HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-18 Planning & Development Board Meeting Agenda
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD AGENDA
The regular meeting of the PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD will be held at 6:00 p.m. on SEPTEMBER 25TH,
2018 in COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY.
AGENDA ITEM Approx. Start Time
1 Agenda Review 6:00
2 Privilege of the Floor (3-minute maximum per person ― if you will be speaking about a project with a scheduled
PUBLIC HEARING below Ø, you are highly encouraged to speak at that time)
6:05
3 Approval of Minutes: June 26, 2018, July 24, 2018, and August 28, 2018 6:15
4 Subdivision & Site Plan Review
A Project: Minor Subdivision 6:20
Location: 111 Clinton St Tax Parcel # 80.-11-11
Applicant: Lynn Truame for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Actions: Declaration of Lead Agency Public Hearing Determination of Environmental Significance
BZA Recommendation
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 1.71 acre property onto two parcels: Parcel A
measuring 1.6 acres (69,848 SF) with 299 feet of frontage on S Geneva St and 173 feet on W Clinton St and
containing two existing buildings, parking and other site features; and Parcel B measuring .1 acres (4,480 SF) with
and 75 feet of frontage on W Clinton St and containing one multi -family building. The property is in the P-1 Zoning
District which has the following minimum requirements: 3,000 SF lot size, 30 feet of street frontage, 25-foor front
yard, and 10-foot side yards. The project requires an area variance of the existing deficient front yard on the
proposed Parcel B. The project is in the Henry St John Historic District. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of
Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”), and is subject to environmental review.
B Project: 709 West Court Street Housing (aka West End Heights Project) 6:40
Location: 326 & 328 N Meadow St. and 709 – 713 W Court Street
Applicant: Lakeview Health Services Inc.
Actions: Extension of Site Plan Approval
Project Description: This project was approved in September 2017. Project funding was delayed and the applicant
is requesting a 24 month extension of site plan approval. The applicant proposes to construct a five-story L-shaped
building with footprint of 10,860 SF and GFA of 62,700 SF on the .81 acre project site comprising four tax parcels
(to be consolidated). The building will contain sixty (60) one-bedroom apartments plus associated shared
common space (community room, laundry facilities, lounges, and exterior courtyard), support staff offices,
program spaces, conference room, utility rooms, and storage. The siting of the building allows for a small
landscaped front yard, a south-facing exterior courtyard, and a 16 space surface parking lot in the rear of the site.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
Start Times: Start times are approximate only — APPLICANTS are responsible for being available at whatever time(s) their agenda item(s) is actually discussed.
Pg. 2
Out of consideration for the health of other individuals, please try to refrain from using perfume/cologne and other
scented personal care products at City of Ithaca meetings. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
C Project: Major Subdivision, Construction of a Public Road & Production Facility (Emmy’s Organics) 6:50
Location: Cherry Street, Tax Parcel # 100.-2-21
Applicant: Nels Bohn for the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), Ian Gaffney for Emmy’s Organics
Actions: Public Hearing Determination of Environmental Significance
Project Description: The IURA is proposing to subdivide the 6-acre parcel into four lots and extend Cherry Street by
400 feet. Lot 1 will measure 1.012 acres, Lot 2 will measure 1.023 acres, Lot 3 will measure 2.601 acres, and Lot 4
will measure .619 acres. Lot 3 will be sold to Emmy’s Organics (see below), Lot 4 will be left undeveloped for future
trail use, and Lots 1 & 2 will be marketed and sold for future development. The project is in the Cherry District
which requires 5- and 10-foot side yards, and 10 feet for rear yards. The road will be built to City standards with a
65-foot ROW, 5-foot sidewalks and tree lawn, and will be turned over to the City upon completion. Emmy’s
Organics is proposing to construct a production facility of up to 24,000 SF, with a loading dock, parking for 22 cars,
landscaping, lighting, and signage. The project will be in two phases: Phase one, which will include a 14,000 SF
building and all site improvements; and Phase two, (expected in the next 5 years) which will include an addition of
between 14,000 and 20,000 SF. As the project site is undeveloped, site development will include the removal of 2
acres of vegetation including 55 trees of various sizes. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B(1) (c) and (j) and B(4) the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (11), and is subject to environmental review.
D Project: Apartments (12 Units) 7:10
Location: 327 W Seneca Street
Applicant: Noah Demarest for Visum Development
Actions: Public Hearing Determination of Environmental Significance BZA Recommendation
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a three-story apartment building with 12 units.
Project development requires the removal of the exiting building and parking area. The project will include exterior
bike storage, a trash enclosure, walkways, landscaping, signage, and lighting. The project is in the B2-d Zoning
District and requires variances for front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks. A small portion at the rear of the property
is in the CDB-60 District. The project is subject to Design Review. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”),
and is subject to environmental review.
E Project: North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) 7:30
Location: Cornell University Campus
Applicant: Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for Cornell University
Actions: Presentation: Building Design for Energy Performance Public Hearing Special Meeting
Date
Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct two residential complexes (one for sophomores and the
other for freshmen) on two sites on North Campus. The sophomore site will have four residential buildings with
800 new beds and associated program space totaling 299,900 SF and a 59,700 SF, 1,200-seat, dining facility. The
sophomore site is mainly in the City of Ithaca with a small portion in the Village of Cayuga Heights; however, all
buildings are in the City. The freshman site will have three new residential buildings (each spanning the City and
Town line) with a total of 401,200 SF and 1,200 new beds and associated progr am space – 223,400 of which is in
the City, and 177,800 of which is in the Town. The buildings will be between two and six stories using a modern
aesthetic. The project is in three zoning districts: the U-I zoning district in the City in which the proposed five
stories and 55 feet are allowed; the Low Density Residential District (LDR) in the Town which allows for the
proposed two-story residence halls (with a special permit); and the Multiple Housing District within Cayuga
Heights in which no buildings are proposed. This has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of
Pg. 3
Out of consideration for the health of other individuals, please try to refrain from using perfume/cologne and other
scented personal care products at City of Ithaca meetings. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(b), (h) 4, (i) and (n) and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(5)(iii).
Application materials are available for download from the following links:
http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/9061/NCRE-Application-Report--LEAF
http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/9062/NCRE-Application-Report--LEAF-Appendix
http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/9063/NCRE-Application-Report--LEAF-Technical-
Drawing-Set
http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/9188/NCRE-Additional-SEQR-Materials--Revised-
pages-2018-09-05
4 Zoning Appeals
x # 3101, Area Variance, 437 N Aurora St
x # 3105, Area Variance, 111 W Clinton St
x # 3106, Area Variance, 108 W Falls
x # 3107, Area Variance, 113 Fourth St
8:50
5 Old/New Business
x Special Meeting October 30, 2018
x Special Permits
x December Schedule
9:10
6 Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
B. BPW Liaison
C. Director of Planning & Development
9:20
7 Adjournment 9:25
If you have a disability & would like specific
accommodation to participate, please
contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00
p.m., 2-3 business days (not including
weekends/holidays) before the meeting.
Page 1 of 10
City of Ithaca
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - Part III
Project Name: Major Subdivision, Road Extension and Construction of a Production Facility
Date Created: 8-15-18, Updated 9-4-18
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Planning Board has received three applications. Two, from the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), for a
major subdivision and construction of a 400’ extension of a public road (Cherry St) and a site plan review
application from Ian Gaffney of Emmy’s Organics, for construction of a production facility on one of the
subdivided parcels.
The IURA is proposing to subdivide a 6 acre parcel into 4 lots and construct a 400' extension of Cherry Street.
Lot 1 will measure 1.012 acres, Lot 2 will measure 1.023 acres, Lot 3 will measure 2.6 acres and Lot 4 will
measure .619 acres. Lot 3 will be sold to Emmy’s Organics and developed as a manufacturing facility, Lot 4 will
be left undeveloped for potential future trail use, and Lots 1 & 2 will be marketed and sold for future
development.
Emmy’s Organics is proposing to construct a production facility on the proposed Lot 3. The facility will be
approximately 34,000 SF, with a loading dock, parking for 22 cars, landscaping lighting and signage. The
project will be in two phases; phase one will include a 14,000 SF building and all site improvements; phase two
is expected to commence within the next 5 years and will include an addition of up to 14,000 SF.
The project also involves the sale of public property and potential tax abatements.
Taken as a whole, these actions constitute a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B(1)(c) and (j) and B(4), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (11), and is subject to environmental review.
The Lead Agency has received the following comments from the Parks Recreation and Natural Areas
Commission regarding the project:
1. Before environmental review of these actions is completed, the proposed design of the
extension of Cherry Street should specify how many trees and what kind would be planted, in
place of the 50+ trees to be removed for the street extension (Drawings and other materials
submitted to date defer that information, pending consultation with the City Forester.)
The City Forester has been involved in evaluating trees and other vegetation on the property and
reviewing tree protection details. The Lead Agency feels that the City Forester is in the most
informed position to determine the number, placement and type of street trees. The Lead Agency
expects this aspect of the project to advance in the near future.
2. The new “turnaround” near the end of the Cherry Street extension would have less impact on
the vegetated buffer between the new development and the public, grassy corridor along the
east bank of the Flood Control Channel (which already serves as a recreational amenity, the
appreciation and use of which will be greatly enhanced once the Black Diamond Trail is
extended through this area) if it were built on the east side of the extension (e.g., in the
southwest corner of Lot #2), rather than on the west side, as currently proposed. This
modification would also avoid having to modify a steep slope at the edge of the filled area.
Page 2 of 10
The Lead Agency has considered this issue. It was determined that the existing 100+/- foot
vegetated area from the property line to the top of bank of the flood Control Channel combined
with the distance between the end of the turnaround and the property line is sufficient to
accommodate the future Black Diamond trail without negative impact to its future users. The area
around the turn around will be screened with street trees or other appropriate vegetation.
3. The drawings for the proposed development of Lot #3 appear to indicate an intention to move
and otherwise modify the steep slope along the southern edge of the filled area - by making it
uniformly straight and even steeper (apparently to maximize the flat land within Lot #3). This
would require extensive work within the 25-foot-wide “wetland buffer” established by the City
in 2012 when it deeded the land to the IURA. Such changes are not consistent with the stated
terms of that buffer (which are linked to DEC regulations for protection of waterways) and
would undoubtedly impose negative impacts on the wetland areas immediately adjacent to
and downhill of the existing slope/fill edge.
The Lead Agency is aware that that the terms of the easement do not allow for grading or
clearcutting within the easement area. The applicant will not be allowed to disturb this area as
proposed and has submit revised site and grading plans to that affect.
4. The proposed site plan calls for removal of over 50 trees (over 10 inches, dbh) from the
woodland that now covers Lot #3, including those near the southerly slope. Since the possible
future expansion of the building (from 14,000 square feet initially, to up to 34,000 square
feet, ultimately) is not certain, the existing trees and slope in that area could be left as is until
the expansion is actually proposed and approved, at some point in the future. It would
appear that a staging area during construction of the initial phase could be accommodated to
the north of the proposed building rather than south of it as proposed (where impacts such as
from runoff, storage of supplies and heavy equipment activity, and litter would be much
closer to and impactful of the wetlands just downhill). However, to avoid segmentation, the
impacts of the potentially larger building should be considered now.
The applicant has submitted a construction plan dated 9-07-18 showing the location of materials
and equipment storage during construction. The plan shows heavy equipment and bulk
materials storage to the north of the proposed building and in close proximity to the 25’ wetland
buffer and approximately 50’ uphill from the closest wetland area. The applicant has submitted
an Erosion and Sedimentation Plan dated 7/27/18 that shows silt fencing along the perimeter of
the site about 10’ from the edge of the staging area.
5. Planting only 12 trees on Lot #3, after removal of more than 50, seems insufficient. Also, it
appears no plans have been made to buffer the proposed large, industrial-style building from
the natural area immediately to the south (or from views from the Flood Control Channel and
the on-land recreational corridor on its eastern side).
The applicant has submitted a more developed planting plan that maximizes the number of trees to
be planted.
6. As owner and steward of the property, the IURA could apply more progressive energy
standards to any prospective buyer (than are required by law for private owners), such as for
Page 3 of 10
a green roof, or for the incorporation of solar panels and/or heat pumps. This would be
consistent with the energy goals and strategies stated in the City’s new comprehensive plan,
and the City’s endorsement of a Green Building Policy.
The applicant has submitted information on energy use and systems demonstrating that the project
is consistent with the City Policy.
7. The parking lots proposed for this development could include porous paving materials.
It is the Lead Agency’s understanding that the subsurface conditions on this site are not suitable for
porous paving. The applicant has included design elements to capture and treat stormwater.
IMPACT ON LAND
Existing Conditions
The site was originally part of a larger 8.6 acre parcel that was subdivided by the City in 2012. The
subdivision created two lots; 2.5 acres of wetland habitat and open space that the City retained; and
6 acres that were transferred to the IURA for eventual sale and development.
The 6 acre project site is vacant and undeveloped. This site, along with others adjacent to the Flood
Control Channel, was extensively disturbed during construction of the waterway in 1967. Since
then, the site has been relatively undisturbed and has therefore reforested with primarily poplar,
locust and cottonwood tree species. Depth to the water table is less than 3 feet.
Proposed Conditions
Site preparation for the entire project will disturb approximately 3.4 acres and remove trees and
vegetation. Excavation is not expected to be significant and no natural soils will be removed from
the site, therefore, the high water table is not expected to be a concern. At completion the project
will increase impervious surface on the site by approximately 2 acres.
Removal of the existing vegetation will have an impact on both the visual quality of the site as well
as displacing habitat. However, the project site is zoned for industrial use and is an extension of the
City owned Cherry Street Industrial Park. This expansion is in keeping with the plans for this area
and the impact may be offset by the 2.5 acres of wetland habitat and the contiguous 60 acre
Southwest Natural Area.
The applicant for Emmy’s Organics has submitted a revised Grading and Drainage Plan with a
revision date of 8-28-18 that shows no permanent disturbance within the 25’ deeded wetland buffer
easement.
