feet away
Human breathing
Impacts from Sound, Odor & Light
Sound Impacts
Introduction
Sound is quantified in units called decibels (dB). The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound (i.e. noise) de-
pends on the level of intruding noise, the relationship of the noise to the background sound in the vicinity, and the distance to the
noise source. Sound pressure levels decrease as the distance from the source increases. The sound level “thermometer” below
illustrates a range of common sounds and shows the corresponding loudness, measured in decibels (dB).
A sound pressure level change of three decibels is barely perceptible to the human ear, while a change of five to six decibels is
clearly noticeable. An increase of 10 decibels is perceived as twice as loud (i.e. a “doubling” of loudness) while a 10-decibel
decrease in sound pressure level is perceived as a halving of loudness.
216
Sound Impacts of the Proposed Project
Mechanical equipment serving the proposed buildings at the sophomore and first-year student sites will include energy recovery
units, air-handling units, make-up air handling units, exhaust fans, fan-coil units (interior to the buildings and serving interior
spaces) and emergency generators. The selection of this equipment is consistent not only with goals for energy efficiency and
sustainability, but also with those for acoustical performance.
Mitigation Measures
Best practice sound-control strategies are being incorporated into the project design as equipment selection and placement
decisions are made. These strategies include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Selection of packaged air-handling units; sound-producing fans are internal to these units and shielded from exterior
sound receptors by insulated panels that both reduce heat loss/gain and provide sound attenuation
• Air-handling equipment with variable speed motors
• Occupancy-based setback strategies
• Sound-attenuating enclosures on all emergency generators
• Scheduling emergency generator testing between 7:30 AM and 9:00 PM
• Locating rooftop equipment away from the roof edge; doing so maximizes the shielding of residents from rooftop-
generated sound
• Locating rooftop equipment, louvered air intakes/discharges and emergency generators to maximize distance to
residents
• Installation of in-line sound attenuators, acoustical louvers, and/or lined plenums where air discharge is located at the
building face
• A No Idling policy for all delivery trucks serving the sophomore and first-year student buildings
The project will tie in to a campus hot water loop to serve space heating and domestic hot water needs. For cooling and process
cooling needs, the project will tie in to a campus chilled water loop that is part Cornell University’s Lake Source Cooling (LSC)
system. Heat exchangers associated with project heating and cooling systems will be located inside the NCRE buildings and as
such will not be a noise concern.
Through the incorporation of the strategies listed above as well as the use of existing heating and cooling infrastructure pres-
ent on campus, sound created by the project will be compatible with a residential area. No permanent acoustical impacts are
expected to result from the proposed project.
Odor Impacts
The project will not include animal or agricultural odor sources. No other odor sources are part of planned programs. There are
no significant odor impacts expected to result from the proposed project.
Light Impacts
Project lighting will include fixtures at parking lots and building entrances. Pedestrian-scale fixtures including light standards
and bollards will be incorporated into the project site design to enhance safety and define distinctive characteristics of building
form and site amenities. Project site lighting will be dark sky compliant LED fixtures that include cutoffs to focus lighting in
needed areas and minimize light spillover onto adjacent areas.
The lighting system will be designed to provide high quality lighting that is glare-free, flexible and easily adjusted for user
comfort and ease of use. Color tuning light sources may be utilized in key residential spaces where time of day changes to
light levels, spectrum and circadian lighting are desired. Selected light fixtures will be robust and long-lasting to reduce long-
Impacts from Sound, Odor & Light
217
term maintenance efforts and replacement costs. The lighting system will be designed to meet requirements listed in Cornell
University Design and Construction Standards and to meet best practices, including a color temperature of 3500K. Color
temperature, measured in degrees Kelvin (K), is a metric used to describe the appearance of light emitted by a light source.
Most commercial and residential lighting has color temperatures that fall between 2000K and 6500K. The figure below presents
the typical range of color temperature for commercial and residential lighting.
