HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-14 Planning and Development Board Special Meeting AgendaCITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning Division – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
If you have a disability & would like specific accommodation
to participate, please contact the City Clerk at 274‐6570 by
12:00 p.m., the day before the meeting.
NOTICE OF MEETING
A Special Meeting of the PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD will be held at 6:00 p.m. on DECEMBER 9TH, 2014 in COMMON COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY.
AGENDA ITEM Start Time
1. Agenda Review 6:00
2. 620 S. Aurora St. – Chain Works District: Work Session for Draft Scoping Document 6:05
A. Review Received Comments (ATTACHED)
B. Lead Agency Comments/Discussion
C. List of Required Studies for Inclusion in DGEIS (TO BE DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
D. Revised Timeline (TO BE DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
3. Adjournment 9:30
ACCESSING MEETING MATERIALS ONLINE
Site Plan Review & Subdivision Applications (and Related Documents)
Site Plan Review application documents are accessible electronically via the “Document Center” on the City web site
(www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter), under “Planning & Development” > “Site Plan Review Project Applications,” and in the
relevant year/month folder. Subdivision application materials can be similarly located, but in the “Subdivision Applications” folder.
Comments from Adam Walters/ Phillips Lytle of Draft Scope dated 11‐26‐14
We have reviewed the draft Final Scope (“Scope”) dated November 26, 2014. Initially
we note that you have made significant improvements within this version, which have
advanced the Scope. However, much of the Scope lacks significant details and/or
information regarding the Scope of potential impacts and how they will be evaluated.
Also, there are portions of the Scope, which provide sufficient detail to be included in
the DGEIS.
Our comments on the Scope are attached. We have placed our comments within the
structure of the Scope’s current table of contents to help you track our comments to
specific sections of the Scope.
We understand that you will be working on revisions to the Scope to address these
comments. Of course, if you have any questions or would like to set up a conference
call to discuss, please just let us know.
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................8
Chapter 1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................9
Comment: None.
Chapter 2. Project Description..............................................................................................10
Comment: Generally, the Project Description is much improved and meets the
requirements for scoping. There are, however, some additional details that would be
helpful in the context of understanding impacts and/or mitigation. Thus, we suggest:
• Section 2.0 should include additional details on the anticipated timing of the four
primary phases of development. See page 11.
• Phase 4 of development, which is described as “Future new development within
areas of the remainder of the site” should provide additional description and
more details. Even if the details of Phase 4 are subject to change, the current
description does not adequately inform as to the location and placement of this
particular phase of development.
• The Project description section should include a description of how the
development guidelines for the CWD will be applied. For example, will the
CWD guidelines be included in the text of the PUD/PDZ text amendments?
• A color-coded map of the various phases of development would be very helpful
for insertion into this section of the Scope.
• We suggest that the Applicant include a map of the various Operable Units and
proposed subdivision boundaries in this section of the DGEIS.
1
2.1 Introduction, Background, and History..........................................................12
Comment: We note that the development history states that by 1928, the plant
was expanded to develop roller chain and pocket-sized calculators. Please confirm that
the reference to pocket size calculators in 1928 is accurate.
2.2 Project Purpose, Need, and Benefit ................................................................13
Comment: We note that this section is not required for the Scope. While it is
helpful information to have at this stage in the process, it may be beneficial to move this
and other sections with information not required for scoping, into an appendix to the
Scope.
2.3 Location ....................................................................................................................13
Comment: Same comment as Section 2.2
2.4 Site Program and Layout ..............................................................................................14
Comment: Understanding that the Project Sponsor has not made final
determinations on site program and layout, this section, as a whole, lacks sufficient
information to understand this very complex Project concept. This, in turn, makes it
difficult to evaluate the Scope discussions of potential impacts and how these impacts
will be evaluated in the DGEIS. It is strongly recommended that some program details
be provided in this section of the Scope even if presented as worst case, subject to
change.
2.4.1 Residential....................................................................................14
Comment: See above.
2.4.2 Commercial..................................................................................14
Comment: See above.
2.4.3 Industrial......................................................................................14
Comment: See above.
2.4.4 Common Areas and Other Facilities and Services ................14
Comment: See above.
2.4.5 Recreation.....................................................................................15
Comment: See above.
2.4.6 Parking..........................................................................................15
Comment: See above.
2.5 Sustainable Design/LEED ND......................................................................................15
Comment: None.
2
2.6 Project Phasing....................................................................................................15
Comment: Similar to programming and layout, and acknowledging that this is a
generic EIS, this section is very ambiguous. This, in turn, makes it difficult to evaluate
discussions of potential impacts and how these impacts will be evaluated. It is strongly
suggested that more details on phasing, even if subject to change, should be provided in
the Scope. As just an example, it is not clear to the reader which areas are included in
the “remainder of the site”.
2.7 State Environmental Review Process...............................................................15
Comment: None.
2.7.1 Overview......................................................................................15
Comment: Section 2.7.1 should explain the basis for classifying the project as a
Type I and specifically identify the potential adverse environmental impacts identified
by the Lead Agency as the basis for issuing the positive declaration.
2.7.2 Generic Environmental Impact Statement..............................16
Comment: None
2.8 Required Approvals...........................................................................................17
Comment: This section of the Scope should include a list of each approval
required (not just the agencies).
Chapter 3. Reasonable Alternatives.....................................................................................18
Comment: This section should include a discussion of the definition of
reasonable alternative.
3.1 No Action ............................................................................................................18
Comment: This section should explain that inclusion of a no-action alternative is
required.
3.2 Development in Accordance with Existing Zoning.......................................18
Comment: More detail should be provided regarding full development under
existing zoning. What is the maximum density? What types of uses? It should also be
highlighted that since the site is in two jurisdictions, it is subject to two different as-of-
right development scenarios.
3.3 Maximum Development Scenario....................................................................18
Comment: This section should clarify and discuss the programming of
development under the 2.65 million sf scenario.
3
Chapter 4. Public Participation.............................................................................................19
Comment: This entire chapter can be moved to an Appendix, as the information
is not required for scoping.
4.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................19
Comment: None.
4.2 Project Vision.......................................................................................................19
Comment: None.
4.3 Project Website....................................................................................................19
Comment: None.
4.4 Public Involvement and Outreach....................................................................19
Comment: None.
4.5 Public Scoping Process.......................................................................................19
Comment: None.
4.6 Post-Scoping Public Outreach...........................................................................20
Comment: None.
4.7 DGEIS Public Comment Period........................................................................20
Comment: None.
Chapter 5. Environmental Setting........................................................................................21
Comment: As a general comment, the addition to the Scope of a lot of
information on the environmental setting is generally helpful. However, this section
tends to read as a partially finished DGEIS. Some sections have quite a bit of detail
while others indicate that the detail will be provided in the DGEIS. A consistent
approach throughout the section is recommended. Also, it may make sense to focus on
“identification of relevant existing information” in this section as it is relevant to
environmental setting and is a required part of scoping. With that general comment in
mind, below are specific comments on each section. Individual section comments
typically focus on environmental setting information that should be identified for
inclusion in the DGEIS.