As of September 4, 2018, geotechnical investigations for the site have not been completed. The
applicant for Emmy’s Organics has submitted a letter from Andrew J Sciarabba, P.E. of T.G. Miller
Engineering to Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning dated September 4, 2018. The letter
describes the expected geotechnical conditions and foundation design based on previous study of
the site in 2000. Based in this information, a mat or raft foundation is expected.
Page 4 of 10
Impacts and Mitigations
The project will permanently alter approximately 3.4 acres of undeveloped land. The following
mitigations are proposed or in place:
y Anticipating development the City retained 2.5 acres to south for preservation and passively
recreation when the parcel was originally subdivided.
y At the time of the above subdivision, the City also created an easement on Lot 3 to function
as a wetland buffer.
y Preservation of Lot 4 for future recreational use
x Minimizing disturbed area with tree protection/barrier
x Implementation of appropriate Erosion & Sediment measures and permanent stormwater
controls (SWPPP)
The Lead Agency has determined that with the proposed mitigations, no significant impacts to land
are anticipated.
IMPACT ON WATER
The western property line of the parcel is approximately 100 feet from the top of bank for the Flood
Control Channel. The 100 foot strip of land directly adjacent to the waterway is under the
jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the City
of Ithaca, both of which prohibit development.
Erosion and sedimentation controls for construction have been proposed and will be reviewed by
the City Stormwater Management Officer (SMO). See Impacts on Drainage
The Lead Agency has determined that that with the proposed mitigation, no significant impacts to
water are anticipated.
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
Existing Conditions
The site was originally part of a larger 8.6 acre parcel that was subdivided by the City in 2012. The
subdivision created two lots: 2.5 acres of wetland habitat and open space that the City retained; and
6 acres that were transferred to the IURA for eventual sale and development.
The 6 acre project site is vacant and undeveloped. The site, along with others adjacent to the Flood
Control Channel, was extensively disturbed during construction of the waterway in 1967. Since
then, the site has been relatively undisturbed and therefore has reforested with primarily poplar,
locust and cottonwood tree species.
Proposed Conditions
Site preparation for the road construction and production facility will disturb approximately 3.4
acres including the removal of trees and vegetation. Excavation is not expected to be significant and
no natural soils will be removed from the site. At completion the project will increase impervious
surface on the site by approximately 2 acres.
The applicant for Emmy’s Organics has submitted a letter from Andrew J Sciarabba, P.E. of T.G.
Miller Engineering to Scott Gibson, City Stormwater Management Officer dated September 4, 2018.
The letter the expected stormwater approach for both projects. The letter explains:
Page 5 of 10
Pending a determination from the DEC, the stormwater approach at this time is to assume
no detention will be required but the roadway extension, Emmy’s site improvements and
any future improvements on Lots #1 and #2 will be required to provide controls for the
treatment of pollutants (water quality treatment), and meet runoff reduction and channel
protection requirements.
On the Emmy’s site a series of bioretention filters are proposed to meet these requirements.
Although not currently reflected in the plan review set, the Cherry Street extension will also
be required to install quality controls. These may include rain gardens, bioretention filters,
vegetated swales or pre-manufactured filter systems. Once the DEC determination has been
received, specific practices will be designed and included in the Full SWPPP.
Two SWPPP’s will be prepared for the combined project. The Cherry Street extension and
subdivision will be covered under one SWPPP and the Emmy’s site development will be
covered under a second, separate SWPPP. Future development of Lots #1 and #2 may
require separate SWPPP’s or an amendment to the Cherry Street SWPPP as ownership of
those lots will be retained by the IURA.
Prior to issuance of any building permits the Full SWPPP’s (including NOI and MS4 SWPPP
Acceptance Forms) will be prepared consistent with NYSDEC GP-0-15- 002, Chapter 9 of the
New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual and the City of Ithaca
Stormwater Regulations. After review and approval of the SWPPP’s by your office, Notices
of Intent will be filed with the NYSDEC in order to obtain coverage for each project under
the State’s SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Activities.
Impacts and Mitigations
The project will permanently alter approximately 3.4 acres of undeveloped land, increase
impervious surface by 2 acres and change drainage patterns. The following mitigations are
proposed or in place:
y Preservation of Lot 4 for future recreational use
y Anticipating development the City retained 2.5 acres to south for preservation and passively
recreation when the parcel was originally subdivided.
x Best practices and regulatory adherence for storm water retention and water quality
The Lead Agency has determined that that with the proposed mitigation, no significant impacts to
drainage are anticipated.
IMPACT ON AIR
Construction is expected to last less than one year, however, site preparation activities will create
the potential for increased airborne dust and dirt particles. 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.
The applicant will use the following dust-control measures, as needed, during construction:
x Misting or fog spraying site to minimize dust.
x Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site.
Page 6 of 10
x Reseeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils.
x Keeping the roads clear of dust and debris.
x Requiring trucks to be covered.
x Prohibiting the burning of debris on site.
The Lead Agency has determined that that with the proposed mitigation, no significant impacts to
air are anticipated.
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Existing Conditions
The 6 acre project site is vacant and undeveloped. The site, along with others adjacent to the Flood
Control Channel, was extensively disturbed during construction of the waterway in 1967. Since
then, the site has been relatively undisturbed and has therefore revegetated. The City Forester,
Jeanne Grace, walked the property in early July 2018 and gave the following assessment:
Mostly what I saw there were early successional and flood plan species. The majority of the
trees were Cottonwood, Willow, Boxelder, Black Locust, Ash (few), and Sycamore (few). I
believe this is the location where spoils were deposited when the Flood Control Channel was
made, so I can't imagine any of the trees there are more than 40 yrs old. I didn't see anything
in particular that needed to be preserved specifically.
She also recommended that trees be surveyed within proposed development areas and that
those outside the development areas be properly protected.
The applicant has also submitted the results of a rare flora and fauna survey in a letter dated July 6,
2018 from F. Robert Wesley to Nels Bohn, Director of Community Development for the IURA. Using
the NYSDEC Nature Explorer website tool, Wesley identified several rare species known to be found
on or in the vicinity of the site, then completed field work in June 2018. He concluded:
I was unable to find any of these species or any rare ecological communities in the course of
the field survey this June on the property. I was also unable to find any other species that are
listed as Rare, Threatened or Endangered in New York State by Natural Heritage or DEC. No
federally listed species were found or have ever been recorded here.
Additionally, there is evidence on site of use by deer and there appears to be intensive migratory
bird activity. The removal of the vegetation in this area will displace the habitat currently being
provided for these species on this site, however, the adjacent 2.5 acres as well as the Southwest
Natural area to the south provides additional habitat. (See attached information from the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for the Southwest Area Landuse Plan, Appendix H1, Plant and
Animal Life of the Southwest Area.)
Proposed Conditions
Site preparation for the road construction and production facility will disturb approximately 3.4
acres including the removal of approximately 108 trees (53 for the road and 55 for the production
facility) and other vegetation. During construction tree protection is proposed for vegetation east
and west of the road. Both applicants have submitted demolition plans and details showing trees to
be removed and tree protection for those that are retained.
Page 7 of 10
After construction, a tree lawn will be established on both sides of the new road and thirteen street
trees will be selected and planted in consultation with the City Forester The Emmy’s site will have
25 replacement trees and other vegetation.
Impacts and Mitigations
The project will permanently alter approximately 3.4 acres of undeveloped land, increase
impervious surface by 2 acres and remove 108 trees. The following mitigations to impacts to plants
and animals are proposed or in place:
x Tree protection provided during demolition under the guidance of the City Forester.
y Trees and tree lawn are provided for street with planting at the turn around.
y Trees nearest to the property line/Flood Control Channel to be protected and Lot 4 will
remain undeveloped.
y Anticipating development the City retained 2.5 acres to south for preservation and passively
recreation when the parcel was originally subdivided.
y At the time of the above subdivision, the City also created an easement on Lot 3 to function
as a wetland buffer.
y The applicant will revised the landscape plan to replace invasive with native species.
The Lead Agency has determined that, with the proposed mitigation, no significant impacts are
anticipated to plants and animals.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
The production facility will be visible to users of the Flood Control Channel and the future Black
Diamond Trail. Building should be screened with large vegetation (trees) and understory plantings
to the extent possible
The Lead Agency has determined that, with the proper mitigation, no significant impacts on
aesthetic resources are anticipated.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project site and immediately surrounding area to the north are in the City’s former Industrial
Park and are previously disturbed and developed. The Flood Control Channel immediately to the
west of the project site was constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the late 1960s. No
existing historic or archeological resources are on or near the site.
The Lead Agency has determined that no significant impacts on historic and archeological resources
are anticipated.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA
The project site is located adjacent to the future Black Diamond Trail. However, it has long been
envisioned that the trail will be constructed in a variety of settings including “rural, urban flood
control channel land, urban” to name a few. (See attached Summary description provided by the
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.) This project site is zoned for
this type of use and the applicant has taken appropriate measures to site the building and parking
and to include landscaping that is sensitive to the building’s proximity to the trail. Lot 4 will be
retained for future use as a trailhead.
Page 8 of 10
The Lead Agency has determined that no significant impacts on open space are anticipated.
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
The project site is not in a UNA- therefore no impact is anticipated.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
Emmy’s Organics has stated that facility operations will require 2 53’ tractor trailer truck trips per
day, five days per week.
The Lead Agency has determined that this is a small increase in truck traffic and that no significant
impacts are anticipated.
IMPACT ON ENERGY This section has been updated
The applicant for Emmy’s Organics has submitted the following information about strategies to minimize
the carbon demands of the project and to achieve the benchmarks set out in the Tompkins County
Energy Roadmap Recommendations and the draft Ithaca Green Building Policy (IGBP):
1. Building Form
The form of the building is a simple arrangement of orthogonal forms, however the need for
high ceilings creates a higher ratio of exterior envelope to floor area. The provided table in the
IGBP (p.37) allows a maximum of0.84 but is based on a 9' ceiling height. The ratio of the
proposed building, at the end of phase two, is 1.87 and so does not qualify for this point.
2. Appliances and Equipment
We will, whenever practicable, select Energy Star-rated appliances and equipment. The hot
water demands for a commercial food production facility are high, and so we clearly recognize
the economic and environmental benefit of reducing our fuel loads here. Electrical appliances
will be preferred over gas-fueled.
3. Renewable Energy
Emmy's Organics has a long history of investment in renewable energy that will continue in this
new facility. There will be almost 30,000 sf of roof at the point of complete build-out, allowing
for a large photovoltaic rooftop array. Whatever building electricity demands aren't met by this
installation will be generated off-site, both by wind and solar.
The orientation of the roof is entirely determined by the boundary constraints of the site, and so
the sloped roof orientation is east and west, with the ridge line running north-south. While this
isn't optimal for solar panels, the low pitch of the roof will compensate and allow an efficient and
productive array to be mounted.
4. Space Conditioning
The volume of this building is considerable and so there is significant incentive for as efficient
and effective heating and cooling system as possible. We are considering modem, efficient heat
pumps for this purpose and will size the systems based on whatever energy model is developed.
5. Envelope and Windows
Page 9 of 10
The wall assembly will be insulated with a double-batt system with thermal breaks across the
purlins and girts, and an internal continuous air barrier.
In addition to the insulation strategy, we have eliminated unnecessary windows. This is an
industrial building whose largest program component by area is a warehouse, so the window-to-
wall ratio is inevitably low in this part of the building. The production area is the space of
greatest activity and occupancy, and we propose using non-operable insulated windows as a
means of providing daylight into the space, mostly for the comfort and well-being of the
occupants but also to offset the artificial lighting demands.
The office area will be the most highly-glazed, and operable insulated windows will be a part of
each individual office. The individual offices are fairly small, so the windows can therefore be of
modest dimension. The overall window-to-wall ratio for the entire building will be less than 1%.
6. Lighting
All lighting will be LED, and will be designed according to the illuminance demands of each work
area. The office spaces will benefit from natural daylight, supplemented by low-level room
lighting and desktop lamps. The production and warehouse spaces also use LED lights, sized for
their respective uses.
All exterior lighting will be both low-energy and dark-sky compliant.
7. Modeling
Emmy's Organics is participating in the new Tompkins County Business YES Program and hopes
to use this resource to determine what options exist for energy modeling, and how these might
be used to help achieve the energy goals of the project.
The selected engineer will work with STREAM Collaborative to develop an iterative model to help
design the optimal envelope, glazing, photovoltaic, and appliance/fixture strategies and choices.
We will inventory the energy demands of all the food production equipment as well to help size
the renewable energy systems.
8. Transportation
This property is in an industrial and commercial district at the end of Cherry Street and is too far
from services to meet the quarter-mile definition in the Ithaca Green Building Policy. The nearest
service is Wegmans, a ¾ %-mile walk from the new building. Bicycle access, however, is
encouraged through covered bike parking on site and a shower in the building.
9. Water Use
All fixtures will be selected for efficiency and toilets will be dual-flush. The shower will have low-
flow heads.
The Lead Agency has determined that the project is consistent with the City energy goals and no
significant impacts are anticipated.
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
Construction is expected to last for approximately 6 months during which construction related noise
will occur. However, the project site is not in a residential or other area where construction noise
Page 10 of 10
would be problematic. The applicant for the production facility has stated that the operations will
not produce noise or odors. The applicant’s current facility is in a highly developed area of the City
and has not produced impactful noise or odors.
The Lead Agency has determined that no significant impacts are anticipated.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
The project does not include any activities of concern for public health. No impact is anticipated
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
The site was originally part of a larger 8.6 acre parcel that was subdivide by the City in 2012. The
subdivision created two lots: 2.5 acres of wetland habitat and open space that the City retained; and
6 acres that were transferred to the IURA for eventual sale and development.
The project implements the City’s long term plan for the site that was put in motion in 2012 with
subdivision of the land. The road and production facility realize the goals of retaining and facilitating
the expansion of a local business/employer while also expanding opportunities for other
production-based businesses. Preservation of the southern 2.5 acres was put in place in anticipation
of such development to mitigate any potential impacts.