Impacts from Sound, Odor & Light
The project is within the viewshed of the Fuertes Observatory, which is southeast of the project site. Previous light analysis
completed from the observatory site occurred as part of the development review for North Campus Residential Initiative (2001).
At that time, the findings showed significant existing ambient light levels on the west side of the observatory reaching it from a
variety of sources in the City and Town, due to the facility’s situation on a promontory overlooking both. The greatest contributor
of ambient light in the primary south-facing stargazing direction was determined to be lighting at the Sackett Foot Bridge location
near Beebe Lake.
While its location and equipment have long-since made it obsolete for state-of-the-art scientific use, the observatory is currently
used by introductory astronomy courses and is a treasured community asset on clear Friday nights. It is not expected that
lighting from the project will significantly change the observatory’s ability to function as it does today.
Typical Color Temperature Range (in °K) for Commercial and Residential Lighting
218
This page has been intentionally left blank.
219
Impact on Public Health
220
Impact on Public Health
The proposed actions will have no negative impacts on public health. The proposed actions will not create a risk of explosion,
release hazardous substances, produce hazardous wastes or store quantities of natural gas or other flammable liquids. The
actions do not include excavation within 2,000 feet of a disposal site.
As discussed in previous sections the project will not have a significant negative impact on air quality, noise or circulation. The
NCRE will have a positive impact on the health and well-being of Cornell’s youngest students by providing appropriate housing
with programming to support their residence at the University.
Impact on Public Health
221
222
This page has been intentionally left blank.
223
Consistency with Community Plans
Impact on Growth & Character of Community
224
Impact on Growth & Character of Community, Consistency to Community Plans
Impact on Growth and Character of Community
After completion of the NCRE all first-year and sophomore students will be required to live in on-campus or affiliated housing.
It is hoped that the new residence halls will help alleviate some of the pressure on the local market, in turn, leading to a more
competitive environment in which there will be a greater selection of quality, affordable housing. If the project were built today,
approximately 1,000 students who currently reside in the local housing market would instead live in the new residence halls.
The approximately 2,000 new student beds being constructed will allow Cornell to grow enrollment, de-densify crowded resi-
dence halls on campus, shift students to more age-appropriate housing, and begin to renovate existing residential buildings in
the housing portfolio. In this project, 1,200 new beds are being built for first-year students; 99% of all first years traditionally
live on campus. Another 800 beds will be built for sophomores. Today, approximately 74% of sophomores live on campus or in
the Greek house system. In general, juniors and seniors will continue to seek housing off campus, though a small portion will
continue to live in program housing and as resident advisors or in leadership positions in residence halls or houses.
All new residence halls are being sited within the existing residential community on North Campus. These will be designed as
undergraduate communities, with public and social space amenities, to create the types of residential environments that are ap-
propriate for each class year. In addition, all residence halls are staffed by live-in support staff and/or faculty, Cornell University
Police are on campus and on call 24/7, and the University is responsible for all building maintenance.
Some of the major principles and priorities of the NCRE and the Undergraduate Housing Master Plan are met by:
• Supporting the goal of the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County to have more affordable housing for
residents.
• Providing an adequate transition for students from on-campus to off-campus living in the community and thereby sup-
port the maintenance of community character, and foster good town-gown relationships.
• Reducing pressure on the local housing markets leading to improved quality and competitively-priced housing to the
benefit of students and community residents alike.
While not directly related to the initiatives behind the NCRE, Cornell has announced policy changes affecting some affiliated
housing that should also have a positive effect on the quality of life on campus and in surrounding neighborhoods. These policy
changes are included in the letter at the end of this section.
Impact to Housing / Landlords
The North Campus Residential Expansion will provide for the addition of approximately 2,000 new beds on the Cornell Campus.
This capacity increase along with projected enrollment growth, will result in approximately 1,000 undergraduates moving from
off-campus locations to on-campus housing. The most significant impact to local landlords may be felt in Collegetown. It is
anticipated that the greatest impact to Collegetown vacancy rates may be in 2022.