5.1 Land Use and Zoning.........................................................................................21
Comment: A map of the existing zoning designations in each of the
municipalities would be useful for inclusion in the DGEIS.
5.1.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning..................................................21
Comment: None.
4
5.1.2 Proposed Land Use and Zoning...............................................21
Comment: None.
5.1.3 Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses..........................21
Comment: The Scope includes a very brief summary for this section and does not
clearly outline the information that will be included in the DGEIS. We would expect
that the DGEIS will describe the uses in the neighboring area. This Section of the
DGEIS should also describe the manner in which the historic industrial uses and
operations affected the neighboring properties. An explanation of the on-going off-site
remedial measures as they relate to the surrounding land uses, may be appropriate in
this section of the DGEIS as well. This section should describe the current setting and
set up the discussion in Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.3
5.1.4 Land Use Impacts on Adjacent Property.................................21
Comment: As mentioned above, potential impacts should be discussed in
Chapter 6. That said, the discussion in the DGEIS should include not only the potential
impacts with the rezoning but also how the proposed rezoning will permit new uses of
the land and how this will positively or negatively impact adjacent properties, as
appropriate.
5.2 Land......................................................................................................................21
Comment: Detailed comments are provided in the following subsections.
5.2.1 Soils...............................................................................................22
Comment: Will a geotechnical report be prepared? If so, the data should be
referenced here for inclusion in the DGEIS. This section should also reference that the
DGEIS will include a soil map for the site.
5.2.2 Surface Geology .........................................................................22
Comment: Will a geotechnical report be prepared? If so, the data should be
referenced here for inclusion in the DGEIS.
5.2.3 Topography..................................................................................22
Comment: It may be appropriate to illustrate slopes in three categories (i.e. 0-
10%, 10-15% and 15% or greater) as described in the EAF (or some other breakdown),
rather than greater than or less than 15% as suggested in the Scope.
5.2.4 Erosion Potential.........................................................................22
Comment: This section does not include any details. This section should
describe the extent and the quality of the information that will be gathered on existing
conditions and the information that will be needed to consider the potential for
potential erosion impacts.
5
5.2.5 Cut and Fill Impacts ..................................................................22
Comment: Consider moving this section to Chapter 6. That said, this section
notes that cut and fill activities will be required. This section mentions the potential
traffic impacts related to the cutting and filling activities, which is very helpful. In the
DGEIS, it may make sense to describe the potential timing limits on these activities. For
example, are cut and fill activities limited to certain phases of the development or
certain seasons?
5.3 Water Resources..................................................................................................23
Comment: See detailed comments below.
5.3.1 Surface Water and Hydrogeological Setting...........................23
Comment: None.
5.3.2 Groundwater...............................................................................23
Comment: None at this time.
5.3.3 Stormwater...................................................................................23
Comment: The stormwater section should explain any baseline information
needed to determine current or future special measures or mitigation that will be taken
to address the stormwater conditions because of the contamination on the site. For
example, Section 5.5.3 states that contaminated groundwater is discharging to a
drainage feature in the area of Building 24, does this affect existing or future stormwater
control measures? Has the existing stormwater been studied? Is it a concern? What is
the extent and type of information needed to assess stormwater related conditions?
5.4 Vegetation and Fauna ........................................................................................24
Comment: This section should indicate that the DGEIS will describe the amount
and type of fauna that will be removed from the site in addition to describing the
increase in impervious surfaces.
As noted below, reference to correspondence with the NYSDEC Natural Heritage
Program should be included.
5.5 Impacted Areas from Historic Use...................................................................24
Comment: It would be helpful to the reader if the DGEIS included a map/figure
that identifies the locations of the Operable Units and/or Areas of Concern that are
described in the Final Scope.
5.5.1 Site History...................................................................................24
Comment: Section 5.5.1 states that when the previous RIs were completed the
goal was to reuse the site for industrial purposes but that Unchained Properties, LLC
intends to develop the site for mixed uses. The Final Scope then goes on to say that
additional delineation and more extensive remedial efforts than those identified in the
RODs may be required, but no details are provided.
6
A Scope is required to explain the extent and the quality of the information that
is required to assess impacts and the methodologies for obtaining new information.
Neither this Section nor 5.5.3 provides any information or details about the future
studies. As it is currently written, the Final Scope raises additional questions by
referencing the likelihood of additional unknown remedial efforts without offering any
details. The Scope should identify the potential future remedial efforts and
investigations. This can be covered as part of the impact discussion in Chapter 6.
5.5.2 Investigations...............................................................................25
Comment: See above comment.
5.5.3 Identification of Areas of Concern...........................................25
Comment: See above comment.
5.6 Historic and Archaeological Resources...........................................................29
Comment: The Applicant should include reference to all correspondence with
NYS Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation.
5.7 Transportation and Circulation........................................................................29
Comment: As with some other sections, this section mixed existing baseline
information and impact analysis. That said, it references a Preliminary Transportation
Study that will be prepared while Section 6.7 states that a complete Traffic Impact Study
will be prepared. The Project Sponsor should clarify whether there will be two studies
and confirm that a Traffic Impact Study will be completed. The Planning Department
will review the list of intersections to be studied and identify any additional
intersections of concern. The extent and quality of the information needed from the
Preliminary Transportation Study/Traffic Impact Study should also be referenced in
section 6.7.
5.7.1 Existing Daily Corridor Traffic Conditions.............................30
Comment: See comment above.
5.7.2 Description of Roadway Network............................................30
Comment: This section need only address the existing setting. Any discussion
of potential adverse impacts from proposed internal roadways should be included in
section 6.7 below.
7
5.7.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities...............................................30
Comment: The description in the Scope should include at least as much detail as
the EAF, which discusses the connection to the local trail network including the
Gateway Trail. In addition, the Conservation Advisory Board specifically requested
information about the existing connection to the local trail network. This section should
state that the DGEIS will describe the existing connections in this section and further
discuss impacts, if any, in Section 6.7.
5.7.4 Transit ..........................................................................................30
Comment: This section need only address the existing setting regarding transit.
Any discussion of proposed transit service or development should be included in
section 6.7 below. This section should reference what existing relevant information will
be reviewed.
5.7.5 Parking..........................................................................................31
Comment: How will the number of permanent users of parking be assessed?
The extent and quality of information needed should be identified. This section need
only address the existing setting regarding parking and what baseline information was
used. Any discussion of proposed parking or the general strategy for parking capacity
and the extent and nature of the information required to assess potential impacts should
be included in section 6.7 below.
5.7.6 Emergency Access.......................................................................31
Comment: Any discussion of the capacity of existing emergency services to
handle the proposed development needs to be discussed further in section 6.11 below
regarding community services.
5.7.7 ADA Access.................................................................................31
Comment: None.