Prepared by: Lisa Nicholas, AICP
Phone: 607.272.1290 Email: whitham@whithamdesign.com 142 East State Street, Rear Ithaca, NY 14850
September 18, 2018
Lisa Nicholas
Division of Planning and Economic Development, City of Ithaca
108 E. Green Street, 3rd Floor
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
Re: Emmy’s Organics Development on Cherry Street
Dear Lisa:
Thank you for a productive PRC meeting on Wednesday, September 12th. As a result of that
meeting, and as we advance the design, attached please find the following documents:
•Updated Environmental Narrative
•Updated Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to reflect the revised grading
•Updated Demolition Plan to reflect the revised grading and the enhanced tree survey
•Updated Site Plan to reflect the revised grading, the addition of a sidewalk linking
Cherry Street and the front door, revised sidewalks to match door locations, and a
revised trash area with enclosure.
•Updated Landscape Plan to reflect changes to the site plan (no trees or shrubs have
been removed, but some have been relocated as needed).
•Updated Elevation Drawings
We look forward to meeting with you and the Planning Board next week to discuss the
project.
Sincerely,
Yamila Fournier
Whitham Planning & Design
(QHUJ\1DUUDWLYH (PP\¶V2UJDQLFV1HZ)DFLOLW\3URMHFW
$OOSDUWLHVLQYROYHGLQWKHGHVLJQDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHQHZPDQXIDFWXULQJEXLOGLQJIRU(PP\¶V
2UJDQLFVLQ,WKDFDDUHGHHSO\FRPPLWWHGWRWKHJRDOVRIVXVWDLQDEOHGHVLJQDQGHQHUJ\HIILFLHQF\7RWKDW
HQGZHDUHSXUVXLQJWKHIROORZLQJVWUDWHJLHVWRPLQLPL]HWKHFDUERQGHPDQGVRIWKLVSURMHFWDQGWR
DFKLHYHWKHEHQFKPDUNVVHWRXWLQWKH7RPSNLQV&RXQW\(QHUJ\5RDGPDS5HFRPPHQGDWLRQVDQGWKH
GUDIW,WKDFD*UHHQ%XLOGLQJ3ROLF\ ,*%3
%XLOGLQJ)RUP
7KHIRUPRIWKHEXLOGLQJLVDVLPSOHDUUDQJHPHQWRIRUWKRJRQDOIRUPVKRZHYHUWKHQHHGIRUKLJK
FHLOLQJVFUHDWHVDKLJKHUUDWLRRIH[WHULRUHQYHORSHWRIORRUDUHD7KHSURYLGHGWDEOHLQWKH,*%3
S DOORZVDPD[LPXPRIEXWLVEDVHGRQD ¶FHLOLQJKHLJKW7KHUDWLRRIWKHSURSRVHG
EXLOGLQJDWWKHHQGRISKDVHWZRLVDQGVRGRHVQRWTXDOLI\IRUWKLVSRLQW
$SSOLDQFHVDQG(TXLSPHQW
:HZLOOZKHQHYHUSUDFWLFDEOHVHOHFW(QHUJ\6WDUUDWHGDSSOLDQFHVDQGHTXLSPHQW7KHKRWZDWHU
GHPDQGVIRUDFRPPHUFLDOIRRGSURGXFWLRQIDFLOLW\DUHKLJKDQGVRZHFOHDUO\UHFRJQL]HWKH
HFRQRPLFDQGHQYLURQPHQWDOEHQHILWRIUHGXFLQJRXUIXHOORDGVKHUH(OHFWULFDODSSOLDQFHVZLOOEH
SUHIHUUHGRYHUJDVIXHOHG
5HQHZDEOH(QHUJ\
(PP\¶V2UJDQLFVKDVDORQJKLVWRU\RILQYHVWPHQWLQUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\WKDWZLOOFRQWLQXHLQWKLV
QHZIDFLOLW\7KHUHZLOOEHDOPRVWVIRIURRIDWWKHSRLQWRIFRPSOHWHEXLOGRXWDOORZLQJ
IRUDODUJHSKRWRYROWDLFURRIWRSDUUD\:KDWHYHUEXLOGLQJHOHFWULFLW\GHPDQGVDUHQ¶WPHWE\WKLV
LQVWDOODWLRQZLOOEHJHQHUDWHGRIIVLWHERWKE\ZLQGDQGVRODU
7KHRULHQWDWLRQRIWKHURRILVHQWLUHO\GHWHUPLQHGE\WKHERXQGDU\FRQVWUDLQWVRIWKHVLWHDQGVR
WKHVORSHGURRIRULHQWDWLRQLVHDVWDQGZHVWZLWKWKHULGJHOLQHUXQQLQJQRUWKVRXWK:KLOHWKLV
LVQ¶WRSWLPDOIRUVRODUSDQHOVWKHORZSLWFKRIWKHURRIZLOOFRPSHQVDWHDQGDOORZDQHIILFLHQWDQG
SURGXFWLYHDUUD\WREHPRXQWHG
6SDFH&RQGLWLRQLQJ
7KHYROXPHRIWKLVEXLOGLQJLVFRQVLGHUDEOHDQGVRWKHUHLVVLJQLILFDQWLQFHQWLYHIRUDVHIILFLHQW
DQGHIIHFWLYHKHDWLQJDQGFRROLQJV\VWHPDVSRVVLEOH:HDUHFRQVLGHULQJPRGHUQHIILFLHQWKHDW
SXPSVIRUWKLVSXUSRVHDQGZLOOVL]HWKHV\VWHPVEDVHGRQZKDWHYHUHQHUJ\PRGHOLVGHYHORSHG
(QYHORSHDQG:LQGRZV
7KHZDOODVVHPEO\ZLOOEHLQVXODWHGZLWKDGRXEOHEDWWV\VWHPZLWKWKHUPDOEUHDNVDFURVVWKH
SXUOLQVDQGJLUWVDQGDQLQWHUQDOFRQWLQXRXVDLUEDUULHU
,QDGGLWLRQWRWKHLQVXODWLRQVWUDWHJ\ZHKDYHHOLPLQDWHGXQQHFHVVDU\ZLQGRZV7KLVLVDQ
LQGXVWULDOEXLOGLQJZKRVHODUJHVWSURJUDPFRPSRQHQWE\DUHDLVDZDUHKRXVHVRWKHZLQGRZWR
ZDOOUDWLRLVLQHYLWDEO\ORZLQWKLVSDUWRIWKHEXLOGLQJ7KHSURGXFWLRQDUHDLVWKHVSDFHRIJUHDWHVW
DFWLYLW\DQGRFFXSDQF\DQGZHSURSRVHXVLQJQRQRSHUDEOHLQVXODWHGZLQGRZVDVDPHDQVRI
SURYLGLQJGD\OLJKWLQWRWKHVSDFHPRVWO\IRUWKHFRPIRUWDQGZHOOEHLQJRIWKHRFFXSDQWVEXWDOVR
WRRIIVHWWKHDUWLILFLDOOLJKWLQJGHPDQGV
7KHRIILFHDUHDZLOOEHWKHPRVWKLJKO\JOD]HGDQGRSHUDEOHLQVXODWHGZLQGRZVZLOOEHDSDUWRI
HDFKLQGLYLGXDORIILFH7KHLQGLYLGXDORIILFHVDUHIDLUO\VPDOOVRWKHZLQGRZVFDQWKHUHIRUHEHRI
PRGHVWGLPHQVLRQ7KHRYHUDOOZLQGRZWRZDOOUDWLRIRUWKHHQWLUHEXLOGLQJZLOOEHOHVVWKDQ
/LJKWLQJ
$OOOLJKWLQJZLOOEH/('DQGZLOOEHGHVLJQHGDFFRUGLQJWRWKHLOOXPLQDQFHGHPDQGVRIHDFK
ZRUNDUHD7KHRIILFHVSDFHVZLOOEHQHILWIURPQDWXUDOGD\OLJKWVXSSOHPHQWHGE\ORZOHYHOURRP
OLJKWLQJDQGGHVNWRSODPSV7KHSURGXFWLRQDQGZDUHKRXVHVSDFHVDOVRXVH/('OLJKWVVL]HGIRU
WKHLUUHVSHFWLYHXVHV
$OOH[WHULRUOLJKWLQJZLOOEHERWKORZHQHUJ\DQGGDUNVN\FRPSOLDQW
0RGHOLQJ
(PP\¶V2UJDQLFVLVSDUWLFLSDWLQJLQWKHQHZ7RPSNLQV&RXQW\%XVLQHVV<(63URJUDPDQG
KRSHVWRXVHWKLVUHVRXUFHWRGHWHUPLQHZKDWRSWLRQVH[LVWIRUHQHUJ\PRGHOLQJDQGKRZWKHVH
PLJKWEHXVHGWRKHOSDFKLHYHWKHHQHUJ\JRDOVRIWKHSURMHFW
7KHVHOHFWHGHQJLQHHUZLOOZRUNZLWK675($0&ROODERUDWLYHWRGHYHORSDQLWHUDWLYHPRGHOWR
KHOSGHVLJQWKHRSWLPDOHQYHORSHJOD]LQJSKRWRYROWDLFDQGDSSOLDQFHIL[WXUHVWUDWHJLHVDQG
FKRLFHV:HZLOOLQYHQWRU\WKHHQHUJ\GHPDQGVRIDOOWKHIRRGSURGXFWLRQHTXLSPHQWDVZHOOWR
KHOSVL]HWKHUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\V\VWHPV
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
7KLVSURSHUW\LVLQDQLQGXVWULDODQGFRPPHUFLDOGLVWULFWDWWKHHQGRI&KHUU\6WUHHWDQGLVWRRIDU
IURPVHUYLFHVWRPHHWWKHTXDUWHUPLOHGHILQLWLRQLQWKH,WKDFD*UHHQ%XLOGLQJ3ROLF\7KHQHDUHVW
VHUYLFHLV:HJPDQVDôPLOHZDONIURPWKHQHZEXLOGLQJ%LF\FOHDFFHVVKRZHYHULV
HQFRXUDJHGWKURXJKFRYHUHGELNHSDUNLQJRQVLWHDQGDVKRZHULQWKHEXLOGLQJ
:DWHU8VH
$OOIL[WXUHVZLOOEHVHOHFWHGIRUHIILFLHQF\DQGWRLOHWVZLOOEHGXDOIOXVK7KHVKRZHUZLOOKDYH
ORZIORZKHDGV
5 YEAR EXPANSION
5 YEAR EXPANSIONPLANT SCHEDULE
(2)QB(2)AR(2)AR(2)QB(3)VA(5)CS(5)VA(5)CS(3)CS(1)TO(3)TO
ϭͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗ > sd/KEͲ ^dϭͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗ > sd/KEͲ EKZd,
ϭͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗ > sd/KEͲ ^dϭͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗ > sd/KEͲ EKZd,
From: Eric Hathaway
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 3:51 PM
To: Lisa Nicholas
Cc: Kent Johnson; Tim Logue; John Licitra; Lynne Yost
Subject: September 2018 Site Plan Review Comments
Hi Lisa,
Below are comments on the September Site Review Packet:
Emmys
The plan must be updated to show a continuous sidewalk network to the proposed building
Eric
Eric Hathaway, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
City of Ithaca
607-274-6530
^dZ DŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞ
ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞнůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĚƉĐ ϭϬϴt͘^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚ /ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EzϭϰϴϱϬ
ϮϬϭϴ͘Ϭϵ͘ϭϵ
/ƚŚĂĐĂWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚ
ϭϬϴ ĂƐƚ'ƌĞĞŶ^ƚ
/ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EzϭϰϴϱϬ
ĞĂƌŵĞŵďĞƌƐŽĨƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚ͗
tĞŚĂǀĞŵĂĚĞƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŵŽĚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐĞƚĨŽƌϯϮϳtĞƐƚ^ĞŶĞĐĂ^ƚ͗
ƌĞĂƉůĂŶǁĂƐĂĚĚĞĚƐŚŽǁŝŶŐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƌƵƐĞƐ͘
tŽƌŬnjŽŶĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĐŽŶƚƌŽůƉůĂŶǁĂƐĂĚĚĞĚ͘
ŽůŽƌƐĂƌĞŵŽƌĞƐĂƚƵƌĂƚĞĚ;ĐůŽƐĞƌƚŽƐĂŵƉůĞƐͿŽŶƚŚĞĂĐƚƵĂůƉƌŝŶƚƐ͘EŽƌƚŚĂŶĚtĞƐƚĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐǁĞƌĞĞŶůĂƌŐĞĚ͘
ŽŽƌĐŽůŽƌƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶŝƐĐůŽƐĞƌƚŽƚŚĞƐĂƚƵƌĂƚĞĚƌĞĚͬŽƌĂŶŐĞƐŚŽǁŶŽŶƉƌŝŶƚƐ͘;ƐĂŵƉůĞǁŝůůďĞƐŚŽǁŶĂƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐͿ
ĨƚĞƌĚĞƐŝŐŶƌĞǀŝĞǁŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ǁĞĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŚĂƚǁŝŶĚŽǁƐŚĂĚƚŽďĞƌĞŵŽǀĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚĨůŽŽƌŽĨƚŚĞǁĞƐƚĨĂĐĂĚĞ
ďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞǁĂůŬǁĂLJŝƐƚŚĞĞŐƌĞƐƐƌŽƵƚĞĨŽƌƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĨƌŽŶƚŝŶŐŽŶWůĂŝŶƐƚƌĞĞƚ͕ĂŶĚĨŽƌƚŚĞĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐŽŶ
ƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚĨůŽŽƌ͘dŚĞƵŶŝƚƐŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŚĂǀĞƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚǁŝŶĚŽǁƐŽŶƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĨĂĐĂĚĞƐ
ƚŽŵĞĞƚůŝŐŚƚĂŶĚǀĞŶƚŝůĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘tĂůůƐǁŝƚŚŝŶϭϬΖŽĨĂŶĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌĞŐƌĞƐƐƉĂƚŚǁĂLJŵƵƐƚďĞϭŚŽƵƌĨŝƌĞͲ
ƌĂƚĞĚ͕ ĂŶĚ ŽƉĞŶŝŶŐƐ ŵƵƐƚ ŚĂǀĞ ĨŝƌĞ ƌĂƚĞĚ ŽƉĞŶŝŶŐ ƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝǀĞƐ ϵĨŝƌĞͲƐŚƵƚƚĞƌƐͿ͘ dŚĞƐĞ ƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝǀĞƐ ĐŽƐƚ ŵĂŶLJ
ƚŚŽƵƐĂŶĚƐŽĨĚŽůůĂƌƐƉĞƌǁŝŶĚŽǁ͕ƐŽƚŽŬĞĞƉƚŚŝŶŐƐĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ͕ǁĞĂƌĞĨŽƌĐĞĚƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƚŽ
ǁŚĂƚŝƐĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůLJŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJ͘
KŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚƐŝĚĞ͕ǁĞŚĂǀĞƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƉƌŽďůĞŵ͕ǁŝƚŚďŽƚŚŽƵƌĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĞŶƚƌŝĞƐĂŶĚƚŚĞϮĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐŚĂǀŝŶŐ
ĞŐƌĞƐƐǁĂůŬǁĂLJƐǁŝƚŚŝŶϭϬΖŽĨŽƵƌĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌǁĂůů͘tĞŚĂǀĞƐƉĂĐĞƐǁŚŝĐŚŵƵƐƚŚĂǀĞǁŝŶĚŽǁƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚƐŝĚĞ͕ƐŽ
ƚŚĞƐĞǁŝůůŚĂǀĞĨŝƌĞƐŚƵƚƚĞƌƐ͘ŽŽƌƐƚŽƚŚĞŵĂŝŶĞŶƚƌLJĂŶĚƚŚĞŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐŽŶƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚĨůŽŽƌǁŝůůĂůƐŽďĞ
ĨŝƌĞͲƌĂƚĞĚ͕ŚĞŶĐĞĐĂŶŶŽƚŚĂǀĞŐůĂƐƐĂƚĂŶLJƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞĐŽƐƚ͘dŚĞĨƌŽŶƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĚŽŽƌĨĂĐŝŶŐ^ĞŶĞĐĂǁŝůůƌĞŵĂŝŶ
ŐůĂƐƐ͘
tŝŶĚŽǁƐƌĞŵĂŝŶƉĞƌƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶŽŶƚŚĞƵƉƉĞƌĨůŽŽƌƐ͘
dŽŵŝƚŝŐĂƚĞƚŚĞďůĂŶŬǁĂůůŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞ͕ƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞĐŽůƵŵŶĂƌƚƌĞĞƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚ͘WůĂŶƚŝŶŐ
ƉůĂŶŚĂƐďĞĞŶƵƉĚĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐƉůĂŶƚƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘tĞĂůƐŽĂĚĚĞĚĨůŽǁĞƌŝŶŐĚŽŐǁŽŽĚƐŝŶƚŚĞďĂĐŬLJĂƌĚƚŽ
ĚŝĨĨƵƐĞƚŚĞǀŝĞǁƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚǁĂůůŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚƐŝĚĞŽĨϭϭϭWůĂŝŶ^ƚ͘
tĞΖǀĞĂĚĚĞĚĂǁŝŶĚŽǁĚĞƚĂŝůƐŚĞĞƚƐŚŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞŶĚĞƌƐĞŶϰϬϬƐĞƌŝĞƐǁŽŽĚǁŝŶĚŽǁƐǁŝƚŚĨĂĐƚŽƌLJŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚĨŝďƌĞdž
ƚƌŝŵ͕ŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂůƐŝůůƉƌŽĨŝůĞ͕ĂŶĚĚĞĐŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĚƌŝƉĐĂƉďĞŝŶŐƵƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĨĂĐŝŶŐ^ĞŶĞĐĂ͘dŚĞƐĞǁŝŶĚŽǁƐ
ŚĂǀĞĂĚĞĞƉĞƌ͕ŵŽƌĞŝŶƐĞƚƉƌŽĨŝůĞŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ͘KŶƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞƐŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ƚŚĞŶĚĞƌƐĞŶ
