Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12-18-18 Planning and 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 DECEMBER 18TH, 2018 in COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY. AGENDA ITEM Approx. Start Time 1 Agenda Review 6:00 2 Special Order of Business – Presentation of the Greater Southside Plan 6:05 3 Privilege of the Floor (3-minute maximum per person ― if you will be speaking about a project with a scheduled PUBLIC HEARING below , you are highly encouraged to speak at that time) 6:20 4 Approval of Minutes: November 27, 2018 6:35 5 Special Permits 6:40 A Project: Bed & Breakfast Special Permit Location: 130 Coddington Road Applicant: Noah Demarest Actions: Declaration of Lead Agency Public Hearing Determination of Environmental Significance Potential Consideration of Special Permit Approval Project Description: The applicant is seeking a Special Permit for use of the property as a homeowner occupied Bed and Breakfast. The property was originally issued a Special Permit in 1998 for operation of the five bedroom home as a homeowner occupied Bed and Breakfast; the Special Permit was not renewed in 2003, as required by §325-9c(4)(g)[3], and has therefore expired. During a recent home inspection, it was discovered the property had continued to operate absent a Special Permit, necessitating a new Special Permit application. No physical alterations to the building or the site are proposed. Issuance of a Special Permit is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act “(“SEQRA”) B Project: Bed & Breakfast Home Special Permit 6:50 Location: 2 Fountain Place Applicant: Jason K Demarest Actions: Declaration of Lead Agency Public Hearing Determination of Environmental Significance Potential Consideration of Special Permit Approval Project Description: The applicant is seeking a Special Permit to operate the existing 4,492 SF nine (9) bedroom residence located at 2 Fountain Place as a Bed and Breakfast Home. The owner is proposing to utilize four (4) of the nine (9) bedrooms as guest bedrooms for a period not to exceed 21 consecutive days, with a fifth bedroom utilized for home-owner occupancy. Guest occupancy will be limited to two persons or one family per guestroom. No exterior modifications are proposed to the existing home to establish the B&B use, and the existing house is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Existing parking for seven (7) vehicles exists in the turnaround off Willets Place. The applicant does not propose cooking facilities in the guestrooms, and food service is to be limited to guests of the B&B. No other B&B Homes exist within 500 feet of the property. One sign that is five (5) SF maximum in area and not self-illuminated will be installed in compliance with Chapter 272 of the City Code, “Signs.” 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." 6 Site Plan Review A Project: Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan (FGEIS) 7:00 Location: 620 S. Aurora St. Applicant: Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties Actions: Review FGEIS & Town Comments – No Action Project Description: The proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000 sf former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for development of a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office, and manufacturing. The site’s redevelopment would bridge South Hill and Downtown Ithaca, the Town and the City of Ithaca, by providing multiple intermodal access routes including a highly-desired trail connection. The project will be completed in multiple phases over a period of several years with the initial phases involving the redevelopment of the existing structures. Current redevelopment of this property will focus on retrofitting existing buildings and infrastructure for new uses. Using the existing structures, residential, commercial, studio workspaces, and office development are proposed to be predominantly within the City of Ithaca, while manufacturing will be within both the Town and City of Ithaca. Project materials are available for download from the City website: http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Index/119 B Project: North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) 7:20 Location: Cornell University Campus Applicant: Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for Cornell University Actions: Determination of Environmental Significance 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 program 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 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). Project materials are available for download from the City website: http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Index/811 C Project: Falls Park Apartments (74 Units) 7:50 Location: 121-125 Lake Street Applicant: IFR Development LLC Actions: Review of FEAF Part 3 – No Action Project Description: The applicant proposes to build a 133,000 GSF, four-story apartment building and associated site improvements on the former Gun Hill Factory site. The 74 -unit, age-restricted apartment building will be a mix of one- and two-bedroom units and will include 7,440 SF of amenity space and 85 parking spaces (20 surface spaces and 65 covered spaces under the building). Site improvements include an eight-foot wide 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." public walkway located within the dedicated open space on adjacent City Property (as required per agreements established between the City and the property owner in 2007) and is to be constructed by the project sponsor. The project site is currently in the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP). Before site development can occur, the applicant is required to remediate the site based on soil cleanup objectives for restricted residential use. A remedial investigation (RI) was recently completed at the site and was submitted to NYSDEC in August 2018. The project is in the R-3a Zoning District and requires multiple variances. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B(1) (h)[2], (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (11). Project materials are available for download from the City website: http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Index/852 D Project: New Two-Family Dwellings 8:10 Location: 815-817 N Aurora Applicant: Stavros Stavropoulos Actions: Public Hearing Project Description: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-family residential structure and construct two new 1,290 SF two-family dwellings on a 9,590 SF lot. The existing residential building is a legally non-conforming building with a side setback deficiency (2.9 feet instead of the required 5 feet). The proposed redevelopment will include four parking spaces for four three-bedroom apartments. The applicant is requesting the Board’s approval to use the landscaping compliance method for parking arrangement. The project site is located in the R-2b Zoning District and meets all applicable zoning lot and setback requirements. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”). Project materials are available for download from the City website: http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Index/859 E Project: Maguire Ford Lincoln Additions and Improvements 8:30 Location: 370 Elmira Road Applicant: John Snyder Architects PLLC Actions: Public Hearing Potential Determination of Environmental Significance Project Description: The applicant proposes to demolish a portion of the existing building and construct two additions with updated exterior materials. The existing building is 18,500 GSF, with 2,265 GSF proposed for demolition. The new building will be 24,110 GSF. Site improvements include incorporation of a new pedestrian walking path, and site connections to Wegmans. Approximately 311 parking spaces are proposed to accommodate customer, service parking, employee, and display parking. The project site is located in the SW-2 Zone, is subject to the 2000 Southwest Design Guidelines, and will require a zoning variance for a front yard that exceeds the maximum permissible in the SW-2 district (34 feet maximum permitted, 69-feet 3-inch setback proposed). This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”); however, it will be treated as a Type I Action for the purpose of environmental review. Project materials are available for download from the City website: http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Index/860 F West Hill- Tiny Timbers – Sketch Plan 8:50 G 112-114 Summit Ave – Sketch Plan 9:10 Pg. 4 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." 7 Old/New Business PRC Meeting Time/ Date 9:30 8 Reports A. Planning Board Chair B. BPW Liaison C. Director of Planning & Development 9:40 9 Adjournment 9:50 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. Standards for Special Permits and Special Conditions §325-9 (g)Bed-and-Breakfast home and bed-and-breakfast inn. [1]The Planning and Development Board shall only grant a special permit for a bed-and-breakfast home or a bed and-breakfast inn (in those districts allowing such uses)if the following special conditions are met and adhered to during the period the bed-and-breakfast use in in operation: [a]Each such use before it commences must obtain a certificate of occupancy from the Director of Planning and Development or designee. [b] A bed-and-breakfast home must be owner-occupied and owner-managed.A bed-and- breakfast inn must be owner-managed. [i] An owner-occupant is an individual who owns at least a one-half interest in the real estate on which the bed-and-breakfast home is located and also owns at least a one-half interest in the business running the bed-and-breakfast home and who primarily resides in and lives in the bed-and-breakfast home for at least 80%of the days (in each calendar year) when the bed-and-breakfast home is open for business asa bed-and-breakfast home [ii]An owner-manager is an individual who owns at least a one-half ownership interest in the real estate on which the bed-and-breakfast home or bed-and-breakfast inn is located and also owns at least a one-half interest in the business of the bed-and-breakfast home or bed- and-breakfast inn and who is primarily responsible for the management of the bed-and- breakfast home or bed-and-breakfast inn and is physically present in the bed-and-breakfast home or bed-and-breakfast inn at least once per day for 80%of the days (in each calendar year) when the bed-and-breakfast home or bed-and-breakfast inn is open for business. [c]Bed-and-breakfast home or inn in residential zones must be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood.No alterations to the exterior of the house for the purpose of establishing or expanding bed-and-breakfast operations shall be permitted except for routine maintenance,alterations not requiring a building permit,restoration or requirements related to safety or handicapped accessibility. There shall be no exterior indication of a business, except the one permitted sign indicated below and required parking. Drawings illustrating any proposed exterior modifications must be submitted with the special permit application. [d] Drawings illustrating any proposed exterior modifications (excluding plumbing,wiring or other utility work)directly related to establishing or continuing the bed-and-breakfast use must be submitted with the special permit application.Examples of major interior modifications are the removal,replacement or installation of staircases or partitioning walls. [e] No cooking facilities are permitted in the individual guest rooms. [f] Food Service shall only be provided to guests taking lodging in the bed-and-breakfast home or inn. [g] In R-2 Zones, no bed-and-breakfast home may be located on a lot closer than 500 feet to any other lot containing a bed-and-breakfast home,with only one such establishment permitted per block face. [h] There shall be no more than one sign. Such sign shall not be self-illuminated and shall not exceed five square feet in area.Additional requirements described in Chapter 272}entitled "Signs,"of this Code shall be met. [2] The response of those notified by the appellant as required in the procedures set forth in §325-40} as well as that expressed at the public hearing}should be a principal factor in the Planning and Development Board's decision to grant or deny the special permit. [3] A special permit granted for a bed-and-breakfast home located in an R-2 Zone shall expire after a period of five years. All the requirements pertaining to the application for and granting of a first- time special permit for a bed-and-breakfast home shall also apply to the application for and granting of a renewed special permit for a bed-and-breakfast home located in an R-2 Zone} including the notification procedures set forth in §325-40and the expiration of such renewed Special permit after five years. PROPOSED RESOLUTION Declaration of Lead Agency Temporary Special Permit Bed and Breakfast Home 130 Coddington Road City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board December 18, 2018 WHEREAS:6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code,Environmental Quality Review,require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects,in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS:State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review,the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a Temporary Special Permit for a Bed &Breakfast Home at 130 Coddington Road,by Noah Demarest on behalf of the owner,Denice K.DeSouza,and WHEREAS:the applicant is proposing to use the property as a bed and breakfast home in which no more than four rooms would be rented.The applicant has sufficient parking on site for the proposed use and is not proposing any physical alternations to the building or the site.The property is in the R-2a Zoning District in which the use is allowed by Special Permit,and WHEREAS:in accordance with §325-9 of the City Code "a special permit for a bed and breakfast home located in an R-2 Zone shall expire after a period of five years",and WHEREAS:this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance?as the permit has expired,and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,both of which require environmental review,and now, therefore be it, RESOL VED:that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,being that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,does, by way of this resolution,declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project. Moved by: Seconded by: In Favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: PROPOSED RESOLUTION CEQR Negative Declaration Temporary Special Permit Bed and Breakfast Home 130 Coddington Road City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board December 18, 2018 WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a Temporary Special Permit for a Bed &Breakfast Home at 130 Coddington Road, by Noah Demarest on behalf of the owner, Denice K. DeSouza, and WHEREAS:the applicant is proposing to use the property as a bed and breakfast home in which no more than four rooms would be rented. The applicant has sufficient parking on site for the proposed use and is not proposing any physical alternations to the building or the site. The property is in the R-2a Zoning District in which the use is allowed by Special Permit, and WHEREAS:in accordance with §325-9 of the City Code "a special permit for a bed and breakfast home located in an R-2 Zone shall expire after a period of five years",and WHEREAS:this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance,as the permit has expired, and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS:that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on December 18, 2018 declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and WHEREAS:the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency did, on December 18,2018,review and accept as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1,submitted by the applicant, and Part 2,prepared by Planning staff, and other application materials prepared by the applicant,now,therefore be it, RESOL VBD:that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for the purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Moved by: Seconded by: In Favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: PROPOSED RESOLUTION Temporary Special Permit Approval Temporary Special Permit Bed &Breakfast Home 130 Coddington Road City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board December 18, 2018 WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a Temporary Special Permit for a Bed &Breakfast Home at 130 Coddington Road,by Noah Demarest on behalf of the owner,Denice K.DeSouza,and WHEREAS:the applicant is seeking a temporary special permit for use of the property as a home-owner occupied bed and breakfast,as required by § 325-9C(1)(q)of the City Code,with no proposed physical alternations to the building or the site, and WHEREAS:the applicant is proposing to use the property as a bed and breakfast home in which no more than four rooms would be rented.The applicant has sufficient parking on site for the proposed use and is not proposing any physical alternations to the building or the site.The property is in the R-2a Zoning District in which the use is allowed by Special Permit,and WHEREAS:In accordance with City Code, a bed and breakfast home is defmed as follows:An owner- managed occupation conducted by the owner-occupant of a one- or two-family home that provides one to four rooms for paying guests on an overnight basis.Guest occupancy periods shall not exceed 21 consecutive days. The occupancy of such a bed-and-breakfast home is limited to two persons or one family per lodging unit or guest room,and WHEREAS:in accordance with §325-9 of the City Code "a special permit for a bed and breakfast home located in an R-2 Zone shall expire after a period of five years",and WHEREAS:this is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review,and WHEREAS:legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with §325-40B(2)(e)of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS:following proper notice to the public,a public hearing was held by the Board on December 18, 2018, and WHEREAS:the Board,acting as Lead Agency in environmental review,has, on December 18,2018, reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1,submitted by the applicant,and Part 2,prepared by Planning Staff and application materials prepared by the applicant,and WHEREAS:the Planning and Development Board,acting as Lead Agency in environmental review,did, on December 18, 2018 make a negative declaration of environmental significance,and WHEREAS:the Board has made the following findings of fact: 1. The applicant is the owner of the land and resides on the premises; 2. The proposal is for a bed &breakfast home that would be owner occupied and managed; 3. The applicant proposes to rent out no more than three bedrooms as bed and breakfast rooms,to be rented on a daily basis; 4. The property legally operated as a bed and breakfast home from 1998-2003; 5. There is no evidence of any existing bed and breakfast homes within 500 feet of the property; 6. The property has adequate parking to serve a bed and breakfast home (7 spaces); 7. There has been no opposition from any neighbors or the public to this proposal; 8. The location and size of the use, the size of the site and the location of the site with respect to the existing or future streets giving access to it are in harmony with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood and will not discourage the appropriate development of adjacent land and buildings and will not impair the enjoyment or value thereof; and 9.Proposed operations in connection with the bed and breakfast home will not produce objectionable noise, fumes, increased vehicular traffic or parking demand, or light impacts; and 10. The applicant has read, understands and concurs with the proposed conditions; RESOL VED:that the subject application is APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall continue to reside in and manage the home as a bed and breakfast home, as permitted by Special Permit in the R-2 zoning district and pursuant to §325-9 of the City of Ithaca Code; 2. No cooking facilities shall be provided in the individual guest rooms; 3. Food service shall be limited to guests taking lodging in the bed-and-breakfast home; 4. The special permit shall expire after a period of five years. All requirements pertaining to the application for and granting of a first-time special permit for a bed and breakfast home shall apply to the application for a renewed special permit, including the notification procedures set forth in §325-40. Moved by: Seconded by: In Favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: PROPOSED RESOLUTION Declaration of Lead Agency Temporary Special Permit Bed &Breakfast Home 2 Fountain Place City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board December 18, 2018 WHEREAS:6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code,Environmental Quality Review,require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects,in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS:State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review,the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a Temporary Special Permit for a bed &breakfast home at 2 Fountain Place, by Jason K.Demarest, applicant for the owner, and WHEREAS:in accordance with City Code, a bed and breakfast home is defined as follows: An owner- managed occupation conducted by the owner-occupant of a one- or two-family horne that provides one to four rooms for paying guests on an overnight basis. Guest occupancy periods shall not exceed 21 consecutive days. The occupancy of such a bed-and-breakfast home is limited to two persons or one family per lodging unit or guest room, and WHEREAS:the applicant is proposing to use the property as a bed and breakfast home in which no more than four rooms would be rented. The applicant has sufficient parking on site for the proposed use and is not proposing any physical alternations to the building or the site. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District in which the use is allowed by Special Permit and also in the East Hill Local Historic District,and WHEREAS:This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO")§176.7 B. (1) (h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA")§617.4 (11) as it is located in the Local East Hill Historic District,both of which require environmental review, and now,therefore be it, RESOL VED:that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board,being that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, does, by way of this resolution,declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project. Moved by: Seconded by: In Favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: PROPOSED RESOLUTION Temporary Special Permit Approval Temporary Special Permit Bed &Breakfast Home 2 Fountain Place City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board December 18, 2018 WHEREAS:The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has received a Temporary Special Permit application for a bed and breakfast home at 2 Fountain Place,by Jason K.Demarest,applicant for the owner,and WHEREAS:the applicant is seeking a temporary special permit for use of the property as a home-owner occupied bed and breakfast,as required by §325-9C(I)(q)of the City Code,with no proposed physical alternations to the building or the site, and WHEREAS:in accordance with City Code,a bed and breakfast home is defined as follows:An owner- managed occupation conducted by the owner-occupant of a one- or two-family home that provides one to four rooms for paying guest~on an overnight basis.Guest occupancy periods shall not exceed 21 consecutive days.The occupancy of such a bed-and-breakfast home is limited to two persons or one family per lodging unit or guest room, and WHEREAS:the applicant is proposing to use the property as a bed and breakfast home in which no more than four rooms would be rented.The applicant has sufficient parking on site for the proposed use and is not proposing any physical alternations to the building or the site.The project is in the R-2a Zoning District in which the use is allowed by Special Permit and also in the East Hill Local WHEREAS:This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO")§176.7 B. (1) (h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA")§617.4 (11) as it is located in the Local East Hill Historic District,both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS:legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with §325-40B(2)(e)of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS:following proper notice to the public,a public hearing was held by the Board on December 18,2018,and WHEREAS:the Tompkins County Department of Sustainability and Planning and the City of Ithaca Parks,Recreation,and Natural Resources Commission has been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered,and WHEREAS:the Board,acting as Lead Agency in environmental review,has, on December 18,2018, reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment F ami Part 1,submitted by the applicant,and Part 2,prepared by Planning Staff and application materials provided by the applicant,and WHEREAS:the Planning and Development Board,acting as Lead Agency in environmental review,did, on December 18,2018 make a negative declaration of environmental significance,and WHEREAS:the Board has made the following findings offact: 1.The applicant is to be the owner of the land and will reside on the premises; 2.The proposal is for a bed &breakfast home that would be owner occupied and managed; 3 .The applicant proposes to rent out no more than four bedrooms as bed and breakfast rooms, to be rented on a daily basis; 4. There is no evidence of any existing bed and breakfast homes within 500 feet of the property; 5. The property has adequate parking to serve a bed and breakfast home; 6. There has been no opposition from any neighbors or the public to this proposal; 7. The location and size of the use, the size of the site and the location of the site with respect to the existing or future streets giving access to it are in harmony with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood and will not discourage the appropriate development of adjacent land and buildings and will not impair the enjoyment or value thereof; and 8.Proposed operations in connection with the bed and breakfast home will not produce objectionable noise, fumes,increased vehicular traffic or parking demand, or light impacts; and 9. The applicant has read, understands and concurs with the proposed conditions; RESOL VED:that the subject application is APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall reside in and manage the home as a bed and breakfast home, as permitted by Special Permit in the R-2 zoning district and pursuant to §325-9 of the City of Ithaca Code; 2. No cooking facilities shall be provided in the individual guest rooms; 3. Food service shall be limited to guests taking lodging in the bed-and-breakfast home; 4. No special events are to be held on the premises; 5. The special permit shall expire after a period of five years. All requirements pertaining to the application for and granting of a first-time special permit for a bed and breakfast home shall apply to the application for a renewed special permit, including the notification procedures set forth in §325-40. Moved by: Seconded by: In Favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: Town of Ithaca Planning Board feedback on CWD FGEIS Chris Balestra [CBalestra@town.ithaca.ny.us] Sent:Thursday, December 06, 2018 3:49 PM To:Lisa Nicholas; JoAnn Cornish Cc:Chris Balestra [CBalestra@town.ithaca.ny.us] Hi Lisa, Will you please forward this to the City Planning & Development Board? The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met on December 4th to discuss the Chain Works FGEIS in order to provide feedback on the FGEIS to the Lead Agency for their December 18th meeng. Overall, the Town Planning Board was complimentary on the meculousness of the responses to public comments. With that, there were very few suggested modificaons and one possible correcon. The Board has instructed me to email you with the feedback on their behalf: Suggested Modificaons: There is a block of text in italics that is repeated in several places in Chapter 3: Comments and Responses to Comments. The text is found on pages 3‐23 (middle of the page), 3‐25 (bo台�om of the page), 3‐30 (bo台�om of the page), 3‐31 (middle of the page), and 3‐36 (middle of the page) and refers to migaon measures related to the environmental remediaon of the property. On pages 3‐23 and 3‐25, the text begins with the sentence “The Lead Agency will be proposing the inclusion of thresholds and/or mi埫�ga埫�on measures to ensure that the Site…” followed by 5 or 6 migaon measures. On pages 3‐30, 3‐31, and 3‐35, the text begins with the sentences “As noted above in the PH Comment Summary Response No. 3 (or 5.5‐3), at this point, the Lead Agency is evalua埫�ng a number of mi埫�ga埫�on measures to ensure impacts from environmental contamina埫�on are avoided and/or mi埫�gated to the maximum extent prac埫�cable. This is likely to include….” followed by 5 migaon measures. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board notes that: 1. The number of migaon measures is inconsistent, even though all measures apply to the same environmental site remediaon. The first list, on page 3‐23, has 6 migaon measures while the remaining lists only have 5. The item le� off the remaining lists is #2 on the first list, related to remediaon of groundwater contaminaon. The migaon measures should be consistent ‐ and they should include #2 from the first list. 2. The commitment to the migaon measures is inconsistent. Some of the lists state that the Lead Agency is “evaluang” the specified migaon measures, while others state definively that the Lead Agency “will be proposing” the specified migaon measures. Again, the language should be consistent. 3. The authority to require migaon does not fall exclusively with the Lead Agency. The Town of Ithaca, as an involved agency, will also need to take acon for the poron of the remediaon located within its boundaries. This language should be revised to include involved agencies. Also, we would recommend that the Findings Statements for the Lead Agency and all involved agencies include the 6 migaon measures. Related, the Execuve Summary (page ES‐1, Introducon, third paragraph) and page 1‐2 (first full paragraph), should apply to the other involved agencies’ acons as well as the Lead Agency’s acon. All involved agencies will complete Findings Statements for the project before undertaking any respecve acons. The City of Ithaca Common Council and Town of Ithaca Town Board will need to issue Findings Statements before granng approval for the rezoning to a PDZ/PUD, and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board will need to do this before considering site plan approval. It would be appropriate to redra� this language to encompass the involved agencies’ acons as well as the Lead Agency’s acons. A few of the other references to the Lead Agency elsewhere in the FGEIS likely should be broadened to encompass the involved agencies as well. Possible Correcon: The response to 5.7‐32 on page 3‐59 may indicate the wrong direcon for the le� turn lane in the last sentence. Should the last sentence read “The Project Sponsor acknowledges that le�‐turn lane construcon or restricon will be required for northbound vehicles entering the Site Accesses 1 and 2? The Town of Ithaca Planning Board appreciates the courtesy to provide feedback to the Lead Agency before the official 10‐day FGEIS review process. Please feel free to contact me if you have any quesons or require further clarificaon. Happy holidays! Chris Christine Balestra, Planner Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 2731747, ext.121 cbalestra@town.ithaca.ny.us Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-82 5.7 Transportation and Circulation Project Sponsor’s note on traffic. The following 50-page synopsis of the traffic study is complex. The complexity is due to the size of the Project and the seven different access points to the City and Town’s road system. Please feel free to review the following Section and the complete Traffic Impact Study (TIS) in Appendix I1. The brief summary of this Section is that Phase I of the Project will not create a substantial impact on the road system. As additional phases are approved, the Sponsor will revisit the TIS and provide mitigation as needed. Mitigation would include traffic signal retiming, restriping some interchanges for new turn lanes, and adding new traffic signals on NYS Route 96B. The Project Sponsor is working with TCAT to add up to two bus stops within the Site and will be developing bicycle and pedestrian amenities to encourage alternative transportation methods taking advantage of the Site’s proximity to major Ithaca venues. In summary, the Project Sponsor’s holistic approach to a comprehensive transportation strategy will mitigate any impacts. The Project Sponsor conducted a TIS for the Project which is presented in this Section. The City and Town NYSDOT staffs were consulted in developing the scope for the TIS. This TIS has been performed in accordance with the original scoping document adopted by the Lead Agency on January 13, 2015. It includes a description of the existing roadway network, peak traffic volumes, trip generation (including heavy vehicles for deliveries), and associated Level of Service (LOS). The TIS identifies all potential impacts the Project will have on the transportation system by accounting for background conditions through the projected life of the Project, estimating trip generation and trip assignments associated with the Project and performing a capacity analysis of the major roads leading to and around the Site under existing and proposed conditions. Mitigation measures to address the Project impacts to transportation are analyzed and proposed. The TIS also estimates the additional demand from the Project for transit service and the potential need for additional bus stops or shelters as well as impacts from additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic and provisions to accommodate same. 5.7.1 Existing Daily Corridor Traffic Conditions 5.7.1.1 Existing Transportation Facilities and Traffic Volume Data Existing Transportation Facilities The Site is located at 620 South Aurora Street (“Project Location”) in the City/Town, Tompkins County, New York. The Site is bounded by the South Hill neighborhood to the north; the NYS Route 96B to the east; the South Hill Business campus and wooded lands to the south; and South Cayuga Street and topographical limits to the west. In order to ensure a comprehensive analysis of potential traffic impacts, a broad study area was scoped in consultation with the City and NYSDOT. The study locations consist of the following 30 existing intersections: 1.NYS Route 96B/King Road 2.NYS Route 96B/Ithaca College (Alumni Street) 3.NYS Route 96B/Coddington Road 4.NYS Route 96B/Grandview Avenue 5.NYS Route 96B/Hillview Place 6.NYS Route 96B/Columbia Street 7.NYS Route 96B/Prospect Street Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 P age 5- 83 8.Aurora Street (NYS Route 79)/State Street (M.L.K. Jr. Street) 9.Aurora Street/Seneca Street 10.Seneca Street/Cayuga Street 11.Cayuga Street/Green Street 12.Cayuga Street/Clinton Street (NYS Route 96B) 13.Cayuga Street/Spencer Street 14.Spencer Street/Albany Street/Park Street/Elmira Road Roundabout 15.Albany Street/Clinton Street 16.Albany Street/Green Street 17.Albany Street/Seneca Street 18.Turner Place/Columbia Street 19.Spencer Street/Clinton Street/Turner Place 20.State Street/Seneca Way 21.State Street/Green Street 22.State Street/Stewart Avenue 23.State Street/Mitchell Street (NYS Route 366) 24.NYS Route 79/Pine Tree Road (CR 174) 25.Columbia Street/Hudson Street 26.Hudson Street/Coddington Road (CR 119) 27.Coddington Road/King Road 28.Coddington Road/Burns Road 29.Fulton Street (NYS Route 13)/State Street 30.Fulton Street/Clinton Street/Meadow Street Reviewing agencies, such as NYSDOT, use a guideline that if a proposed project is projected to add 100 vehicles per hour (vph) or more per approach to an intersection, then it should be studied for potential traffic impacts. Given that the proposed development is anticipated to generate 68 vph or fewer at the S. Meadow Ext./Elmira intersection, and negligible traffic volumes at the S. Meadow Ext./Spencer and Stone Quarry/Spencer intersections during any of the peak hours, the adjacent intersections and surrounding roadway network are unlikely to experience any significant adverse traffic impacts; thus, no further study is required. The following TableFGEIS Table 5.7-1 outlines the description of the study roadway network in the vicinity of the Project. It is important to mention that the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts referenced below were obtained based upon the most recent traffic counts collected by the NYSDOT, turning movement counts performed by SRF & Associates (SRF), Tompkins County, and the City. The highway network within the study area is comprised of State arterials, urban collectors and local streets. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-84 Road- way Class1 Route2 Juris- diction Num- ber of Lanes3 Travel Pattern4 Travel Direction5 Speed Limit6 Est. AADT7 AADT Source8 King Road Collector CR 179 County 2 Two-way East/West 30-40 4,200 SRF (2014) Danby Road Minor Arterial NYS 96B NYSDOT 2-4 (varies)Two-way North/South 40 7,943 NYSDOT (2011) Aurora Street Minor Arterial NYS 96B NYSDOT 2 Two-way North/South 30 12,759 NYSDOT (2011) Clinton Street Minor Arterial NYS 96B City 2 Two-way East/West 30 8,630 SRF (2014) E/W Green Street Minor Arterial NYS 79 NYSDOT 2 One-way Pair (Eastbound) East 30 15,100 NYSDOT (2012) E/W Seneca Street Minor Arterial NYS 79 NYSDOT 2 One-way Pair (Westbound) West 30 NYSDOT (2012) Fulton Street Principal Arterial NYS 13 NYSDOT 2 One-way Pair (Southbound) South 30 33,010 NYSDOT (2012) Meadow Street Principal Arterial NYS 13 NYSDOT 3 One-way Pair (Northbound) North 30 NYSDOT (2012) State Street (Tuning Fork to Mitchell Street) Minor Arterial NYS 79 City 2 Two-way East/West 30 17,400 SRF (2014) State Street (Mitchell Street to Municipal Line) Minor Arterial NYS 79 City 2 Two-way East/West 30 7,700 SRF (2014) Slaterville Road (Municipal Line to Pine Tree Road) Minor Arterial NYS 79 NYSDOT 2 Two-way East/West 30-45 5,680 SRF (2015) Stewart Avenue Collector City 2 Two-way North/South 30 6,590 NYSDOT (2011) Mitchell Street Minor Arterial NYS 366 City 2 Two-way East/West 30 10,040 SRF (2014) Pine Tree Road Minor Arterial CR 174 County 2 Two-way North/South 35 4,800 SRF (2015) Cayuga Street (Seneca Street to Green Street) Minor Arterial City 2 One-way South 30 7,600 SRF (2014) Cayuga Street (North of Seneca Street and South Green Street) Minor Arterial City 2 Two-way North/South 30 SRF (2014) CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-85 November 6, 2018 Albany Street Minor Arterial City 2 Two-way North/South 30 5,900 SRF (2014) Elmira Road Minor Arterial City 2 Two-way North/South 30 11,400 SRF (2014) Spencer Street Collector City 2 Two-way North/South 30 7,900 SRF (2014) Spencer Street Extension (Cayuga Street to Turner Place) Local City 1 One-way South 30 220 SRF (2014) Turner Place Local City 2 Two-way North/South 30 890 SRF (2014) Hillview Place Collector City 2 Two-way East/West 30 (15 in School Zone) 890 SRF (2014) Columbia Street Collector City 2 Two-way9 East/West 30 1,600 SRF (2014) Hudson Street (Prospect Street to Coddington Road) Minor Arterial City 2 Two-way North/South 30 4,630 SRF (2014) Grandview Avenue Local City 2 Two-way East/West 30 700 SRF (2014) Coddington Road (Hudson Street to Ithaca College) Collector CR 119 County 2 Two-way North/South 30 5,700 SRF (2014) Coddington Road (Ithaca College to Burns Road) Collector CR 119 County 2 Two-way North/South 40-45 1,500 SRF (2014) Burns Road Collector Town 2 Two-way East/West 40 2,900 SRF (2014) Notes: 1. State Functional Classification of the roadway. 2. “US” – Federal Route Number; “NYS” – State Route Number; “CR” – County Route Number; None – No Route Number 3. Number of travel lanes in the “highway proper” (i.e., the highway segment between intersections and/or interchanges, excluding turning/auxiliary lanes developed at the intersections. 4. Two-way or one-way. 5. General Cardinal Direction (i.e., north/south, east/west) of roadway within study area. 6. Miles per Hour (MPH); Limit – posted or statewide limit. 7. Estimated AADT based on most recently collected data in vehicles per day (vpd). Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-86 8. Source (Year of Data). Estimated AADT from SRF is determined via turning movement counts collected at the study intersections in 2014. 9. One-way eastbound between Aurora Street and Hudson Street. TableFGEIS Table 5.7-1: Description of Roadway Network (SRF) To the extent applicable, existing AADT information was obtained from the NYSDOT Traffic Data Viewer and NYSDOT Traffic Data Report. FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-1 illustrates the lane geometry at each of the study intersections and the AADT volumes on the study roadways, as well as the traffic controls at each study intersection. FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-1: Lane Geometry + AADT Volumes (SRF) * Internal to the Site are six existing driveway intersections that connect to the surrounding roadway network. The Site has access along Cayuga Street, Turner Place, and four intersections along NYS Route 96B; one of which is directly across from Coddington Road. The intersections are stop controlled along NYS Route 96B. Access to the Site is currently restricted to the general public. The following image illustrates the existing Site and depicts the circulation system internal to the Site. There are no sidewalks along the roadways. Cayuga Street and Turner Place have historically served as access points to the Site and continued use for Site access is appropriate. First, in terms of the impact of the Project on the character of these streets, it is important to differentiate traffic impacts from a resident’s perspective versus the typical drivers’ perspective. Traffic impact studies typically evaluate impacts on Levels of Service. The concept of Levels of Service as defined in the FHWA Highway Capacity Manual, represents “a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists and/or passengers.” Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-87 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement While traffic flow measures in this context are solely from the vehicle occupant’s perspective, an equally important measure, which is generally lacking in most traffic impact studies involving residential areas, is to also take into account a resident’s viewpoint of traffic. The influence of traffic on the quality of life (or livability) of the residents within the vicinity of a project is often as important a consideration as impacts on Levels of Service. Local street design considerations, specified in Residential Streets, Third Edition, 2001, developed jointly by the National Association of Home Builders, American Society of Civil Engineers, ITE, and the Urban Land Institute provides definitions of the various street classifications. As well, Transportation and Land Development, Second Edition, 2002, developed by ITE was consulted. Based on the definitions provided by that document, Turner Place and Cayuga Street are categorized as Minor Residential/Local Streets with an ADT range between 400 – 1,500 vehicles per day. The existing internal roadway system is largely intact with moderate signs of degradation. There are two north-south oriented roadways that provide access throughout the length of the Site along the existing building structure. East of the existing buildings are parking lots that are served by the roadways via switchback access driveways due to the topography of the Site. There are posted speed limits of 5 MPH to 10 MPH. Most of the internal roadways are passable two vehicles wide; however, the Morse Chain roadway (the western most north-south roadway) is more suitable for one vehicle per direction travel. Most of the pavement markings have worn away, except for the more recently used parking lots. Existing Traffic Volume Data Given the functional characteristics of the mixture of land uses being proposed for the Project (residential; commercial/retail; office; and industrial), the peak hours selected for analysis are the weekday commuter AM and PM peaks. The combination of Site traffic and adjacent through traffic produces the greatest demand during these time periods. Weekday commuter AM (7:00-9:00 AM) and PM (4:00-6:00 PM) peak hour volumes were collected by SRF at the study area intersections. The Site location and study area are shown in FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-2. Turning movement count data was collected by SRF at the study intersections on varying dates including Wednesday, October 1, 2014; Thursday, December 4, 2014; and Tuesday, March 17, 2015. All turning movement count data were collected on typical weekdays while local schools and colleges were in session. At the time of data collection, a detour in the City was in place due to utility work along Clinton Street. As well, the signalized intersection of State Street/Aurora Street was operating as an all-way stop as it was being replaced. Therefore, 2014 existing traffic volumes required adjustment to determine normal operating conditions to be used as a basis for existing and future traffic analyses. The adjustments were made using historical turning movement count data collected at the study area intersections. Vehicle balancing was employed in the analysis to achieve relative balance between intersections, where necessary. City staff concurred with this methodology. The traffic volumes at the remaining study area intersections were reviewed to confirm the accuracy and relative balance of the collective traffic counts. All traffic volumes were found to balance within the network within reasonable and expected variations and adjustments were made, where necessary, to derive 2014 Existing Conditions. The peak hour traffic periods generally occurred between 8:00-9:00 AM and 4:30- 5:30 PM on weekdays at the study intersections. The 2014 weekday commuter AM and PM peak hour existing traffic volumes are reflected in FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-3. Additionally, heavy vehicle volumes were collected as part of the turning movement count Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-88 data. The volumes of heavy vehicles are illustrated in FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-4. The study intersections were observed during both peak intervals to assess current traffic operations. Signal timing information was collected to determine peak hour phasing plans and phase durations during each interval. This signal timing information was checked against SYNCHRO files provided by the City and the NYSDOT to ensure accuracy. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-89 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-2: Site Location and Traffic Study Area (SRF) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-90 FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-3: Peak Hour Volumes- 2014 Existing Conditions (SRF) * FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-4: Peak Hour Volumes- 2014 Heavy Vehicles (SRF) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-91 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement 5.7.1.2 Accident Investigation An accident investigation was completed to assess the safety history at the intersection of NYS Route 96B and Coddington Road. This intersection was chosen for study based on layout of the intersection (the skewness of Coddington Road) and the most likely location for a potential traffic signal at full development of the Site. Accident data was compiled from March 2011 through February 2014. The data was obtained from the NYSDOT through a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. A total of nine accidents were documented at the study intersection during the investigation period (three years). The severity of the nine documented accidents is as follows: • 2 – Reportable – Injury • 4 – Reportable – Non Injury • 3 – Non Reportable/Unknown Accident rates were computed for the Project study intersections and compared with the NYSDOT average accident rates for similar intersections, as summarized in the following table. Intersection rates are listed as accidents per million entering vehicles (Acc/MEV). TableFGEIS Table 5.7-2 depicts the accident rates for the study intersection. Intersection Number of Accidents Actual Project Rate Acc/MEV NYSDOT Average Rate Acc/MEV NYS Route 96B/Coddington Road 9 0.75 0.14 TableFGEIS Table 5.7-2: Intersection Accident Rates (SRF) Of the nine total intersection crashes, three were attributed to deer (2 – northbound; 1 – southbound). There were two rear-end collisions in the southbound direction. A pedestrian was struck and injured by a northbound vehicle. The pedestrian was cited for the incident. The remaining collisions were left-turn (westbound), overtaking (southbound), and right-angle (northbound). 5.7.1.3 Existing Operational Analysis Capacity analysis is a technique used for determining a measure of effectiveness for a section of roadway and/or intersection based on the number of vehicles during a specific time period. The measure of effectiveness used for the capacity analysis is referred to as a LOS. LOSs are calculated to provide an indication of the amount of delay that a motorist experiences while traveling along a roadway or through an intersection. Since the most amount of delay to motorists usually occurs at intersections, capacity analysis focuses on intersections, as opposed to highway segments. Six Levels of Service are defined for analysis purposes. They are assigned letter designations, from “A” to “F”, with LOS “A” representing the best conditions and LOS “F” the worst. Suggested ranges of service capacity and an explanation of Levels of Service are included in Appendices with the Traffic Impact Study. The standard procedure for capacity analysis of signalized and un-signalized intersections is outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) published by the Transportation Research Board. Traffic analysis software, SYNCHRO 8, which is based on procedures and methodologies contained in the HCM, was used to analyze operating conditions at study area intersections. The procedure yields a Level of Service based on the HCM 2010 as an indicator of how well intersections operate. Existing operating conditions during the peak study periods are evaluated to determine a basis for comparison with the observed conditions. Existing operating conditions are documented in the field and Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-92 modeled using traffic analysis software. The traffic analysis models are calibrated based on actual field observations. Intersection analyses were performed on the study area intersections. Capacity results for existing conditions are listed in TableFGEIS Table 5.7-3. The discussion following the table summarizes capacity conditions. All capacity analysis calculations are included in Appendices with the TIS. INTERSECTION EXISTING AM PM King Road/Danby Road (S) Eastbound – King Road B(13.6) B(12.8) Westbound – King Road A(7.7) A(8.9) Northbound Left – Danby Road A(9.7) B(10.1) Northbound Thru/Right – Danby Road B(12.2) A(8.4) Southbound Left – Danby Road B(10.1) A(9.7) Southbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(7.9) B(11.9) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(10.6) B(10.9) Alumni Street/Danby Road (S) Eastbound Left – South Hill Bus. Park A(0.0) C(31.3) Eastbound Thru/Right – South Hill Bus. Park A(0.0) B(13.3) Westbound Left/Thru – Alumni Street D(36.7) D(50.3) Westbound Right – Alumni Street A(8.9) A(4.3) Northbound – Danby Road A(5.0) B(10.7) Southbound – Danby Road A(2.4) A(6.9) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) A(5.0) B(13.7) Proposed Driveway V/Danby Road (U) Eastbound – Proposed Driveway V N/A Northbound Left – Danby Road Northbound Thru/Right – Danby Road Coddington Road/Danby Road/ Driveway IV (U) Eastbound Left/Thru – Driveway IV A(0.0) A(0.0) Eastbound Right – Driveway IV N/A Westbound – Coddington Road C(15.7) C(16.0) Northbound Left – Danby Road A(0.0) A(0.0) Northbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(0.0) A(0.0) Southbound Left – Danby Road A(8.4) A(8.8) Southbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(0.3) A(0.3) Aurora Street/Proposed Driveway III (U) Eastbound – Proposed Driveway III N/A Northbound Left – Aurora Street Northbound Thru/Right – Aurora Street Grandview Avenue/Aurora Street (U) Westbound – Grandview Avenue B(13.1) C(17.3) Southbound Left – Aurora Street A(8.7) A(9.2) Proposed Driveway II/Aurora Street (U) Northbound – Aurora Street N/A Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-93 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement INTERSECTION EXISTING AM PM Proposed Driveway I/Aurora Street (U) Eastbound – Proposed Driveway I N/A Northbound Left – Aurora Street Northbound Thru/Right – Aurora Street Hillview Place/Aurora Street (S) Eastbound – Hillview Place B(16.9) B(14.5) Westbound – Hillview Place B(17.8) B(17.8) Northbound – Aurora Street A(7.3) A(9.4) Southbound – Aurora Street A(6.2) A(6.1) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) A(8.0) A(9.1) Columbia Street/Aurora Street (U) Eastbound – Columbia Street C(20.1) C(18.3) Northbound – Aurora Street A(9.0) A(8.4) Southbound – Aurora Street A(9.9) A(9.7) Clinton Street/Aurora Street/ Prospect Street (U) Eastbound Left – Clinton Street F(55.6) F(119.0) Eastbound Right – Clinton Street B(14.7) C(15.7) Westbound – Prospect Street F(65.5) F(113.6) Northbound – Aurora Street A(8.3) A(8.3) Southbound – Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) State Street/Aurora Street (S) Westbound Left – State Street C(26.8) E(68.4) Northbound – Aurora Street B(18.3) B(17.6) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(21.8) D(43.7) Seneca Street/Aurora Street (S) Westbound Thru – Seneca Street B(18.1) C(24.7) Westbound Right – Seneca Street B(15.3) B(18.2) Northbound – Aurora Street A(5.7) A(9.7) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(12.7) B(18.9) Cayuga Street/Seneca Street (S) Westbound – Seneca Street B(13.7) B(15.1) Southbound – Cayuga Street E(62.5) F(84.9) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(29.5) C(33.5) Green Street/Cayuga Street (S) Eastbound – Green Street C(23.6) C(34.3) Northbound Right – Cayuga Street D(40.7) C(26.0) Southbound Left – Cayuga Street C(25.7) B(19.7) Southbound Thru – Cayuga Street C(30.3) C(26.2) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(28.7) C(28.5) Clinton Street/Cayuga Street (S) Eastbound Left – Clinton Street B(11.4) B(11.9) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-94 INTERSECTION EXISTING AM PM Eastbound Thru/Right – Clinton Street C(27.9) C(32.1) Westbound Left – Clinton Street B(14.2) B(19.1) Westbound Thru/Right – Clinton Street B(19.8) C(22.3) Northbound Left – Cayuga Street C(21.4) C(26.2) Northbound Thru/Right – Cayuga Street E(67.3) E(56.3) Southbound Left – Cayuga Street D(43.4) E(62.3) Southbound Thru/Right – Cayuga Street B(14.6) C(22.4) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) D(35.6) C(33.4) Spencer Street/Cayuga Street (U) Northbound – Cayuga Street A(9.2) B(10.4) Elmira Road/Spencer Street/Park Street/Albany Street Roundabout (R) Eastbound – Elmira Road A(7.7) A(8.2) Westbound – Spencer Street A(6.0) B(12.2) Northbound – Spencer Street A(7.3) A(5.7) Southbound – Albany Street A(4.9) C(16.0) Southeastbound – Park Street A(0.0) A(0.0) Albany Street/Clinton Street (S) Eastbound – Clinton Street B(12.7) B(11.5) Westbound – Clinton Street B(13.5) B(18.8) Northbound – Albany Street C(30.7) C(22.2) Southbound – Albany Street B(12.3) C(23.1) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(17.1) B(18.2) Green Street/Albany Street (S) Eastbound – Green Street B(12.4) B(11.9) Northbound – Albany Street B(19.4) C(21.6) Southbound – Albany Street C(25.2) D(43.5) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(15.4) C(21.6) Seneca Street/Albany Street (S) Westbound – Seneca Street A(4.3) A(4.8) Northbound – Albany Street C(27.3) B(11.0) Southbound – Albany Street B(12.2) C(21.5) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(10.6) A(9.4) Turner Place/Columbia Street/South Hill Terrace (U) Eastbound – South Hill Terrace A(9.6) A(0.0) Westbound – Columbia Street A(8.5) A(8.9) Northbound – Turner Place A(7.4) A(0.0) Southbound – Turner Place A(7.3) A(7.3) Turner Place/Clinton Street (U) Westbound – Clinton Street A(8.7) A(9.0) Northbound – Turner Place C(16.1) D(25.1) Seneca Way/State Street (S) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-95 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement INTERSECTION EXISTING AM PM Eastbound – State Street D(39.4) D(49.4) Westbound – State Street C(23.2) C(31.9) Northbound Left – Seneca Way C(22.4) C(24.8) Northbound Thru – Seneca Way C(23.2) C(28.8) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(26.1) C(33.0) State Street/Green Street (S) Eastbound – State Street A(4.1) A(2.4) Westbound – State Street A(0.3) A(0.5) Northbound – Green Street B(16.7) B(16.9) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(11.0) A(9.6) Stewart Avenue/State Street (S) Eastbound Left – State Street B(12.5) B(10.7) Eastbound Thru – State Street B(10.3) B(11.1) Westbound Thru/Right – State Street B(15.8) B(14.9) Southbound – Stewart Avenue B(14.7) C(34.9) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(13.6) B(16.3) Mitchell Street/NYS Route 79 (S) Eastbound Left – NYS Route 79 A(5.4) A(2.3) Eastbound Thru – NYS Route 79 A(0.9) A(1.5) Westbound Thru/Right – NYS Route 79 B(16.4) B(12.2) Southbound Left – Mitchell Street C(20.7) B(15.7) Southbound Right – Mitchell Street A(4.1) A(3.1) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) A(7.9) A(4.1) Columbia Street/Hudson Street (U) Eastbound – Columbia Street A(8.0) A(8.9) Westbound – Columbia Street A(9.0) A(9.1) Northbound – Hudson Street A(9.0) A(10.0) Southbound – Hudson Street A(8.2) A(8.6) Coddington Road/Hudson Street (U) Eastbound – Coddington Road A(8.1) A(9.0) Northbound – Coddington Road A(9.4) B(11.1) Southbound – Hudson Street A(8.6) A(9.8) Burns Road/Coddington Road (U) Westbound – Burns Road B(10.0) B(10.6) Southbound – Coddington Road A(7.7) A(7.6) Fulton Street/State Street (S) Eastbound Thru – State Street C(31.6) C(28.7) Eastbound Right – State Street C(34.1) C(33.7) Westbound Left – State Street B(17.6) C(24.9) Westbound Thru – State Street B(16.6) C(30.8) Southbound Thru – Fulton Street C(21.1) B(16.9) Southbound Right – Fulton Street B(14.9) B(11.9) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-96 INTERSECTION EXISTING AM PM Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(25.9) C(22.7) Meadow Street/Clinton Street/Fulton Street (S) Westbound Left – Clinton Street D(35.9) D(40.0) Westbound Right – Clinton Street D(43.0) D(41.6) Northbound Thru – Meadow Street B(14.2) B(18.5) Northbound Right – Meadow Street A(2.4) A(6.8) Southeastbound Left – Fulton Street C(25.7) C(29.6) Southeastbound Right – Fulton Street A(8.2) B(19.2) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(16.2) C(22.5) King Road/Coddington Road (U) Eastbound – King Road A(9.2) A(9.4) Northbound – Coddington Road A(7.5) A(7.7) Pine Tree Road/NYS Route 79 (U) Eastbound – NYS Route 79 A(9.4) A(8.0) Southbound – Pine Tree Road C(16.2) E(40.7) Notes: 1. A(9.4) = Level of Service (Delay in seconds per vehicle) 2. (S) = Signalized; (U) = Un-signalized 3. (*) = Delay exceeds two minutes 4. N/A = Approach does not exist and/or was not analyzed during this condition TableFGEIS Table 5.7-3: Capacity Analysis Results - Existing Conditions (SRF) A review of both AM and PM peak hour capacity analysis results indicate that the overall levels of service operate at “D” or better at the signalized intersections, which is an acceptable capacity level. The signalized intersections are the major roads leading to and around the Site. The eastbound and westbound approaches at the intersection of Clinton Street/Aurora Street/Prospect Street operate at LOS “F” during both peak hours. Generally, all other approaches to the study area intersections operate at “D” or better, with only four intersections operating with approaches of “E”. FigureFGEIS Figures 5.7-5 and 5.7-6 illustrate the existing LOS conditions at the study area intersections during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-97 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-5: Overall Level of Service- Existing AM Peak Hour (SRF) * FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-6: Overall Level of Service- Existing PM Peak Hour (SRF) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-98 5.7.1.