5.8 Utilities..................................................................................................................31
Comment: If this information is not known at this time, the extent and quality of
information needed should be identified and developed. Any relevant existing
information should be identified. For example, how will the applicant evaluate the
existing water supply and distribution system, or evaluate existing stormwater
infrastructure capacity?
5.8.1 Water Supply...............................................................................31
Comment: See above.
5.8.2 Sanitary Sewers...........................................................................31
Comment: None.
8
5.8.3 Stormwater Infrastructure.........................................................32
Comment: See above.
5.8.4 Natural Gas..................................................................................32
Comment: See above.
5.8.5 Electric, Telephone, Cable TV, and High Speed Internet .....32
Comment: See above.
5.8.6 Lighting .......................................................................................32
Comment: What existing lighting is being assessed? At the site, or in the
vicinity of the site? Both should be included in the DGEIS.
5.9 Air Quality...........................................................................................................32
Comment: This section should include a discussion of the extent and quality of
the information needed to determine baseline air quality in order to assess potential
impacts. What existing relevant information is available?
5.10 Visual and Aesthetic Resources........................................................................32
Comment: The Planning Board will review and possibly modify the list of
critical vantage points where the visual environment is considered important. The
Town also has some input in this regard.
5.11 Community Services...........................................................................................33
Comment: This section only needs to discuss the existing community services.
Proposed community service changes from the proposed development can be discussed
in Section 6.11 below.
Chapter 6. Potential Impacts and Mitigation.....................................................................34
Comment: As a general comment, it is noted that this section seems to overlap
with Section 5. Any references in Section 6 should be limited to information necessary
to understand impacts and mitigation. Additionally, for each potential impact, this
chapter of the Scope needs to identify how an impact will be evaluated (not just state
that it will be evaluated). In particular, where studies will be performed, a discussion of
the scope of the study as well as methodologies of study should be included.
We also note that there are several items mentioned in the EAF that are not
described in either Chapter 5 or 6 of the Scope. For example, the use of pesticides or
herbicides. The Lead Agency is seeking additional information and a review of the
future use and potential impacts of herbicide and pesticide use on the site.
In addition, the Applicant identified in the EAF that there is a nearby unique
natural area, Buttermilk Falls. The City’s analysis Part 2 noted that it is likely not a
concern. The Applicant should identify what, if any, additional information is required.
If no additional analysis will be completed the Scope should state this.
9
The Scope does not include a section under Chapter 5 Environmental Setting or
Chapter 6 Potential Impacts on Open Space and Recreation. These sections should be
added.
6.1 Land Use and Zoning.........................................................................................34
Comment: Section 6.1 should identify the extent and quality of information
needed to adequately address potential impacts to land use.
6.1.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................34
Comment: None.
6.1.2 Build Alternatives.......................................................................34
Comment: Section 6.1.2 should describe how the compatibility of the proposed
project, with the surrounding existing residential and other uses, will be evaluated.
6.1.3 Mitigation Measures...................................................................34
Comment: This section should include an initial identification of the mitigation
measures related to the proposed zoning changes and the future use of the site under
the proposed zoning changes (development guidelines?).
6.2 Land......................................................................................................................34
Comment: Section 6.2 should identify the extent and quality of information
needed to adequately address potential impacts, particularly to steep slopes, a central
land feature on the site.
6.2.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................34
Comment: None.
6.2.2 Build Alternatives ......................................................................34
Comment: No comment.
6.2.3 Mitigation Measures...................................................................34
Comment: None.
6.3 Water Resources..................................................................................................34
Comment: Overall, this section should include additional information on the
extent of the quality of the information needed to consider the potential impacts and an
initial identification of the potential mitigation measures.
6.3.1 Surface Water and Hydrogeological Setting...........................35
Comment: It may be helpful to break out this section to resemble the layout of
section 5.3, which includes separate headings for surface water, ground water,
stormwater.
This section should identify the extent and quality of information needed to
adequately address potential impacts to stream and downstream resources. For
10
example, how will the potential for downstream flooding be analyzed. In addition, this
section should examine whether existing contamination on-site affects the water quality
of stormwater or other surface waters leaving the site. What type of information will be
collected to assess this potential or potential for these types of impacts?
This section should explain any discussions that have already been had with
NYSDEC and the USACE. Based on the current available information the Scope should
describe if specific water bodies have been deemed to be non-protected water bodies
and what, if any, permitting is required.
6.3.2 Groundwater...............................................................................35
Comment: As mentioned above, this section should describe how the
development will relate to the remedial activities and the potential impacts on the
groundwater. An identification of the extent and the quality of the information that is
needed or required to assess same must be included.
6.3.3 Mitigation Measures...................................................................35
Comment: This section should identify any potential groundwater mitigation
measures that may be required because of the contamination on the site.
6.4 Vegetation and Fauna ........................................................................................36
Comment: This section should reference the proposed studies identified in
Section 5.4 and if any species of concern are identified, provide an initial suggestion of
potential mitigation measures. For example, if a rare or threatened animal were
identified, what potential mitigation measures are available?
The Applicant should include reference to all correspondence with NYSDEC and
the NYSDEC’s Natural Heritage Program to the extent such correspondence relates to
impacts and/or mitigation.
6.4.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................36
Comment: None.
6.4.2 Build Alternatives.......................................................................36
Comment: None.
6.4.3 Mitigation Measures...................................................................36
Comment: This section should reference an initial identification of potential
mitigation measures that are available.
6.5 Public Health and Environment.......................................................................36
Comment: The Applicant should explain what studies and the extent of the
information that will be required to evaluate the project’s effect on public health
including neighbors and occupants.
11
6.5.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................37
Comment: None.
6.5.2 Build Alternatives.......................................................................37
Comment: None.
6.5.3 Mitigation Measures...................................................................37
Comment: The scoping document should also identify the measures that will be
used to ensure future occupants and users, such as industrial and residential use, do not
create conflicts.
6.6 Historic and Archaeological Resources...........................................................37
Comment: This section should explain how impacts to historical resources and
archeologically sensitive areas will be evaluated.
6.6.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................37
Comment: None.
6.6.2 Build Alternatives.......................................................................37
Comment: None.
6.6.3 Mitigation Measures...................................................................37
Comment: None.
6.7 Transportation and Circulation........................................................................38
Comment: The Preliminary Traffic Study referenced in 5.7 above should also be
referenced in this section. This section, as currently drafted, is a better example of what
is needed for scoping purposes, as it includes an identification of potential adverse
impacts and a discussion of the extent and quality of information needed to address
each impact, through a discussion of a Traffic Impact Study and a capacity analysis.
Additionally, possible mitigation measures such as the addition of turning lanes and
traffic control devices are discussed. A discussion of proposed parking should be
included, including any new information that is needed to determine future parking
requirements. Also, we understand that there have already been comments on the
traffic scope from the Town and City and these comments should be referenced and
addressed.
6.7.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................38
Comment: None.
6.7.2 Build Alternatives.......................................................................39
Comment: None.
12
6.7.3 Mitigation Measures...................................................................39
Comment: None.