A recent review of potential residential/multi-family development with City and County staff shows that as many as 4,000 to
5,000 bedrooms have been proposed by private developers in the greater Ithaca area. Of those, approximately 3,500 bedrooms
are being actively developed (in the municipal approvals process or under construction). This significant private sector activity
has already had an impact on vacancy rates.
A further marketplace impact to landlords who address the undergraduate student market, will be the new Cornell policy to
enhance the first two years of the student experience by requiring on-campus residency for both first-year students as well as
sophomores. This change will remove the immediate pressure on first-year students to secure off-campus housing prior to their
sophomore year. It is expected that this will result in a decrease in the rate of leasing of apartments in Collegetown during the
fall semester.
225
Impact on Growth & Character of Community, Consistency to Community Plans
Consistency to Community Plans
Educational / Institutional Zoning & Use
The project’s program is consistent with existing zoning and projected future land use in this location. In their comprehensive
plans the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights recognize the unique land uses and built environment that
colleges and universities, and this University in particular, require.
Housing Demand
There is a recognized demand for housing, of which availability of university-provided housing is a key component. The
comprehensive plans for the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County acknowledge this relationship.
The large student population within the city and the additional pressure it places on the rental housing market [also]
have a direct impact on the availability, quality, and affordability of rental units. For households with lower incomes,
this constricted market leaves very few options for decent housing that is both affordable and conveniently located.
- City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (adopted September 2, 2015)
Goals LU-3-B and HN-2 of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (adopted September 2014), while not specific to Cornell
University, promote infill development and initiatives that encourage greater housing opportunities. The NCRE aligns with these
goals.
The 15,000 students living off campus in Tompkins County strongly impact the rental market, particularly near the
campuses. Non-student households face difficulty competing with students for rental housing since a group of four
students, for example, can pool their resources for more purchasing power than a typical family household. A significant
number of off-campus student housing units recently proposed or built hold the potential to positively affect the market
by freeing some of the existing student-occupied units for other households. However, this transition may not be a
smooth process since the housing currently occupied by students is not always suitable, or affordable, for other types
of households.
- Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan (adopted March 3, 2015)
In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, Tompkins County has endorsed the Tompkins County Housing Strategy with the goal
of guiding the County toward “meeting its housing needs through 2025.” To this end, there are specific components of the
Housing Strategy that are aligned with the both the goals and the anticipated results of the NCRE project including:
• Meet existing deficit of 1,400 to 1,500 on- or off-campus purpose-built student beds.
• Add beds to meet any increases in enrollment in order to prevent displacement of residents in non-student units.
• Target student housing within the urban center where students do not require personal vehicles to access their
campuses (the NCRE is within the “urban center” as defined by the Tompkins County Housing Strategy).
• Recognize that the markets for new and existing housing units are closely related, and that as some residents move out
of existing units into newly built ones, there are opportunities both for others to move into those units and for those
units to be modified and improved to better meet local needs.
- Tompkins County Housing Strategy (endorsed July 2017)
Stormwater Infrastructure
The incorporation of sustainable infrastructure into new projects is encouraged to address both the quality and quantity of
stormwater runoff and to protect natural water bodies. The comprehensive plans for the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Village
of Cayuga Heights, and Tompkins County specifically advocate for the incorporation of sustainable stormwater management
practices in project design. See section on Stormwater Management.
226
Impact on Growth & Character of Community, Consistency to Community Plans
President Pollack initiates reforms for Greek letter organizations
May 4, 2018
Dear Ithaca Campus Community,
Greek letter organizations have a long history at Cornell University and have been a prominent feature
of the undergraduate experience since 1868. Members of these organizations have made great
contributions to our university; year after year, sororities and fraternities have helped to foster a vibrant
community spirit on our campus and in Ithaca through leadership, volunteer work and other forms of
engagement.