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure are key to providing a complete transportation system for residents and visitors of the City/Town. Within the City alone, approximately 42% (15% Town) commute to work via walking (2012 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-7 illustrates the sidewalk network for both municipalities. There are no sidewalks along NYS FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-7: City and Town Sidewalk Network (SRF) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-99 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Route 96B from Grandview Avenue to the southerly study area extent. The sidewalk network gets more dense and connected north of the Site. Turner Place and Cayuga Street, two roadways that are projected to provide a linkage between the Site and areas north of the Site, have sidewalks along the roadways. These two routes may be key linkages for users of the Site to travel to and from the City. For those wishing to walk to the Commons, the sidewalk network is capable of providing such an opportunity. Individuals are able to walk from the Site to South Hill Elementary School via the sidewalks along Aurora Street. However, the lack of pedestrian facilities between the Site and Ithaca College prevents pedestrians creates a gap in an overall unified network. The Town of Ithaca has commissioned a Pedestrian Corridor Study of NYS Route 96B which is currently being developed as of publishing of the DGEIS. CWD will incorporate the findings from the Town study in the development of pedestrian access along NYS Route 96B. FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-8 illustrates the volume of pedestrians using crossings within the study intersections and depicts whether the crossing locations are signalized or un-signalized. Curb ramps generally exist where the sidewalk crosses an intersection, however, the intersections where curb ramps are not present along Aurora Street, Turner Place, and Columbia Street are: Columbia Street/Turner Place and Columbia Street/ Aurora Street. Pedestrian countdown signals are present at all signalized study intersections, except for King Road/Danby Road and NYS Route 79/Stewart Avenue. There are no sidewalks connecting the existing buildings to the sidewalk network along NYS Route 96B and adjacent South Hill neighborhood. FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-8: Existing Pedestrian Crossing Volumes (SRF) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-100 Bicycling is another important multimodal option for City/Town residents, area visitors, and potential future users of the Site. The Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) designed and developed a bike map for the Town and City (FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-8a) (www.tompkinscountyny.gov/files/itctc/BikeSuitability/BikeMap2013.pdf and provided with this document). Roadways are colored to highlight varying degrees of traffic volumes, as well as available bicycle facilities throughout the town (e.g., on-street marked lanes, multi-use trails, off-road links, proposed trails, etc.). Within the context of the Site, there are no bicycle lanes along Aurora Street/Danby Road. There are bike lanes along Hudson Street from Coddington Road to Hillview Place. As well, bike lanes and bicycle shared use lanes are marked along Prospect Street/ Clinton Street from Hudson Street to Cayuga Street. Additionally, Green Street/State Street has marked bicycle lanes from Cayuga Street to Mitchell Street. A bicycle boulevard plan seeks to install bicycle boulevard infrastructure along Plain Street. FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-8a: City and Town Bicycle Network (Tompkins County- 2013) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-101 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement The ITCTC is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Tompkins County. The ITCTC is charged with facilitating county-wide transportation planning and is responsible for a number of tasks including preparing and updating the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The LRTP is updated every five years and the current 2035 LRTP was approved on December 16, 2014. The ITCTC has developed a Complete Streets Network for the City and adjacent roads of the Town. ITCTC has produced a map of the Complete Streets Inventory. The map shows a well-coordinated network of roads for the urbanized area of Tompkins County. A ‘Complete Street’ is a street designed and operated to enable safe access for all users regardless of their mode of transportation, so that pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, or public transportation users of all ages and abilities are able to move safely along and across it. The Complete Streets Network indicates NYS Route 96B as the site of a proposed Complete Streets Inventory. In August 2014, the Tompkins County legislature unanimously voted for accepting the Tompkins Priority Trails Strategy (http://goo.gl/M56KCS and included with this document at Appendix M1). As stated on the Tompkins County website: “The strategy, developed through collaboration involving the County Planning Department and Tourism Program, and the Creating Healthy Places Project of the Human Services Coalition and Health Planning Council, identifies 23 specific near-term actions that can be taken collectively by municipalities, the County, State, groups, and other stakeholders to develop and sustain five key trails that will move the County toward a cohesive trail network and local recreation and transportation resource.” A key opportunity to further develop the regional trail system is the development of the Gateway Trail that is planned to connect the South Hill Recreation Way (Hudson Street trailhead) to Buttermilk Falls State Park. The Site is located at this important linkage point to close the gap between these destinations. 5.7.1.5 Transit The TCAT system provides transit service for over 100,000 Tompkins County residents. Ridership has been increasing steadily over the past several years, with a 6.3 percent increase in trips between 2011 and 2013. There are 33 routes that service areas from semi-rural to the Downtown Ithaca CBD. Route 65 provides rural commuter service along NYS Route 96B with stops at the nearby South Hill Business Park and Longview. Route 11 provides downtown coverage and services Ithaca College and travels along Coddington Road/Hudson Street. An interactive map on the TCAT website (www.tcatbus.com/learn/ system-map) shows the locations of bus stops throughout the system, as well as locations of bicycle storage facilities and Carshare locations. FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-8b depicts the routes servicing the neighborhoods adjacent to the Site and the transit stops throughout the City/Town. Route 65 is shown in pink. Route 11 is shown in orange. The red markers indicate downtown transit stops while the blue markers depict county-wide stops. In meetings with TCAT, the TCAT stated that the existing demands for transit in the South Hill area are met. These multimodal transportation options, and the enhancement of these travel choices via infrastructure and programmatic initiatives, are consistent with the goals found within the City’s and Town’s Comprehensive Plans. The benefits of these multimodal systems will be discussed later in Subsection 5.7.3 as it pertains to TDM planning and strategies. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-102 FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-8b: Bus Service to and around the Site (TCAT) 5.7.1.6 Emergency Access The Site is currently accessed via four drives along NYS Route 96B as well as a connection at Turner Place. Marginal access is available via S. Cayuga Street. Of the five access points, only Drive I, the northern-most driveway, is not barricaded or gated for access. The access via Drive I is blocked internally by a manned guard station. Current emergency access is mainly obtained via Drive I and coordinated with the on-site security staff. The remaining access points may also be utilized. Drives I, III and IV have appropriate lane width and radii to accommodate emergency vehicles. Drive II has appropriate lane widths however the radii need to be increased to provide ease for emergency access. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-103 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement 5.7.2 Potential Impacts The Project significantly increases development density in an area characterized by a heavy volume of commuter traffic to and from South Hill, including to Ithaca College via South Aurora Street / NYS Route 96B. The Site is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, which will be impacted by increased traffic volume. The Site’s proximity to the downtown core and Ithaca College makes it well situated for alternative modes of transportation (e.g., walking, biking, carpooling, and mass transit); and the potential impact on this area requires careful assessment to determine the magnitude of the impacts and the most effective mitigations. 5.7.2.1 Project Description Although Chapter 2 provides a detailed description of the Project, the following Project description is oriented more towards transportation to assist the reader with the analysis that follows. Currently there are 26 buildings located on the Site totaling approximately 821,200 sf. The proposal includes a renovation of all existing buildings on Site. Selected demolition would remove approximately 92,350 SF of building space. Approximately 86,600 SF will be added to the existing buildings, bringing the total square footage for the existing buildings to 815,450 SF. An estimated 890,700 SF of building space will be constructed as new buildings. The total building space under full development is approximately 1,706,150 SF. Included within the mixed-use development district will be a combination of residential, office, retail, restaurant, and industrial land uses. Access to the Project will be provided via seven access points; two from the City and South Hill neighborhood and five along NYS Route 96B. The northerly access points will be provided via South Cayuga Street and Turner Place. Access along NYS Route 96B will be provided via four existing access points. A fifth, the Driveway V, will be constructed as part of work in the CW2 Sub Area. Driveway II will be constructed as an enter-only access road. The remaining driveways along NYS Route 96B will be full access. Other individual access points along NYS Route 96B may be constructed for individual or clusters of buildings as the Site is developed. Internally, there are three primary roadways that connect the northern and southern portions of the Site. There is a proposed one-way road along the western edge of the Site that will be accessed via Turner Place and Cayuga Street. The northern terminus of this roadway is proposed as a roundabout that will connect to the proposed northerly driveway along NYS Route 96B, Chain Drive that bisects the spine of the existing buildings, and Upper Morse Drive. The proposed roadway that bisects Sub Area CW3 is one- way northbound. Two-way travel is allowed on the roadway immediately adjacent Building 24 to the east. There are two on-site bus stops proposed that will be installed as demand increases. The TIS rated certain intersections at existing travel conditions with an “E” or “F”. These are not acceptable capacity levels. As a result, modifications made to the existing roads, as well as improvements to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections as part of the development of the Project should upgrade an area already in need of increased transportation capacity. Mitigation will include all direct access points to the Project, including existing and proposed drives on NYS 96 as well as extensions of Turner Place and S. Cayuga Streets. Mitigation may include access drive improvements such as signalization, turn lanes, and geometric improvements. Off-Site mitigation may consist of signalization optimization and other traffic control measures. Additional mitigation may take the form of mass transit service to and through the Site, vehicle sharing, and improvements to pedestrian/ bicycle facilities. Internal traffic calming measures is evaluated in a general sense in this document, incorporated into the Design Guidelines, and will be implemented during the Site Plan approval process Such measures include narrow travel lanes, vertical roadside elements (e.g., street trees), roundabouts, and vertical shifts (e.g., speed cushions, raised intersections). Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-104 5.7.2.2 Project Trip Generation The next step in the evaluation is to determine the volume of traffic attributable to the Project as defined by vehicle trips entering and exiting the Site. Trip generation is an estimate of the number of trips generated by a specific building or land use. These trips represent the volume of traffic entering and exiting the development. The Trip Generation, 9th Edition, developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), is used as a reference for this information and is the accepted standard for determining the projected traffic volumes for a project. The trip rate for the peak hour of the generator may or may not coincide in time or volume with the trip rate for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic. Volumes generated during the peak hour of adjacent street traffic, in this case the weekday AM and PM commuter peaks, represent a more critical volume when analyzing the capacity of the system, and as such those intervals will provide the basis of this analysis. Based on the scale and types of land uses proposed for the Project, two different trip generation methods were used to determine the estimated trips generated by the Project. The two methods used in this study, and described in greater detail in the TIS included in the Appendix are: • ITE Trip Generation 9th Edition; and • Mixed-Use Trip Generation Model (MXD) (Fehr & Peers); EPA Approved The Project is expected to be completed over multiple phases. For purposes of this analysis, the estimated trips generated by the Project will be split between Phase I (Buildings 21, 24, 33 and 34) and Phase II, full build-out (the remaining existing buildings and proposed new buildings). TableFGEIS Table 5.7-4 summarizes the volume of projected trips for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Based upon the mix and size of land uses proposed for the site, the ITE trip generation rates have been used to determine Phase I and full build-out site generated trips. Although both methods were investigated, the ITE rates more closely represented the likely trips to be generated by the Site based upon data from similar individual land uses in the western/central New York region. The ITE does not have truck traffic data for industrial. Therefore, using warehouse truck traffic data, approximately 20 percent or less of the industrial total trip generation may be attributed to truck traffic. It should be noted that a mixed-use project like the Project may result in lower trip generation estimates given the nature of Ithaca residents to favor non- motorized and transit travel. PHASE LAND USES SIZE AM PEAK PM PEAK ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT Phase I Office 82.55 ksf 114 15 21 102 Residential 80 Units 8 25 26 15 Industrial 170.6 ksf 94 12 10 66 Sub-total 216 52 57 183 Phase II, Full Build-out Office 185.6 ksf 254 37 48 229 Residential 835 Units 84 240 259 159 Retail 52.2 ksf 47 13 88 105 Restaurant 7.2 ksf 0 0 36 18 Industrial 246.5 ksf 158 23 20 139 Sub-total 543 313 451 650 Full Development Total Project Generated Trips 759 365 508 833 TableFGEIS Table 5.7-4: Project Generated Trips (SRF) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-105 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement 5.7.2.3 Trip Reduction Adjustments Inherent with the scale and location of the Project is the ability of the Project to internally capture proposed vehicle trips that would normally be added to the surrounding roadway network. Additionally, the presence of a transit route along NYS Route 96B further increases the chances for trip reductions as a result of the development. Unique to the City is the high rates of walking to work and primary destinations. The Commons is a good example, showing the willingness of residents and visitors to forgo using their personal vehicles in order to visit local shops and eateries, places of work, places of play, and residences. Ithaca is also home to Ithaca College and Cornell University. Although these universities are located in hilly locations, students and employees frequently use public transportation, bike, or walk to their destinations as a means to reduce vehicle trips in the local area. In addition, Ithaca College is reducing staff and keeping student enrollment stable. Cornell University is projected to reach 13,000 in enrollment and that “anything more taxes the physical/human resources (Cornell Undergraduate Enrollment Trends, 2008). Identified in the Cornell Transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t-GEIS) are Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS). Eight strategies have been called out as commuting strategies for the Cornell community: •TDM Programs •Transit service •Park and ride •High-Occupancy Vehicles (vanpools and carpools) •Pedestrians • Bicyclists •Land use and transportation •Intersection and roadway improvements These areas are noted as opportunities for encouragement, educational, and engineering improvements and enhancements to reduce single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) in the Cornell and Ithaca area. Services like TCAT have been increasing in ridership steadily over recent years. Between 2011 and 2012, total TCAT ridership increased by over 4.5 percent. Ridesharing programs like Ithaca Carshare, vRide Vanpooling, and Zimride are increasing in popularity and can have a significant impact in reducing personal automobile ownership. Additionally, Way2Go is a website devoted to educating and encouraging individuals to explore transportation options, such as bicycling, transit, and ridesharing and support services. Refinement and execution of a TDM plan with specific strategies will be incorporated into the Project thereby further justifying trip reduction adjustments. A TDM framework with specific strategies is set forth in Subsection 5.7.3.2 in greater detail. Multi-Use Trip Reduction Inherent in the trip generation estimate for the Project is the “multi-use” traffic component of traffic entering and exiting the Site. According to the ITE, Trip Generation Handbook, 2001, “…a multi-use development is typically a single real-estate project that consists of two or more ITE land use classifications between which trips can be made without using the off-site road system. Because of the nature of these land uses, the trip-making characteristics are interrelated, and some trips are made among the on-site uses. This capture of trips internal to the Site has the net effect of reducing vehicle trip generation between the overall development Site and the external street system (compared to the total number of trips generated Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-106 by comparable, standalone sites).” “In some multi-use developments, these internal trips can be made by walking or by vehicles entirely on internal pathways or internal roadways without using streets external to the site.” The ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicates internal capture rates for trips within a multi-use development to vary between office, residential, restaurant, and retail uses during the AM and PM peak hours. Given the area in which the Site is located; the proposed office, residential, restaurant, retail, and industrial components; interconnection between internal adjacent components; the proximity of the Site to downtown Ithaca and nearby Ithaca College; and the adjacent multi-use trail network, multi-use (or multiple purpose) total volume trips will occur. Therefore, it is estimated, based on methods in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition, 2014 and using an interactive spreadsheet developed to calculate this reduction, an approximate 5 percent and 14 percent reduction in total trip generation for the Project will occur during the AM and PM peak hours of analysis, respectively. This trip adjustment is calculated based upon the ITE standards for multi-use trip reductions based on the varying uses and interconnections within a mixed-use project, such as the Project. This multi-use trip projection adjustment was applied to the total Project generated trips and subtracted from the traffic entering and exiting the Site for the AM and PM peak period. Pass-by Trip Reduction In addition, for certain types of developments, the total number of trips generated is different from the amount of new traffic added to the adjacent highway network by the generator. Retail-oriented developments (such as convenience stores, gas stations, shopping centers, specialty retail businesses, discount stores, restaurants, and service stations) often locate adjacent to busy streets in order to attract the motorists already passing the Site on the adjacent street. These Sites attract a portion of their trips from traffic passing the Site. The “pass-by” traffic refers to the amount of existing traffic already on the roadway adjacent to the Site that, as it “passes by” the Site, will enter the Site driveways to patronize the Site. ITE data indicates that pass-by rates for retail/restaurants uses can vary from 10 percent to as high as 80 percent during the PM peak hour, e.g. restaurants typically exhibit pass-by rates of 45 percent during the PM peak hour. Given the composition of the proposed land uses and location of the Site with frontage along NYS Route 96B, a conservative pass-by rate of 29 percent was used during the PM peak hour. Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Trip Reduction An analysis was undertaken of the most recent 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates produced by the U.S. Census Bureau. The most recent data shows that over 42 percent of the population walks to work within the City. Concurrently, Tompkins County reported a nearly 16 percent walk to work rate. Within the City, 10.1 percent of people use public transportation while 2.2 percent bike to work. Finally, 7.5 percent of the City’s population is reported to telecommute; 6.7 percent for Tompkins County. These figureFGEIS Figures represent an increase between the 2000 Census and most recent available data. Further advancing the walking and biking nature of Ithaca is the presence of the local multi- use trails. The Gateway Trail is proposed to be a key connector between the South Hill Recreation Way and the Black Diamond Trail. The localized trail system, along with a well-connected sidewalk network and bicycle- friendly roadways, will encourage alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, this study assumes a 7 percent reduction in vehicle trips as it relates to pedestrian and bicycle travel modes using the site. In addition, based upon the increased ridership levels of TCAT and the presence of nearby TCAT routes, a trip reduction factor of 4 percent has been used for transit service. This transit reduction rate is conservative, as discussions with TCAT officials have indicated that demand may be dependent on the potential density of the Project. Increased demand would likely indicate a Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-107 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement designated stop within the proposed site. The precise mass transit stops and TCAT routing through the site can have a positive impact on increasing the viability and desirability of the transit system. These trip reduction factors have been presented to the City and Town through a preliminary project- scoping phase and have been confirmed as reasonable rates to apply to the proposed trip generation estimates, as indicated in the TIS Scoping Document review letter from Tim Logue to SRF dated September 29, 2014. The combination of “multi-use”, “pass-by”, and “multimodal” trips has the net result of reducing the volume of new traffic that is added to the site driveways and/or adjacent roadways. In the case of the Project, there will be “multi-use”, “pass-by”, and “multimodal” trips associated with the new land uses on the Site. TableFGEIS Table 5.7-5 shows the total site generated trips, multi-use trips, pass-by trips, multimodal trips, driveway trips, and resulting primary trips that are added to the existing highway system for full development of the Project. PHASE LAND USES SIZE AM PEAK PM PEAK ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT Phase I Office 82.55 ksf 114 15 21 102 Residential 80 Units 8 25 26 15 Industrial 170.6 ksf 94 12 10 66 Sub-total 216 52 57 183 Trip Reductions -30 -10 -18 -40 Total New Trips 186 42 39 143 Phase II, Full Build-out Office 185.6 ksf 254 37 48 229 Residential 835 Units 84 240 259 159 Retail 52.2 ksf 47 13 88 105 Restaurant 7.2 ksf 0 0 36 18 Industrial 246.5 ksf 158 23 20 139 Sub-total 543 313 451 650 Trip Reductions -76 -63 -178 -180 Total New Trips 467 250 273 470 Full Development Total New Trips Under Full Development 653 292 312 613 TableFGEIS Table 5.7-5: Project Traffic Volumes and Adjustments (SRF) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-108 5.7.2.4 Trip Distribution The cumulative effect of Project traffic on the transportation network is dependent on the origins and destinations of that traffic and the location of the access drives serving the Site. The proposed arrival/ departure distribution of traffic to be generated by the Project is considered a function of several parameters, including the following: • Regional and local employment centers; • Retail centers; • Regional and local population centers; • Ithaca College; • Cornell University; • Downtown Ithaca (e.g., The Commons); • Existing and proposed access driveways; • Existing traffic patterns; and • Existing traffic conditions and controls The Site has been segmented into four zoning Sub Areas. These Sub Areas were used as the basis for analyzing the proposed Project traffic trip distribution estimates as they related to the existing and proposed new buildings. Traffic volumes collected at the study intersections were used as the basis to determine total traffic volumes entering and exiting the study area. Based on the network’s traffic volumes, it is estimated that 62 percent of the total trip generation will originate from west, north, and east of the Site. An estimated 8 percent will travel from NYS Route 96 and Elmira Road. The remaining 30 percent will originate from areas south of the Site. These Project traffic distribution estimates have been presented to the City and Town through a preliminary project-scoping phase and have been confirmed as reasonable percentages to be use for assigning Project generated trips to the study area intersections. Therefore, FigureFGEIS Figures 5.7-9 through 5.7-15 show the anticipated trip distribution pattern percentages for each area of the Site. It should be noted that there may be interaction between the Project and Ithaca College. However, for conservative purposes, all trips assigned to the Project Site are distributed wholly throughout the study area. FigureFGEIS Figures 5.7-16 through 5.7-17 show the resulting total Project generated traffic as assigned to the study area intersections for the weekday commuter AM and PM peak hour periods under Phase I and Phase II, full build-out conditions. FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-18 shows the trips generated for all uses on one graphic. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-109 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-9: Trip Distribution Area A (SRF) * FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-10: Trip Distribution Area B (SRF) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-110 FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-11: Trip Distribution Area C (SRF) * FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-12: Trip Distribution Area D (SRF) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-111 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-13: Trip Distribution Area E (SRF) * FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-14: Trip Distribution Area F (SRF) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-112 FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-15: Trip Distribution Area G (SRF) * FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-16: Site Generated Trips - Phase I (SRF) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-113 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-17: Site Generated Trips - Phase II Full Build-Out (SRF) * FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-18: Total Site Generated Trips (SRF) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-114 5.7.2.5 Background Traffic Conditions Construction of the Project is anticipated to reach full build-out in approximately 10 years. Build-out will occur over multiple phases. For purposes of the TIS, the traffic analysis takes into account a Phase I build-out (approximately two years) and the remaining Phases, full build-out timeframe of approximately eight years. SRF collected and performed a background and historical trend analysis for the probable study area roadways using data provided by NYSDOT, the City and Town, and ITCTC. Historical traffic volumes – obtained from the City and NYSDOT – along NYS Route 96B (City Line to Turner Place) reveal a slightly upward trend between 1989 and 2012. A review of traffic volumes along NYS Route 96B from the Town Line to the City Line indicates a downward trend. Further out, roadways generally exhibited slight downward growth patterns. Based on historical volumes alone, there is an approximate decrease in traffic volumes by -0.98%. The ITCTC was contacted to discuss area-wide VMT trends for the previous 20 years. Data was provided between 1992 through 1999 and 2005 through 2012. There is a gap in data points based on internal ITCTC reporting methods. TableFGEIS Table 5.7-6 depicts the VMT for the compiled study years. VMTs are shown in the thousands of miles. Using these figures, there is a downward trend in area-wide VMT. 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 VMT 778 773 806 872 873 871 714 728 1054 1070 1060 1029 1011 1009 993 995 TableFGEIS Table 5.7-6: Vehicle Miles Traveled from 1992-2012 (SRF) The City and Town were contacted to discuss projects within the study area that are under construction and/or approved. Town officials provided a list of projects that are approved, but not completed. These projects are: Holly Creek Townhomes, College Crossings, Cleveland Estates, Namgyal Monastery, and Westview Subdivision. Additionally, projects that are under construction and/or approved are illustrated on a graphic hosted on the City’s website. Projected trips generated by these developments have been included in the background traffic growth projects for Phase I and full build-out of the Site. Additionally, a traffic report prepared by the City for a traffic signal replacement project was reviewed to determine an approximate growth rate. To account for normal increases in background traffic growth, including the aforementioned projects, as well as any unforeseen developments in the project study area, a growth rate of 1.0% per year has been applied to the existing traffic volumes for Phase I (two year growth) and 0.25% for full build-out (eight year growth), based upon historical traffic growth derived from NYSDOT and ITCTC traffic volume projections for the area, for the ten-year build-out period. The background traffic volumes are depicted in FigureFGEIS Figures 5.7-19 (Phase I) and 5.7-20 (Full Build-out). Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-115 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-19: Peak Hour Volumes Background Conditions - Phase I (SRF) * FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-20: Peak Hour Volumes Background Conditions - Phase II (SRF) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-116 Capacity analysis results for background, no action conditions are listed in TableFGEIS Table 5.7-7. The discussion following the table summarizes capacity conditions. INTERSECTION NO ACTION (PHASE I) NO ACTION (FULL BUILD-OUT) AM PM AM PM King Road/Danby Road (S) Eastbound – King Road B(13.8) B(13.2) B(14.4) B(13.9) Westbound – King Road A(7.7) A(9.3) A(7.6) A(9.5) Northbound Left – Danby Road A(9.9) B(10.3) B(10.3) B(10.4) Northbound Thru/Right – Danby Road B(12.5) A(8.5) B(13.1) A(8.5) Southbound Left – Danby Road B(10.5) A(9.8) B(11.2) A(9.8) Southbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(8.0) B(12.1) A(8.3) B(12.2) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(10.8) B(11.2) B(11.2) B(11.4) Alumni Street/Danby Road (S) Eastbound Left – South Hill Bus. Park A(0.0) C(31.5) A(0.0) C(31.5) Eastbound Thru/Right – South Hill Bus. Park A(0.0) B(13.0) A(0.0) B(13.2) Westbound Left/Thru – Alumni Street D(36.7) D(50.6) D(36.8) D(51.1) Westbound Right – Alumni Street A(8.9) A(4.3) A(8.8) A(4.3) Northbound – Danby Road A(5.0) B(10.9) A(5.1) B(11.0) Southbound – Danby Road A(2.4) A(7.1) A(2.5) A(7.3) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) A(5.1) B(13.9) A(5.1) B(14.0) Proposed Driveway V/Danby Road (U) Eastbound – Proposed Driveway V N/A N/A Northbound Left – Danby Road Northbound Thru/Right – Danby Road Coddington Road/Danby Road/Driveway IV (U) Eastbound Left/Thru – Driveway IV A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) Eastbound Right – Driveway IV A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) Westbound – Coddington Road C(16.1) C(16.4) C(16.4) C(16.9) Northbound Left – Danby Road A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) Northbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) Southbound Left – Danby Road A(8.5) A(8.9) A(8.5) A(8.9) Southbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(0.4) A(0.3) A(0.4) A(0.3) Aurora Street/Proposed Driveway III (U) Eastbound – Proposed Driveway III N/A N/A Northbound Left – Aurora Street Northbound Thru/Right – Aurora Street Grandview Avenue/Aurora Street (U) Westbound – Grandview Avenue B(13.6) C(17.8) B(13.5) C(18.2) Southbound Left – Aurora Street A(8.7) A(9.2) A(8.7) A(9.3) Proposed Driveway II/Aurora Street (U) Proposed Driveway I/Aurora Street (U) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-117 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Eastbound – Proposed Driveway I N/A N/A Northbound Left – Aurora Street Northbound Thru/Right – Aurora Street Hillview Place/Aurora Street (S) Eastbound – Hillview Place B(17.1) B(15.0) B(17.2) B(15.3) Westbound – Hillview Place B(18.0) B(18.7) B(18.2) B(19.3) Northbound – Aurora Street A(7.4) A(9.5) A(7.6) A(9.7) Southbound – Aurora Street A(6.2) A(6.1) A(6.3) A(6.1) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) A(8.1) A(9.2) A(8.1) A(9.4) Columbia Street/Aurora Street (U) Eastbound – Columbia Street C(20.7) C(18.9) C(21.3) C(19.5) Northbound – Aurora Street A(9.1) A(8.4) A(9.1) A(8.5) Southbound – Aurora Street A(9.1) A(9.8) A(9.2) A(9.8) Clinton Street/Aurora Street/Prospect Street (U) Eastbound Left – Clinton Street F(60.6) F(*) F(65.6) F(*) Eastbound Right – Clinton Street C(15.1) C(16.2) C(15.5) C(16.7) Westbound – Prospect Street F(72.7) F(*) F(81.8) F(*) Northbound – Aurora Street A(8.4) A(8.4) A(8.4) A(8.4) Southbound – Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) State Street/Aurora Street (S) Westbound Left – State Street C(27.3) E(76.0) C(27.9) F(84.5) Northbound – Aurora Street B(18.7) B(18.0) B(19.1) B(18.3) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(22.3) D(47.7) C(22.7) D(52.3) Seneca Street/Aurora Street (S) Westbound Thru – Seneca Street B(18.2) C(25.4) B(18.4) C(26.2) Westbound Right – Seneca Street B(15.4) B(18.4) B(15.4) B(18.6) Northbound – Aurora Street A(5.6) A(9.7) A(5.6) A(9.7) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(12.8) B(19.3) B(12.9) B(19.7) Cayuga Street/Seneca Street (S) Westbound – Seneca Street B(14.1) B(16.3) B(14.4) B(17.7) Southbound – Cayuga Street E(67.6) F(91.7) E(72.8) F(98.1) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(31.4) D(36.2) C(33.3) D(38.9) Green Street/Cayuga Street (S) Eastbound – Green Street C(23.9) C(35.0) C(24.3) C(35.6) Northbound Right – Cayuga Street D(42.0) C(26.5) D(43.1) C(27.0) Southbound Left – Cayuga Street C(25.8) B(19.8) C(25.9) B(19.9) Southbound Thru – Cayuga Street C(30.7) C(26.7) C(31.1) C(27.2) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(29.3) C(29.0) C(29.8) C(29.5) Clinton Street/Cayuga Street (S) Eastbound Left – Clinton Street B(11.4) B(12.0) B(11.4) B(12.1) Eastbound Thru/Right – Clinton Street C(28.3) C(33.0) C(28.7) C(33.8) Westbound Left – Clinton Street B(14.4) B(20.0) B(14.5) C(20.7) Westbound Thru/Right – Clinton Street B(20.0) C(22.6) C(20.1) C(23.0) Northbound Left – Cayuga Street C(21.5) C(26.5) C(21.5) C(26.5) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-118 Northbound Thru/Right – Cayuga Street E(71.8) E(57.8) E(76.8) E(60.0) Southbound Left – Cayuga Street D(47.6) E(68.0) D(53.2) E(76.3) Southbound Thru/Right – Cayuga Street B(14.7) C(22.8) B(14.8) C(23.0) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) D(37.4) C(34.8) D(39.6) D(36.5) Spencer Street/Cayuga Street (U) Northbound – Cayuga Street A(9.3) B(10.4) A(9.3) B(10.5) Elmira Road/Spencer Street/Park Street/Albany Street Roundabout (R) Eastbound – Elmira Road A(7.8) A(8.4) A(7.9) A(8.6) Westbound – Spencer Street A(6.1) B(12.7) A(6.1) B(13.1) Northbound – Spencer Street A(7.5) A(5.8) A(7.6) A(5.9) Southbound – Albany Street A(4.9) C(16.8) A(4.9) C(17.6) Southeastbound – Park Street A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) Albany Street/Clinton Street (S) Eastbound – Clinton Street B(12.9) B(11.6) B(13.1) B(11.7) Westbound – Clinton Street B(13.7) B(19.5) B(13.9) C(20.3) Northbound – Albany Street C(31.5) C(22.5) C(32.3) C(22.6) Southbound – Albany Street B(12.6) C(23.6) B(12.8) C(24.1) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(17.4) B(18.7) B(17.8) B(19.2) Green Street/Albany Street (S) Eastbound – Green Street B(12.6) B(12.1) B(12.7) B(12.2) Northbound – Albany Street C(20.0) C(21.8) C(20.4) C(22.2) Southbound – Albany Street C(25.4) D(43.9) C(25.3) D(44.4) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(15.6) C(21.8) B(15.7) C(22.1) Seneca Street/Albany Street (S) Westbound – Seneca Street A(4.3) A(4.9) A(4.3) A(4.9) Northbound – Albany Street C(27.4) B(11.3) C(27.7) B(11.6) Southbound – Albany Street B(12.2) C(21.8) B(12.2) C(22.0) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(10.6) A(9.5) B(10.8) A(9.6) Turner Place/Columbia Street/South Hill Terrace (U) Eastbound – South Hill Terrace A(9.6) A(0.0) A(9.6) A(0.0) Westbound – Columbia Street A(8.5) A(8.9) A(8.5) A(8.9) Northbound – Turner Place A(7.4) A(0.0) A(7.4) A(0.0) Southbound – Turner Place A(7.3) A(7.3) A(7.3) A(7.3) Turner Place/Clinton Street (U) Westbound – Clinton Street A(8.7) A(9.0) A(8.8) A(9.1) Northbound – Turner Place C(16.4) D(26.0) C(16.4) D(26.9) Seneca Way/State Street (S) Eastbound – State Street D(39.8) D(50.0) D(40.1) D(51.3) Westbound – State Street C(23.8) C(33.0) C(23.6) C(35.4) Northbound Left – Seneca Way C(22.5) C(24.9) C(22.7) C(25.0) Northbound Thru – Seneca Way C(23.3) C(29.0) C(23.5) C(29.3) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(26.5) C(33.6) C(26.5) C(34.8) State Street/Green Street (S) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-119 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Eastbound – State Street A(3.9) A(2.5) A(4.0) A(2.7) Westbound – State Street A(0.3) A(0.6) A(0.4) A(0.6) Northbound – Green Street B(17.2) B(17.3) B(17.7) B(17.7) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(11.2) A(9.9) B(11.6) B(10.2) Stewart Avenue/State Street (S) Eastbound Left – State Street B(13.5) B(11.4) B(14.8) B(12.4) Eastbound Thru – State Street B(10.5) B(11.3) B(10.7) B(11.5) Westbound Thru/Right – State Street B(16.5) B(15.5) B(17.2) B(16.1) Southbound – Stewart Avenue B(14.6) D(35.8) B(14.7) D(36.7) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(14.0) B(16.8) B(14.5) B(17.4) Mitchell Street/NYS Route 79 (S) Eastbound Left – NYS Route 79 A(5.8) A(2.3) A(6.5) A(2.4) Eastbound Thru – NYS Route 79 A(0.9) A(1.5) A(0.9) A(1.5) Westbound Thru/Right – NYS Route 79 B(16.0) B(12.4) B(16.0) B(12.5) Southbound Left – Mitchell Street C(21.0) B(15.7) C(21.3) B(15.9) Southbound Right – Mitchell Street A(4.2) A(3.1) A(4.3) A(3.2) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) A(7.9) A(4.2) A(8.1) A(4.3) Columbia Street/Hudson Street (U) Eastbound – Columbia Street A(8.1) A(8.9) A(8.1) A(9.0) Westbound – Columbia Street A(9.1) A(9.1) A(9.1) A(9.2) Northbound – Hudson Street A(9.1) A(10.1) A(9.2) A(10.2) Southbound – Hudson Street A(8.2) A(8.6) A(8.3) A(8.6) Coddington Road/Hudson Street (U) Eastbound – Coddington Road A(8.2) A(9.1) A(8.2) A(9.2) Northbound – Coddington Road A(9.5) B(11.3) A(9.6) B(11.5) Southbound – Hudson Street A(8.6) A(9.9) A(8.7) A(10.0) Burns Road/Coddington Road (U) Westbound – Burns Road B(10.1) B(10.7) B(10.1) B(10.8) Southbound – Coddington Road A(7.7) A(7.6) A(7.7) A(7.6) Fulton Street/State Street (S) Eastbound Thru – State Street C(32.2) C(28.9) C(32.8) C(29.3) Eastbound Right – State Street C(35.0) C(34.4) C(35.9) D(35.3) Westbound Left – State Street B(17.9) C(25.2) B(18.1) C(25.8) Westbound Thru – State Street B(16.6) C(31.3) B(16.6) C(31.7) Southbound Thru – Fulton Street C(21.6) B(17.2) C(22.1) B(17.5) Southbound Right – Fulton Street B(15.0) B(11.9) B(15.1) B(12.0) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(26.5) C(23.0) C(27.1) C(23.5) Meadow Street/Clinton Street/Fulton Street (S) Westbound Left – Clinton Street D(35.8) D(40.1) D(35.7) D(40.3) Westbound Right – Clinton Street D(43.0) D(41.9) D(42.9) D(42.0) Northbound Thru – Meadow Street B(14.6) B(18.9) B(15.0) B(19.3) Northbound Right – Meadow Street A(2.7) A(7.0) A(2.8) A(7.3) Southeastbound Left – Fulton Street C(25.9) C(29.6) C(26.0) C(29.7) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-120 Southeastbound Right – Fulton Street A(8.4) B(19.5) A(8.5) B(19.8) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(16.5) C(22.9) B(16.7) C(23.2) King Road/Coddington Road (U) Eastbound – King Road A(9.2) A(9.4) A(9.2) A(9.4) Northbound – Coddington Road A(7.5) A(7.7) A(7.5) A(7.7) Pine Tree Road/NYS Route 79 (U) Eastbound – NYS Route 79 A(9.4) A(8.0) A(9.5) A(8.0) Southbound – Pine Tree Road C(16.6) E(45.1) C(16.9) F(50.7) Notes: 1. A(9.4) = Level of Service (Delay in seconds per vehicle) 2. (S) = Signalized; (U) = Un-signalized 3. (*) = Delay exceeds two minutes 4. N/A = Approach does not exist and/or was not analyzed during this condition TableFGEIS Table 5.7-7: Capacity Analysis Results – No Action Conditions (SRF) A review of both AM and PM peak hour capacity analysis results indicate that the overall levels of service operate at “D” or better at the signalized intersections, which is an acceptable capacity level. There is no change in overall LOS between existing and no action conditions (Phase I and Phase II full build- out years) during both peak hours. Between the two no action phases (2 years out plus an additional 8 years no action timeframe) during the PM peak hour, the intersection of Clinton Street/Cayuga Street decreases in overall LOS from “C” to “D”. Likewise, during the same peak hour, the intersection of State Street/Green Street decreases in overall LOS from “A” to “B”. FigureFGEIS Figures 5.7-21 through 5.7-24 illustrate the no action LOS conditions at the study area intersections during the AM and PM peak hours for both phases of development. FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-21: Overall LOS - Background Phase I AM Peak Hour (SRF) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-121 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-22: Overall LOS - Background Phase I PM Peak Hour (SRF) * FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-23: Overall LOS - Background Phase II AM Peak Hour (SRF) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-122 FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-24: Overall LOS - Background Phase II PM Peak Hour (SRF) * 5.7.2.6 Full Development Volumes The projected design hour traffic volumes were developed for the weekday commuter AM and PM peak hours by combining the future background traffic conditions under Phase I (FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-19) and Phase II, full build-out (FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-20), and projected Project generated volumes for full build-out of the proposed mixed-use district (FigureFGEIS Figures 5.7-16 through 5.7-17) in order to yield the total traffic conditions expected at Phase I and Phase II, full build-out. FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-25 illustrates the total weekday commuter AM and PM peak hour volumes anticipated for the Project under Phase I conditions. FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-26 depicts the total weekday commuter AM and PM peak hour volumes under full build-out conditions. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-123 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-25: Peak Hour Volumes Full Development Conditions Phase I (SRF) * FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-26: Peak Hour Volumes Full Development Conditions Phase II Full Build-Out (SRF) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-124 5.7.2.7 Full Development Capacity Analysis Capacity analysis considers average daily AM and PM peak hour volumes under existing and proposed developed conditions, and factors in traffic generated from Ithaca College and Cornell University when in full session. The analysis also includes the total daily vehicle trips on NYS Route 96B. Capacity results for Phase I and the full development conditions (Phase II) are listed in TableFGEIS Table 5.7-8. The discussion following the Table summarizes capacity conditions. All capacity analysis calculations are included in the Appendices. FigureFGEIS Figures 5.7-27 through 5.7-30 illustrate the LOS results at each intersection for both phases of development. It should be noted that the total number of apartment units increased by 203 units under Phase II full development conditions during the development of this DGEIS in the CW2 Sub Area. Therefore, a revised analysis was undertaken at intersections where the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) was greater than 0.9 for any one approach. The v/c ratio, “also referred to as degree of saturation, represents the sufficiency of an intersection to accommodate the vehicular demand”. A v/c ratio of less than 0.85 generally indicates an intersection has sufficient capacity. FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-27: Overall LOS - Full Development Phase I AM Peak Hour (SRF) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-125 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-28: Overall LOS - Full Development Phase I PM Peak Hour (SRF) * FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-29: Overall LOS - Full Development Phase II AM Peak Hour (SRF) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-126 FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-30: Overall LOS - Full Development Phase II PM Peak Hour (SRF) * INTERSECTION FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE I) FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) AM PM AM PM King Road/Danby Road (S) Eastbound – King Road B(14.5) B(14.2) B(18.7) B(16.9) Westbound – King Road A(7.8) A(9.9) B(10.2) B(10.9) Northbound Left – Danby Road A(9.9) B(10.5) B(10.3) B(13.1) Northbound Thru/Right – Danby Road B(13.5) A(8.4) B(17.5) A(8.9) Southbound Left – Danby Road B(11.5) A(9.6) B(18.1) B(10.1) Southbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(8.2) B(12.6) A(9.3) B(15.6) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(11.3) B(11.6) B(14.5) B(13.6) Alumni Street/Danby Road (S) Eastbound Left – South Hill Bus. Park A(0.0) C(31.5) A(0.0) C(31.5) Eastbound Thru/Right – South Hill Bus. Park A(0.0) B(13.0) A(0.0) B(13.2) Westbound Left/Thru – Alumni Street D(36.7) D(50.6) D(36.8) D(51.1) Westbound Right – Alumni Street A(8.9) A(4.3) A(8.8) A(8.0) Northbound – Danby Road A(5.2) B(10.9) A(5.9) B(11.7) Southbound – Danby Road A(2.5) A(7.1) A(2.8) A(8.0) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) A(5.2) B(13.7) A(5.5) B(14.4) Proposed Driveway V/Danby Road (U) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-127 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement INTERSECTION FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE I) FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) AM PM AM PM Eastbound – Proposed Driveway V N/A A(9.0) A(0.4) C(17.4) C(22.2) Northbound Left – Danby Road A(9.2) Northbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(0.4) Coddington Road/Danby Road/Driveway IV (U) Eastbound Left/Thru – Driveway IV D(25.6) D(30.8) F(62.6) F(*) Eastbound Right – Driveway IV A(9.7) A(9.9) B(10.3) B(10.7) Westbound – Coddington Road C(18.6) C(17.4) E(36.6) D(31.4) Northbound Left – Danby Road A(8.4) A(8.4) A(8.9) A(8.9) Northbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(0.1) A(0.0) A(0.2) A(0.1) Southbound Left – Danby Road A(8.6) A(8.9) A(8.9) A(9.2) Southbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(0.4) A(0.3) A(0.5) A(0.4) Aurora Street/Proposed Driveway III (U) Eastbound – Proposed Driveway III C(15.8) B(11.9) F(93.2) F(*) Northbound Left – Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) B(10.2) A(8.9) Northbound Thru/Right – Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) Grandview Avenue/Aurora Street (U) Westbound – Grandview Avenue B(14.1) C(18.8) C(16.7) D(26.8) Southbound Left – Aurora Street A(8.8) A(9.4) A(9.3) B(10.4) Proposed Driveway II/Aurora Street (U) Proposed Driveway I/Aurora Street (U) Eastbound – Proposed Driveway I E(37.2) D(31.5) F(*) F(*) Northbound Left – Aurora Street B(10.0) A(8.7) B(11.0) A(9.2) Northbound Thru/Right – Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) Hillview Place/Aurora Street (S) Eastbound – Hillview Place B(17.4) B(19.1) C(20.5) C(23.6) Westbound – Hillview Place B(18.5) C(20.2) C(24.5) C(28.3) Northbound – Aurora Street A(7.9) B(10.1) B(14.2) C(24.8) Southbound – Aurora Street A(6.9) A(5.9) B(12.5) A(6.7) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) A(8.7) A(9.9) B(14.4) B(19.2) Columbia Street/Aurora Street (U) Eastbound – Columbia Street C(23.0) C(20.6) E(38.8) D(34.6) Northbound – Aurora Street A(9.3) A(8.5) B(10.4) A(8.9) Southbound – Aurora Street A(9.2) B(10.2) A(9.9) B(12.2) Clinton Street/Aurora Street/Prospect Street (U) Eastbound Left – Clinton Street F(78.0) F(*) F(*) F(*) Eastbound Right – Clinton Street C(17.3) C(16.8) E(41.7) C(26.0) Westbound – Prospect Street F(107.5) F(*) F(*) F(*) Northbound – Aurora Street A(8.6) A(8.4) A(9.4) A(9.0) Southbound – Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) State Street/Aurora Street (S) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-128 INTERSECTION FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE I) FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) AM PM AM PM Westbound Left – State Street C(32.4) F(83.1) F(92.2) F(97.6) Northbound – Aurora Street B(19.4) C(20.2) C(27.3) D(48.2) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(25.1) D(51.0) E(57.0) E(70.2) Seneca Street/Aurora Street (S) Westbound Thru – Seneca Street B(18.2) C(25.4) B(18.4) C(26.2) Westbound Right – Seneca Street B(15.4) B(18.4) B(15.4) B(18.6) Northbound – Aurora Street A(5.4) A(9.3) A(5.2) A(9.1) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(12.7) B(19.0) B(12.3) B(18.6) Cayuga Street/Seneca Street (S) Westbound – Seneca Street B(14.4) B(18.0) B(16.9) C(30.3) Southbound – Cayuga Street E(76.0) F(94.5) F(110.4) F(117.9) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(34.6) D(38.0) D(48.3) D(53.0) Green Street/Cayuga Street (S) Eastbound – Green Street C(24.9) C(35.3) C(28.5) C(39.1) Northbound Right – Cayuga Street D(42.0) C(26.5) D(43.1) C(27.0) Southbound Left – Cayuga Street C(25.8) B(19.8) C(25.9) B(19.9) Southbound Thru – Cayuga Street C(32.0) C(26.9) C(36.2) C(28.6) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(29.9) C(29.2) C(32.7) C(31.4) Clinton Street/Cayuga Street (S) Eastbound Left – Clinton Street B(11.4) B(12.1) B(11.5) B(12.5) Eastbound Thru/Right – Clinton Street C(30.8) C(33.6) D(42.1) C(40.6) Westbound Left – Clinton Street B(14.9) B(20.5) B(17.3) C(27.2) Westbound Thru/Right – Clinton Street C(20.1) C(23.1) C(21.2) C(26.2) Northbound Left – Cayuga Street C(21.6) C(28.0) C(22.0) C(28.4) Northbound Thru/Right – Cayuga Street E(72.0) E(58.0) E(78.1) E(61.7) Southbound Left – Cayuga Street E(62.8) E(74.3) F(*) F(*) Southbound Thru/Right – Cayuga Street B(14.9) C(22.8) B(15.4) C(23.8) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) D(40.2) D(35.9) E(65.8) D(49.3) Spencer Street/Cayuga Street (U) Northbound – Cayuga Street A(9.5) B(10.6) A(9.7) B(10.9) Elmira Road/Spencer Street/Park Street/Albany Street Roundabout (R) Eastbound – Elmira Road A(8.1) A(8.5) A(8.8)t A(9.0) Westbound – Spencer Street A(6.1) B(13.0) A(6.4) B(14.7) Northbound – Spencer Street A(7.6) A(5.8) A(8.2) A(6.0) Southbound – Albany Street A(4.9) C(17.2) A(5.0) C(19.5) Southeastbound – Park Street A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) Albany Street/Clinton Street (S) Eastbound – Clinton Street B(13.6) B(11.7) B(16.0) B(12.5) Westbound – Clinton Street B(14.0) C(21.2) B(15.8) C(28.7) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-129 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement INTERSECTION FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE I) FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) AM PM AM PM Northbound – Albany Street C(31.5) C(22.5) C(32.3) C(22.6) Southbound – Albany Street B(12.5) C(23.6) B(12.7) C(24.1) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(17.7) B(19.3) B(18.9) C(22.5) Green Street/Albany Street (S) Eastbound – Green Street B(12.9) B(12.1) B(14.0) B(12.6) Northbound – Albany Street C(20.0) C(21.7) C(20.1) B(19.5) Southbound – Albany Street C(25.3) D(43.8) C(25.1) D(43.8) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(15.7) C(21.7) B(16.3) C(21.4) Seneca Street/Albany Street (S) Westbound – Seneca Street A(4.2) A(4.9) A(4.5) A(5.2) Northbound – Albany Street C(27.4) B(11.3) C(27.6) B(11.5) Southbound – Albany Street B(12.2) C(21.8) B(12.2) C(22.0) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(10.6) A(9.5) B(10.5) A(9.5) Turner Place/Columbia Street/South Hill Terrace (U) Eastbound – South Hill Terrace A(9.9) A(0.0) B(10.6) A(0.0) Westbound – Columbia Street A(8.5) A(9.0) A(8.7) A(9.4) Northbound – Turner Place A(7.4) A(0.0) A(7.6) A(0.0) Southbound – Turner Place A(7.3) A(7.3) A(7.3) A(7.4) Turner Place/Clinton Street (U) Westbound – Clinton Street A(8.9) A(9.1) A(9.4) A(9.4) Northbound – Turner Place C(17.4) D(28.6) C(23.0) E(47.9) Seneca Way/State Street (S) Eastbound – State Street D(40.3) E(56.1) D(44.1) F(*) Westbound – State Street C(24.9) D(36.9) D(40.5) E(56.1) Northbound Left – Seneca Way C(23.2) C(25.2) C(24.8) C(26.0) Northbound Thru – Seneca Way C(23.7) C(29.3) C(24.5) C(29.9) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(27.2) D(36.9) D(36.6) E(62.5) State Street/Green Street (S) Eastbound – State Street A(4.0) A(3.0) A(4.7) A(9.9) Westbound – State Street A(0.4) A(0.6) A(0.7) A(0.8) Northbound – Green Street B(17.5) B(17.7) B(19.1) B(18.5) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(11.0) A(9.9) B(10.9) B(10.9) Stewart Avenue/State Street (S) Eastbound Left – State Street B(16.2) B(12.1) E(56.3) B(19.0) Eastbound Thru – State Street B(10.6) B(11.8) B(11.8) B(13.9) Westbound Thru/Right – State Street B(18.3) B(15.7) C(26.9) B(18.4) Southbound – Stewart Avenue B(14.4) D(35.8) B(13.8) D(37.4) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(15.2) B(17.1) C(21.8) B(19.3) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-130 INTERSECTION FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE I) FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) AM PM AM PM Mitchell Street/NYS Route 79 (S) Eastbound Left – NYS Route 79 A(6.7) A(2.4) A(9.5) A(3.0) Eastbound Thru – NYS Route 79 A(0.9) A(1.5) A(0.9) A(1.6) Westbound Thru/Right – NYS Route 79 B(15.9) B(12.5) B(15.1) B(14.1) Southbound Left – Mitchell Street C(21.6) B(15.9) C(23.7) B(17.0) Southbound Right – Mitchell Street A(4.5) A(3.1) A(5.3) A(4.3) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) A(8.2) A(4.3) A(9.0) A(5.1) Columbia Street/Hudson Street (U) Eastbound – Columbia Street A(8.1) A(9.0) A(8.2) A(9.4) Westbound – Columbia Street A(9.1) A(9.2) A(9.2) A(9.3) Northbound – Hudson Street A(9.1) A(10.2) A(9.2) A(10.4) Southbound – Hudson Street A(8.2) A(8.6) A(8.3) A(8.7) Coddington Road/Hudson Street (U) Eastbound – Coddington Road A(8.2) A(9.1) A(8.3) A(9.3) Northbound – Coddington Road A(9.5) B(11.4) A(10.0) B(11.9) Southbound – Hudson Street A(8.6) A(9.9) A(8.8) B(10.1) Burns Road/Coddington Road (U) Westbound – Burns Road B(10.1) B(10.8) B(10.4) B(11.2) Southbound – Coddington Road A(7.7) A(7.6) A(7.8) A(7.7) Fulton Street/State Street (S) Eastbound Thru – State Street C(32.2) C(28.9) C(30.8) C(29.3) Eastbound Right – State Street C(35.0) C(35.0) D(45.2) C(39.0) Westbound Left – State Street B(17.9) C(25.2) B(17.6) C(25.8) Westbound Thru – State Street B(16.6) C(31.3) B(16.3) C(31.7) Southbound Thru – Fulton Street C(21.6) B(17.3) C(27.0) B(18.3) Southbound Right – Fulton Street B(15.0) B(11.9) B(15.2) B(12.0) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) C(26.5) C(23.2) C(30.8) C(24.4) Meadow Street/Clinton Street/Fulton Street (S) Westbound Left – Clinton Street D(35.8) D(40.2) D(35.9) D(40.7) Westbound Right – Clinton Street D(43.0) D(41.8) D(42.9) D(41.7) Northbound Thru – Meadow Street B(14.6) B(19.2) B(18.0) C(21.1) Northbound Right – Meadow Street A(2.7) A(7.2) A(3.2) A(8.0) Southeastbound Left – Fulton Street C(25.9) C(30.2) C(29.4) C(31.9) Southeastbound Right – Fulton Street A(8.4) B(19.3) A(8.1) B(18.7) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(16.5) C(22.9) B(18.6) C(23.8) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-131 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement INTERSECTION FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE I) FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) AM PM AM PM King Road/Coddington Road (U) Eastbound – King Road A(9.2) A(9.5) A(9.3) A(9.7) Northbound – Coddington Road A(7.5) A(7.7) A(7.5) A(7.8) Pine Tree Road/NYS Route 79 (U) Eastbound – NYS Route 79 A(9.4) A(8.0) B(10.0) A(8.2) Southbound – Pine Tree Road C(16.6) F(52.8) C(21.1) F(107.9) Notes: 1. B (13.6) = Level of Service (Delay in seconds per vehicle) 2. (S) = Signalized; (U) = Un-signalized 3. N/A = Approach does not exist and/or was not analyzed during this condition 4. F(*) = Delay exceeds two minutes TableFGEIS Table 5.7-8: Capacity Analysis Results (SRF) The capacity analysis results shown in TableFGEIS Table 5.7-8 indicate most of the approaches and overall Levels of Service at the study intersections will operate within acceptable parameters between existing, background, and full development conditions. The study intersections with the greatest degree of change in overall Level of Service will be discussed in greater detail. Intersections experiencing significant changes in movement Level of Service will also be reviewed in closer detail. Additional traffic from the proposed Project may increase the potential for collisions. The proposed intersections along NYS Route 96B will be discussed. Proposed Driveway I/Aurora Street Under Phase I full development conditions, the eastbound approach is projected to operate at LOS “E” and “D” during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Between Phase I and Phase II, the LOS is projected to decrease to LOS “F” during both peak hours. This condition may be alleviated as drivers become more experienced with using the Site’s multiple driveways. Driving patterns may change to reflect the typical operating conditions along NYS Route 96B at the Site’s driveways and may utilize other points of ingress/ egress. This intersection should be monitored after redevelopment of the Phase I buildings for delay and operation for drivers entering and exiting the Site. The purpose of studying the proposed access location after it is open for public use is to determine at what point in the future of the proposed build-out of the Site a potential traffic signal should be installed. The installation of a traffic signal at Coddington Road offers side road motorists a guaranteed exit opportunity when entering the NYS Route 96B traffic stream. Proposed Driveway II/Aurora Street This intersection is projected to operate as an enter-only driveway. Therefore, little to no delay is projected at this proposed intersection. No mitigation is warranted or recommended. Aurora Street (NYS Route 96B)/Proposed Driveway III Between Phase I and Phase II full development conditions, the eastbound LOS decreases from “C” and “B” during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, to “F” during both peak hours. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-132 Coddington Road/Danby Road/Driveway IV Under Phase I full development conditions, the eastbound left/thru approach is projected to operate at LOS “D” during both peak hours. Between Phase I and Phase II full development conditions, the LOS decreases to “F” during both peak hours. The anticipated delay and corresponding LOS for the eastbound movement is characteristic of un-signalized side roads on heavily trafficked arterials such as NYS Route 96B. Between both phases of full development, the westbound approach from Coddington Road decreases in LOS from “C” to “E” during the AM peak hour and from “C” to “D” during the PM peak hour. Proposed Driveway V/Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) This intersection will be constructed during Phase II of full development conditions. A LOS of “C” is projected for eastbound exiting traffic during the AM and PM peak hours. All other approaches operate at LOS “A”. Access via Turner Place and Cayuga Street The use of the existing access paths through Turner Place and Cayuga Street were reviewed to ensure that the character of these existing, low-traffic roadways are not impacted. Based upon the peak hour volumes on Turner Place and Cayuga Street as shown in Figures 5.7-3, 5.7- 20, 5.7-25, and 5.7-26 of the DGEIS (existing, background, Phase I development conditions, and full development conditions); the ADT comparisons are shown in the following Table. TURNER PLACE AND CAYUGA STREET: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COMPARISONS Adjacent Roadway Two-way AM(PM) Peak Hour Volume (vph) Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume (vpd) Existing Background Phase I Phase 2 Full Dev. Existing Background Phase I Phase 2 Full Dev. Turner Place 56(69) 58(71) 85(86) 162(164) 690 710 860 1640 Cayuga Street 41(53) 41(55) 83(70) 144(106) 530 550 700 1060 FGEIS Table 5.7-8A: Turner Place and Cayuga Street: Average Daily Traffic Comparisons An alternative analysis was also performed for the Clinton Street/Turner Place and Aurora Street/Clinton Street/Prospect Street intersections under the scenario whereby Project related traffic is prohibited from traveling along Turner Place to determine what the elimination of this access point would have on surrounding intersections. This alternative analysis, the results of which are presented in the following table, has been reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineer and will be added to the DGEIS traffic impact analysis (see FGEIS § 4.10 and Appendix F): Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-133 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement ALTERNATIVE CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS PROHIBITED PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC ALONG TURNER PLACE INTERSECTION FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) WITH PROHIBITIONS AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK Aurora Street/Clinton Street/Prospect Street Eastbound left – Clinton Street F(*) F(*) F(*) F(*) Eastbound right – Clinton Street E(41.7) C(26.0) F(66.3) D(27.2) Westbound – Prospect Street F(*) F(*) F(*) F(*) Northbound – Aurora Street A(9.4) A(9.0) A(9.6) A(9.2) Southbound – Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) Clinton Street/Turner Place Westbound – Clinton Street A(9.4) A(9.4) A(9.5) A(9.5) Northbound – Turner Place C(23.0) E(47.9) C(22.7) E(39.0) FGEIS Table 5.7-8B: Alternative Capacity Analysis Results Prohibited Project-Related Traffic Along Turner Place The results show that with the redistributed Turner Place traffic onto Aurora Street, delays are projected to increase for all approaches during both peak hours at the Aurora Street/Clinton Street/Prospect Street intersection. However, at the Clinton Street/Turner Place intersection, projected delays decrease for the northbound approach during both peak hours. Redistributing Project-related traffic away from Cayuga Street will likely exacerbate the projected conditions at the Aurora Street/Clinton Street/Prospect Street intersection, therefore it is not recommended. Accordingly, both Cayuga Street and Turner Place are appropriate access points to the Site. Emergency Access All driveways are designed in accordance with typical standards to provide adequate emergency access to all buildings on-site. FigureFGEIS Figures 5.7-31 and 5.7-32 provides the AutoTurn simulation depicting emergency, service and delivery access throughout the Site. Specific mitigation includes 25’ radii (minimum) and 24’ wide (minimum) entrances at all access drives as well as internal roadway alignment designed to accommodate the largest emergency vehicles in service to the City and Town. Additional mitigation to be included in the individual Site Plan applications include locations of emergency/delivery zones, fire hydrants and sprinkler connections in relation to the emergency access routes. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-134 FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-31: AutoTurn Simulation - North End (FE) * Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-135 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement FigureFGEIS Figure 5.7-32: AutoTurn Simulation - South End (FE) * The preceding intersections and applicable mitigation recommendations are described further in Section 5.7.3.2. Clinton Street (NYS Route 96B)/Aurora Street/Prospect Street The eastbound left and westbound approaches operate at LOS “F” between all conditions during both peak hours. Between Phase I and Phase II full development conditions during the AM peak hour, the eastbound right approach decreases from LOS “C” to “E”. The traffic volumes added to this intersection as a result of the Project are conservative estimates based upon nationally accepted methodologies. In order to alleviate the traffic impacts to this intersection, and the rest of the study intersections, TDM strategies will be incorporated into the Project. A TDM framework with specific strategies is discussed in greater detail in Subsection 5.7.3.2. As such, no infrastructure mitigation is specifically recommended at this intersection. State Street/Aurora Street The westbound left approach operates at LOS “C” during the AM peak hour and “F” during the PM peak hour under Phase I development conditions. The AM peak hour LOS for the approach decreases to “F” under Phase II full development conditions. The northbound approach decreases from “B” and “C” to “C” and “D” during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, between Phase I and Phase II full development conditions. The recommended mitigation is described in Section 5.7.3.2. Clinton Street/Cayuga Street Between Phase I and Phase II full development conditions during the AM peak hour, the overall LOS Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-136 decreases from “D” to “E”. The southbound left approaches decreases from “E” to “F” during both peak hours between Phase I and Phase II full development conditions. These approach conditions can be improved with minor signal timing adjustments. Pine Tree Road/NYS Route 79 The southbound approach during the PM peak hour between Phase I background conditions and Phase I full development conditions decreases from LOS “E” to “F”. Between Phase I and Phase II full development conditions, delay increases by 55.1 seconds. This intersection will be monitored for delay as it relates to the Project and other potential future development that may increase traffic volumes along NYS Route 79. It is important to mention that SRF’s capacity analysis and the resulting LOS information as provided above was based on an analysis during the peak AM and PM weekday travel periods. This is the appropriate methodology for preparing a capacity analysis for inclusion in a TIS. However, the resulting LOSs during peak travel periods are not reflective of conditions during the non-peak travel periods, which comprise a larger portion of each day and also include weekends. It is always advisable to evaluate mitigation measures for peak travel periods but lower LOSs during weekday peak travel period do not mean that intersections of roadways are not properly designed or are not functioning properly. It would not be feasible for all intersections in a community, such as the City and Town, to function at high rated LOSs during peak travel periods since this would result in excessive roadway infrastructure and would not be economically feasible for governmental agencies responsible for the expenditure of funds for roadways and their maintenance and repair. The preceding intersections and applicable mitigation recommendations are described in Subsection 5.7.3. 5.7.2.8 Construction Impacts During the construction phases of the Project there will be construction related vehicular traffic which was incorporated into the Project trip generation calculations. A discussion on construction related impacts and mitigation is included in Section 5.13. 5.7.2.9 Parking Impacts Parking requirements for the Project were analyzed in the TIS. The analysis assesses the estimated number of permanent users of parking areas versus temporary or visiting users. It also provides a general strategy for parking capacity in relationship to the new population within the development to determine parking generation, estimating reductions based on the mixed-use nature of the District. Urban Land Institute (ULI) Methodology for shared parking, a national standard, was used to estimate the number of parking spaces required for the Project in conjunction with the reductions applicable for a mixed-use Site with access to quality transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The analysis is described preceding this paragraph. All supporting data are included in the Appendices for the TIS. Shared parking synergies exist when (a) there are different uses that have peak operating times at different times of the day, and (b) when there are related or complementary uses where patrons of one use also access the complementary use. The ULI study also identifies monthly variations in parking demand by use for each month of the year. Mixed-use projects, such as the one proposed, will experience parking synergy as described. The parking efficiencies that will result reduce the excess supply of parking and associated loss of green space, and storm drainage impacts and maintenance expenses. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-137 November 6, 2018 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Land use data proposed for the Project was entered in the Shared Parking Model; a spreadsheet that estimates the shared parking demand in mixed-use projects. The spreadsheet produces the base parking requirements before shared use factors are in place. Based on this base data, there is a requirement for approximately 2,618 parking spaces. Using the model, a Shared Parking Reduction factor of 26 percent has been calculated; this equates to a total of 1,977 parking spaces needed. A total of 230 parking spaces are required for customers, 973 parking spaces for employees (office and commercial), and 774 parking spaces are reserved for residents. The parking capacity for the Project will be provided via surface and structured lots. The Conceptual Site Layout Plan states that a total of 1,357 parking spaces will be provided. Further parking adjustment factors may be applied based on research by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2013 (http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf). Factors such as, carsharing, income, housing tenure, employment density, walkability, transit accessibility, and demographics can impact the total supply of parking needed for a mixed-use development. Providing carshare on-site can result in a reduction of personal automobile vehicles by nearly 15 vehicles based on information provided by Ithaca Carshare. Therefore, providing a conservative three carshare vehicles will reduce the parking demand by 45 vehicle spaces. A 20-40 percent reduction can be applied for individuals who are under 30 or over 65. A 10-15 percent reduction may also be applied in areas with 50 or more employees per gross acre. Parking pricing that is unbundled or is individually priced for both office employees and residents can result in a 10-30 percent reduction. Further, a walkable environment reduces parking between 5-15 percent of the total parking demand. For this factor, it is understood that topography may impact the walkable nature of off-site accessibility to and from the Site; therefore, providing a high-quality on-site walkable environment will be important. Although the VTPI reduction factors do not list a bikeable environment as a category, providing safe and accessible bicycle parking facilities may further reduce the parking demand. For a conservative worst case scenario, a 20 percent parking demand reduction factor can be applied reducing the total parking demand to 1582, leaving a deficit of 225 parking spaces. As the Site develops and parking demand figures become more clear and accurate, it is understood that additional parking can be provided by constructing a parking structures on several of the existing parking areas. All the above parking mitigation strategies are being considered by the Project Sponsor and are discussed further in Subsection 5.7.3. 5.7.2.10 Impacts to Transit and Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic The estimated demand from the Project for transit service and the potential need for additional bus stops or shelters, especially along Route 96B is projected to be approximately four percent of the total vehicle trips generated by the Site. Through meetings with TCAT, the existing demands for transit in the South Hill area are met. How the Project will meet those demands is described in Subsection 5.7.2.10. Based on the projected pedestrian and bicycle trip reduction rate used for the Project (7 percent), a total reduction in vehicle trips can be calculated. Using this reduction volume and the estimated vehicle occupancy rate for Ithaca (1.27 persons per vehicle for work and commercial related trips), it can be assumed that pedestrian and bicycle traffic will increase as a result of the mixed-use nature of the Project. In order to accommodate this traffic, the Project will include internal and external connections to the existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure network. See Subsections 5.7.1. 4 and 5.7.2.10. 5.7.2.11 Impacts to Transportation and Other Plans The Project aligns with the stated transportation goals for the City, Town, and Tompkins County. With regards to the Town Transportation Plan, the Plan states seven goals: access & mobility, livability, safety, transportation system management, coordination, land use planning, and the environment. These goals seek to develop a multimodal transportation plan that puts a focus on pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit; modify and design a transportation system that is safe and promotes inviting neighborhoods; ensure Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-138 the transportation system adapts to the current needs of its users; and development that reduces the dependency on automobile use. Additionally, the Project Sponsor is pursuing certification by the USGBC for LEED ND, a process that requires a holistic examination of transportation linkages and connectivity. Within LEED ND credit category Neighborhood Pattern and Design, the Project Sponsor is pursuing points in three credits that require examination of the project’s transportation modes in detail. These LEED ND credits are: Credit 5, Reduced Parking Footprint, seeks to limit environmental harms associated with parking facilities, including automobile dependence, land consumption, and rainwater runoff; Credit 7, transit facilities, which requires inventory of existing transit stops and cooperation with TCAT; and Credit 8, TDM, which facilitates multimodal travel through implementation of a menu of options, including transit pass subsidies, carsharing, and unbundling of parking fees from rents. The internal sidewalk network will also be fully developed in the Site Plan Review phase in coordination with LEED ND requirements. The City is dedicated to increasing its inventory of bicycle facilities through on-street bike lanes and Shared Lane Markings (sharrows). With a high rate of pedestrian commuters, over 40 percent, the City continually undergoes sidewalk maintenance, and initiates projects such as installing new pedestrian crossings and curb extensions. The City is seeking to expand its multi-use trail network, such as the Gateway Trail through the Site to connect the existing Black Diamond Trail to the South Hill Recreation Way. This Project aims to provide multimodal facilities that interconnect the Site’s buildings to one another and the surrounding transportation network. These strategies will help reduce the dependence on personal automobiles, improve the environment and public health, and increase the marketability of the region. The 2015 Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in March 2015. Stated transportation policies include shifting travel away from driving-alone to biking, walking, carpooling/ridesharing; and maintaining and improving critical elements of the existing transportation network to support the safe movement of people and goods. In addition, the Plan states policies for promoting bicycling and walking by making these transportation modes safe, efficient, and appealing; foster the expansion of a county wide trail network; and promote mixed-use development in Development Focus Areas. The Project is in line with and supports these policies. 5.7.2.12 Impacts to Emergency Access The Project will increase the potential need for emergency services as outlined in Section 5.11. Transportation impacts focus mainly on the access for emergency vehicles. The Project driveway intersections and all internal roads will need to be accessible by emergency vehicles from bot h the City and the Town. There are sufficient access points to provide adequate emergency access however the geometry of the existing driveway intersections are less than ideal and will require revisions. 5.7.3 Mitigation Measures Mitigation will include all direct access points to the Project including existing and proposed drives on NYS Route 96B as well as extensions of Turner Place and South Cayuga Street into the Project. The mitigation will include access drive improvements such as signalization, turn lanes, and geometric improvements. Off-Site mitigation will consist of signalization optimization and other traffic control measures. Additional mitigation will take the form of vehicle sharing and improvements to pedestrian/bicycle facilities. Such strategies are described in greater detail later in this section as it relates to the development of TDM actions. Internal traffic calming measures are generally evaluated in this document, incorporated into the Design Guidelines, and implemented during the Site Plan approval process. As a result of the Project, mitigation measures were investigated and developed to reduce the impact of vehicle trips added to the existing transportation network. Such transportation-oriented mitigation CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-139 November 6, 2018 strategies examined are auxiliary turn lane warrants and guidelines, signal warrant analyses, TDM strategies, signal timing adjustments, and reconfigured intersection and roadway geometry. 5.7.3.1 Site Access The Driveway I / NYS Route 96B intersection should be monitored after redevelopment of the Phase I buildings for delay and operation for drivers entering and exiting the Site. The purpose of studying the proposed access location after it is open for public use is to determine at what point in the future of the proposed build-out of the Site a potential traffic signal should be installed. The installation of a traffic signal at Coddington Road offers side road motorists a guaranteed exit opportunity when entering the NYS Route 96B traffic stream. The proposed mitigation strategies to minimize traffic impacts, including the need for additional turning lanes and traffic control devices at impacted intersections are evaluated below. A. Left-turn Lane Warrant Investigation Volume warrants for left-turn treatments on NYS Route 96B at the proposed access roads were evaluated using the Transportation Research Board’s NCHRP Report 279, Intersection Channelization Design Guide, 1985. According to this Design Guide, provisions for left-turn lane facilities should be established where traffic volumes are high enough and safety considerations are sufficient to warrant the additional lane. This investigation analyzes warrants during the AM and PM peak hours under Phase I and Phase II full development conditions. Phase I AM Peak Hour • Proposed Driveway I: Marginally met • Proposed Driveway II: Marginally met • Proposed Driveway III: Not met • Coddington Road/Driveway IV: Met PM Peak Hour • Proposed Driveway I: Not met • Proposed Driveway II: Not met • Proposed Driveway III: Not met • Coddington Road/Driveway IV: Not met During Phase I conditions, three of the four driveways along NYS Route 96B are warranted for a left-turn lane during the AM peak hour. The warrants during the PM peak hour are not met. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-140 Phase II Full Build-out AM Peak Hour • Proposed Driveway I: Met • Proposed Driveway II: Met • Proposed Driveway III: Met • Coddington Road/Driveway IV: Met • Proposed Driveway V: Met PM Peak Hour • Proposed Driveway I: Not met • Proposed Driveway II: Met • Proposed Driveway III: Met • Coddington Road/Driveway IV: Not met • Proposed Driveway V: Met During Phase II full build-out conditions, all of the proposed driveways along NYS Route 96B are warranted for a left-turn lane during the AM peak hour. The warrants during the PM peak hour are met for the proposed Driveway II, proposed Driveway III immediately south of Grandview Avenue, and the proposed Driveway V. It should be noted that under current existing conditions at Coddington Road / NYS Route 96B, the warrants for a left-turn lane are already met for southbound left-turning traffic during both peak hours. Intersection accident history indicates that current conditions do not contribute to discernable safety deficiencies with the existing geometry in place. Capacity analysis conditions under full development conditions (Phase II) are not adversely impacted by the existing roadway geometry along NYS Route 96B at the proposed driveways. However, the NYSDOT may want to consider investigating the application of a road diet (i.e. conversion from four lanes to three lanes) treatment along NYS Route 96B starting at Grandview Avenue and proceeding southbound. The installation of a road diet would create left-turn auxiliary lanes at major intersections (e.g., Coddington Road, Ithaca College) and a space for vehicles to wait in before entering the through traffic stream upon exiting minor side roads and driveways (i.e., a two-stage left-turn). Left-turn lanes are recommended at the proposed Driveways III, IV, and V under Phase II full development conditions. B. Right-turn Lane Volume Guidelines Right-turn lane volume guidelines were also considered at the proposed intersections NYS Route 96B. Under Phase II conditions, the guidelines for a full width right-turn lane are satisfied at the proposed Driveway I under AM conditions only. The remaining driveways are not met. Based upon the previously noted capacity analysis results at the proposed driveways along NYS Route 96B and the roadway constraints between the proposed Driveway I and the proposed Driveway III immediately south of CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-141 November 6, 2018 Grandview Avenue (steep grades, limited right-of-way), no right-turn lanes are recommended under Phase I nor Phase II full development conditions. C. Traffic Signal Warrant Investigation A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted under Phase I at the NYS Route 96B/Proposed Driveway I intersection with the assumption that Sub Areas CW3 and CW4 were developed (redevelopment of existing buildings, where applicable). The reason for investigating this intersection with the inclusion of CW3 is the projected trip generation (the highest area for trip generation). The need for a traffic signal is determined by comprehensive investigation of existing and projected traffic conditions and physical characteristics at the location. The Standard Specifications Update for the adoption of the National MUTCD (FHWA) and the New York State Supplement were reviewed to investigate the need for a traffic control signal at this location. There are nine (9) warrants and they are as follows: • Warrant 1 Eight-Hour vehicular volume • Warrant 2 Four-Hour vehicular volume • Warrant 3 Peak Hour • Warrant 4 Pedestrian Volume • Warrant 5 School Crossing • Warrant 6 Coordinated Signal System • Warrant 7 Crash Experience • Warrant 8 Roadway Network • Warrant 9 Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Detailed signal warrant calculations are included in the TIS in the Appendix of the Report. Prior to applying warrants, the MUTCD suggests consideration of the effects of right-turn volumes on the minor street approach, and a reduction taken in the number of right-turning vehicles, where appropriate. A certain number of right-turn vehicles will execute a right turn on the red indication without actuating a traffic signal (if one were in place). For purposes of this analysis, it is projected that 20 percent of the right-turning vehicles exiting the Site at NYS Route 96B and Proposed Driveway I would execute a “right turn on red” maneuver and should therefore be subtracted for the purposes of the warrant analysis. Based on the traffic signal warrant investigation, the traffic signal warrants dealing solely with traffic volumes (Warrants 1-3) are partially met under Phase I conditions at the Proposed Driveway I / NYS Route 96B intersection. TableFGEIS Table 5.7-9 describes each warrant and the result of the signal warrant investigation. Although the warrants that deal solely with traffic volumes are partially met, there are benefits to installing a traffic signal. A traffic signal would allow for the construction of pedestrian actuated signals, thereby creating a controlled crossing location for pedestrians travelling along NYS Route 96B. Based upon the capacity analysis results and projected delay conditions in the future, and the benefit that a traffic signal would have at the intersection, installation of a traffic signal is recommended at the Proposed Driveway I/ NYS Route 96B intersection after Sub Areas CW3 and CW4 are developed, or later, depending upon the actual volumes generated, and warrant investigation at that time. As required by NYSDOT, Tthe traffic signal should will be coordinated with the existing traffic signal at Hillview Place. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-142 WARRANT # DESCRIPTION PHASE I CONDITONS Proposed Driveway I / NYS Route 96B 1 Eight-Hour vehicular volume PARTIALLY MET 2 Four-Hour vehicular volume PARTIALLY MET 3 Peak Hour NOT MET 4 Pedestrian Volume NOT MET 5 School Crossing NOT MET 6 Coordinated Signal System NOT MET 7 Crash Experience NOT MET 8 Roadway Network NOT MET 9 Intersection near a Grade Crossing N/A TableFGEIS Table 5.7-9: Traffic Signal Warrant Summary [Dirveway Driveway I] (SRF) The following table, TableFGEIS Table 5.7-10, depicts the results of the analyses of the intersections with Aurora Street and proposed Driveway I and Hillview Place with a coordinated signalized system in place installed after Phase I. INTERSECTION FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE I) FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE I) w/ MITIGATION AM PM AM PM Proposed Driveway I/Aurora Street (U) Un-signalized Signalized Eastbound – Proposed Driveway I E(49.5) F(119.8) C(24.6) D(37.8) Northbound Left – Aurora Street B(10.0) A(8.8) N/A Northbound – Aurora Street N/A A(4.4) A(8.9) Northbound Thru – Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) N/A Southbound – Aurora Street N/A A(4.4) A(4.4) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) N/A A(5.1) A(9.6) Hillview Place/Aurora Street (S) Eastbound – Hillview Place B(18.3) C(22.8) C(23.1) C(29.6) Westbound – Hillview Place B(20.0) C(25.3) C(28.9) C(34.4) Northbound – Aurora Street A(8.6) B(11.9) A(7.1) A(6.2) Southbound – Aurora Street A(7.8) A(5.5) A(8.3) A(6.1) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) A(9.4) B(11.3) A(9.7) A(9.3) TableFGEIS Table 5.7-10: Capacity Analysis Results with Signalization at Driveway I (SRF) The results shown in TableFGEIS Table 5.7-10 indicate the eastbound level of service for both peak hours at the proposed Driveway I improves to LOS “C” and “D” under signalization. Likewise, the overall LOS during the PM peak hour at Hillview Place/Aurora Street improves from “B” to “A”. A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted under Phase II full development conditions at the NYS Route 96B/Coddington Road/Proposed Driveway IV. With a traffic signal installed, drivers will be more likely to use the intersection to make a guaranteed left-turn out of the Site. As well, the internal circulation system encourages drivers to utilize the proposed Driveway IV intersection. Therefore, the traffic signal warrant analysis reflects an approximate 66 percent reduction in left-turns and 40 percent reduction in right-turns at the Proposed Driveway III/Aurora Street intersection. It is projected that 20 percent of the CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-143 November 6, 2018 right-turning vehicles exiting the Site at NYS Route 96B and Coddington Road would execute a “right turn on red” maneuver and should therefore be subtracted for the purposes of the warrant analysis. The posted speed limit on NYS Route 96B is 40 MPH; however, a 2006 NYSDOT Speed Count for the NYS 96B from the Ithaca City Line to CR 179 indicates that the average speed for northbound traffic is 42.3 MPH and 43.3 MPH for southbound traffic. Since the majority of vehicles are travelling above 40 MPH and therefore, 70 percent thresholds in TableFGEIS Table 4C-1, FigureFGEIS Figure 4C-2 and FigureFGEIS Figure 4C-4 is used as a basis for analysis. Based on the traffic signal warrant investigation, the traffic signal warrants dealing solely with traffic volumes (Warrants 1-3) are met under full development conditions at the Coddington Road/Driveway IV /NYS Route 96B intersection. TableFGEIS Table 5.7-11 describes each warrant and the result of the signal warrant investigation. The traffic signal would encourage drivers exiting the Site to utilize the traffic signal rather than wait at the Site’s other driveways, potentially causing internal delays. A traffic signal would allow for the construction of pedestrian actuated signals, thereby creating a controlled crossing location for pedestrians travelling along NYS Route 96B. Based upon the capacity analysis results, traffic signal warrant analysis, and the benefit that a traffic signal would have at the intersection, installation of a traffic signal is recommended at the existing/proposed driveway at the Coddington Road/Driveway IV/NYS Route 96B intersection. WARRANT # DESCRIPTION FULL BUILD CONDITONS (PHASE I) FULL BUILD CONDITONS (PHASE II) Coddington Road/NYS Route 96B/Driveway IV Coddington Road/NYS Route 96B/ Driveway IV 1 Eight-Hour vehicular volume NOT MET MET 2 Four-Hour vehicular volume NOT MET MET 3 Peak Hour NOT MET MET 4 Pedestrian Volume NOT MET NOT MET 5 School Crossing NOT MET NOT MET 6 Coordinated Signal System NOT MET NOT MET 7 Crash Experience NOT MET NOT MET 8 Roadway Network NOT MET NOT MET 9 Intersection near a Grade Crossing N/A N/A TableFGEIS Table 5.7-11: Traffic Signal Warrant Summary [Dirveway Driveway IV] (SRF) Based on the expected delays under Phase II full development conditions and a traffic signal warrant analysis, a three-colored traffic signal is recommended for the intersection of Coddington Road/Danby Road/Driveway IV. The traffic signal should be designed to provide a permitted/protected northbound and southbound left-turn phase. Left-turn lanes are recommended at Proposed Driveways III, IV, and V. TableFGEIS Table 5.7-12 depicts the improvement in LOS and delay by constructing a traffic signal at Coddington Road and the Proposed Driveway I intersection, and restriping the roadway to install left-turn lanes at the previously mentioned intersections. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-144 INTERSECTION FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) FULL DEVELOPMENT w/ MITIGATION AM PM AM PM Proposed Driveway V/Danby Road Eastbound – Proposed Driveway V C(17.4) C(22.2) B(14.5) C(17.0) Northbound Left – Danby Road A(9.0) A(9.2) A(9.0) A(9.2) Northbound Thru – Danby Road A(0.4) A(0.4) N/A Coddington Road/Danby Road/ Driveway IV (U) Un-signalized Signalized Eastbound Left/Thru – Driveway IV F(62.6) F(*) C(24.3) C(34.2) Eastbound Right – Driveway IV B(10.3) B(10.7) A(0.3) A(4.1) Westbound – Coddington Road E(36.6) D(31.4) B(15.2) B(10.3) Northbound Left – Danby Road A(8.9) A(8.9) A(4.5) A(7.3) Northbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(0.2) A(0.1) B(15.0) C(28.8) Southbound Left – Danby Road A(8.9) A(9.2) A(5.2) A(8.3) Southbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(0.5) A(0.4) A(7.9) A(9.7) Overall LOS (sec/veh) N/A B(11.2) B(19.4) Aurora Street/Proposed Driveway III (U) Eastbound – Proposed Driveway III F(93.2) F(*) E(38.7) E(47.0) Northbound Left – Aurora Street B(10.2) A(8.9) B(10.2) A(8.9) Northbound Thru – Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) Grandview Avenue/Aurora Street (U) Westbound – Grandview Avenue C(16.7) D(26.8) C(16.7) D(26.8) Southbound Left – Aurora Street A(9.3) B(10.4) A(9.3) B(10.4) Proposed Driveway II/Aurora Street (U) A(0.0) A(0.0) Proposed Driveway I/Aurora Street (U) Un-signalized Signalized Eastbound – Proposed Driveway I F(*) F(*) C(24.2) D(40.0) Northbound Left – Aurora Street B(11.0) A(9.2) N/A N/A Northbound Thru– Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) Northbound – Aurora Street N/A A(10.0) A(5.8) B(16.1) Southbound – Aurora Street A(4.6) Overall LOS (sec/veh) N/A A(9.0) B(14.0) TableFGEIS Table 5.7-12: Capacity Analysis Results with Mitigation (SRF) The eastbound and westbound approaches to Coddington Road improve to LOS “C” or better with a traffic signal in place. The overall LOS is projected to be “B” and “B” during the AM and PM peak hours. This intersection should be realigned to improve the skew and grade approaching NYS Route 96B from Coddington Road. It should be noted that observations of existing traffic conditions indicate that numerous drivers use Rogan’s Corner driveway and parking lot to by-pass the NYS Route96B/Coddington Road intersection. Realignment of the intersection may deter drivers from using Rogan’s Corner as a cut- through route. The Aurora Street/Proposed Driveway III intersection levels of service for the eastbound approach improve from “F” from “E”. At the proposed Driveway I intersection, the eastbound approach improves from LOS “F” to “C” and “D” during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, as a result of the recommended mitigation. The overall LOS is projected to be “A” and “B” during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Driving patterns upon full development of the Site may reflect greater shifts in traffic flow to the traffic signal, as well as other routes servicing the Project Site (e.g., Turner Place) in order to exit the Site. CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-145 November 6, 2018 D. Driveway Queuing Analysis A supplementary queue analysis demonstrates that the proposed Site access locations along NYS Route 96B are sufficient to limit potential spill back into internal intersections. DRIVEWAY QUEUING ANALYSIS: PHASE I AND FULL DEVELOPMENT AM PEAK HOUR QUEUING RESULTS Site Access Driveway Phase I Queue Length (in feet) Full Development Queue Length (in feet) Full Development with Mitigation Queue Length (in feet) Conceptual Available Storage to First Intersection (in feet) Average 95th Percentile Average 95th Percentile Average 95th Percentile Driveway I 20 49 46 78 52 91 160 Driveway II NA NA NA NA NA NA N/A Driveway III 7 26 36 60 19 39 211 Driveway IV 6 24 40 72 52 83 475 Driveway V NA NA 36 73 29 48 422 FGEIS Table 5.7-12A: Driveway Queuing Analysis: Phase I and Full Development - AM Peak Hour Queuing Results PM PEAK HOUR QUEUING RESULTS Phase I Queue Length (in feet) Full Development Queue Length (in feet) Full Development with Mitigation Queue Length (in feet) Conceptual Available Storage to First Intersection (in feet) Average 95th Percentile Average 95th Percentile Average 95th Percentile 31 69 290 358 98 154 160 NA NA NA NA NA NA N/A 9 29 115 231 30 52 211 24 54 60 117 63 106 475 NA NA 35 53 41 73 422 FGEIS Table 5.7-12B: Driveway Queuing Analysis: Phase I and Full Development: PM Peak Hour Queuing Results Based on the above queuing analysis there are sufficient storage lengths at Driveways IV and V during both peak hours. Driveway III during the PM peak hour is borderline based on 95th percentile queues. However, queues of this length are expected to be infrequent and are intended to illustrate a worst-case scenario. On the other hand, Driveway I during the PM peak hour shows queues that are longer than the conceptual available storage. Accordingly, to mitigate this impact, the internal roadways interior to the Driveway I access onto Aurora Street shall be required to be designed to mitigate potential spillback into internal intersections. E. Sight Distance Evaluation Each drive access along NYS Route 96B has been reviewed for existing sight distance. The results are as follows: North South Drive I > 500 ft 400 ft Drive II* 400 ft > 500 ft * - Note: Drive II is proposed to be an entrance only. Drive III > 500 ft > 500 ft Drive IV > 500 ft > 500 ft Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-146 Drive V > 500 ft > 500 ft AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance is 445 feet at 40 MPH and 500 feet at 45 MPH. Based upon the above data, there is sufficient sight distance at all the proposed access points except for Drive I, south and Drive II, north. The Project Sponsor’s proposed mitigation for Driveway I includes installing advanced intersection warning signage (MUTCD W2-2L) for northbound approaching vehicles. Drive II is an entrance only and therefore does not require mitigation. In addition, NYSDOT stated a concern about sight distance for northbound vehicles (especially trucks) approaching stopped vehicles waiting to turn left into Site Access 1. This can be addressed by removing trees/brush and other obstructions within the NYS 96B right-of-way or providing a left turn lane at Site Access Drive #1. This mitigation will be reviewed by NYSDOT and the City during the site plan review process for individual projects within the CWD. F. Intersection Sensitivity Analysis NYSDOT requires an intersection sensitivity analysis that clearly specifies a what level of traffic volume per intersection that mitigation would be needed. The following table notes at approximately what point in future traffic generation from the proposed CWD will trigger the need for mitigation assigned to the noted intersections. INTERSECTION SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Intersection Recommended Mitigation Future Traffic Volumes Triggering Mitigation Needs Route 96 B/ Proposed Driveway I Install three-color traffic signal 40 eastbound exiting vehicles during PM peak hour Route 96B/ Proposed Driveway III Northbound left-turn lane 13 northbound left-turn vehicles during AM peak hour Route 96B/ Coddington/Proposed Driveway IV Install three-color traffic signal 30 eastbound left/thru vehicles during PM peak hour Route 96B/ Proposed Driveway V Northbound left-turn lane 18 northbound left-turn vehicles during AM peak hour Route 96B/ Hillview Place Upgrade existing traffic signal In conjunction with Route 96B/ Proposed Drive I or II mitigation Route 79/ Pine Tree Road Install three-color traffic signal Consider installation under existing conditions Cayuga Street/ Clinton Street Review/update signal timing settings (system -wide) 1340 total intersection volumes E State Street/ Seneca Way Review/update signal timing settings (system-wide) 1070 total intersection volumes FGEIS Table 5.7-12C Intersection Sensitivity Analysis The need for additional mitigation at Route 96B/Coddington Road/Proposed Driveway IV, aside from the left-turn lanes along Route 96B will be considered as part of the site plan review process for individual projects within the CWD (beyond Phase I). CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-147 November 6, 2018 5.7.3.2 Adjacent Roadway Network Aurora Street/State Street (MLK Jr. Street) Restriping In order to improve the existing and future peak hour operating conditions at this critical intersection, an alternative that provides two westbound approach lanes on State Street was investigated. TableFGEIS Table 5.7-13 depicts the LOS results at the intersection upon completion of Phase II full development conditions. INTERSECTION FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) w/ MITIGATION AM PM AM PM State Street/Aurora Street (S) Westbound Left – State Street F(92.2) F(97.6) E(58.2) E(74.8) Westbound Right – State Street N/A B(16.4) B(17.3) Northbound – Aurora Street C(27.3) D(48.2) C(27.2) D(48.2) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) D(57.0) E(70.2) D(39.7) E(56.5) TableFGEIS Table 5.7-13: Comparison of E. State Street / Aurora Street Lane Geometry (SRF) By restriping the westbound approach to include separate left and right-turn lanes (the right-turn lane should be restriped to include 100 feet of storage), the overall delay decreases during the AM peak hour by 17 seconds per vehicle. Similarly, during the PM peak hour there is a decrease in delay by over 13 seconds per vehicle. In order to provide the two approach lanes on State Street, peak hour ONLY parking restrictions are recommended for the two metered parking spaces on the approach to the intersection. During off-peak hours of operation, drivers can continue to use the approach as a single-lane approach with the ability to continue using the two metered parking spaces on the north side of State Street. Transportation Demand Management Recommendations TDM or Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) initiatives, if implemented strategically, can have a noticeable impact on reducing trips from a project. TDM is the application of strategies and policies to reduce SOV travel demand, or to redistribute this demand in space or in time. By definition, TDM includes various strategies that produce a more efficient use of transportation resources and increase the efficiency of a transportation system. TDM programs have many potential benefits. They can reduce the total number of vehicle miles traveled by promoting alternatives to driving alone. Fewer vehicle miles traveled results in less ozone pollution. TDM programs can be used by employers to reduce overhead costs, enhance productivity and reduce employee turnover. TDM programs can improve the use of public transit services, bikeways, sidewalks and carpool lanes by educating users about their travel options and coordinating trips between users with similar trip patterns. Implementing an effective TDM program can also reduce the required number of parking spaces for a project and/or eliminate the need to consider building costly multi-story parking structures. TableFGEIS Table 5.7-14 summarizes some of the benefits that can be realized from an effective TDM program. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-148 BENEFIT DESCRIPTION Congestion Reduction Reduces traffic congestion delays and associated costs. Road & Parking Savings Reduces road and parking facility costs. Consumer Savings Helps consumers save money by reducing their need to own and operate motor vehicles. Transport Choice Improved travel options, particularly for non-drivers. Road Safety Reduced crash risk Environmental Protection Reduced air, noise and water pollution, wildlife crashes and other types of environmental damages. Efficient Land Use Supports strategic land use planning objectives, such as reduced sprawl, urban redevelopment and reduced habitat fragmentation. Community Livability Improved local environmental quality and community cohesion. Economic development Supports a community’s economic objectives, such as increased productivity, employment, wealth, property values and tax revenues. Physical Fitness and Health Improved public fitness and health due to more physical activity, usually through increased daily walking and cycling. TableFGEIS Table 5.7-14: Benefits of TDM Programs (SRF) The Project Sponsor proposes implementing the following TDM: 1. Transit Coordination – Continued coordination with TCAT on transit routes and marketing the nearby routes of 65 and 11 TCAT bus line will boost ridership through increased awareness coupled with improved service. 2. Route Expansion – Working with TCAT to provide new/expanded bus service through the Site provides an opportunity for greater mode choice resulting in trip and parking reductions. 3. Bus Stop Amenities – A clean, well-lit, informative bus stop with shelters and seating greatly improves the image of the transit serving an area. Bus stop amenities make taking the bus a comfortable experience, while proper maintenance tells people that transit makes up an important part of the neighborhood. Two new on-site bus stops are recommended for the Project and each should have the following elements: – A level concrete pad, unobstructed by street furniture, landscaping, or signage – Reliable pedestrian access with clear sidewalks providing direct access to the bus loading area – Clear sight lines allowing travelers to see around the stop and drivers to see around corners to make turns – Adequate lighting – Pedestrian amenities such as a bench and trash receptacle – Route, schedule, and information – Bicycle rack 4. Employer Carpooling – Carpooling will be encouraged by providing incentives and other services such as ride-matching. CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-149 November 6, 2018 5. Emergency Ride Home – In case of a personal emergency during the day, transportation is provided at no cost to one’s vehicle, residence, or other place such as childcare, doctor’s office, etc. 6. Preferential carpool/vanpool parking – Investigate the use of vRide (www.vride.com via http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/itctc) for employers located on the Site. 7. Transportation Alternatives Information – Bus schedules, walking and bicycling maps, neighborhood and on-site wayfinding will be made readily available. 8. Telecommuting and compressed work schedules – Employers will be encouraged to offer flexible work options. Employee vehicle trips are reduced by the percentage of employees that telecommute or have a “free” day gained through a compressed schedule, on an average day. 9. Location and Quantity of Bicycle Parking Spaces – The Project will include convenient bicycle parking locations in clear sight of access points into buildings, safe and secure longer- term storage within parking areas, and sufficient number of bicycle parking spaces that encourage a greater number and demographic of residents, employees, and visitors to utilize bicycling as a means of transportation. 10. The Price of Parking – Parking spaces that are typically included in building and rental costs will be reviewed, and “unbundled” parking, paid as a separate item, will be considered. Other strategies include reducing the availability of on-site parking and encouraging shared parking (the shared parking concept builds upon the assumption that land uses in a mixed- use development often do not share the same peak demand period, so spaces can be shared between the different land uses during different peak periods) can begin to change commuter patterns and mode choice. Seattle, Washington recently has been presented with a proposal to city council to offer tenants of new developments alternative transportation options, such as transit passes and car share memberships, in place of providing parking spots (http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/ city planning/2015parkingreport.pdf). 11. Financial Incentive Programs – Developing Commuter Financial Incentive Programs, such as Parking Cash Out, offer employees the choice of receiving a subsidized parking space an equivalent financial incentive (e.g., cash per month payment, transit pass, vanpool payment). Other programs may be bonuses given to employees who commit to greener methods of transportation or shift a majority of their commuting to transit and non-motorized transportation options, or mortgage/rental incentives to relocate workers closer to the office. 12. Bike Share – A micro bike share system that is developed for the Site or a more robust system that is developed for the City and Town encourage more transit ridership and provide additional public transportation options. A bike share system can offer mobility, economic, health, safety, and quality of life benefits. The system is extremely useful for short, spontaneous or planned trips of 30 minutes or less. Most bike share systems offer free rides for the first 30-60 minutes of the ride (a per day/month/year fee is attached to the program). Bike share systems come in the form of smart docks or smart bikes. Additionally, exploration of electric assisted bicycles can promote increased bicycle usage to help deal with the challenging topography that is well known around the City and Town. However, at the time of writing, electric assisted bicycles are not legal in New York State. Currently, there is a BikeShare Working Group in collaboration with Cornell Transportation (Cornell has Big Red Bikes bike share. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-150 13. Car Share – Coordination with Ithaca Carshare will be pursued during Phase I as demand potentially grows through increased residential and commercial based occupancy rates. Based on discussions with Ithaca Carshare, the following preliminary plan may be developed to garner support for utilizing carshare on-site. A risk sharing revenue guarantee arrangement would be initially developed. Ithaca Carshare would align their goals for the program by making a year or two arrangements where the developer guarantees Carshare (the nonprofit operator) a certain amount of usage per month. Ithaca Carshare usually sets that rate such that if the operator consistently exceeds it, Ithaca Carshare organically “grow out of” the relationship and it becomes a successful carsharing location (possibly with multiple vehicles). If Ithaca Carshare is falling below that amount, the nonprofit has a setup where the developer/site manager’s interests are aligned with Ithaca Carshare to do what we can to grow usage. Although car share is not typically use for commuting purposes, car share can help reduce the dependency on vehicle ownership (one carsharing vehicle replaces approximately 15.3 privately owned vehicles) and, thus, reduces the need for on-site parking. Carshare can be viewed as an amenity and incentive to live in the Project. This supports the County’s Comprehensive Plan and goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease dependency on cars. 14. Relationship with Ithaca College – The Site is located less than a half-mile from Ithaca College. An integrated and coordinated approach to the development of the Site and potential for interaction between the two entities should be explored. The connection between the two sites relies on the development of multimodal facilities (i.e., sidewalks connecting the internal land uses to NYS Route 96B, pedestrian/bicycle crossings at safe and convenient locations). Potential treatments for crossing NYS Route 96B may be at grade crossings at intersections through pedestrian and/or vehicle signalization or an underground tunnel. The feasibility of recommendations for pedestrian sidewalks and pedestrian connections along NYS Route 96B as it relates to the on-going Route 96B Pedestrian Corridor Study remain to be seen. Coordination between the Project, Town, and the feasibility study should occur throughout the life of the Corridor Study. 15. Electric Vehicle charging station – The County will be conducting a study to identify needs and opportunities. This could be included in the Project as an amenity to residents, and it supports the County’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Washington State Legislature signed into law in 1991 the CTR program (http://www.wsdot. wa.gov/transit/ctr). This law is directed towards large employers (greater than 100 employees in the most congested areas of the state) to encourage employees to drive alone less often through TDM strategies and programs. CTR is a collaboration between transit agencies, state and local governments, regional transportation planning organizations, and employers contributing to the program. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) provides technical assistance for employers and jurisdictions when designing a CTR program that fits the entities needs. The effects of this law have resulted in a 3 percent decrease in those driving alone to work, VMT reduced by over 4.5 percent. This type of program should be to further reduce the potential demand and usage of personal automobiles. The development of a TDM program for the Project and adjacent municipalities is important to reduce VMT and lessen SOV travel. A TDM program should include achievable goals and objectives, a budget, staff, and identifies key stakeholders and coordinates with other local organizations/ agencies to implement the plan. These programs must be coupled with improvements in transit service, pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-130 January 5, 2016 The following TDM strategies have been proposed for Phase I implementation: • Market-priced parking • Preferential parking for ridesharing services • Bicycle parking facilities • Subsidized transit passes • Connections to transit stops (i.e. construct sidewalks to existing stop at Hillview Place) • Dedicated shuttle service • Transportation Alternatives Information • Coordination with Smart Trips Ithaca • Connected and improved pedestrian network on and adjacent the Site (i.e., improvements to sidewalks within Sidewalk Improvement District #4) • Pedestrian oriented design within the Site • Bicycle network facilities within the Site and connections to nearby Gateway Trail • Follow CPTED principles in all design • Coordination with Ithaca College and South Hill Business Park It is noted that these TDM strategies are consistent with actions Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) has identified in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Cornell University’s Transportation GEIS (tGEIS) TDM program. Several of these TDM actions will need to be implemented on a tenant by tenant basis. The Lead Agency understands that Washington State’s Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program and CTR Efficiency Act, a law passed by the State Legislature, requires local governments in urban areas with traffic congestion to develop programs that reduce SOV trips and Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) per capita. This program targets workplaces with 100 or more full-time employees. The Project Sponsor has committed to adapt and scale this program to the projected employment centers proposed within the CWD. In order to mitigate post Phase I traffic impacts to the maximum extent practicable, following completion of Phase I, the Project Sponsor will implement an on-going Monitoring and Mitigation Implementation Plan (MMI Plan). The MMI Plan will include an update of traffic conditions after full occupancy of Phase I of the development and before the next phase of development begins to verify underlying assumptions and evaluate the effectiveness of TDM strategies. For instance, the implementation of TDM programs and the integration of the sidewalk and trail system between the Site and adjacent neighborhoods could have a greater benefit than is currently estimated. This post Phase I occupancy traffic update will evaluate the following intersections: (i)Aurora Street/Prospect Street/Clinton Street, (ii) Aurora Street/State Street, (iii) State Street/Seneca Way, (iv) State Street/Green Street, (v) Clinton Street/Cayuga Street, (vi) Cayuga Street/Seneca Street, and, (vii) Cayuga Street/Spencer Street. This post Phase I occupancy traffic update will also include an evaluation of whether a traffic signal is warranted at all site access driveways. The MMI Plan will also provide for additional traffic study updates at the following stages of development: (i) immediately following tenant occupancy of Phase I of the Project; (ii) when proposed post Phase I development within the CWD results in more than 75 vehicle trips per hour (cumulative over Phase I); and (iii) each time proposed post Phase I development within the CWD will result in more than 150 vehicle trips per hour Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-152 (cumulative over the 75 vehicle trips per hour post Phase I traffic study update). In addition, per NYSDOT, a traffic study update will be required for each phase of the project where modifications and/or additional mitigation is proposed in the NYSDOT R.O.W (See Comment #5.7-29) Traffic study updates will verify trip distribution models and confirm when traffic mitigation measures identified in the DGEIS should be implemented. Other than the update immediately following tenant occupancy of Phase I of the Project, all updates will be submitted and reviewed, per the thresholds established herein, in conjunction with proposed site plans for each phase of development. The intersections to be analyzed in each traffic update include: • Site Accesses 1 and 2 • Site Accesses 3, 4 and 5 (NYSDOT owned) • Aurora Street/Prospect Street/Clinton Street • Prospect Street/Turner Place • Columbia Street/Aurora Street • Aurora Street/State Street • State Street/Seneca Way (NYSDOT owned) • State Street/Green Street (NYSDOT owned) • Clinton Street/Cayuga Street • Cayuga Street/Seneca Street (NYSDOT owned) • Cayuga Street/Spencer Street • Pine Tree Road/SR 79 (NYSDOT owned) • State Street/Stewart Avenue • Turner Place corridor between site access and Prospect Street • Cayuga Street corridor between site access and West Spencer Street If traffic conditions at the above intersections degrade to LOS E or degrade to a higher delay LOS E condition for any approach relative to the previous phase of development condition, mitigation will be required before further development can occur. An operations methodology shall be established for the Turner Place and Cayuga Street corridors to ensure that development does not degrade operations to unacceptable levels on these narrow residential streets. The Project Sponsor will propose an analysis methodology for approval by the City. If corridor traffic conditions are projected to degrade beyond acceptable levels, mitigations must be provided before further development can occur. The timing of all proposed mitigation identified in the DGEIS associated with Phase 2 will be determined based on projected trip generation of development proposals. This will ensure that the proposed mitigation at that point is commensurate with projected impacts. As part of the MMI Plan, these future traffic impact assessments to be performed at the Site driveways and intersections identified above and will provide updated trip distribution and generation figures resulting from development of the Site utilizing actual traffic assessment data. The MMI Plan will provide that additional intersections will be added to traffic updates if any previous traffic study projected a Level of Service of E or worse. These traffic impact assessments will go beyond standard theoretical capacity analysis, utilizing actual traffic assessment data, such as intersection delay studies, queuing analyses, and gap studies. Overall, the MMI Plan will be used to refine the projected traffic impacts and determine the most effective and responsive mitigating strategies. Moreover, impacts to the CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-130 January 5, 2016 Site Driveways are expected to be mitigated through signalization of Driveway I and IV. As well, Danby Road/Aurora Street is recommended to be restriped, as part of a road diet, to include left-turn lanes at Driveway IV and Driveway III. This is described on Pages 5-121 and 5-122 of the DGEIS. These improvements are recommended when the associated warrants are met and through close coordination with the City, NYSDOT and the Town of Ithaca. These additional traffic study updates shall be reviewed and considered by the appropriate Planning Boards at the site plan review stage. In addition to the MMI Plan, as further mitigation of traffic impacts associated with the Project, implementation of TDM will be required throughout the life of the Project. Long -term, TDM strategies may be the most effective form of traffic mitigation. For instance, one strategy to address impacts to intersections, such as Aurora Street/Clinton Street/Prospect Street and State Street/Aurora Street, is high capacity people moving systems. This strategy will require dedicated shuttles and a commitment to working closely with TCAT to expand transit routes and increase headways. Off-site Park and Rides (existing or new) or underutilized parking lots (through shared use agreements) can be utilized to shuttle employees, visitors, and residents to and from the Site. The Lead Agency understands that an example of this is Guthrie Packer Hospital in Sayre, PA. All employees are required to park at an off-site lot and are shuttled to the Hospital. The Project Sponsor commits to providing two on-site transit stops. TCAT service is flexible and can be increased to respond to any increases in demand (i.e., vehicle trips and, ultimately, person trips). The Project Sponsor is also committed to providing, in part, resources to study the feasibility of a larger, integrated people-mover system; automated transit and gondola to/from Chain Works District. This is also supported by the 2010 Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) Feasibility Study for the City of Ithaca. Within the document, it is recognized that there are challenges to implementing such a system; however, it is consistent with the overall systems approach to transit (or similar) that ITCTC has stated in their LRTPs. This PRT was conceptually laid out through the Project to be a part of a system wide circulator system. The Project Sponsor has committed to contributing towards further study of this emerging technology. In order to monitor this effort and the implementation of other TDM strategies, in addition to traffic study updates, the MMI Plan will incorporate a transportation modal survey (i.e., similar to the National Household Travel Survey) to better understand the effectiveness of the TDM strategies employed on- site. Quantifiable figures, such as modal distribution or AVR will be used to report the effectiveness. AVR is the ratio of the total number of employees or residents to the average daily number of vehicles used. An agreed upon AVR with local officials will be determined. This is an appropriate mitigation strategy since the Project Sponsor has control over the entire Site and therefore numbers and types of users. The TDM strategy evaluation will also include discussion of new or developing TDM strategies for consideration. CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-131 January 5, 2016 Planned Implementation Scenario Mitigation measures have been developed upon completion of Phase I and Phase II full development. A review of each mitigation measure is discussed below. TableFGEIS Table 5.7-15 depicts a list of strategies to be undertaken for the city-wide transportation network and specific intersections. PHASE LOCATION MITIGATION MEASURE I All signalized City intersections System-wide signal timing update to ensure optimized signal operation. I Aurora Street/Clinton Street/ Prospect Street The use of TDM strategies, as described in detail in this report, should be utilized to reduce vehicle trips generated as a result of the Project. I Seneca Street/Cayuga Street System-wide update of signal timings as mentioned above. I Clinton Street/Cayuga Street TDM strategies as mentioned above. I Pine Tree Road/Slaterville Road The intersection should be monitored for delay as it relates to potential future signalization. I Proposed Driveway I/Aurora Street Consider installation of a three-color traffic signal after redevelopment of the existing buildings, prior to new development in Sub Areas CW3 and CW4. A study of intersection delay at this point will confirm the need for a potential signal. This signal should be coordinated with the traffic signal at Hillview Place. II Aurora Street/State Street Restripe the westbound approach to provide separate left and right-turn vehicle movements during peak hours only. Enforce peak hour ONLY parking restrictions on north side of State St. approach. II NYS Route 96B/Coddington Road/Proposed Driveway IV Realign, restripe the intersection to include opposing northbound/southbound left-turn lanes, and install a three- color traffic signal. The Project Sponsor should work with NYSDOT and the property owners affected by any intersection realignment. II Proposed Driveways III and V at NYS Route 96B Install northbound left-turn lanes at Proposed Driveways III and V. II Cayuga Street/Seneca Street System-wide update of signal timings as mentioned above. II Cayuga Street/Clinton Street System-wide update of signal timings as mentioned above. II Downtown Ithaca Update a downtown circulation plan with the purpose of developing a workable multimodal circulation system supportive of all modes of travel in the Ithaca CBD. The plan should be flexible to accommodate evolving modes of transportation. TableFGEIS Table 5.7-15: Mitigation Measures and Thresholds for Implementation (SRF) On-site Multimodal Transportation Plan The Project will incorporate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit friendly accessibility and mobility design characteristics where possible. Crossing treatments should be installed at all intersections and use high- visibility treatments. Mid-block crossing locations may be installed, where feasible, and not be located further than 400 feet from the nearest crossing location. In lieu of dedicated bicycle lanes where street widths are too narrow for one to be installed (bicycle lanes are required to be at least 5 feet in width adjacent curbs), shared lane markings – “sharrows” – should be used to indicate bicycle friendly streets. Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-132 Bicycle signage along the roadways can be used to increase driver’s awareness of bicyclists as well as encourage bicycle ridership. An on-site multi-use trail system should be considered to provide off-street circulation routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. This trail system should be connected to the Gateway Trail along the western ridge of the Site. The internal pedestrian network should connect to the existing sidewalk network along NYS Route 96B and allow connections to Ithaca College and Downtown through or along the edge of the Site. As of April 2015, a Pedestrian Corridor Study is underway to determine the appropriate locations for a sidewalk/off- road multi-use path system and crossing locations between the City/Town line and King Road. Internal sidewalks should be installed in the anticipation a complete sidewalk network is developed along NYS Route 96B to encourage non-motorized travel. The Project Sponsor will continue to work with TCAT in determining an appropriate location(s) for a TCAT bus stop. A sheltered bus stop may encourage greater use of transit, particularly in foul weather. Implementing, to the extent practicable, pedestrian and bicycle design features into the Project can encourage a healthy, active lifestyle encouraging reduced vehicle trips generated by the Project. Due to the variability in future development as it relates to trip generation and potential trip reduction strategies, snapshots at certain points of the development are recommended. Specifically, a traffic study should be conducted after Phase I at the proposed Driveway I (existing northerly driveway) to measure delay after Buildings 21 and 24 are occupied. As well, a snapshot should be done at the mid-point of Phase II to determine at what point mitigation may be needed at the other driveways - most notably, the Coddington/Proposed Driveway IV intersection. The mid-point threshold shall be defined as 850,000 sf of approved space within the Project. 5.7.3.3 Parking, Trails and other On-Site Infrastructure Parking and parking lot design standards have been developed as further mitigation. The Conceptual Site Layout Plan (FigureFGEIS Figure 2.1-2) illustrates the parking lot placement and design. While it is important to provide parking as a component of the Project, a number of measures have been incorporated into the plan to minimize the need for parking. As the County has identified NYS Route 96B/Aurora Street as a potential complete street and the County has a stated goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% of 2008 levels by 2050, the Project will support these goals in a number of ways. The Project will increase trail, pedestrian and bicycle connections to strongly encourage walking and bicycling. The proposed Gateway Trail will be developed via easements between the Project Sponsor and the City and Town to connect to the South Hill Recreation Way to the existing Black Diamond Trail. Specifications for the mutually acceptable right-of-way for the future alignment through the Site will be determined as part of the subdivision approval process commenced by Emerson. Pedestrian sidewalks will be constructed in safe and convenient locations, connecting users of the Project to the existing pedestrian network in adjacent neighborhoods, as illustrated in the proposed Conceptual Site Layout Plan towards the neighborhoods to the north and east towards NYS Route 96B. The Project Sponsor will continue to coordinate and monitor the actions of the 96B Pedestrian Corridor Safety Study as it relates to potential sidewalks along 96B south of the City/Town municipal line. Bicycle facilities will be present throughout the Site via on-street pavement markings and signage directing riders to destinations on and off-site. Additionally, potential impacts of the Project on transportation will be mitigated by providing mass transit access within the Site. Mass transit access will be provided in locations that are agreed upon through coordination between the Project Sponsor and TCAT as the Site is developed. The proposed Conceptual CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-133 January 5, 2016 Site Layout Plan illustrates two on-site bus stops. However, the Project Sponsor will coordinate monitoring future demands of transit during the course of the development. Improving transit connections as a result of the Project is key in reducing vehicle trips and providing equitable access to and from the Site. 5.7.4 Alternatives to the Project Potential impacts to transportation and circulation from alternatives to the Project described in Chapter 3, are discussed below. 5.7.4.1 No Action The No Action alternative would not generate any new vehicular trips. The overall levels of service would be expected to deteriorate slightly from the No Action alternative as compared to the Project since some intersections in the TIS showed to be less than acceptable and traffic increases from background growth and other developments would further aggravate the traffic conditions. The No Action alternative would result in adverse impacts to pedestrian circulation from and adjacent to the Site as compared to the Project. Current pedestrian connections are not adequate. With a No Action scenario, the increased demand for pedestrian facilities would be non-existent and therefore, the incentive to improve existing facilities would not be as great. The No Action alternative may result in adverse impacts to bicycle circulation and transit from and adjacent to the Site. While the ITCTC has identified NYS Route 96B as a Complete Street, funds to make necessary changes may be more limited without the additional tax revenue from the Project. TCAT, and coordination with other entities, may be unwilling to improve service throughout the South Hill neighborhood as the demand for transit facilities would be absent. Additionally, the lack of redevelopment of the Site would result in little to no increased demand for bicycle facilities. The No Action alternative would negatively impact the Gateway Trail, as it would not be developed and thereby not connecting Buttermilk Falls with the South Hill Recreation Way. An analysis of Background, No Action conditions is described in Section 5.7.2.5. 5.7.4.2 Development in Accordance with Existing Zoning This Subsection describes impacts to transportation and circulation] if the Site were to be developed in accordance with existing zoning as described in Section 3.2. For this scenario, an additional 50,000 SF of development combined with the existing 821,200 sf for a total of 871,200 SF is used as the basis for analyses. The impacts on transportation if the Site were developed in accordance with existing zoning are that vehicular trips and volume would slightly increase in comparison to the existing condition. Under this condition, the total trip generation is estimated at 802 vehicle trip ends during the AM peak hour and 845 vehicle trip ends during the PM peak hour. This alternative would result in adverse impacts to pedestrian circulation from and adjacent to the Site. Current pedestrian connections are not adequate, which does not provide an incentive for existing users of the Site to choose non-vehicular modes of transportation. With this scenario, the increased demand for pedestrian facilities would be non-existent and therefore, the incentive to improve existing facilities would not be as great. This alternative may result in adverse impacts to bicycle circulation from and adjacent to the Site. While the ITCTC has identified NYS Route 96B as a Complete Street, funds to make necessary changes may be more limited without the additional tax revenue from the Project. TCAT, and coordination with other entities, may be unwilling to improve service throughout the South Hill neighborhood as the demand for Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-134 transit facilities would be absent. This alternative would negatively impact the Gateway Trail, as the Site would not be developed as an open multi-use development but as a closed industrial site and thereby likely not connect Buttermilk Falls with the South Hill Recreation Way. 5.7.3.3 Maximum Development Scenario This Subsection describes impacts to transportation and circulation, including turning movements for heavy/emergency vehicles, if the Site were to be developed under the maximum development scenario outlined in Section 3.3. The impacts on transportation if the Site were developed as a maximum development are that vehicular trips and volume would increase as compared to the Project or any of the other alternatives. For this scenario, 2,125,000 SF of development is used as the basis for analyses. Trip generation estimates for this scenario have been projected using the trip generation rate (trips/square foot) determined for the Proposed Project and applying it to the increase in square footage. Therefore, the projected number of employees and residents/apartment units would increase in a linear manner commensurate to the increase in total square footage. This method was utilized given the variability in future development of the Site under a maximum development scenario, and provides a conservative projection of future trip generation. Using the maximum development scenario trip generation estimates, the Project intersection connections to NYS Route 96B, as well as the intersections of Aurora Street at Hillview Place, Columbia Street, East Clinton Street, and State Street. State Street/Seneca Way and State Street/Green Street were analyzed. Additionally, Danby Road at Ithaca College and King Road were analyzed. The capacity analysis results are depicted in TableFGEIS Table 5.7-16. INTERSECTION FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO AM PM AM PM King Road/Danby Road (S) Eastbound – King Road B(18.3) B(16.8) C(20.3) B(17.5) Westbound – King Road B(10.5) B(10.9) B(12.0) B(11.1) Northbound Left – Danby Road A(9.9) B(13.3) B(10.3) B(15.0) Northbound Thru/Right – Danby Road B(16.8) A(8.9) B(19.1) A(9.1) Southbound Left – Danby Road B(17.0) B(10.1) C(23.3) B(10.3) Southbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(9.0) B(15.7) A(9.6) B(17.5) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(14.1) B(13.6) B(16.0) B(14.5) Alumni Street/Danby Road (S) Eastbound Left – South Hill Bus. Park A(0.0) C(31.5) A(0.0) C(31.5) Eastbound Thru/Right – South Hill Bus. Park A(0.0) B(13.2) A(0.0) B(13.2) Westbound Left/Thru – Alumni Street D(36.8) D(51.1) D(36.8) D(51.1) Westbound Right – Alumni Street A(8.8) A(8.0) A(9.4) A(9.4) Northbound – Danby Road A(5.9) B(11.7) A(6.1) B(11.9) Southbound – Danby Road A(2.8) A(8.0) A(2.8) A(8.3) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) A(5.5) B(14.4) A(5.7) B(14.6) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Page 5-135 January 5, 2016 CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement INTERSECTION FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO AM PM AM PM Proposed Driveway V/Danby Road (U) Eastbound – Proposed Driveway V C(17.4) C(22.2) C(18.2) D(25.0) Northbound Left – Danby Road A(9.0) A(9.2) A(9.1) A(9.4) Northbound Thru – Danby Road A(0.4) A(0.4) A(0.5) A(0.5) Coddington Road/Danby Road/Driveway IV (U) Eastbound Left/Thru – Driveway IV F(62.6) F(*) F(75.2) F(*) Eastbound Right – Driveway IV B(10.3) B(10.7) B(10.5) B(10.8) Westbound – Coddington Road E(36.6) D(31.4) E(45.7) D(34.3) Northbound Left – Danby Road A(8.9) A(8.9) A(9.1) A(9.0) Northbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(0.2) A(0.1) A(0.3) A(0.1) Southbound Left – Danby Road A(8.9) A(9.2) A(8.6) A(9.3) Southbound Thru/Right – Danby Road A(0.5) A(0.4) A(0.6) A(0.5) Aurora Street/Proposed Driveway III (U) Eastbound – Proposed Driveway III F(93.2) F(*) F(107.6) F(*) Northbound Left – Aurora Street B(10.2) A(8.9) B(10.5) A(8.9) Northbound Thru – Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) Grandview