6.8 Utilities..................................................................................................................39
Comment: No potentially significant adverse environmental impacts have been
identified. How will the applicant determine the estimates of public water usage and
sanitary sewer loadings? This section should identify any potential adverse impacts
and the extent and quality of information needed to adequately address potential
impacts. A discussion of natural gas availability/impacts is also needed.
6.8.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................39
Comment: None.
6.8.2 Build Alternatives.......................................................................39
Comment: None.
6.8.3 Mitigation Measures...................................................................39
Comment: Some mitigation should be identified.
6.9 Air Quality...........................................................................................................39
Comment: The extent and quality of information needed to assess each potential
impact must also be identified. What information exists regarding current air quality?
How will potential impacts to air quality be assessed, and through what
methodologies? This section must also address the extent and quality of the
information needed to address noise, odors, and air quality impacts from traffic
increases. Any traffic studies that will be performed should be referenced. This section
should include a discussion of measures to mitigate potential impacts to air quality.
6.9.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................40
Comment: None.
6.9.2 Build Alternatives.......................................................................40
Comment: None.
6.9.3 Mitigation Measures...................................................................40
Comment: See above.
6.10 Visual and Aesthetic Resources........................................................................40
Comment: This section should address potential impacts to visual and aesthetic
resources. Either all critical receptor points should be identified or a discussion should
be included regarding how critical receptor points will be determined in coordination
with the Planning Board and Town. Any discussion of changes to building colors,
materials, height, roof pitch, landscaping, etc. should be included in Section 6.10.3
below.
13
6.10.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................41
Comment: None.
6.10.2 Build Alternatives.......................................................................41
Comment: None.
6.10.3 Mitigation Measures...................................................................41
Comment: See above.
6.11 Community Services...........................................................................................41
Comment: This Section should identify potentially significant adverse impacts
to community services, and identify the extent and quality of information needed to
address any impacts to community services. Specific community services that may be
impacted should be identified. Section 6.11.3 must identify proposed measures to
mitigate impacts to community services.
6.11.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................41
Comment: None.
6.11.2 Build Alternatives.......................................................................41
Comment: None.
6.11.3 Mitigation Measures...................................................................42
Comment: See above.
6.12 Construction Activities.......................................................................................42
Comment: This Section should identify potentially significant adverse impacts
from construction activities, and identify the extent and quality of information needed
to address any impacts. This Section must also identify proposed measures to mitigate
impacts from construction activities.
6.12.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................42
Comment: None.
6.12.2 Description of Construction Staging and Activities ............42
Comment: See above.
6.12.3 Erosion and Sediment Controls During Construction .........42
Comment: See above.
6.12.4 Coordination with Site Remediation........................................42
Comment: See above.
6.12.5 Removal of Non-recyclable Construction Waste...................42
Comment: See above.
14
6.12.6 Construction Air Impacts...........................................................42
Comment: See above.
6.12.7 Construction Noise Impacts......................................................43
Comment: See above. Additionally, the potential for noise impacts from the
project needs to be assessed, including those that occur post-construction. The extent
and quality of information needed to address these impacts should be identified.
6.12.8 Construction Impacts to (natural feature)...............................43
Comment: See above.
Chapter 7. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources............................44
Comment: None
Chapter 8. Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...........................................................................45
Comment: None
8.1 Short-Term Unavoidable Impacts....................................................................45
Comment: None
8.2 Long-Term Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................................45
Comment: None
Chapter 9. Growth Inducing Aspects and Character of Community.............................46
Comment: This section needs more detail on how impacts to community
character will be assessed. The information provided is somewhat generic.
Chapter 10. Effect of Proposed Project on the Use and Conservation of Energy...........47
Comment: As mentioned above, the Applicant should identify any potential
adverse impacts and the extent and quality of information needed to adequately
address potential impacts. A discussion of natural gas conveyance and increased
energy usage and capacity is also needed here. No potential mitigation measures are
included. In short, this is a very important section of the DGEIS and this section of the
Scope needs more detail.
Chapter 11. Thresholds for Future Actions .........................................................................48
Comment: None
15
Chapter 12. Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................................49
Comment: None
References....................................................................................................................................50
Comment: None
Appendices..................................................................................................................................50
Comment: Add key environmental and remedial reports.
Doc #01-2822061.3
16
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
Da
t
e
:
12
‐4‐14
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
V
E
N
E
S
S
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
:
Sc
o
p
i
n
g
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
‐― Ch
a
i
n
Wo
r
k
s
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t
e
r
Re
l
e
v
a
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Response/Action (Draft)
Jo
h
n
Gr
a
v
e
s
,
So
u
t
h
Hi
l
l
Ci
v
i
c
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
Ef
f
e
c
t
s
of
th
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
on
Us
e
an
d
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
of
En
e
r
g
y
2.
5
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
De
s
i
g
n
Fi
r
s
t
,
I wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
su
b
m
i
t
th
i
s
ra
t
h
e
r
te
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
(1
0
1
pa
g
e
)
Fe
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
of
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
En
e
r
g
y
Sources at the Emerson Plant in Ithaca,
NY
, pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
in
20
1
1
by
a te
a
m
of
10
gr
a
d
u
a
t
e
‐le
v
e
l
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
an
d
th
e
i
r
adviser Dr. Francis Vanek in the School
of
Ci
v
i
l
& En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
at
Co
r
n
e
l
l
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
.
Se
c
o
n
d
,
I wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
su
b
m
i
t
co
p
i
e
s
of
th
i
s
mu
c
h
sh
o
r
t
e
r
an
d
le
s
s
te
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
Gu
e
s
t
Vi
e
w
p
o
i
n
t
th
a
t
ran in The Ithaca Journal in 2012,
wr
i
t
t
e
n
by
Dr
.
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
Va
n
e
k
an
d
co
‐si
g
n
e
d
by
Br
u
c
e
Ab
b
o
t
t
an
d
my
s
e
l
f
,
ca
l
l
e
d
“V
i
s
i
o
n
fo
r
Em
e
r
s
o
n
site: Business space, green power.”
“R
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
en
e
r
g
y
op
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
an
o
t
h
e
r
pa
r
t
of
Re
p
u
r
p
o
s
i
n
g
Em
e
r
s
o
n
.
Bi
o
m
a
s
s
ca
n
be
co
‐fi
r
e
d
with natural gas to reduce the carbon
fo
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
.
Al
s
o
,
th
e
la
r
g
e
an
d
fl
a
t
ro
o
f
of
th
e
pl
a
n
t
,
un
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
by
tr
e
e
s
an
d
ot
h
e
r
sh
a
d
i
n
g
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
an excellent opportunity for solar
ph
o
t
o
v
o
l
t
a
i
c
(P
V
)
sy
s
t
e
m
s
.
As
mu
c
h
as
4 me
g
a
w
a
t
t
s
of
so
l
a
r
pa
n
e
l
s
co
u
l
d
be
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
if
th
e
sp
a
c
e
were fully used, equivalent to more
th
a
n
1,
0
0
0
ho
m
e
‐si
z
e
d
so
l
a
r
PV
sy
s
t
e
m
s
.