ϭϬϬƐĞƌŝĞƐǁŝůůďĞƵƐĞĚ͘dŚĞƐĞĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞŚƵŶŐƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĨŝdžĞĚƚŽƉƐĂƐŚĨůƵƐŚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƚƵĐĐŽƐƵƌĨĂĐĞ͘dŚŽƵŐŚŶŽƚ
ŝĚĞĂů͕ŝƚŝƐĂĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐĞƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůǁŝŶĚŽǁĐŽƐƚ͘dŚĞƐĞǁŝŶĚŽǁƐĂƌĞEKdǀŝŶLJů͕ƚŚĞLJĂƌĞĨŝďƌĞdž;ĂǁŽŽĚ
ĐŽŵƉŽƐŝƚĞŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůͿ͘^ŝŶĐĞƚŚĞƐĞĂƌĞĂůůŶĚĞƌƐĞŶƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƐƚŚĞƐŚĂĚĞŽĨǁŚŝƚĞƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞ
ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘
WĂŐĞϮŽĨϮ
dŚĞƐŝƚĞůĂLJŽƵƚƉůĂŶŶŽǁŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƌǁĂůŬǁĂLJƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ƐŽ
ƚŚĞďŽĂƌĚďĞƚƚĞƌƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƐƚŚĞĞŐƌĞƐƐŝƐƐƵĞ͘tĞŚĂǀĞĂůƐŽŵŽƌĞĐůĞĂƌůLJĚĞůŝŶĞĂƚĞĚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚǀƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
ƐĞƚďĂĐŬƐ;ƌĞĚǀƐŐƌĞĞŶĚĂƐŚĞĚůŝŶĞƐͿ͘
^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕
EŽĂŚĞŵĂƌĞƐƚ
/͕Z͕Z>͕> W
WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů
ŶŽĂŚΛƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵ
ϲϬϳ͘Ϯϭϲ͘ϴϴϬϮ
^dZ DŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞнůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĚƉĐϭϬϴt͘^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚ͘&ůϮ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬϭϰϴϱϬƉŚ͗ϲϬϳ͘Ϯϭϲ͘ϴϴϬϮǁǁǁ͘ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵ
dZ^,
E t t><D/>s Z ' >K
E t t><:(676(1(&$675((7 y/^d/E'h/>/E'
y/^d/E'h
E t^/ t><ϳϭ Ζ
ϳ͘ϬϱΖ ϭ͘ϬϴΖϯ͘ϯϳΖ
WZKWK^ ϯͲ^dKZzWZdD EdϯϮϳt͘^ E ^d͘E thZhZhddK Z DKs ϲ͘ϱϱΖц
ϴ͘ϴϰΖ ц
EKWzEKWz/< ZhE'Wh>/^/ t><ϭΖWZKWK^ ^ d<ϯΖWZ KWK ^ ^ d<ϭϬ͘ϬϴΖϱΖZ Yh/Z ^ d<ϯϲ͘ϴϯΖϭϬ ΖZ Y h/Z ^ d<^dZ DŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞнůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĚƉĐϭϬϴt͘^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚ͘&ůϮ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬϭϰϴϱϬƉŚ͗ϲϬϳ͘Ϯϭϲ͘ϴϴϬϮǁǁǁ͘ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵ
:(676(1(&$675((7 y/^d/E'h/>/E'
y/^d/E'h/>/E'Wh>/^/ t><WZKWK^ ϯͲ^dKZzWZdD EdϯϮϳt͘^ E ^d͘K͘,͘K͘,͘K͘,͘^Et^Ett
^E
^Et D ,E/>ZKKD^dZ DŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞнůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĚƉĐϭϬϴt͘^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚ͘&ůϮ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬϭϰϴϱϬƉŚ͗ϲϬϳ͘Ϯϭϲ͘ϴϴϬϮǁǁǁ͘ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵ
^dZ DŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞнůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĚƉĐϭϬϴt͘^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚ͘&ůϮ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬϭϰϴϱϬƉŚ͗ϲϬϳ͘Ϯϭϲ͘ϴϴϬϮǁǁǁ͘ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵ
^dZ DŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞнůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĚƉĐϭϬϴt͘^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚ͘&ůϮ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬϭϰϴϱϬƉŚ͗ϲϬϳ͘Ϯϭϲ͘ϴϴϬϮǁǁǁ͘ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵK>KZϭK>KZϲK>KZϯ
^dZ DŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞнůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĚƉĐϭϬϴt͘^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚ͘&ůϮ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬϭϰϴϱϬƉŚ͗ϲϬϳ͘Ϯϭϲ͘ϴϴϬϮǁǁǁ͘ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵK>KZϭK>KZϲK>KZϯ
^dZ DŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞнůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĚƉĐϭϬϴt͘^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚ͘&ůϮ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬϭϰϴϱϬƉŚ͗ϲϬϳ͘Ϯϭϲ͘ϴϴϬϮǁǁǁ͘ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵ
^dZ DŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞнůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĚƉĐϭϬϴt͘^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚ͘&ůϮ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬϭϰϴϱϬƉŚ͗ϲϬϳ͘Ϯϭϲ͘ϴϴϬϮǁǁǁ͘ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵ
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP
1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 201 Ithaca, New York 14850 ph: 607.277.1400
www.twm.la
NCRE
Additional Materials
September 17, 2018
Chris,
As requested, enclosed please find additional materials which address questions and requests from the
Planning Board in relation to the NCRE SEQR review. Since we have three municipalities reviewing at once,
in cases where a question was asked by another municipality and the answer has already been shared to all,
I did not duplicate it here. Included in this package you will find:
1. Transportation
a. Additional information about how many students buy parking permits
b. Additional explanation about how background growth is calculated for traffic
c. A legend for the bus route map on page 3 of the traffic report
d. Additional information about the funding of TCAT and future bus routing on North Campus
2. Stormwater
a. Additional information regarding bioretention and expected infiltration
3. Information about the re-use of 10 Sisson Place (formerly SAM)
4. Information about the size trees that will be planted
5. Information about site recreation
6. Energy
If you need anything else, please do not hesitate to ask. As always, thank you for your advice and
assistance.
Kimberly Michaels
Principal
Cc: Brent Cross, Village of Cayuga Heights
Lisa Nicholas, City of Ithaca
22 of 11
TTransportation (pages 155-166)
Additional information about how many students buy parking permits
Below is a chart which lists the actual number of parking permits purchased by students broken out by year
and totaled for undergraduates.
Student Year 2018-2019
Academic Year
2017-2018
Academic Year
Percentage of
2017 Student
Population
First-Year 112 105 3%
Sophomore 270 271 7%
Junior 187 186 5%
Senior 194 166 4%
Total 763 728 5%
Additional explanation about how background growth is calculated for traffic
Background growth is based upon consideration of historical growth in daily traffic volumes on study area
roadways, known future developments and potential unknown future developments. The traffic engineer
notes “we typically use a slightly higher growth rate to cover potential future developments that have not yet
been made known to the Town/Village.”
Additional information about the funding of TCAT and future bus routing on North Campus
TCAT is a partnership between Cornell University, Tompkins County and the City of Ithaca. Each provides
equal funding to the organization. Cornell also contributes scheduled fare payments to cover expenses
associated with Cornell ridership.
TCAT has been involved in the NCRE project planning. The exact changes to bus routes are not yet
finalized. However, preliminary review by TCAT indicates that Route 82 could use two additional buses
during its morning peak-time runs on weekdays and routes 90 and 92 would each need an additional bus on
weekday evenings.
33 of 11
TTraffic Study (appendix, page 3)
A legend for the bus route map on page 3 of the traffic report
The image shown on page 3 of the traffic study is taken directly from the TCAT bus route diagrams. Each
colored line on the drawing represents a different route. Below is an image of the diagram with a key
included. For further information on existing bus routes, an interactive system map can be found here:
https://www.tcatbus.com/learn/system-map/
Stormwater (pages 74-77)
Additional information regarding bioretention and expected infiltration – particularly in reference to 10% poor
drainage soils noted in the LEAF.
The soils on the site are based on Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mapping for neighboring
lands to the east with similar geologic formulations. The actual site is located on ‘unsurveyed’ lands as
mapped by the NRCS. The surveyed lands to the east are generally 90% Hudson Silty clay loam and 10%
Rhinebeck silt loam. NRCS describes Hudson soils as “moderately well drained” and Rhinebeck soils as
“somewhat poorly drained,” which is where the 10% figure came from.
44 of 11
The soils reports for the adjacent lands would be representative of the original natural soils on the
site. These are described as silt loam and silty clay loam which have since been disturbed and mixed with
some imported more granular materials in the recent past. The soils reports from Stopen indicate the top
layer of soils as ‘fill’ meaning it has been disturbed from its natural state. This layer is anywhere from a
couple feet thick to over 10 feet thick. The material is predominately described as silt which likely originated
from the original soils, but they do note encountering sands and gravels at certain locations, generally closer
to the surface, which were likely imported to the site and mixed in with the silty soils at some time. The next
layer below the disturbed soils are termed ‘silt’ which are the natural soils which have not been recently
disturbed. Below the ‘silt’ layer is ‘glacial till’ which is generally well over 10’ feet below grade. Glacial till is
loamy material that is highly compacted and generally impervious. The depth of the ‘till’ is such that it
generally will not be disturbed and will not affect site drainage.
The bioretention areas are filter practices equipped with underdrains. They will be constructed with
imported, well-draining soil. Some, but not a significant amount, of water will infiltrate into the underlying
soils at subgrade. When sized per the normal minimum standard sizing criteria for the catchment area, the
DEC gives us credit for Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv) equal to 40% of the Water Quality Volume
(WQv). This is volume that either evaporates, transpirates or is infiltrated at subgrade. Oversizing the filter
practices, which we have at some locations, increases the RRv credit commensurately. These oversized
practices will increase the amount of infiltration.
CConstruction (pages 231-233)
Information about the re-use of 10 Sisson Place (formerly SAM)
Lighting, kitchen equipment, furniture and other minor items have already been salvaged out of the building
and reused on campus. Prior to demolition, existing fire alarm equipment and telecommunications
equipment will be salvaged for reuse or parts. The hot water tank and grease trap were installed as recently
as 24 months ago and can be salvaged for reuse on campus. In addition to salvaging items for use in other
places on campus, Cornell will invite Ithaca Re-Use and Significant Elements to salvage from the building.