Unfortunately, over the years and in recent months that legacy has been marred by numerous incidents
of hazing and other forms of misconduct. Cornell is not alone in the struggle against hazing. It is a
cultural problem in organizations at universities across the country, a nationwide epidemic that claimed
the lives of four students on other campuses last fall alone.
Today, the outcome of yet another investigation of hazing violations at Cornell was announced. This
latest incident along with other pending cases and allegations of hazing on campus are extremely
disturbing. Even more troubling is the fact that these are just the latest episodes in what has become an
ongoing pattern of hazing and other offenses by members of various Greek letter organizations at
Cornell. This misconduct threatens the health and safety of our students and casts a shadow over our
community of scholars.
I believe that it is important for the community to understand that the behavior in question goes well
beyond innocent fun. It includes extremely coercive, demeaning, sexually inappropriate and physically
dangerous activities that jeopardize students’ health and lives. The danger of such reckless actions
cannot be ignored. Such activities are not tolerated in society and must stop in our Greek letter
organizations.
It is time to elevate behavioral expectations among leaders and members of Greek letter organizations.
To that end, and after extensive discussions with many stakeholders, including faculty, students, parents,
alumni and the board of trustees, I have directed the Division of Student and Campus Life to work with
student and alumni leaders to finalize and implement the following changes aimed at protecting our
students and improving cultural norms in Greek letter organizations at Cornell.
The following changes are effective immediately:
•Substantiated acts of hazing will result in a chapter’s suspension and loss of recognition. A
minimum of three years will be applied for those cases that include coerced alcohol or other
drug consumption, sexual and related misconduct, or other forms of violence or mentally
abusive behavior that poses a threat to health and safety. Consistent with current practice, all
allegations of hazing will be reported to the Office of the Judicial Administrator to pursue
individual accountability for members associated with the accused organization.
•Hard alcohol (more than 30% alcohol by volume) is not permitted in a residential chapter house
at any time.
The following changes will take effect fall semester 2018:
•Each Greek letter chapter must submit a new member education plan prior to participating in
new member recruitment. Chapter leadership will assume accountability for adhering to the
approved plan.
227
Impact on Growth & Character of Community, Consistency to Community Plans
•Prospective and current members must participate in mandatory educational programming
(including, but not limited to, university expectations, hazing awareness, and policies on alcohol,
drug use, and sexual and related misconduct) in order to be eligible to participate in the new-
member recruitment and intake processes.
•A systemwide, online scorecard will be published and updated annually to include, among
other things, the full judicial history of each chapter. This website will be publicized to the
campus community and to the parents of all students.
•A comprehensive review of event management guidelines will be conducted and submitted for
my approval. The review will include, but not be limited to, the training required for sober
monitors, the use of independent bystander intervention services, the distribution of beer and
wine for large events, and the number of large events permitted.
The following changes will take effect in spring semester 2019:
•Leadership positions in residential Greek letter organizations must be held by junior or senior
students who reside in the chapter house.
•A comprehensive review of the Chapter Review Board process that governs recognition for
fraternities and sororities will be conducted and submitted for my approval. The review will
include, but not be limited to, structure, procedures, process, membership and community
expectations.
The following change will take effect fall semester 2021:
•All residential fraternities and sororities must have a full-time, live-in adviser with clearly stated
objectives and expectations for the role.
I do not take these steps lightly. The stakes are high, and leaders of student organizations must come to
understand their responsibility to promote the health and safety of our campus community.
I want to emphasize that holding Greek letter organizations to these high standards does not represent
an attack or an attempt to diminish the role of these organizations in student life. To the contrary, this
effort is intended to strengthen fraternities and sororities and to help ensure that they remain a part of
Cornell for years to come. The student experience today is different from what it was in the past;
community expectations have shifted; and behavior around hazing must change, too. It is time for
leaders and members of Greek letter organizations to demonstrate the efficacy of self-governance over
elements within their control and to meet the expectations that go along with recognition as a part of
the Cornell community and of our shared values.