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
,
a mi
x
t
u
r
e
of
so
l
a
r
PV
an
d
so
l
a
r
ho
t
wa
t
e
r
could be installed.”
“F
u
r
t
h
e
r
in
th
e
fu
t
u
r
e
,
th
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
mi
g
h
t
of
f
e
r
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
he
a
t
i
n
g
an
d
lo
c
a
l
l
y
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
el
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
to
surrounding demand centers, such as
It
h
a
c
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
,
th
e
It
h
a
c
a
ce
n
t
r
a
l
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
an
d
th
e
So
u
t
h
Hi
l
l
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
units might be added uphill from the plant
an
d
th
e
s
e
un
i
t
s
co
u
l
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
to
th
e
sy
s
t
e
m
as
we
l
l
.
Th
e
ce
n
t
e
r
mi
g
h
t
al
s
o
ha
r
n
e
s
s
el
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
st
o
r
a
g
e
systems to improve reliability. There
is
a gr
o
w
i
n
g
ma
r
k
e
t
fo
r
de
v
i
c
e
s
su
c
h
as
la
r
g
e
‐sc
a
l
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
ba
t
t
e
r
i
e
s
or
fl
y
w
h
e
e
l
sy
s
t
e
m
s
.
Pa
r
t
of the building could be set aside for an
en
e
r
g
y
st
o
r
a
g
e
ce
n
t
e
r
,
so
th
a
t
in
th
e
ev
e
n
t
of
a re
g
i
o
n
‐wi
d
e
bl
a
c
k
o
u
t
,
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
"m
i
c
o
g
r
i
d
'
'
co
u
l
d
isolate from the grid and function
re
l
i
a
b
l
y
on
it
s
ow
n
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
st
o
r
e
d
po
w
e
r
.
”
I of
f
e
r
th
i
s
re
l
e
v
a
n
t
en
e
r
g
y
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
re
p
u
r
p
o
s
i
n
g
th
e
fo
r
m
e
r
Em
e
r
s
o
n
pl
a
n
t
,
no
t
to
cr
e
a
t
e
another level of complication for
Un
c
h
a
i
n
e
d
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
bu
t
to
po
i
n
t
ou
t
th
a
t
gr
e
a
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
ex
i
s
t
fo
r
wh
a
t
th
e
Co
r
n
e
l
l
Green Consulting Group proposed in
20
1
1
.
Th
e
s
e
gr
e
a
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
ex
i
s
t
th
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
U.
S
.
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
En
e
r
g
y
,
th
e
Ne
w
Yo
r
k
St
a
t
e
Energy Research and Development
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
,
th
e
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
Ti
e
r
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
u
n
c
i
l
,
an
d
pr
i
v
a
t
e
fu
n
d
s
th
a
t
su
p
p
o
r
t
re
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
power projects and smart‐grid
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
lt
'
s
wo
r
t
h
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g
.
Include discussion of alternative energy in 2.5 and/ or Ch 10
Cy
n
t
h
i
a
Br
o
c
k
,
Co
m
m
o
n
Co
u
n
c
i
l
SE
Q
R
Re
v
i
e
w
Ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
Ad
d
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
It
h
a
c
a
Bo
a
r
d
of
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
as
an
In
v
o
l
v
e
d
Ag
e
n
c
y
.
Th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
wi
l
l
im
p
a
c
t
th
e
City's infrastructure in terms of traffic,
wa
t
e
r
,
se
w
e
r
,
an
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ne
e
d
s
.
Th
e
BP
W
is
ch
a
r
g
e
d
wi
t
h
ov
e
r
s
e
e
i
n
g
pr
e
s
e
n
t
an
d
future conditions and demands on our
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
an
d
sh
o
u
l
d
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
as
an
in
v
o
l
v
e
d
ag
e
n
c
y
wi
t
h
in
p
u
t
in
t
o
th
e
DG
E
I
S
.
Add
SE
Q
R
Re
v
i
e
w
Ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
Ad
d
th
e
It
h
a
c
a
Ci
t
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
as
an
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
Ag
e
n
c
y
.
As
th
i
s
is
a re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
of
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
size, it may have direct and indirect
im
p
a
c
t
s
on
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
de
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
fo
r
pr
i
m
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
ag
e
d
ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
,
an
d
th
u
s
IC
S
D
sh
o
u
l
d
be
listed as an interested agency. Add
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
an
d
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
de
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
of
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
Tr
a
i
l
an
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
an
d
fu
t
u
r
e
tr
a
i
l
ne
t
w
o
r
k
Add
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
an
d
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
l
u
d
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
tr
a
i
l
th
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
T1
(n
a
t
u
r
a
l
zo
n
e
)
.
It
is
of
t
e
n
me
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
th
a
t
this area would contain walking trails,
an
d
it
is
lo
g
i
c
a
l
th
a
t
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
wo
u
l
d
de
s
i
r
e
to
co
n
n
e
c
t
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
T4
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
(p
g
18
)
and the Gateway trail to get to area south
su
c
h
as
St
o
n
e
Qu
a
r
r
y
an
d
Bu
t
t
e
r
m
i
l
k
Fa
l
l
s
.
Add
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
An
a
l
y
z
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
du
r
i
n
g
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
an
d
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
Ad
d
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
in
t
o
th
i
s
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
(p
g
.
26
)
:
St
o
n
e
Qu
a
r
r
y
/
S
p
e
n
c
e
r
Ro
a
d
S.
Me
a
d
o
w
St
.
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
/
S
p
e
n
c
e
r
Ro
a
d
S.
Me
a
d
o
w
St
.
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
/
E
l
m
i
r
a
Ro
a
d
/
M
e
a
d
o
w
St
.
Add 1
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
Da
t
e
:
12
‐4‐14
Co
m
m
e
n
t
e
r
Re
l
e
v
a
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Response/Action (Draft)
Cr
i
s
Mc
C
o
n
k
e
y
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
l
t
h
I am
mo
s
t
co
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
wi
t
h
in
d
o
o
r
ai
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
an
d
sa
f
e
t
y
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
,
an
d
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
th
e
sufficiency of LEEDS point system in
ad
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
in
d
o
o
r
ai
r
po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
on
th
e
fo
r
m
e
r
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
si
t
e
wh
e
r
e
I wo
r
k
e
d
fo
r
ei
g
h
t
ye
a
r
s
.
I am
concerned with the trade‐off between
en
e
r
g
y
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
an
d
ai
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
an
d
wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
se
e
th
i
s
so
m
e
h
o
w
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
fi
n
a
l
sc
o
p
i
n
g
document. Add information about how the safety of indoor air quality will be determined
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Ca
n
yo
u
te
l
l
me
if
th
e
Ci
t
y
or
To
w
n
of
It
h
a
c
a
ha
s
an
ad
a
p
t
i
v
e
re
‐us
e
or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
?