During demolition, materials that can be recycled will be. Opportunities to recycle building components are
likely small, given that the building is mainly built of concrete block and not steel.
Plants, Animals and Agriculture (page 89)
Information about the size trees that will be planted
Attached please find a chart which represents the current design intent for tree plantings. The chart lists
species, size at planting and the quantity proposed. Size at planting was chosen based on increasing
transplant success and future growth rates. Certain trees, like oaks, planted at a smaller caliper size, have
higher rates of survival. Based on our experience and research, other species in general transplanted at a
smaller caliper benefit from diminished transplant shock and greater adaptability. As a result, these trees
eventually outperform the same tree planted as a larger specimen.
KEY QTY TAXONOMICAL COMMON ROOT SIZE NOTE
ACab 17 Acer × freemanii 'Jeffersred'Autumn Blaze Maple B&B 2" MULTI STEM, 3
ACce 24 Acer x freemanii ‘Celzam’Celebration Maple B&B 3"
ACsi 13 Acer x freemanii ‘Sienna’Sienna Glen Maple B&B 2"
BEdh 8 Betula nigra 'BNMTF'Dura-heat River Birch B&B 10' MULTI STEM, 2, 3,4
CEch 6 Celtis occidentalis 'Chicagoland'Hackberry B&B 3"
CEja 5 Cercidiphyllum japonicum Katsura, provide 50/50 male and female plants B&B 2" SPECIMEN
LItu 5 Liriodendron tulipifera 'JFS-Oz'Emerald City Tulip Tree B&B 2"
NYwf 10 Nyssa sylvatica 'Wildfire' Wildfire Black Tupelo B&B 1-1/2"
PLxa 14 Platanus x acerifolia 'Morton Circle'Excalamation! London Planetree B&B 3"
QUup 8 Quercus macrocarpa 'JFS-KW3'Urban Pinnacle Burr Oak B&B 2"
QUhe 5 Quercus x macdanielli 'Clemons'Heritage Oak B&B 2"
ULac 12 Ulmus 'Morton'Accolade Elm B&B 2"
ULmg 10 Ulmus ‘Morton Glossy’Triumph Elm B&B 3"
ULfr 32 Ulmus ‘New Horizon’Frontier Elm B&B 2"
169
GLms 7 Gleditsia triacanthos 'Christie'Halka Honey Locust B&B 2-1/2" MULTI STEM, 3
GLst 17 Gleditsia triacanthos 'Christie'Halka Honey Locust B&B 2-1/2" STANDARD, BRANCHED TO 8'
24
AMab 20 Amelanchier × grandiflora 'Autumn Brilliance' Apple Serviceberry B&B 6'
CEca 20 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud, species B&B 10' MULTI STEM
COma 6 Cornus mas 'JFS PN4Legacy'Saffron Sentinel Cornelian Cherry B&B 10'
HAvi 25 Hamamelis virginiana 'Harvest Moon' Harvest Moon Witch-hazel B&B 10' MULTI STEM
MAsg 3 Malus sargentii 'Sargent'Sargent Crabapple B&B 6'
MAdy 3 Malus sp. 'Donald Wyman'Donald Wyman Crabapple B&B 8'
MAwe 3 Malus sp. 'Manbeck Weeper' (syn. Anne E) Anne E Crabapple B&B 8'
MAgo 4 Malus sp. ‘Schmidtcutleaf’ Golden Raindrops Crabapple B&B 6'
MAst 4 Malus sp. 'Sugar Tyme'Sugar Tyme Crabapple B&B 8'
MAzu 6 Malus x zumi var. calocarpa Zumi Crabapple B&B 8'
MGbu 3 Magnolia x 'Butterflies'Butterflies Magnolia B&B 8'
MGel 5 Magnolia x 'Elizabeth'Elizabeth Magnolia B&B 6'
MGme 11 Magnolia × loebneri 'Merrill' Loebner Magnolia B&B 8'
113
GMlg 15 Glyptostroboides metasequoia Dawn Redwood B&B 10' .. 12'
GMsm 21 Glyptostroboides metasequoia Dawn Redwood B&B 6' .. 7'
THlg 16 Thuja plicata Green Giant Western Redcedar B&B 10' .. 12'
THsm 11 Thuja plicata Green Giant Western Redcedar B&B 6' .. 7'
PIfa 17 Pinus strobus 'Fastigiata'Columnar White Pine B&B
PIvp 12 Pinus flexilis 'Vanderwolf's Pyramid'Vanderwolf's Pyramid' Limber Pine B&B
92
NCRE PLANT SCHEDULE: TREES
MINOR BROAD LEAF DECIDUOUS TREE
MAJOR DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN SOIL CELL
MAJOR BROAD LEAF DECIDUOUS TREE
MAJOR CONIFEROUS TREE
66 of 11
OOpen Space and Recreation (page 149)
Information about site recreation
The new artificial turf field will be a higher-quality and more reliable option for students than the current lawn
space. This will expand the proposed field’s availability for recreation. In addition, the detailed site design in
the quads will include outdoor ping-pong, hammock groves, gathering spaces and open lawns for play.
Other recreation opportunities available on North Campus are described on page 149.
Energy (pages 169-211)
This information is provided in response to public statements on the subject of energy use and impacts made
via letters addressed to Town of Ithaca Planning Board representatives just prior to the September 4, 2018
Planning Board meeting and to public comments provided at that September 4 meeting.
Many of the comments have elevated the discussion of energy use far beyond the intent or norm of the
SEQR review process. Public statements include the following:
x A claim that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates were not correctly assessed per the SEQR
standard, since they did not include “upstream methane leakage”.
x A claim that the GHG assessment was inaccurate (i.e., that the numbers were not credible)
x A claim that more information or expertise is needed to correctly assess the environmental impact
due to energy
x A claim that Cornell is insisting on “rapid-fire environmental review”.
Claim #1: GHG emissions are required to include “upstream methane leakage”
There were several statements that stated or implied that the energy impacts assessment should be
considered inadequate under SEQRA because it did not include “upstream methane leakage” in its
computation of GHG emissions. This claim is false.
Cornell agrees that upstream methane leakage is a problem in the gas industry that contributes to climate
change. Indeed, upstream leakage is a well-recognized element of the carbon footprint of the energy
company, which has the ability to control and manage that impact. However, our independent energy
consultant, Taitem Engineers, did not err in assessing the total emissions impact by excluding upstream
impacts. Specifically, Taitem followed both the intent and the specific instructions of the NY State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) “SEQR Handbook”1 as well as the more detailed
NYSDEC policy document “Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact
Statements”2 in documenting their assessment.
In following established rules and protocols, Taitem allows a fair and standardized assessment of this
project against any others that may be before the Board(s). Including additional impacts from upstream
emissions on this project, or from any other similar source (whether drill rig energy for wells in Pennsylvania
1 http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf
2 https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/eisghgpolicy.pdf
77 of 11
or embedded energy for the manufacture of solar panels) while other projects follow existing rules which do
not include such upstream impacts would likely confuse anyone trying to make comparison.
PPerhaps just as importantly, including upstream impacts, while it may highlight an important aspect of
natural gas usage more generally in the State, would not materially impact our assessment of alternatives.
As clearly noted in the Taitem assessment, the alternatives for providing heat and chilled water to the
campus would result in larger regional GHG emissions – all essentially related to gas usage either on
campus or as part of statewide electrical generation. These differences are proportionally amplified if
upstream emissions are added.
Members of the public noted that Cornell has performed its own internal and voluntary assessment of the
degree to which upstream methane emissions, if uncontained, could affect the overall campus’s
environmental footprint. That assessment was performed at the behest of members of Cornell faculty and
was not related to the NCRE project. The study lacked a framework of well-established protocols, because
consensus protocols do not exist for quantifying upstream methane. Rather, it represents Cornell’s honest
attempt to understand impacts and focus University actions in regards to climate change mitigation. It also
highlights Cornell’s attempt to explain the complex impacts of increased regional natural gas use.
Finally, the State recently (May 2017) released new guidance on upstream methane emissions 3. This
document provides a strong, holistic approach by the State to reduce methane emissions from landfills,
agriculture and gas infrastructure. However, it does not recommend or require any changes to SEQR in
terms of assessing those impacts or linking them directly to sites that use natural gas as fuel.
In summary, our SEQR submittal contains a complete and appropriate GHG assessment performed by a
third party using the methodology and assumptions specified under State law and policy. Including
upstream emissions would set a new precedent and would not alter the results of the analysis in regards to
energy supply options.
Claim #2: Greenhouse gas (GHG) assessments in the report are inaccurate (i.e., the numbers were not
credible)
Several unsubstantiated claims were made regarding the GHG assessment. Many of these comments
overlapped with the assessment that upstream emissions were not included. However, some members also
reacted to a statement by Steve Beyers, representing Cornell, that “there are a lot of ways to calculate this”.
Mr. Beyers’ statement acknowledges the imperfect nature of modeling, estimating emissions, and
comparing options. This imperfection is anticipated by the NYS DEC guidance document on greenhouse
gas emissions previously referenced, which states:
“The Department recognizes that accurate estimates of energy use and resulting GHG
emissions may be complicated by the limitations of energy modeling tools, the variety of
project-specific and site-specific characteristics, and the preliminary nature of project design
at the point when an EIS is filed. Even within these limitations, an EIS must include
consideration of potentially significant environmental impacts. Furthermore, as long as the
3 https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-releases-plan-cut-methane-emissions
88 of 11
relative levels of energy use and GHG emissions are compared with respect to project
alternatives, and the outcome of the comparison is used in the decision-making process, an
important goal will have been achieved even if the quantification of total annual GHG
emissions is not precise.”
For Cornell’s specific case, the “complicated” pieces include the following:
x Assuming heat pump efficiencies is inexact. Heat pump efficiencies change with temperature on a
near-continual basis for air-source heat pumps and seasonably with ground source heat pumps.
Reliable estimates for seasonal efficiency are a well-recognized complication in the energy analysis
community.
x Calculating the exact efficiency of Lake Source Cooling. Although we measure energy use and
building usage precisely, values do slightly change year-to-year, as documented in our Energy Fast
Facts.
x Calculating exact central plant efficiencies. We use comprehensive data to make precise
calculations, but every year the mix of electric and heat usage is slightly different, so we rely on the
last year of data with the understanding that subsequent years will be similar but not precisely the
same value.
x Estimating the exact carbon emission for grid electricity (both for import and for export). Carbon
emission factors change sub-hourly as different energy generation units are added and removed
from service to balance the demand in the regional electric grid. The overall average value changes
each year.
x Some estimate the impact of electric use using “average grid emissions”. Cornell appropriately
used “marginal grid emissions” since this more accurately estimates the impact of project options.
The US EPA’s eGrid database provides estimates of marginal grid emissions for our region based
on actual electric grid operations. Those estimates were used to assess the impact of each option
studied.
These nuances, and others that are even more subtle, require resolution and careful documentation to
provide a credible estimate.
To ensure that Taitem had the best available information to make their assessment, Cornell shared their raw
data for plant inputs and outputs (gas use, electrical production, heat use, system losses, chilled water
delivered, etc.) and the project design engineers provided modeling results for their building in cooperation
with Taitem engineers. Taitem then used their own expertise and understanding to estimate heat pump
efficiencies and operation for a comparison to estimate total emissions. In the end, their report is technically
thorough and well-documented.
Although not part of the formal application, Cornell did complete their own internal calculations to weigh the
options for energy systems. At least one member of Planning Board requested that we share Cornell’s
results. Cornell’s internal calculations are included below.
99 of 11
Cornell Internal Calculations (not by Taitem)
HHeat & Cooling SSupply OOption EEquivalent Source Gas
((mmmBBtu annually)
EEquivalent Emissions
((MT CO2e, annual)
NNotes
Project Proposal: Cornell CHP & LSC 40,200 2,100 1,2,3,4,5
Boiler and Chiller with Grid Gas and
Electric
49,500 2,600 1,2,3,4,5
GSHP with grid electric 46,700 2,500 1,2,3,5
ASHP with grid electric 49,300 2,600 1,2,3,5
GSHP w/CHP elect (no heat use) 56,400 3,000 1,2,3,4,5
ASHP w/CHP elect (no heat use) 59,500 3,200 1,2,3,4,5
GSHP for heat, LSC for cooling, Grid
Elect
43,500 2,300 1,2,3,5
GSHP for heat, LSC for cooling, CHP
elect
50,100 2,700 1,2,3,4,5
NNotes:
1. Abbreviations: CHP = Central Heating Plant; LSC = Lake Source Cooling: mmBtu = Millions of British Thermal
Units; MT = metric tons (1000 kg); CO2e – carbon dioxide equivalent; GSHP = Ground Source Heat Pumps; ASHP
= Air Source Heat Pumps
2. All numbers rounded to nearest 100
3. Source gas impacts for grid estimated using nonbaseline (marginal) emissions with eGrid (UpNY) value of 1022
lb/MMBTU CO2e and accounting for eGrid estimated 4.5% transmission losses from source to site
4. Cornell plant estimates use plant output versus building metered use data to calculate distribution and
transmission losses; losses are included in results
5. Based on 53.07 kg CO2e/MMBtu per EIA (https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php)
As the table above shows, Cornell considered a host of options for providing energy to the new facilities.
The option that resulted in the lowest source energy use and associated emissions (based on gas as the
source) is the option confirmed by the Taitem study and chosen for the proposed NCRE project, namely, the
connection to the district energy system anchored by Lake Source Cooling and the Combined Heat and
Power Plant.
The materials provided to date clearly meet DEC SEQRA expectations, direction, and goals. The
assessment is comprehensive and includes a rigorous and appropriate review of alternatives. While
Cornell’s independent calculations result in slightly different numeric values, Cornell stands behind the
Taitem analysis as reasonable and credible within the context of reviewing this project. More importantly,
both analyses result in the same conclusion: that the project as presented (connected to Cornell’s
infrastructure) represents the lowest overall energy and associated climate impact of the connection options,
including heat pumps.