I look forward to working together to eradicate hazing behavior, to elevate the Greek experience, and
to present an example for other universities to follow.
It is my hope that all of our Greek letter organizations will emerge stronger as a result of these measures
and more fully embody the best that Cornell has to offer.
Sincerely,
Martha E. Pollack
President
228
229
Impacts from Construction
230
Impacts from Construction
Construction Impacts
Description of Construction Phasing/Staging and Construction Activities
Construction for the project is slated to begin in 2019 and end in 2022. Sequencing is anticipated as follows.
Site Duration Start Occupancy
Sophomore 24 Months Spring 2019 Fall Semester 2021
First-year 30 Months Fall 2019 Fall Semester 2022
Staging and work areas will be controlled to minimize impacts to existing facilities and public uses around the sites, to protect
surrounding trees and vegetation that will remain, and to minimize impact with the surrounding landscaped and paved areas. All
impacted areas adjacent to the sites will be restored upon completion of the project.
Although an independent project, interior renovations to Balch Hall are anticipated to occur during summer of 2021 through
summer of 2022. The discussion below includes temporary construction impacts of both projects.
Utility Construction
Construction planning will minimize utility outages. Replacement systems will be installed prior to removal/decommissioning of
existing systems where possible.
The proposed developments should result in no permanent negative impacts to these resources.
Construction Impacts to Stormwater
Drainage from the sites ultimately reaches Fall Creek after passing through the stormwater drainage system of the University.
Temporary controls will be maintained during construction to control the erosion of exposed soils and to minimize discharge of
dewatering practices directly into storm sewer systems. The project will be required to comply with NYS DEC regulations by
submitting a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This will include erosion and sediment control plans that will fully
mitigate construction impacts from stormwater run-off.
It is expected that all phases of construction will employ the following temporary practices:
• Install silt fencing adjacent to the downhill edge of any site disturbance or material stockpile area, parallel with the site
contours.
• Provide protection around drainage inlets to prevent siltation.
• Temporary seeding and mulching of disturbed areas or topsoil stockpiles.
• Install sediment traps prior to initiating significant earthwork and maintain throughout construction period.
• Direct all sediment-laden water from trench and pit excavations to a sediment basin or equivalent sedimentation
system.
• Install crushed stone tracking pads at principal construction site access points.
• Construction documents for the project will include an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in accordance with
New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion & Sediment Control.
Construction Impacts to Air Quality
The proposed actions do not include construction practices that will significantly impact air quality. Some increase of
suspended dust particles is unavoidable during aspects of construction. The amount of construction generated dust depends
on several factors including soil conditions, moisture content, amount of time soils are exposed to the wind and sun, weather-
related factors and construction practices.
231
The demolition, excavation, and preparation of foundations will create the potential for increased dust and dirt particles in the air.
Dust control measures during construction may include the following:
• Misting or fog spraying site to minimize dust.
• Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site.
• Reseeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils.
• Keeping the roads clear of dust and debris.
• Requiring trucks to be covered.
• Prohibiting the burning of debris on site.
No significant construction impacts to air quality are expected as a result of these actions.
Construction Impacts of Noise
Noise resulting from normal construction practices is inevitable and will impact the surrounding area. There is currently no plan
for blasting operations during construction. Construction noise will be muffled to the extent practical and will not exceed levels
allowed by law.
In accordance with local noise ordinances construction activities that result in exterior noise will be limited to 7:30 AM to 9:00
PM. In addition, the University will work closely with the contractor to implement Best Management Practices (BMP) for noise
reduction to the extent possible. BMP mitigation measures listed by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
include:
• Source reduction by using mufflers, dampers and electric motors instead of air compressors.
• Duration and impact reduction by limiting times worked.
• Use of equipment inside the building to reduce noise.
Small to moderate impacts from construction noise are expected as a result of these projects. Construction noise is an
unavoidable but temporary negative result of the project.