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Ha
v
i
n
g
wo
r
k
e
d
at
Mo
r
s
e
Ch
a
i
n
fo
r
ei
g
h
t
ye
a
r
s
,
I ca
n
at
t
e
s
t
to
th
e
st
u
n
n
i
n
g
vi
e
w
s
of
th
e
la
k
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
dirty panes. Tending machines didn't
gi
v
e
a lo
t
of
ti
m
e
to
ga
z
e
,
bu
t
th
e
r
e
we
r
e
al
w
a
y
s
sl
o
w
ti
m
e
s
on
be
n
c
h
wo
r
k
,
or
st
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
gi
a
n
t
le
a
f
chain on the hydraulic chain puller
wh
o
s
e
fr
a
m
e
wa
s
sa
l
v
a
g
e
d
fr
o
m
th
e
Mo
r
s
e
fa
c
t
o
r
y
in
Tr
u
m
a
n
s
b
u
r
g
af
t
e
r
th
e
fi
r
e
.
On
e
ni
g
h
t
,
my
heart sank as I saw the flames on west
hi
l
l
.
My
fr
i
e
n
d
s
at
La
Ca
b
r
e
r
a
lo
s
t
th
e
i
r
ba
r
n
an
d
al
l
th
e
i
r
go
a
t
s
.
Noted
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
l
t
h
Ho
w
od
d
it
is
to
th
i
n
k
th
a
t
wh
e
r
e
I st
o
o
d
mi
g
h
t
no
w
be
pa
r
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
in
t
o
ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
Ho
w
mu
c
h
air exchange will there be? There is a
tr
a
d
e
‐of
f
be
t
w
e
e
n
he
a
t
i
n
g
/
c
o
o
l
i
n
g
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
an
d
ai
r
ex
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
an
d
he
a
l
t
h
.
Th
i
s
ne
e
d
s
to
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in the final scoping document.
Pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
l
y
,
I'
d
ne
e
d
a lo
t
of
co
n
v
i
n
c
i
n
g
be
f
o
r
e
de
c
i
d
i
n
g
to
li
v
e
th
e
r
e
.
Th
e
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
fl
o
o
r
s
ar
e
sa
t
u
r
a
t
e
d
with oil. I read about Barium. Has
an
y
o
n
e
te
s
t
e
d
fo
r
Mo
l
y
b
e
n
u
m
?
We
us
e
d
to
us
e
a lo
t
of
mo
l
y
k
o
t
e
as
a dr
y
lu
b
r
i
c
a
n
t
in
th
e
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
chain department
Er
r
a
t
a
BT
W
,
wr
i
t
e
r
s
sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
ke
e
p
re
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
to
po
w
e
r
tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
pr
o
d
u
c
t
s
.
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
ch
a
i
n
wa
s
ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
d
largely for conveyance, and
th
e
au
t
o
m
o
t
i
v
e
de
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
mo
v
e
d
ou
t
be
f
o
r
e
th
e
sa
l
e
of
th
e
ol
d
pl
a
n
t
to
Em
e
r
s
o
n
.
Noted
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Th
e
r
e
wa
s
mu
c
h
oi
l
an
d
di
r
t
ca
k
e
d
on
th
e
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
fl
o
o
r
s
th
a
t
we
tr
i
e
d
to
re
m
o
v
e
wi
t
h
so
m
e
re
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
r
before one of many tour trying to
se
l
l
th
e
pl
a
n
t
.
Ou
r
fo
r
e
m
a
n
se
t
us
ou
t
wi
t
h
a ro
t
a
r
y
st
o
n
e
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
gr
i
n
d
e
r
th
a
t
di
d
n
'
t
wo
r
k
at
al
l
.
The stones just became plugged up with
oi
l
y
di
r
t
an
d
di
d
no
t
h
i
n
g
bu
t
sp
i
n
.
In
s
t
e
a
d
,
we
gr
o
u
n
d
it
cl
a
y
ab
s
o
r
b
e
n
t
wi
t
h
ro
t
a
r
y
wi
r
e
br
u
s
h
fl
o
o
r
scrubbers. This put a thin layer of light
co
l
o
r
e
d
cl
a
y
on
to
p
of
th
e
di
r
t
th
a
t
lo
o
k
e
d
li
k
e
cl
e
a
n
ba
r
e
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
.
Ou
r
fo
r
e
m
a
n
th
e
n
cl
o
s
e
d
th
e
walkways so prepared from fork lift
tr
a
f
f
i
c
so
th
e
il
l
u
s
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
no
t
be
ru
i
n
e
d
by
ti
r
e
ma
r
k
s
.
Noted
Ti
m
Lo
g
u
e
Ci
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
Si
t
e
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Co
u
l
d
th
e
la
s
t
it
e
m
,
"i
n
t
e
r
m
o
d
a
l
ac
c
e
s
s
(i
.
e
.
ma
s
s
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
an
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
s
)
"
be
ch
a
n
g
e
d
to "multi‐modal facilities (e.g., pedestrian,
bi
c
y
c
l
e
,
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
an
d
he
a
v
y
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
)
"
?
Add to scope of Transportation Study
Si
t
e
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
I wo
u
l
d
su
g
g
e
s
t
ei
t
h
e
r
ad
d
i
n
g
it
e
m
s
to
th
i
s
su
b
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
or
cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
a ne
w
su
b
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
ab
o
u
t
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
multi‐modal connectivity. I think it will
be
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
du
r
i
n
g
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
to
ha
v
e
a go
o
d
un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
of
ho
w
we
l
l
or
po
o
r
l
y
th
e
site is actually connected with a few key
ar
e
a
s
,
pa
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y
wi
t
h
an
ey
e
to
w
a
r
d
cl
a
i
m
s
th
a
t
th
e
si
t
e
is
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
,
bi
c
y
c
l
e
or
tr
a
n
s
i
t
fr
i
e
n
d
l
y
and therefore will generate fewer motor
ve
h
i
c
l
e
tr
i
p
s
th
a
n
a ty
p
i
c
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(o
r
fe
w
e
r
th
a
n
a so
u
r
c
e
su
c
h
as
th
e
IT
E
Tr
i
p
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Manual would suggest). I would suggest
th
a
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
,
It
h
a
c
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
,
an
d
th
e
So
u
t
h
Hi
l
l
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
(w
h
i
c
h
se
r
v
e
s
trips to/from school, but also the South
Hi
l
l
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
mo
r
e
ge
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
)
wo
u
l
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a go
o
d
co
n
t
e
x
t
fo
r
un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
th
e
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
setting of the project. To this end, I
su
g
g
e
s
t
:
Add to scope of Transportation Study
Si
t
e
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Th
e
st
u
d
y
sh
o
u
l
d
ca
t
a
l
o
g
u
e
or
ma
p
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
bi
c
y
c
l
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
:
1)
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
si
t
e
an
d
th
e
Co
m
m
o
n
s
;
2)
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
si
t
e
an
d
th
e
So
u
t
h
Hi
l
l
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
;
an
d
3)
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
si
t
e
an
d
It
h
a
c
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
.