110 of 11
CClaim #3: More information or expertise is needed to assess the environmental impact due to energy
The information provided as an attachment to the SEQR forms is beyond the norm or requirement of
assessment for this type of project. Furthermore, any suggestion that the information is not transparent is
misplaced. All of the analysis is clearly stated in the Taitem document, including extensive assumptions and
footnotes to clarify parts of the analysis. The effort already undertaken exceeds the reasonable expectation
for SEQR review of a residential project that is a model of energy efficiency and requires no significant
community infrastructure (pipelines, boilers, new generation equipment, etc.). The project is responsive to
the community (including the Cornell community) desire for safe and healthy residences that do not create
excessive energy impacts. Extensive energy-related information has been provided to support the
environmental review.
Claim #4: Cornell is insisting on “rapid-fire environmental review”
In various public meetings, the Cornell team has provided a list of proposed future public meetings. We
believe this information is helpful to the community to understand the sequence and pathway of meetings
that are part of the SEQR and Site Plan Approval process. Cornell is not dictating any actions or schedules
related to the Board actions, although certain sequences and timing requirements are part of SEQR law.
Overall Energy Impacts
Reiterating the main points contained in our application package and restated in additional materials already
submitted, the following summarizes the energy impacts of the NCRE project:
x The project will require nno new gas infrastructure for building heat, hot water, power, or cooling
x Modeled energy use is ~30% better than the latest State Energy Code standards . As a result of this
exceptional energy performance, these buildings will require the equivalent of only about 1.4% of
today’s total campus district energy (in the form of chilled water, hot water, and electricity) despite
representing over 4% of Cornell’s utility-connected campus in terms of net square feet of building
space. With continued campus-wide energy conservation and good energy stewardship supported
by full-time staff, Cornell forecasts a continuation of their decades-long trend: overall reduction in
total campus energy use by the time this project is completed and operating.
x NCRE will connect to Cornell’s unique district energy systems (underground electric, chilled water,
and steam/hot water piping systems that serve most of the Ithaca campus). These systems are
anchored by Lake Source Cooling and Cornell’s Combined Heat and Power Plant. Using Cornell’s
district systems further reduces the impact on the environment, as further documented in this letter..
x NCRE facilities are designed for low-temperature hydronic heat and tied into district heating and
cooling systems. The facilities will be connected to current Cornell renewable energy systems
(hydropower, free lake cooling, and on-campus solar facilities) and can accommodate future
renewable or low-carbon energy opportunities like Earth Source Heat, waste heat, biomass, solar
thermal, renewable electric, or heat pump technologies. The low-temperature design and hot-water
conversion at the district level are new campus standards and represent investments in a lower-
carbon future.
111 of 11
In summary, the incremental energy impact of energy for this project is, by design and campus-wide
planning, mitigated. The common-sense conclusion is that these facilities reduce energy impacts
(compared in other housing options in the County), rather than represent significant new energy impacts.
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP
1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 201 Ithaca, New York 14850 ph: 607.277.1400
www.twm.la
NCRE
Additional Materials
September 17, 2018
Brent,
As requested, enclosed please find additional materials which address questions from you and the Planning
Board in relation to the NCRE SEQR review. Since we have three municipalities reviewing at once, in cases
where a question was asked by another municipality and the answer has already been shared to all, I did not
duplicate it here. Included in this package you will find:
1. Additional information about increased employees – how many per day and max at one time?
2. Additional information current A-lot utilization
3. Responses to specific traffic analysis questions
4. Request for an additional visual simulation of the sophomore building at the City/Village municipal
line
If you need anything else, please do not hesitate to ask. As always, thank you for your advice and
assistance.
Kimberly Michaels
Principal
Cc: Chris Baelestra, Town of Ithaca
Lisa Nicholas, City of Ithaca
22 of 4
NNumber of Jobs Created (LEAF, page 44)
Question: How many new employees will be on site every day, and how many max at any one time?
While operation plans for the buildings are still being developed, below is the current labor projection.
There will be five Residence Hall Directors (RHDs) who are full-time professional, live-in, on-site staff.
There will be additional dining hall staff on site seven days a week.
The anticipated additional staffing shifts are:
6:00 am – 2:00 pm: 15 people
11:00 am – 7:00 pm: 40 people
3:00 pm – 11:00 pm: 20 people
There will also be approximately 30 (non-dining) staff members who are anticipated to have working hours
from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm on weekdays. 27 (non-dining) staff members are anticipated to have working
hours 8:00 am to 4:30 pm on Saturday and Sunday.
The maximum work force (95) is anticipated to be between 3:00 and 4:30. This is when the dining staff
peaks at 60, the 5 RHDs are on campus, and the approximately 30 staff who work 8:00 – 4:30 are still on
site.
Transportation: Parking (pages 156-163)
Additional information current A-lot utilization
Permit holders that utilize the A Lot (716 spaces) consist of staff, faculty and temporary staff. The occupancy
is roughly 70% during the summer and 81% during the academic year. Utilization counts are taken
between 9-10am and 1-2pm. The most recent counts occurred during the spring of last semester and the
beginning of this semester.
Traffic Study (appendix tab)
Below are a series of questions (in italics) with answers (non-italicized) as provided by the traffic engineer,
SRF Associates.
“I see that SRF has set the peak hours for AM and PM, but I think that it is likely that the peak traffic for “south
bound left – Triphammer” would be at lunch time. In fact, SRF does not show an AM peak for this movement.
Other than the obvious impact to “northbound left – PGR” (delay increases 12.5 seconds), I assume that the
next most impacted delay would be “southbound left – Triphammer”. Therefore we would want to know the
anticipated traffic thru this intersection at peak hour…not the AM/PM specific hours.”
We do not anticipate that a significant volume of students would travel to or from campus during the lunch
peak. Impacts during this time period are expected to be very small and unnoticeable.
33 of 4
In the SRF report, the LOS/seconds are shown for each intersection. Is the standard nomenclature that you
are making the directional turn onto or off from the street listed in each line of the table?
Standard nomenclature is that the turn is made off from the street listed. Using the “Eastbound left – Mundy
wildflower garden” on page 7 as an example, you would read it like this: Traveling direction
(eastbound). Turning movement at the intersection (left). Road you are on (Mundy wildflower driveway).
“It seems to me that there is an inaccurate description of one of the turning delays. SRF replacement page 7
shows that the eastbound delay(s) on Triphammer are occurring at PM peak. That does not make sense to
me.”
Reviewing the traffic volumes shows significantly greater left turn volumes from Triphammer during the PM
peak hour as well as greater PM peak hour volumes that would be in conflict with this traffic. Hence, greater
delays during the PM peak hours. See below.
“When you say 7 entering and 3 exiting as a result of the project - where are they entering and exiting from?”
They’re traveling to and from whichever parking lots they are assigned to so they are scattered over the
roadway network. Figure 8 in the report shows the actual distribution of the trips.
“When the report says a 2.7 second delay, is this per vehicle in line (so if you're the 3rd vehicle, your wait is 8.1
seconds longer) or is this 2.7 additional seconds of wait total for any given car at the intersection?”
44 of 4
This is an average increase in delay per vehicle, not cumulative. On average, any vehicle traveling on that
approach or movement would experience an increase in delay of 2.7 seconds. This increase could be
slightly greater or slightly less depending upon the conditions that are presents when the vehicle arrives at
the intersection.
“Can you share how you distributed the traffic in the model for the as built conditions? What percentages
went where?”
Figure 7 in the report shows the percentage distribution of the trips coming to and from the site/parking lots.
The distribution is largely based upon existing travel patterns in the study area. From the report on page
13: The proposed arrival/departure distribution of traffic to be generated is considered a function of several
parameters, including the following:
x Proximity and access to Cornell University;
x Existing traffic counts at the study area intersections;
x Retail centers;
x Existing roadway network; and
x Existing traffic conditions and controls
VVisual Impacts (pages 93-141)
We are developing an additional view of the project as requested, taken from the north side of Jessup Road,
facing the building. View “10a” will be ready for your September 24th Planning Board meeting.
From: Eric Hathaway
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 3:51 PM
To: Lisa Nicholas
Cc: Kent Johnson; Tim Logue; John Licitra; Lynne Yost
Subject: September 2018 Site Plan Review Comments
Hi Lisa,
Below are comments on the September Site Review Packet:
North Campus
x The applicant must provide analysis showing the capacity of other nearby parking lots to absorb
the displaced parking demand from the CC lot
x The applicant must quantify the number of parking spots to remain the the vicinity of the
proposed housing sites and provide calculations for the reasoning for the number of spaces
provided.
x The applicant must meet with TCAT and Ithaca Carshare and bike share representatives to
discuss strategies to encourage usage of these services to reduce vehicular trips associates with
the proposed development. Documentation of these conversations must be provided for City
review.
x The applicant must supply the manual turning traffic counts data (including existing pedestrian
counts) and Synchro worksheets for review. It is likely that a sampling of pedestrian traffic
volume counts will be required in the Fall to verify the numbers collected in February.
x Midday traffic analysis and light meter analysis must be provided for the following intersections:
o Triphammer/Wait
o Wait/Thurston (east)
o Thurston/Cradit Farm
o Thurston/University/Forrest Home/East Ave
x The applicant must provide analysis for the number of assumed service vehicles to access the
proposed sites
x The applicant must investigate designing improvements to enhance pedestrian safety along the
corridor between the intersection of Triphammer Road/Wait Avenue and University/Forrest
Home/Thurston.
x The applicant must provide further details regarding the data used to assume the percentage of
freshman and sophomore students that bring a vehicle to campus.
x The applicant must clarify how parking occupancy varies throughout the day in the CC lot.
x The applicant must verify their methodology for increasing pedestrian volumes levels in future
analysis based on anticipated growth from the development.
x The applicant must provide strategies on how to prevent relocated parking demand from
impacting local residential neighborhood parking demand in the vicinity of the proposed site.
x The study states that some of the roadways in the study area would be more appropriately
signed for 25 miles per hour instead of 30. Specific analysis should be provided to verify this
assumption.
x The applicant must upgrade the following sections of sidewalk and curb ramps per ADA
standards to accommodate the increased pedestrian demand:
o An ADA Ramp is needed at Wait Ave and Triphammer Rd Intersection on the east side.
o The sidewalk along Wait Ave 300 block on the east side has surface defects on
approximately 10% of the sidewalk.
o The 100 block of Triphammer Rd between Wait Ave and Sisson Pl. has a 4 foot wide
broken sidewalk--this should be replaced with a 5 wide sidewalk.
o Curb ramps on Triphammer Road crossing Sisson Pl intersection lacks detectable
warnings on the curb ramps.
o The sidewalk network on the east side of the 100 block of Triphammer Rd between
Sisson Pl. and Jessup Rd must be completed.
o At the Jessup Rd. and Triphammer Rd. intersection, 4 new ADA ramps are needed.
x Sight distance analysis must be provided at the proposed driveway onto Triphammer Road.
x The applicant must provide a discussion of the proposed bike parking strategy for the proposed
site.
Eric Hathaway, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
City of Ithaca
607-274-6530
Comments to the Planning and Development Board - please forward to all
members
Elizabeth V. Keokosky [evk1@cornell.edu]
Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:26 PM
To:Lisa Nicholas
This concerns Cornell's application for permits to build new dormitories to house 2,000 additional
students on North Campus with heat and electricity from Cornell’s “combined heat & power plant,”
which uses fracked methane gas.
Since the City of Ithaca must approve the permits I am letting you know my concern that - even
though Cornell has admirable energy goals for 2035 and even though their current energy use of
combined heat and power is more efficient than separate heat and electric sources - they are still
using fossil fuels, specifically fracked gas.
The life time of the buildings they want to build makes energy efficiency important. Future energy
goals are not helped by inadequate, out-of-date building performance standards; especially
since they recently built the Cornell Maplewood Graduate Student housing complex near East Hill
to “near net-zero” standards. Please hold Cornell to its own ideals of sustainability and give them
self-interest in researching more affordable energy efficiency. It will help others to do so as well.
In the long run all of us benefit.
Thank you. Elizabeth
August 28, 2018
To: The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
From: Catherine Wagner, 1665 Ellis Hollow Road, Ithaca, New York
The City of Ithaca, the Town of Ithaca, and Cornell University have all expressed serious
concerns about climate change and the contributions that fossil fuels are making to that
change. In particular, the city has created a new Green Building Policy in an effort to put these
concerns into practice. Now is the time to officially adopt that policy and enforce it with regard
to the proposed Cornell new construction on north campus.
The city, the town and Cornell have a unique opportunity to lead the way to new ways of doing
things by requiring that this construction live up to the highest possible standards. This means
that no fossil fuels should be used for heating and cooling and preferably also not for cooking.
The building envelopes must be constructed to maximize loss of heat in the winter and cool in
the summer. (Yes, this may mean fewer windows.). Cornell knows how to do this if you look at
the new building on Roosevelt Island in New York. It may be more expensive in the short run,
but will pay for itself in efficiencies in the long run. I have just come from staying at the Hotel at
Oberlin, a net-zero hotel built in a similar climate. If Oberlin can do it so can the city and the
university.
It is now well documented that the use of natural gas cannot be viewed as a “bridge fuel”,
especially when that gas has been produced by fracking. The leakage of methane into the
atmosphere results in a more potent greenhouse gas effect than does that other carbon,
carbon dioxide. Thus, it is frankly shocking that Cornell would even consider expanding its use
of natural gas by using it in the new construction.
I ask the City of Ithaca to enforce its Green Building Policy and require that Cornell construct a
net-zero building and use no natural gas for energy sources. Let us set an example of what we
can do.
Thank you for your consideration. I hope that the board will take serious action with regard to
this project.
Comments for City PEDC - 9/12/18
Re: NCRE
Mitchell Lavine buzz@baka.com
Thanks for taking this extra interest in the energy issues associated with
Cornell’s proposed North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE). There
are three major points of contention. First, all must recognize that
methane emissions have an outsized level of importance in fighting climate
change. Second, there is a need to make clear the misleading nature of
Cornell’s claim that any realistic alternative to their proposed heating
technology will increase natural gas demand even more. And third, you
should recognize the inappropriateness of Cornell’s insistence on a
rapid-fire schedule of municipal review.