Construction Impacts to Traffic
Construction activities will be supported by daily deliveries of materials, supplies and miscellaneous services. It is anticipated
that this traffic will fluctuate between 10 to 20 construction deliveries per day, dependent on phase and times of the year. The
related trips, most of which are trucks, arrive and depart the site throughout the day. A maximum of approximately five arrivals
and departures during the morning and afternoon commuter peaks is expected at the height of construction activity. This level
of increase is minimal when considering the magnitude of existing traffic volumes on the network. However, it is recognized
that truck traffic typically requires more time and space for maneuvering, and minor increases in delay can be expected. Large
deliveries (oversized loads or multiple truck loads) will be scheduled for special delivery times so as not to coincide with
periods of peak activity on the delivery routes.
Construction vehicles will be directed to use Route 13 (a designated truck route), exit on Triphammer Road to Hanshaw Road and
take Pleasant Grove Road to access the project site. The University will work with the contractors to coordinate these routes in
order to minimize construction traffic impacts. It is expected that material staging will occur onsite.
It is estimated that the maximum workforce size for the NCRE will be 280 onsite at any one time, with 75-100 workers being the
norm during the construction period. It is estimated that the maximum workforce size for the Balch Hall renovation will be 50
onsite at any one time, with 20-30 workers being the norm during the construction period. The one-time maximum workforce
sizes for the two projects are not anticipated to coincide. The daily workforce will typically arrive prior to 8:00 a.m. and depart
prior to 4:30 p.m. These times are outside the morning and afternoon peak commuter times on adjacent public and private
roads. Since traffic is less during these off peak times the actual effect of the work force added to traffic is minimized.
Impacts from Construction
232
Small to moderate construction impacts to traffic are expected as a result of these actions.
Construction Impacts to Parking
Construction workforce parking will be provided and designated in a specific location to avoid having the workforce park at
other locations within the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, or on campus. Contractor parking will be
provided at the University’s designated contractor parking location at Palm Road. Contractors will be shuttled to the site along a
designated route through campus and will be prohibited from traveling through Forest Home.
University community members who use the CC parking lot south of Jessup Road and other parking spaces disrupted by
construction will be re-directed to other parking areas on campus. A-lot permit holders will not be displaced as a result of
construction activities. Cornell will manage all impacts from construction parking within its surplus of campus parking inventory.
Construction Impacts to Pedestrians and Cyclists
Pedestrians and cyclists within the Cornell community will be impacted by the construction process. Impacted pedestrian and
routes will include sidewalks between Jameson Hall, Mary Donlon Hall, and Clara Dickson Hall, sidewalks and informal walkways
at the fields north of Appel Commons and the sidewalk adjacent to Mews Hall. Proposed mitigation measures to address
anticipated impacts will include:
• Provide safe detours around active construction areas and mark these clearly.
• Utilize personnel with flags to assist with the safe arrival and departure of construction delivery vehicles as appropriate.
• Construct adequate fencing, walls or other barriers to prevent pedestrians or bicyclists from entering active construction
areas.
• Locate construction staging areas to minimize conflicts between major pedestrian and bicycle routes to and from active
construction areas.
• Minimize dust and water run-off along or over pedestrian routes and bicycle lanes.
Due to the disruption of normal routes around the sites caused by construction, the proposed actions will impact pedestrian and
bicycle circulation in a small to moderate way. These impacts are not expected to extend beyond completion of the project, but
will be mitigated by the measures stated above.
Communication During Construction
Cornell will create a communication plan to respond to community inquiries during construction. Inquiries will be sent to a
single point of contact for coordination and response.
Impacts from Construction
233
234
This page has been intentionally left blank.
235
Appendix
236
237
Geotechnical Report
238
239
Archaeology Report
240
241
Traffic Study
242
243
Circulation Study
244
245
Arborist Report
246
247
Technical Drawing Set (11x17)
248