If
th
e
r
e
is
mo
r
e
th
a
n
on
e
ro
u
t
e
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
s
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
wi
t
h
i
n
on
e
‐ha
l
f
of
a mi
l
e
,
th
e
st
u
d
y
sh
o
u
l
d
include up to two reasonable
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
(e
.
g
.
,
if
th
e
r
e
ar
e
tw
o
pa
r
a
l
l
e
l
st
r
e
e
t
s
,
bo
t
h
sh
o
u
l
d
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
if
th
e
r
e
ar
e
8 parallel streets, only two need be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
.
)
.
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
sh
o
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
,
bu
t
no
t
be
li
m
i
t
e
d
to
:
bi
c
y
c
l
e
la
n
e
s
,
ma
r
k
e
d
sh
a
r
e
d
la
n
e
s
,
bicycle boulevards, multi‐use trails,
an
y
ot
h
e
r
pa
t
h
w
a
y
s
op
e
n
to
th
e
pu
b
l
i
c
,
tr
a
f
f
i
c
si
g
n
a
l
s
,
an
d
ot
h
e
r
bi
c
y
c
l
e
re
l
a
t
e
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
co
n
t
r
o
l
.
The study should note where there are
ga
p
s
or
de
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
i
e
s
al
o
n
g
th
e
s
e
ro
u
t
e
s
.
Add to scope of Transportation Study 2
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
Da
t
e
:
12
‐4‐14
Co
m
m
e
n
t
e
r
Re
l
e
v
a
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Response/Action (Draft)
Si
t
e
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Th
e
st
u
d
y
sh
o
u
l
d
ca
t
a
l
o
g
u
e
or
ma
p
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
i
t
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
on
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
si
t
e
an
d
wi
t
h
i
n
½ mile. Transit facilities should include:
si
g
n
e
d
bu
s
st
o
p
s
,
bu
s
sh
e
l
t
e
r
s
,
bu
s
pu
l
l
‐of
f
s
(i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
an
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
wi
d
t
h
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
or
bu
s
la
n
e
)
.
Using the pedestrian data gathered above
fo
r
th
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
th
e
st
u
d
y
sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
e
wh
e
r
e
th
e
r
e
ar
e
ga
p
s
or
de
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
i
e
s
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
the site to bus facilities. Add to scope of Transportation Study
Si
t
e
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Th
e
st
u
d
y
sh
o
u
l
d
cl
a
r
i
f
y
th
e
po
i
n
t
s
of
ac
c
e
s
s
fo
r
th
e
si
t
e
by
mo
d
e
.
Fo
r
ex
a
m
p
l
e
,
in
th
e
dr
a
w
i
n
g
set submitted to begin the site plan review
pr
o
c
e
s
s
,
Ca
y
u
g
a
St
r
e
e
t
is
sh
o
w
n
as
a po
i
n
t
of
ac
c
e
s
s
.
It
is
no
t
cl
e
a
r
if
th
e
in
t
e
n
t
is
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a walkway up Cayuga Street or vehicular
ac
c
e
s
s
.
Si
m
i
l
a
r
l
y
,
th
e
ol
d
as
p
h
a
l
t
pa
t
h
th
a
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
s
to
Au
r
o
r
a
St
r
e
e
t
,
ne
a
r
Hi
l
l
v
i
e
w
Pl
a
c
e
,
is
no
t
shown as a pedestrian access point of
en
t
r
y
,
bu
t
pr
e
s
u
m
a
b
l
y
co
u
l
d
be
.
Add to scope of Transportation Study
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
tr
u
c
k
s
to
th
e
li
s
t
in
th
e
fi
r
s
t
it
e
m
ab
o
u
t
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
in
t
e
r
n
a
l
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
ne
t
w
o
r
k
.
Add to scope of Transportation Study
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
"T
r
i
p
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Tr
i
p
As
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
"
ju
s
t
to
be
cl
e
a
r
th
i
s
is
a ke
y
st
e
p
in
a tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
a
c
t
analysis and needs to be documented. Add to scope of Transportation Study
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Fo
r
Le
v
e
l
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
th
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
sh
o
u
l
d
co
m
p
a
r
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
to
a fu
t
u
r
e
ye
a
r
"No Build" scenario (assuming a modest
ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
gr
o
w
t
h
in
tr
a
f
f
i
c
)
,
to
th
e
"F
u
l
l
Bu
i
l
d
Ou
t
"
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
If
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
is
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
to
be
ph
a
s
e
d
,
various phases of the project
(p
a
r
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
)
ca
n
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
as
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
.
Add to scope of Transportation Study
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
I wo
u
l
d
su
g
g
e
s
t
th
a
t
th
e
st
u
d
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
LO
S
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
fo
r
bo
t
h
th
e
AM
an
d
PM
pe
a
k
pe
r
i
o
d
s
.
Add to scope of Transportation Study
To
w
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Bo
a
r
d
an
d
St
a
f
f
5.
1
.
2
Co
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
wi
t
h
Su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
La
n
d
Us
e
s
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
by
na
m
e
6.
3
Wa
t
e
r
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Mo
r
e
de
t
a
i
l
.
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
st
u
d
i
e
s
th
a
t
wi
l
l
be
do
n
e
an
d
th
e
i
r
sc
o
p
e
s
6.
5
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
l
t
h
an
d
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
Ad
d
:
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
me
t
h
o
d
s
of
st
o
r
a
g
e
, us
e
an
d
di
s
p
o
s
a
l
of
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
th
a
t
co
u
l
d
be used in light manufacturing operation
6.
6
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
an
d
Ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
St
a
t
e
th
a
t
a Ph
a
s
e
1A
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
su
r
v
e
y
wi
l
l
be
do
n
e
St
a
t
e
ho
w
wi
l
l
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
hi
s
t
o
r
y
be
in
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
an
d
pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
?
6.
7
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
– in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
sa
f
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ro
u
t
i
n
g
fr
o
m
96
B
,
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
st
a
g
i
n
g
,
de
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
and contactor parking. Safe
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ro
u
t
i
n
g
sh
o
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
me
t
h
o
d
s
fo
r
pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
he
a
v
y
tr
u
c
k
s
fr
o
m
de
s
c
e
n
d
i
n
g
96
B
into downtown.
Tr
u
c
k
i
n
g
as
pa
r
t
of
fu
t
u
r
e
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
ro
u
t
e
to
Co
r
n
e
l
l
(C
o
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
to
Bu
r
n
s
Ro
a
d
)
– tr
a
f
f
i
c
vo
l
u
m
e
,
im
p
a
c
t
s
an
d
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ad
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
So
u
t
h
Hi
l
l
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Pa
r
k
Sp
e
c
i
f
y
am
/
p
m
ti
m
e
s
In
c
l
u
d
e
LO
S
fo
r
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
by
ph
a
s
e
In
c
l
u
d
e
ot
h
e
r
pl
a
n
n
e
d
or
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
in
ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
vo
l
u
m
e
s
6.