Methane Emissions’ Outsized Importance
The simple fact is that using natural gas inherently causes upstream
methane emissions. And due to the speed with which methane acts as an
extremely powerful greenhouse gas, reducing or stopping those emissions
is our best hope for avoiding the feared, increasingly drastic effects of
climate change. Unfortunately Cornell has downplayed this issue in their
proposal. They’re certainly aware of the issue. They even published a
stark recognition of it just last December in their survey of campus
greenhouse gas emissions.* After finding that upstream methane
emissions cause nearly triple the climate-change effect of all other GHG’s
combined, they concluded that “we must transition as quickly as possible
from fossil fuels.” Cornell’s NCRE proposal conveniently ignores that
conclusion.
Cornell’s Claim That Alternative Heating Technologies Will Use Even
More Natural Gas
Cornell posits that any realistic alternative heating technology will cause
even more natural gas to be used. Their argument is that ground source
heat pumps, the technology they consider the next best alternative, would
need to be powered by electricity bought from the regional electricity grid.
And of all the electricity producers serving the grid, only natural gas power
plants have dispatchable generating capacity. In other words they claim
that any increase of electricity demand can be supplied only from gas-fired
power plants because solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power plants are all
operating at their maximum capacities, and thus only natural gas power
plants have the capacity to increase production to meet the increased
demand on the grid. This is misleading at best.
Many different fuel sources contribute to the grid. On today’s New York
State grid approximately 42% of the power comes from natural gas and
other fossil fuels, 32% nuclear, 22% hydro, and 4% wind and solar.** On
the other hand, Cornell’s combined heat and power plant is 100% natural
gas fueled. Even at the margin, new uses don’t draw only from natural gas
power plants, rather from whatever plant has capacity at the time. And
that next-in-line plant keeps changing all the time.
Those changes are a result of the dynamic nature of the grid. If I build a
new building today and need electricity for it, the grid will deliver that
electricity. As an accounting technique, that electricity has to be
considered as coming from the average mix of fuels that produce electricity
on the grid. Why? Recognize that the same time my new building comes
on line, other buildings may be receiving energy efficiency upgrades or
even be torn down, thereby freeing up existing capacity. Similarly new
solar, wind and other green power systems go on line regularly. For
example consider the many community solar farms being added regularly -
also the state’s recently announced huge offshore wind power system that
will change the mix considerably. So the mix on the grid keeps changing
every day, due to both supply and demand changes. The next-in-line
power plant keeps changing all the time. Thus if Cornell were to install
ground source heat pumps, they’d draw power from all the various plants
that supply the grid, not just the natural gas plants. The dynamic nature of
the grid means every unit of electricity demand should be considered as
coming from the average mix of fuel sources on the grid. And remember
that Cornell’s plant will remain 100% natural-gas fired while the mix on the
grid is much less natural-gas intensive now and will become even less
natural-gas intensive as time goes on..
Cornell’s Insistence on a Rapid-fire Schedule of Municipal Review
Cornell has proposed a very fast-moving schedule of municipal review for
the NCRE, a review that excludes an environmental impact statement. As
has become evident in presentations thus far, at least the energy and
climate change issues involved are not easily understood. Both the City’s
and the Town’s review boards have had a hard time reconciling Cornell’s
proposals with other expert’s comments. Your proposal to improve the
City’s EAF forms is another recognition of this fact.
It’s important to note that the City and the Town, not Cornell, should set the
schedule for review. If more study and information is needed to
adequately review the proposal, then the municipalities should indeed take
that time. The outsized importance of methane emissions alone is reason
to take the time needed to understand. And that outsized importance
alone demands a positive declaration of potential environmental impact.
The ensuing environmental impact statement would provide a much better
basis for review. It is needed in this case.
*
https://www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/initiatives/greenhouse-gas-emissions-invent
ory
**
http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/market_data/graphs/index.jsp?load=pi
e
From: lfmudrak@twcny.rr.com [lfmudrak@twcny.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 2:16 PM
To: Lisa Nicholas
Subject: Cornell's North Campus Project should not use nat. gas
Dear Ms. Nicholas,
I was startled to learn that Cornell is pushing to rush through approval of its North Campus housing
project and wants to use fracked gas to power it. What??? The school that has a big sustainability
program, huge engineering
capability, and touts great fossil free plans for the future is in reality no different than any other
developer??? Cornell and you folks permitting this project will in fact contribute lots of co2 and
methane to our atmosphere
and you cannot see any way to model better behavior? All while talking about reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and setting forth “plans” for the future. The future is now.
This is a large project. It will saddle us all well into the future.
Hope you can work with Cornell to use its engineers to work with project developers to come up with
something more sustainable and creative!!
Sincerely, Louise Mudrak
693 Coddington Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
Sept. 12, 2018
PEDC Meeting, Ithaca City Hall Council Chambers
To: City Council Member Seph Murtagh
From: Charles Geisler, Cornell Emeritus Professor
In its 2016 SLCAG report, Cornell went on an admirable GHG diet, saying that the University should take
responsibility for all emissions generated by its energy use, including methane emissions.1 But in its 2018 NCRE
Application, Cornell went off its diet, ignored methane, and proposed that its co-generated heat would have a
smaller GHG footprint than heat pumps because electricity imported from the NYSEG grid fails the green energy
test. Having left its diet, Cornell is in denial about what constitutes optimal energy from a climate standpoint.
Take methane. Cornell’s Application rests on antiquated (14 year-old) science which, according to the IPCC, has
severe problems. Cornell is undercounting its methane ‘calories’ (Table 11 assumes all dorm electricity will come
from its gas-driven power plant and ignores upstream methane). If the new dorms are heated with natural gas, the
real GHG emissions will go up, not down.
Take the LEEDS Silver Standard to which the dorms will be built, according to the Application. Is Cornell not aware
that in New York City, the average commercial building is superior in energy use and GHG emissions to the average
LEEDS Silver building?2
And take Cornell’s view that the NYSEG grid is minimally green, so that heat pumps would, alas, be mostly powered
by non-renewables. Read Avingrid’s lips, Cornell (NYSEG’s parent company)!
Its 5-year Distributed System Implementation Plan (2018) details the improvements required to become a
Distributed System Platform Provider (DSPP). Avingrid views DSPP designation as “a significant update in our journey
to become a next generation energy company. This will enable us to continue to broaden our capabilities, integrate
renewable energy into grid operations, … and implement New York State’s Reforming the Energy Vision (REV)
initiatives.”3
New York’s Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) and Clean Energy Standard (CES) require that 50% of New York's
electricity comes from renewable energy sources by 2030. Iberdrola Group, the owner of Avingrid, is a global leader
and has transformed itself in the last 15 years to embrace alternative energy. By July of 2018, 67% of its global
install capacity was emission free. So if major utilities and NYSEG can switch to and stick to GHG diet, why can’t
Cornell?
Why not harness the green energy at hand? Why deny in its Application what its own SLCAG is clear about? The
way to remain an exemplary institution is for Cornell to abide by a full and fair EIS in its Application. We in New York
are fortunate to have ample provision for this in our SEQRA statute.
1 https://www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/initiatives/senior-leaders-climate-action-group
2 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037877881300529X
3 http://nyssmartgrid.com/wp-content/uploads/NYSEG_RGE-DSIP.pdf
FW: SEQR
Deborah Grunder
Sent:Thursday, September 13, 2018 11:28 AM
To:JoAnn Cornish; Lisa Nicholas
Attachments:Greener Grids II.docx (20 KB )
From: Charles C. Geisler [ccg2@cornell.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 10:10 PM
To: Deborah Grunder
Subject: SEQR
Hello JoAnn,
As I listened to the exchange about SEQR at the Common Council meeƟng this evening, I grew
concerned that my understanding of SEQR might be in error. I’m referring in parƟcular to your
replies to Cynthia and Seph regarding a Type I project. While it is accurate, I believe, to say that
Type I does not necessarily trigger an EIS, my reading of SEQRA is that the Lead Agency must
require an EIS if, upon reviewing the ApplicaƟon and Environmental Impact Statement, there is
reason to believe that there may be significant environmental impacts. Public interest in the
environment is protected SEQR’s prudently low bar in idenƟfying impacts. Am I in error? I
would welcome the chance to meet with you briefly on this this; might I come by your office or
enjoy a cup of coffee with you?
Here’s an example of an environmental (GHG) impact contained in the NCRE ApplicaƟon that
may be significant. To the extent that the document considers methane emissions at all, it does
so only for local, on-site emissions and uses badly out-of-date science. The part of the report
produced by Taitem Engineering uses a 14-year-old soŌware model, which is based on science
from 1992. Yes, Cornell insists that DEC was consulted by Taitem and met the standard. But
much science since then, both on campus and by highly respected internaƟonal authoriƟes
such as the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, has highlighted several problems
with this older science on methane. The Cornell submission greatly understates methane
emissions as a result. The histogram shown in Cornell’s slides tonight (comparing the total GHG
related to NCRE dorms heated by Cornell’s Co-Gen system, by air-based heat pumps, and one
other fuel source) represents Cornell’s in-situ system favorably. This is an arƟfact of the
methods used and omission of upstream methane leakage. Other quesƟonable assumpƟons
may taint the ApplicaƟon as well, such as Cornell saying that the NYSEG grid will get greener
but at a pace too slow to serve NCRE’s heaƟng + electrical needs. If you require Cornell to
provide life-of-project data (50 years) instead of cross-secƟonal data (1 year), the picture is
likely to change in favor of heat pumps. Please see the comments I shared this evening
(aƩachment). It’s Cornell’s word against that of Avingrid and Iberdrola Group (the leading
alternaƟve energy uƟlity in the world). Unlike Cornell, these uƟliƟes are accountable to
investors, the public, and government regulators. An EIS would sort out whose forecast is more
accurate and how to miƟgate environmental impacts related to NCRE.
Chuck
Charles Geisler
517 Ellis Hollow Cr. Rd.
RE: Concerns about the North Campus Residential Expansion
Joseph Murtagh
Sent:Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:39 AM
To:Naomi Li [nwl27@cornell.edu] ; Cynthia Brock; Donna Fleming; Stephen Smith; Laura Lewis; Lisa Nicholas; Deborah Grunder
Hi Naomi,
Thanks for your email. The city of Ithaca Planning Board has oversight over this project - Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of
Planning, is copied on this email and will pass along your message to the members of the Planning Board.
Seph
Seph Murtagh, Common Council
City of Ithaca, Second Ward
585-703-2582
From: Naomi Li [nwl27@cornell.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 5:22 PM
To: Joseph Murtagh; Cynthia Brock; Donna Fleming; Stephen Smith; Laura Lewis; Lisa Nicholas; Deborah Grunder
Subject: Concerns about the North Campus Residential Expansion
Dear All,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my concerns about NCRE, the topic that will be
discussed at tonight's town hall.
Even though Cornell claims that this project would help it further reaching carbon-neutrality by 2030, this
project will have devastating harms to our environment. The project is projected to generate 5955 metric tons of
methane per year and will also use 41,000,000 cubic feet of fracked gas every year. These emissions will have
devastating long-term harms to our environment. This project cannot be allowed to happen without further
analysis; this hasty action will not bode well for the future of the environment of Tompkins County.
I urge you to take these numbers into consideration.
All my best,
--
Naomi Li
Cornell University
College of Arts and Sciences 2020
RE: PEDC Meeting today - Question about North Campus Expansion
Joseph Murtagh
Sent:Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:40 AM
To:Julie Kapuvari [jkk87@cornell.edu] ; Deborah Grunder; Lisa Nicholas; Cynthia Brock; Donna Fleming; Stephen Smith; Laura Lewis
Hi Julie,
Thanks for your email. The city of Ithaca Planning Board has oversight over this project - Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of
Planning, is copied on this email and will pass along your message to the members of the Planning Board.
Seph
Seph Murtagh, Common Council
City of Ithaca, Second Ward
585-703-2582
From: Julie Kapuvari [jkk87@cornell.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 5:49 PM
To: Deborah Grunder; Lisa Nicholas; Joseph Murtagh; Cynthia Brock; Donna Fleming; Stephen Smith; Laura Lewis
Subject: PEDC Meeting today - Question about North Campus Expansion
To whom it may concern,
I am a Cornell student named Julie Kapuvari, and I would like to express a concern of mine (and among many
others) about the sustainability metric of the North Campus expansion project, which I believe is being
presented today at the PEDC meeting at 6:05.
My question is this: could you please explain how the LEED silver certified buildings live up to Cornell's
commitment to Climate Action Plan (carbon neutrality by 2035) if the project will ultimately increase emissions
(carbon dioxide and methane) by 1.4%? Is there anyone else to whom I can express this concern, and would you
be willing to support the Cornell student body in improving the standard and reducing the emissions of this
plan?
Thank you so much,
Julie Kapuvari
--
Julie Kapuvari
Environmental & Sustainability Sciences
Pre-Law | Climate Change and Entomology
Cornell University | CALS '19
NCRE Questions asked Wednesday Night at PEDC
Joseph Wilson [wilson.joe79@gmail.com]
Sent:Wednesday, September 12, 2018 10:30 PM
To:Common Council
Cc:Anthony R Ingraffea [ari1@cornell.edu] ; Antonia Lhamo [a.lhamo@hotmail.com] ; Brian B. Eden [bbe2@cornell.edu] ; Buzz Lavine
[buzz@baka.com] ; Carol Chock [carolchock@gmail.com] ; Elmer Ellis Ewing [eee1@cornell.edu] ; Irene Weiser
[irene32340@gmail.com] ; Joseph Wilson Gmail [wilson.joe79@gmail.com] ; Kathy Russell [kathystute@gmail.com] ; Katie Quinn-
Jacobs [kqj@authentrics.com] ; Lisa Marshall [lisa.marshall@mothersoutfront.org] ; Lizzy Elisa Evett [duccio44@gmail.com] ; Marie
McRae [mmmcrae@juno.com] ; Peter Bardaglio [pbardaglio@gmail.com] ; Regi Teasley [rltcayuga@gmail.com] ; Robert Warren
Howarth [howarth@cornell.edu] ; Sara Hess [sarahess630@gmail.com] ; Tom Blecher [tomblecher@gmail.com] ; Anna Canny
[aec272@gmail.com] ; Ezra Stein [ezs4@cornell.edu] ; Gabriel Verga [gnv4@cornell.edu] ; Jenny Xie [jx95@cornell.edu] ; Julian
Goldberg [jg766@cornell.edu] ; Julie Kapuvari [jkk87@cornell.edu] ; Milo Vella [omv4@cornell.edu] ; Molly Smullen
[mes449@cornell.edu] ; Olivia Miller [ojm7@cornell.edu] ; Zoya Mohsin [zm74@cornell.edu] ; Lisa Nicholas; Cayuga Power Group
[powerplantdiscussion@googlegroups.com] ; Deborah Grunder; DRAC [drydenRAC@googlegroups.com]
Attachments:SEQR Coolbook page 1.pdf (242 KB ) ; North Campus Comments to C~1.pdf (333 KB )
Members of the PEDC and other City Council Members,
c: City Planning Department; Interested Residents
¬ ¬ Thanks to PEDC Members for asking the questions you did tonight after Cornell's
North Campus Expansion energy presentation.