8
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
In
c
l
u
d
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
en
e
r
g
y
9d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
he
a
t
i
n
g
,
so
l
a
r
,
et
c
)
Co
n
s
u
l
t
wi
t
h
To
w
n
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
fo
r
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
In
c
l
u
d
e
na
t
u
r
a
l
ga
s
an
d
el
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
in
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
3
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
Da
t
e
:
12
‐4‐14
Co
m
m
e
n
t
e
r
Re
l
e
v
a
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Response/Action (Draft)
To
w
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Bo
a
r
d
(c
o
n
t
)
6.
9
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Ho
w
wi
l
l
ai
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
be
as
s
e
s
s
e
d
fo
r
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fu
t
u
r
e
ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
6.
1
0
Vi
s
u
a
l
an
d
Ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
Co
n
s
u
l
t
To
w
n
Sc
e
n
i
c
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Su
r
v
e
y
(P
g
29
)
an
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
re
l
e
v
a
n
t
vi
e
w
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
Up
p
e
r
Bo
s
t
w
i
c
k
Road, east Shore Park, Sheffield Road,
We
s
t
Ha
v
e
n
Pa
r
k
an
d
Tu
p
e
l
o
Pa
r
k
.
St
a
t
e
ho
w
vi
s
u
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
wi
l
l
be
an
a
l
y
z
e
d
(e
.
g
.
be
f
o
r
e
/
a
f
t
e
r
vi
s
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
be
do
n
e
fo
r
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
points) Name (and map) receptor
po
i
n
t
s
Re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
To
w
n
’
s
da
r
k
sk
y
or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6.
1
1
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
sh
o
u
l
d
be
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
l
y
(c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
5.
1
1
)
6.
1
2
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
St
a
t
e
ho
u
r
s
of
no
i
s
e
‐pr
o
d
u
c
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
‐
7a
m
to
7p
m
M‐S
St
a
t
e
th
a
t
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
pa
r
k
i
n
g
wi
l
l
be
on
si
t
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
9
Di
s
c
u
s
s
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
ho
u
s
i
n
g
nu
m
b
e
r
an
d
ty
p
e
s
in
fi
n
a
l
bu
i
l
d
‐ou
t
– in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
ma
r
k
e
t
Mention gentrification
Di
s
c
u
s
s
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ho
u
s
i
n
g
de
m
a
n
d
an
d
ne
e
d
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
ho
u
s
i
n
g
ca
n
be
us
e
d
as
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
if
ti
e
d
to demand and need.
Li
g
h
t
ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
ca
n
al
s
o
be
a mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
de
s
i
g
n
co
n
c
e
p
t
– e.
g
.
wi
l
l
it
be
ur
b
a
n
or
su
b
u
r
b
a
n
– in
t
e
r
n
a
l
ro
a
d
s
sh
o
u
l
d
ha
v
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
in
t
e
r
n
a
l
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
ne
t
w
o
r
k
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
10
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Im
p
a
c
t
s
Sp
e
c
i
f
y
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
– at
a mi
n
i
m
u
m
‐
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
,
No
i
s
e
,
Li
g
h
t
,
tr
a
f
f
i
c
,
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
need for community services
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
ba
s
e
l
i
n
e
an
d
wh
y
?
In
c
l
u
d
e
re
l
e
v
a
n
t
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
or
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
an
d
gr
o
w
t
h
ar
e
a
s
in the Town Comp Plan and City draft
pl
a
n
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
Se
e
m
s
to
be
a co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
DG
E
I
S
an
d
Sc
o
p
i
n
g
Ne
e
d
to
sa
y
WH
A
T
ex
a
c
t
l
y
wi
l
l
be
in
DG
E
I
S
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
is
s
u
e
s
‐
re
v
i
s
e
2.
7
.
2
Ta
k
e
ou
t
al
l
‘w
h
e
r
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
’
‘w
h
e
r
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
’
et
c
Cl
a
r
i
f
y
su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
(s
t
a
f
f
to
do
th
i
s
)
Sh
o
u
l
d
ha
v
e
an
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
th
a
t
co
u
l
d
ac
t
u
a
l
l
y
be
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
– su
c
h
as
a sm
a
l
l
e
r
sc
a
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
Li
s
t
na
m
e
of
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
fr
o
m
ea
c
h
in
v
o
l
v
e
d
ag
e
n
c
y
Wh
y
is
AC
O
E
no
t
an
in
v
o
l
v
e
d
ag
e
n
c
y
?
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
St
a
f
f
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ne
e
d
di
a
g
r
a
m
to
ac
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
ta
b
l
e
on
pa
g
e
11
Ne
e
d
si
t
e
co
n
t
e
x
t
fo
r
Ph
a
s
e
1 (a
l
l
si
t
e
pl
a
n
s
on
th
e
sa
m
e
pa
g
e
)
5.
2
.
2
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
c
a
l
Su
r
v
e
y
/s
i
t
e
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
re
p
o
r
t
/
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
of
su
r
f
a
c
e
ge
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
5.
2
.
2
To
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
No
t
cl
e
a
r
th
a
t
th
e
to
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
is
ba
s
e
d
on
a su
r
v
e
y
by
a li
c
e
n
s
e
d
pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
5.
3
Re
m
o
v
e
re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
to
wa
t
e
r
co
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
.
4
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
Da
t
e
:
12
‐4‐14
Co
m
m
e
n
t
e
r
Re
l
e
v
a
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Response/Action (Draft)
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
St
a
f
f
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
(c
o
n
t
)
5.
3
.
3
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
Ad
d
ma
p
an
d
di
a
g
r
a
m
to
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
ov
e
r
l
a
n
d
fl
o
w
pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
fo
r
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
5.
4
Ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Fa
u
n
a
Tr
e
e
in
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
of
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
ar
e
a
s
– at
le
a
s
t
fo
r
Ph
a
s
e
I.
Fi
e
l
d
su
r
v
e
y
to
be
3 se
a
s
o
n
s
.
Identify the name and scope of ‘in‐depth
st
u
d
y
’
5.
5
Ti
t
l
e
is
no
t
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
6.
5
6.
7
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
an
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
lo
t
de
s
i
g
n
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
as
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
5.
8
Mo
r
e
de
t
a
i
l
ab
o
u
t
th
e
sc
o
p
e
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
6.
2
La
n
d
Ad
d
im
p
a
c
t
to
na
t
u
r
a
l
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
(e
x
p
o
s
e
d
be
d
r
o
c
k
,
wa
t
e
r
f
a
l
l
s
et
c
)
6.
4
3
Tr
e
e
in
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
of
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
ar
e
a
s
– at
le
a
s
t
fo
r
Ph
a
s
e
I
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
sh
o
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
method quantify and replace
re
m
o
v
e
d
tr
e
e
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
6
Ne
e
d
mo
r
e
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
na
m
e
of
st
u
d
y
an
d
sc
o
p
e
of
st
u
d
y
th
a
t
wi
l
l
be
us
e
d
to
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
impact
Ne
e
d
mo
r
e
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
im
p
a
c
t
s
de
f
i
n
e
d
Ne
e
d
mo
r
e
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
de
f
i
n
e
d
5