¬ ¬ The answer to the questions about what is the next step since the Planning Board
has declared the NCRE a Type I Action--meaning under SEQR that it is highly likely
that the project will cause one or more significant negative environmental impacts--is
answered in this graphic from the State's SEQR Cookbook. The Next Step is for the
two Planning Boards to decide whether there are indeed significant environmental
impacts to be studied. (You will notice that deciding whether the information
provided is or is not sufficient is not shown because such a decision does NOT
determine the issue of whether a Positive Declaration or Negative Declaration is
called for.¬
¬ ¬ The Positive Declaration or Negative Declaration comes only after each Board
decides on the environmental significance of each potential impact. These decisions
are made as each Board compares the facts from the Application and public comment
about the potential impact against the criteria for significance as illustrate under the
SEQR Regulations, NYCRR 617 (c) (1) and as interpreted in State produced
documents like the The SEQR Handbook. See Step 5 in the graphic.*¬¬
¬ ¬ As to the issue of whether the emissions were calculated correctly, the DEC Guide
which Taitem Engineering followed was published in 2009. Since then, Cornell and our
County, led by Cornell Professor Howarth, have agreed on and used an updated
emissions calculation methodology. That is the methodology used by Dr. Howarth and
reported in the Memo you received tonight. It is also the methodology used by
Cornell in 2017 and published on its website from which Figure 2, shown on the last
page of the Memo, is copied.¬
¬ ¬ Result of the calculation using the up-dated methods? Answer: Emissions for NCRE
is more than double what Cornell consultant Taitem Engineering put in Cornell's
Application. (5995 metric tons of CO2e per year vs. the 2996 showing in Taitem's
report.)¬ 5995 metric tons of CO2e is enough to fill the Carrier Dome 5 times each
year.**
*See attached page 1 of The SEQR Cookbook attached below the signature line and
downloaded
from:¬https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/cookbook1.pdf
** See No. 2, pages 3-4 of the Memo, and Figure 2 attached as the last page of the
Memo. Another copy of the Memo is attached below the signature line.
Joseph M. Wilson
75 Hunt Hill Road
Ithaca NY 14850 (in the Town of Dryden)
Landline: 607-539-1159; Cell: 607-262-1777
The arc of history bends in the direction we push it.
RE: NCRE Questions asked Wednesday Night at PEDC
Robert Warren Howarth [howarth@cornell.edu]
Sent:Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:27 AM
To:Joseph Wilson [wilson.joe79@gmail.com] ; Common Council
Cc:Anthony R. Ingraffea [ari1@cornell.edu] ; a.lhamo@hotmail.com; Brian B. Eden [bbe2@cornell.edu] ; Buzz Lavine [buzz@baka.com] ;
carolchock@gmail.com; Elmer Ellis Ewing [eee1@cornell.edu] ; Irene Weiser [irene32340@gmail.com] ; Kathy Russell
[kathystute@gmail.com] ; Katie Quinn-Jacobs [kqj@authentrics.com] ; Lisa Marshall [lisa.marshall@mothersoutfront.org] ; Lizzy Elisa Evett
[duccio44@gmail.com] ; Marie McRae [mmmcrae@juno.com] ; Peter Bardaglio [pbardaglio@gmail.com] ; Regi Teasley
[rltcayuga@gmail.com] ; Sara Hess [sarahess630@gmail.com] ; Tom Blecher [tomblecher@gmail.com] ; Anna Canny [aec272@gmail.com] ;
Ezra Zucker Stein [ezs4@cornell.edu] ; Gabriela Nicole Vega [gnv4@cornell.edu] ; Jenny Xie [jx95@cornell.edu] ; Julian Goldberg
[jg766@cornell.edu] ; Julie Kathryn Kapuvari [jkk87@cornell.edu] ; Milo Vella [omv4@cornell.edu] ; Molly Elizabeth Smullen
[mes449@cornell.edu] ; Olivia Joy Miller [ojm7@cornell.edu] ; Zoya Mohsin [zm74@cornell.edu] ; Lisa Nicholas; Cayuga Power Group
[powerplantdiscussion@googlegroups.com] ; Deborah Grunder; DRAC [drydenRAC@googlegroups.com]
Joe and others --
I would add that the DEC guidelines from 2009 were written in the very, very early days of the fracked shale gas
boom. 99% of the shale gas ever produced on the planet has been produced since then, and as of 2009 New York
was using no shale gas, whereas now virtually all of our gas -- including that used by Cornell -- comes from
fracked shale gas from Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. Times have changed, and the 2016 SLCAG
report from Cornell (which was accepted by the Provost two years ago this month) formally recognized this
changed reality. The greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas is substantially larger than that of conventional gas
(as the SLCAG report states), and further, in accepting the SLCAG report, Cornell agreed that the University
should include the entire lifecycle of methane emissions associated with using the gas -- including those from
outside of the State of New York. The 2009 DEC guidance does not do so.
Bob
________________________________________
Robert W. Howarth, Ph.D.
The David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology
& Environmental Biology;
Faculty Fellow, the Atkinson Center for a
Sustainable Future; and
Vice Chair for Operations, University Assembly;
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY USA
http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/
______________________________________
“If you think you’re too small to make a
difference, try sleeping with a mosquito.”
(Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama)
________________________________________
From: Joseph Wilson [wilson.joe79@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 22:30
To: Entire Group
Cc: Anthony R. Ingraffea; a.lhamo@hotmail.com; Brian B. Eden; Buzz Lavine; carolchock@gmail.com; Elmer
Ellis Ewing; Irene Weiser; Joseph Wilson Gmail; Kathy Russell; Katie Quinn-Jacobs; Lisa Marshall; Lizzy Elisa
Evett; Marie McRae; Peter Bardaglio; Regi Teasley; Robert Warren Howarth; Sara Hess; Tom Blecher; Anna
Canny; Ezra Zucker Stein; Gabriela Nicole Vega; Jenny Xie; Julian Goldberg; Julie Kathryn Kapuvari; Milo
Vella; Molly Elizabeth Smullen; Olivia Joy Miller; Zoya Mohsin; Ithaca City Planner--Lisa Nicholas; Cayuga
Power Group; Ithaca City Planning; DRAC
Subject: NCRE Questions asked Wednesday Night at PEDC
Members of the PEDC and other City Council Members,
c: City Planning Department; Interested Residents
Thanks to PEDC Members for asking the questions you did tonight after Cornell's North Campus Expansion
energy presentation.
The answer to the questions about what is the next step since the Planning Board has declared the NCRE a Type
I Action--meaning under SEQR that it is highly likely that the project will cause one or more significant
negative environmental impacts--is answered in this graphic from the State's SEQR Cookbook. The Next Step is
for the two Planning Boards to decide whether there are indeed significant environmental impacts to be studied.
(You will notice that deciding whether the information provided is or is not sufficient is not shown because such
a decision does NOT determine the issue of whether a Positive Declaration or Negative Declaration is called for.
The Positive Declaration or Negative Declaration comes only after each Board decides on the environmental
significance of each potential impact. These decisions are made as each Board compares the facts from the
Application and public comment about the potential impact against the criteria for significance as illustrate
under the SEQR Regulations, NYCRR 617 (c) (1) and as interpreted in State produced documents like the The
SEQR Handbook. See Step 5 in the graphic.*
As to the issue of whether the emissions were calculated correctly, the DEC Guide which Taitem Engineering
followed was published in 2009. Since then, Cornell and our County, led by Cornell Professor Howarth, have
agreed on and used an updated emissions calculation methodology. That is the methodology used by Dr.
Howarth and reported in the Memo you received tonight. It is also the methodology used by Cornell in 2017 and
published on its website from which Figure 2, shown on the last page of the Memo, is copied.
Result of the calculation using the up-dated methods? Answer: Emissions for NCRE is more than double what
Cornell consultant Taitem Engineering put in Cornell's Application. (5995 metric tons of CO2e per year vs. the
2996 showing in Taitem's report.) 5995 metric tons of CO2e is enough to fill the Carrier Dome 5 times each
year.**
*See attached page 1 of The SEQR Cookbook attached below the signature line and downloaded from:
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/cookbook1.pdf
** See No. 2, pages 3-4 of the Memo, and Figure 2 attached as the last page of the Memo. Another copy of the
Memo is attached below the signature line.
Joseph M. Wilson
75 Hunt Hill Road
Ithaca NY 14850 (in the Town of Dryden)
Landline: 607-539-1159; Cell: 607-262-1777
The arc of history bends in the direction we push it.
TO: Board of Zoning Appeals
FROM: Planning & Development Board
DATE: September 26, 2018
SUBJECT: Comments for Zoning Appeal #3101, 3105, 3106 & 3107
Members of the Planning and Development Board discussed the above-listed Zoning Appeals and
agreed to forward the following recommendation:
APPEAL # 3101 437 N. AURORA STREET
Area Variance
Appeal of Theodore Korzukhin for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard, and
Section 325-20 E (2), Front Yard Parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant purchased
the two-family home at 437 N. Aurora Street in 2006. Since that time, the owner has removed pieces of
concrete, asphalt, and pavers in the rear yard and returned the rear yard to green space. The applicant
used the pavers to fill in the area between the existing driveway and the front entrance walk with the
intent to park a vehicle. At a recent housing inspection, the inspector noticed that the area in the front
yard was surfaced with pavers and informed the owner of the requirements for front yard parking and
that a building permit would be required. The ordinance allows a back-to-back parking configuration,
but one must move their car for the other party to get out of the driveway. The applicant would like to
access their vehicle at will and therefore requests a variance from the requirements of Section 325-20 E
(2), which restricts parking to within a driveway. The driveway with the additional pavers measures 16’-
6” in width and the ordinance allows driveways to be a maximum of 12’ in width for front yard parking.
The building at 437 N. Aurora Street has an existing front yard setback deficiency that will not be
exacerbated by the proposal.
The property is located in an R-2b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted.
However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and supports this appeal- however
it appears that the paving encroaches on the sidewalk.
APPEAL # 3105 111 W. CLINTON STREET (AKA: 301 S. Geneva Street)
Area Variance
Appeal of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 11,
Front Yard, Column 12, Other Front Yard, and Column 13, Side Yard requirements of zoning ordinance.
The applicant proposes to subdivide the property located at 301 S. Geneva Street into two parcels.
Parcel A will contain the buildings at 301 S. Geneva Street and 115 W. Clinton Street and Parcel B will
contain the 111 W. Clinton Street building and the required parking. The required parking for 111 W.
Clinton Street will be accessed via a right-of-way from an existing driveway to the three parking spaces
located in the rear yard.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
The property at 301 S. Geneva Street has received three variances for the current uses and setbacks.
However, in order to subdivide the property, the newly created parcels must comply with the zoning
ordinance. Parcel A has existing deficiencies in other front yard and side yard. The other front yard of
building 301 S. Geneva Street, is 17.7 feet of the required 25 feet, and the side yard of 115 W. Clinton
Street is 6.3 feet of the 10 feet required by the ordinance. Parcel B, which contains the 111 W. Clinton
Street building, has an existing deficiency in the required front yard having 2.6 feet of the 25 feet
required by the ordinance.
The property is located in a P-1 public use district in which the proposed use is permitted by variance.
However, City Code Section 290-8 requires that subdivision applications conform to the General City
Law, Section 33 which states that a subdivided plat must comply with a municipality’s zoning ordinance.
Therefore, the area variance for the front yard, other front yard and side yard deficiencies are necessary
for compliance.
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. These
are all existing deficiencies and there will be no physical change to the property or occupancy of the
buildings.
APPEAL # 3106 108 W. FALLS STREET
Area Variance
Appeal of Laurie Damiani for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 12, Side Yard, and Column
13, Other Side Yard requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to remove an existing
deck and construct a 273.5 SF addition on the rear of the home at 108 W. Falls Street. The new one story
addition will be positioned in line with the west wall of the dwelling. The west wall of the dwelling is 3.8”
from the property line and the addition will extend the side yard deficiency an additional 16’-5” along
the west property line. The ordinance requires a 5 foot side yard. The other side yard has an existing
deficiency having 7’ of the 10’ required by the ordinance. This deficiency will not be exacerbated by the
proposed addition.
The property is located in an R-2b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted.
However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The
addition is well integrated with the rest of the building and will not be visible from the street.
APPEAL # 3107 113 FOURTH STREET
Area Variance
Appeal of Alena Fast representing Ithaca City Apartments, LLC for an Area Variance from Section 325-8,
Column 4, Off-Street Parking and Column 12, Other Front Yard requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The applicant is in the process of renovating the first floor apartment at the property located at 113
Fourth Street. As part of the renovation, the applicant would like to comply the ADA requirements for
accessibility and install an accessible ramp. The property is located on a corner lot and due to site
constraints, the applicant proposed to construct the switchback ramp in the front yard facing Madison
Street. The ramp will be a total of 300 SF and travel along the front yard, approximately 33 feet, to meet
the landing and slope requirements for accessibility. Positioning the ramp in the front yard will increase
the existing deficiency of 4’ to 0’ of the 10’ required by the ordinance. The property has an existing
deficiency in parking that will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
The property is located in an R-2b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted.
However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and supports this appeal