Avenue/Aurora Street (U) Westbound – Grandview Avenue C(16.7) D(26.8) C(16.9) D(28.7) Southbound Left – Aurora Street A(9.3) B(10.4) A(9.3) B(10.7) Proposed Driveway II/Aurora Street (U) Proposed Driveway I/Aurora Street (U) Eastbound – Proposed Driveway I F(*) F(*) F(*) F(*) Northbound Left – Aurora Street B(11.0) A(9.2) B(11.5) A(9.3) Northbound Thru – Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) Hillview Place/Aurora Street (S) Eastbound – Hillview Place C(20.5) C(23.8) C(20.7) C(23.4) Westbound – Hillview Place C(24.5) C(28.1) C(25.9) C(28.7) Northbound – Aurora Street B(14.2) C(21.9) B(16.0) C(34.8) Southbound – Aurora Street B(12.5) A(6.4) B(14.5) A(7.0) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(14.4) B(17.5) B(16.2) C(25.3) Columbia Street/Aurora Street (U) Eastbound – Columbia Street E(38.8) D(34.6) E(46.6) E(42.7) Northbound – Aurora Street B(10.4) A(8.9) B(10.8) A(9.0) Southbound – Aurora Street A(9.9) B(12.2) B(10.1) B(13.0) Chapter 5: Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation November 6, 2018 Page 5-136 INTERSECTION FULL DEVELOPMENT (PHASE II) MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO AM PM AM PM Clinton Street/Aurora Street/Prospect Street (U) Eastbound Left – Clinton Street F(*) F(*) F(*) F(*) Eastbound Right – Clinton Street E(41.7) C(26.0) F(59.3) D(27.6) Westbound – Prospect Street F(*) F(*) F(*) F(*) Northbound – Aurora Street A(9.4) A(9.0) A(9.6) A(9.1) Southbound – Aurora Street A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) A(0.0) State Street/Aurora Street (S) Westbound Left – State Street F(92.2) F(97.6) F(93.9) F(103.3) Northbound – Aurora Street C(27.3) D(48.2) C(27.5) E(64.4) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) E(57.0) E(70.2) E(58.9) F(81.2) Seneca Way/State Street (S) Eastbound – State Street D(44.1) F(*) D(45.0) F(*) Westbound – State Street D(40.5) E(56.1) D(41.1) E(70.5) Northbound Left – Seneca Way C(24.8) C(26.0) C(25.3) C(26.2) Northbound Thru – Seneca Way C(24.5) C(29.9) C(24.7) C(29.9) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) D(36.6) E(62.5) D(37.3) F(80.8) State Street/Green Street (S) Eastbound – State Street A(4.7) A(9.9) A(5.1) C(23.5) Westbound – State Street A(0.7) A(0.8) A(0.9) A(0.8) Northbound – Green Street B(19.1) B(18.5) B(19.5) B(18.4) Overall LOS/Delay (sec/veh) B(10.9) B(10.9) B(10.9) B(13.8) TableFGEIS Table 5.7-16: Capacity Analysis Results - Maximum Development Scenario (SRF) The overall LOS at Aurora Street/Hillview Place during the PM peak hour degrades from “B” to “C”. At Aurora Street/State Street, the overall LOS degrades from “E” to “F” during the PM peak hour. Lastly, the overall LOS at Seneca Way/State Street during the PM peak hour degrades from “E” to “F”. Other notable increases in delay/decrease in LOS are at the following intersections with the affected approaches: • Aurora Street/Proposed Driveway III – Eastbound approach during the AM peak hour • Columbia Street/Aurora Street – Eastbound approach during the AM peak hour • Clinton Street/Aurora Street/Prospect Street – Eastbound right approach during the AM peak hour • State Street/Aurora Street – Northbound approach during the PM peak hour • Seneca Way/State Street – Westbound approach during the PM peak hour Based on the results at the studied intersections under a Maximum Development Scenario, the remaining study area intersections will likely experience increases in delay and decreases in levels of service as well. PROPOSED RESOLUTION Negative Declaration City of Ithaca Planning &Development Board North Campus Residential Expansion Cornell University Campus December .18,2018 WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board ("City Planning Board")has one pending application for site plan approval for the North Campus Residential Expansion ("Project"),located on Cornell University Campus by Cornell University though its agent Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP ("Applicant"),and WHEREAS:the .Applicant is proposing to construct two residential complexes, one for sophomores ("Sophomore Site") and the other for freshmen ("Freshman Site") ontwo areas on North Campus ("Project Site"). The Sophomore Sitewill have four residential buildings with 800 new beds and associated program space totaling 299,900 SF, and a 1,200seat, 66,300 SF dining facility. All buildings in the Sophomore Site are in the City of Ithaca ("City"); the small portion in the Village of Cayuga Heights ("Village")contains landscape improvements. The Freshman Site will have three new residential buildings, each spanning the City and Town of Ithaca ("Town")line with a total of 401,200 SF and 1,200 new beds and associated program space, 223,400 of which is in the "City and 177,800 ofwhich is in the Town. The buildings will be between two and six stories using amodern aesthetic. The Project is inthree zoning districts: the V-I zoning district in the City in which the proposed 5 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 the Village in which no buildings are proposed. WHEREAS:thishas been determined to be aType I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO")§176-4 B.(I)(b),(h) 4, (i) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA")§ 617.4 (b)(5)(iii), and WHEREAS:StateLaw specifies that forActions governed by local environmental review the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the Action, and WHEREAS:the City Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the Action, did, on August 28, 2018 declare itself Lead Agency for environmental review of the Project, and WHEREAS:pursuant to CEQRO/SEQRA, on July 25, 2018 the City Planning Board distributed to all potentially Involved and Interested Agencies aNotice of Intent to Act as Lead Agency, a copy ofthe Project Application, and a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, and WHEREAS:the Town Planning Board, Village Planning Board, the NYS Dormitory Authority, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County Department of Health are all potentially involved agencies in this action and have all consented to the City Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this Project, and WHEREAS:pursuant to CEQRO/SEQRA, the City Planning Board is the Lead Agency for the Project, and WHEREAS:the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on December 18, 2018 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form ("FEAF"), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 &3, prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board, and the following environmental information:Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluations for Foundation Designfor Site #1- CC Lot Proposed North Campus Housing, Ithaca, New York,February 8, 2018,John P.Stopen Engineering LLP;Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluations for Foundation Design for Site 2-Appel Fields Proposed North Campus Housing, Ithaca, New York,February 7,2018, John P.Stopen Engineering LLP;Public Archeology Facility Report, Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey, Cornell University North Campus Project, City and Town ofIthaca, Tompkins County New York, MCDs 10940, 10906,Andrea Zlotucha Kozub,Binghamton University, State University of New York,April 11, 2018; Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed North Campus Residential Expansion, City ofIthaca, Town of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County New York,June 2108,SRF Associates,Rochester NY;North Campus Residential Expansion,Circulation Study,April 2018,Kimley Hom ofNew York P.C.; Energy and Emission Impact Assessment ofthe North Campus Residential Expansion at Cornell University, 7/6/18 Taitem Engineering,PC,Ithaca,New York;North Campus Residential Expansion, Review Application Report,Cornell University,Ithaca,NY July 12,2018;Memo dated September 17,2018,from Kimberly Michaels,Principal Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP to Brent Cross,Village of Cayuga Heights; Memos dated October 12,2018 and September 17, 2018, from Kimberly Michaels,Principal Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP to Chris Balestra,Planner,Town of Ithaca,and Memos dated November 14,2018, October 12,2018 and September 5,2018,from Kimberly Michaels,Principal Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP to Lisa Nicholas,Deputy Director of Planning,City of Ithaca. WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Parks Recreation and Natural Areas Commission,Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability,and all other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed Project and all received comments have been considered,and WHEREAS:the City Planning Board,acting as Lead Agency,has determined,as more clearly elaborated in the FEAF,that the Applicant has mitigated any potentially significant impacts to the environment,now, therefore,he it RESOL VED:that the City Planning Board determines for the reasons detailed in Parts 2 and 3 ofthe FEAF, which are incorporated herein by reference,that the proposed Project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be issued in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of SEQRA. Moved by: Seconded by: In favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies:None Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 - Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts and Determination of Significance Part 3 provides the reasons in support of the determination of significance. The lead agency must complete Part 3 for every question in Part 2 where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact. Based on the analysis in Part 3, the lead agency must decide whether to require an environmental impact statement to further assess the proposed action or whether available information is sufficient for the lead agency to conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. By completing the certification on the next page, the lead agency can complete its determination of significance. Reasons Supporting This Determination: To complete this section: Identify the impact based on the Part 2 responses and describe its magnitude. Magnitude considers factors such as severity, size or extent of an impact. Assess the importance of the impact. Importance relates to the geographic scope, duration, probability of the impact occurring, number of people affected by the impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to occur. The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project changes. Repeat this process for each Part 2 question where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact. Provide the reason(s) why the impact may, or will not, result in a significant adverse environmental impact For Conditional Negative Declarations identify the specific condition(s) imposed that will modify the proposed action so that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result. Attach additional sheets, as needed. Determination of Significance - Type 1 and Unlisted Actions SEQR Status: Type 1 Unlisted Identify portions of EAF completed for this Project: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 "HFODZ6TF0OMZ<*G"QQMJDBCMF> 1SPKFDU %BUF See Attached Cornell - NCRE 12-12-18 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, plus this additional support information and considering both the magnitude and importance of each identified potential impact, it is the conclusion of the as lead agency that: A. This project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. B. Although this project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, that impact will be avoided or substantially mitigated because of the following conditions which will be required by the lead agency: There will, therefore, be no significant adverse impacts from the project as conditioned, and, therefore, this conditioned negative declaration is issued. A conditioned negative declaration may be used only for UNLISTED actions (see 6 NYCRR 617.d). C. This Project may result in one or more significant adverse impacts on the environment, and an environmental impact statement must be prepared to further assess the impact(s) and possible mitigation and to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce those impacts. Accordingly, this positive declaration is issued. Name of Action: Name of Lead Agency: Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Title of Responsible Officer: Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Date: Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer) Date: For Further Information: Contact Person: Address: Telephone Number: E-mail: For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a copy of this Notice is sent to: Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located (e.g., Town / City / Village of) Other involved agencies (if any) Applicant (if any) Environmental Notice Bulletin: http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/enb.html 1BHFPG See Attached list of Supporting Environmental Information City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board PRINT FULL FORM Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 1 of 23 FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - Part III Project Name: North Campus Residential Expansion Cornell University PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, Cornell University through its agent Trowbridge Wolf Michaels (“Applicant”), proposes to construct two residential complexes (“Project”), one for Sophomores (“Sophomore Site”) and the other for Freshmen (“Freshman Site”) on a 26 acre area on Cornell University’s North Campus (“Project Site”). The Sophomore Site will consist of three residential buildings with 800 new beds and associated program space totaling 299,900 SF and a 1,200-seat, 59,700 SF dining facility. The Freshman Site will consist of three new residential buildings, each spanning the City of Ithaca (“City”) and the Town of Ithaca (“Town”) lines, with a total of 401,200 SF and 1,200 new beds and associated program space. The buildings will be between two and six stories using a modern aesthetic. The Project also includes reorganization of existing parking and vehicular access, new pedestrian paths, outdoor plazas, and other landscape amenities. The Project Site is in three municipalities and three zoning districts. The Sophomore Site is mainly in the City’s U- I zoning district with a small portion in the Village of Cayuga Heights’ (“Village”) Multiple Housing District. All buildings at the Sophomore Site are in the City where the proposed five stories and 55 feet are allowed. The Freshmen Site traverses the City and Town lines with 223,400 SF in the City’s U -1 Zoning district, and 177,800 in the Town’s Low Density Residential District (“LDR”). Buildings at the Freshman Site have been designed to comply with the allowed five stories and 55 feet in the City and the allowed two stories in the Town. The proposed use is allowed in the Town by special permit. The Project has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of 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) and a coordinated environmental impact review has been conducted with the City of Ithaca Development and Planning Board as lead agency (“Lead Agency”). IMPACT ON LAND Existing Conditions The 26 acre Project Site is in a developed area of Cornell’s North Campus with roads, paths, buildings, programed greenspaces and recreation facilities. The Project Site contains approximately 10 acres of roads buildings and paved surfaces, including CC lot with 386 parking spaces, several other parking lots, 1.4 acres of artificial turf, and 15.5 acres of lawn and other landscaped areas. The Project Site has varied topography with 10% of the land having slopes of 15% or greater, and 4% of the land having slopes between 10 and 15%. Proposed Conditions The Project will alter 26 acres including the construction of six buildings, reorganization of existing parking and vehicular access, new pedestrian paths, outdoor plazas, retaining wall and other landscape amenities and result in a net increase of 6 acres of impervious surfaces. The Project also includes a construction field office to be located at the existing basketball and tennis courts north of the Sophomore Site. This area of Sophomore Site will be repaired/replaced in kind after construction is complete. The Applicant has provided the following information regarding construction sequencing in application materials date July 12, 2018: Sophomore Site – Construction from February 2019 to May 2021; Freshman Site – Construction from June of 2019 to May of 2022; Robert Purcell CC Parking – Construct and complete during the spring/summer of 2019; Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 2 of 23 Program House Drive & Connection to RPCC Loading – Construct and complete during the spring/summer of 2020; and Mary Donlon Hall Quad Area – Construct and complete during the spring/summer of 2021. Foundation Construction & Site Preparation The Project involves the construction of six separate buildings between two and six stories, most having full basements, over a Project Site with varied topography and subsurface conditions. Construction will last approximately 37 months. Site preparation and excavation is expected to a last approximately 18 months and will at times be concurrent on both the Freshman and Sophomore Sites. The Applicant has submitted two Geotechnical Engineering Evaluations for Foundation Design prepared by John P Stopen Engineering LLP for Integrated Acquisition and Development – one for the Freshman Site dated February 8, 2017 and the other for the Sophomore Site dated February 7, 2018. The Freshman Site will involve 70,000 SF of building footprint for two to five story buildings, and 18,000 SF of footprint for the one story dining hall. The Sophomore Site involves 98,000 SF of footprint for buildings between two and five stories. Foundation construction will require extensive cutting and filling and subsurface stabilization techniques depending on local conditions. Excavation is not expected to impact bedrock, therefore no blasting is anticipated. According to the reports, the Site’s varying topography will require both localized raising of grades by up to 16 feet and lowering of grades by up to 7 feet for foundation preparation. There are three soil layers throughout the Project Site; old fill, silt and glacial till, of which only the latter is suitable for a foundation base without intervention. The Geotechnical report recommends the use of one of four stabilization techniques: Deep Dynamic Compaction (“DDC”) which achieves compaction using a drop weight; aggregate piers to stabilized fine soils; grout columns; and removal and replacement. The Applicant has stated in the memo dated November 14, 2018 to Lisa Nicholas, that vibration monitoring equipment will be installed in buildings adjacent to DDC activity. To prevent damage to nearby buildings, vibration limits will be set based on building type, construction, age and conditions. In a memo dated November 14th from Kimberly Michaels, Principal Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP to Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, City of Ithaca, the Applicant explained that vibration monitoring as well as physical interventions to reduce vibrations will be employed as needed. Foundation construction combined with Site preparation will involve the removal of approximately 55,000 CY of materials from the Site, including soils, pavements, plant materials and demolition debris. According to information provided by the Applicant in the Application Report, excavation will last approximately 18 months and generate 3,700 truck trips for hauling (assuming trucks with a 15 CY capacity). The Project also includes installation of a construction field office off of Jessup Road that will be in operation for the duration of the Project. Need information about hauling location Impacts and Mitigations The Project will permanently alter 26 acres including the construction of six buildings, reorganization of existing parking and vehicular access, new pedestrian paths, outdoor plazas, retaining wall and other landscape amenities and result in a net increase of 6 acres of impervious surface. The Project will also temporarily alter existing basketball and tennis courts north of the Sophomore Site for use as a construction field office. Construction is anticipated to last 37 months during which large areas of land will be in a disturbed state and 55,000 CY of materials will be removed from the Project Site. Foundation construction will not require blasting but may include deep dynamic compaction. However, construction of the Project will take approximately 37 months. Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 3 of 23 The following mitigations are proposed by Applicant to minimize potential impacts to land: A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) will be required in compliance with NYS Department of Environmental Conservation’s (“DEC”) regulations for stormwater management. The SWPPP will require the installation of temporary practices to provide erosion and sediment controls during construction as well as permanent stormwater practices to treat and manage stormwater runoff following completion of the Project; The field office will be restored to its original condition at Project completion; and Monitoring of DDC as described the environmental information provided by the Applicant in the memo dated November 14, 2018 to Lisa Nicholas. Various construction related mitigations (detailed in other sections of this Part 3). The Lead Agency has determined that with the mitigations proposed by Applicant, no significant impacts to land are anticipated. IMPACT ON GEOLOGIC FEATURES There are no unique or unusual land forms on the Project Site that will be impacted as part of the Project. Accordingly, the Lead Agency has determined that no significant impact to geologic features is anticipated. IMPACT ON SURFACE WATER Existing Conditions The Project Site is located to the north of Fall Creek and Beebe Lake and is approximately 150 feet above the elevation of Fall Creek (at the Thurston Avenue bridge) and 65 feet above Beebe Lake. The southern section of the contract limit line for the Freshman Site is closest to the Fall Creek Gorge, however, it is separated from lands immediately adjacent to the gorge by Cradit Farm Drive. A vegetative buffer exists along the walls and along the rim of the Fall Creek Gorge south of Cradit Farm Drive. Cornell University maintains its own potable water system (Public Water Supply #NY5417686) that serves campus and portions of the surrounding community. Water to the system is drawn from Fall Creek and treated at the Cornell Water Filtration Plant on Caldwell Road. The system is also connected to, and uses some water from the Bolton Point water system that draws water from Cayuga Lake. The current Design Average Day Demand for water on North Campus is approximately 191,000 gallons per day (“gpd”) based on FY2017 meter readings. Although most water to North Campus is supplied from the Cornell Filtration Plant, meter readings taken at the Pleasant Grove PRV Station over the last 4.5 years indicate the Bolton Point system supplies on average approximately 3,840 gpd to the system. This amount represents approximately 2.0% of total consumption on North Campus. Proposed Conditions The Project includes the construction of six buildings, reorganization of existing parking and vehicular access, new pedestrian paths, outdoor plazas, retaining wall and other landscape amenities and results in a net increase of 6 acres of impervious surface. Construction is anticipated to last 37 months during which large areas of land will be in a disturbed state resulting in a potential for increased erosion. The Project will increase the average day demand of water by approximately 104,000 gpd–calculated with a conservative design average day rate of 50 gpd per resident. This will increase the total Future Design Average Day Demand to 295,000 gpd, or 205 gpm. Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 4 of 23 Impacts and Mitigations The projected increase in demand is estimated to be 104,000 gallons per day, which equates to one sixth (1/6) of a cubic foot per second (“cfs”). During August, the lowest flow month, Fall Creek’s average flow is at 35 cfs. Even during the drought of 2016 flows were 16-25 cfs. The Project’s need of 0.167 cfs is therefore, not significant. The capacity of Cornell’s Water Filtration Plant is 3.6 MGD while the average daily demand on campus is currently 1.5 MGD. The Project will add 104,000 gpd, therefore the plant has adequate capacity to serve the Project. The following mitigations are proposed by the Applicant to minimize potential impacts to water: The SWPPP will require the installation of temporary practices to provide erosion and sediment controls during construction as well as permanent stormwater practices to treat and manage stormwater runoff following completion of the Project. The Applicant is proposing low flow fixtures and other water conservation features to minimize water usage as described in application materials date July 12, 2018. The Lead Agency has determined that with the mitigations proposed by Applicant, no significant impacts to surface water are anticipated. IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER Existing Conditions The entire Project Site is approximately 26 acres of which 10.1 acres (39%) is impervious surface and 15.5 acres (61%) is grass, landscape and other pervious surfaces. The Project is located within a larger approximately 70- acre watershed which covers a large portion of North Campus, extending as far east as the Hasbrouck Apartment complex east of Pleasant Grove Road. Five separate subareas within the watershed and their associated outfalls have been identified. Subareas one and two are generally located along the George Jessup Road corridor with their respective outfalls discharging toward the north and west. Significant portions of these subareas are within the Village of Cayuga Heights and City of Ithaca, with a relatively minor area to the east within the Town of Ithaca. Stormwater runoff from these subareas discharges to University storm sewers on the north side of Jessup Road before flowing generally within open channels and gorges through the Village and City, and ultimately discharging to Cayuga Lake to the west. The lands within these two subareas impacted by the Project are located generally along the north edge of the proposed Sophomore Site. Stormwater runoff from subarea three is collected by University storm drainage systems before discharging to the City storm sewer collection system at the outfall on Triphammer Road. The runoff flows in the City system generally to the south and east before discharging to the Fall Creek Gorge below the Thurston Avenue Bridge. All the buildings and a majority of the Site improvements associated with the Sophomore Site are located within subarea three. Most, if not all, areas of the subarea are within the City of Ithaca. Subareas four and five cover a large area of North Campus generally to the east. Project improvements associated with the Freshman Site are located within these subareas. The outfalls for these subareas are located to the south where stormwater runoff discharges to Beebe Lake on Fall Creek, which is classified by NYSDEC as a fifth order stream in this location. The vast majority of lands within subarea four are within the City of Ithaca. Subarea five straddles the City-Town corporation line with most lands, including the upper reaches, falling within the Town of Ithaca. The outfalls for both subarea four and five are located within the City. Prior to discharging to Beebe Lake, Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 5 of 23 stormwater runoff from the subareas is treated by two existing hydrodynamic treatment facilities installed upstream of each outfall. Proposed Conditions The Project will result in minor changes in the boundaries between the three impacted subareas and small changes in the subarea boundaries with an approximate 1.9-acre increase in the size of subarea four and a commensurate reduction in subarea five. Overall, the rates and volumes of runoff from both subareas are expected to increase due to the increases in impervious surface. Temporary erosion and sediment controls will be contained in the SWPPP with requirements for the practices to be employed and maintained during construction until all areas of the Project Site have been stabilized. The temporary practices will likely include silt fence, stabilized entrances, drainage inlet protection, erosion control blankets and sedimentation basins. Discharges from all excavation dewatering operations will be to geotextile filter sacks or other approved practices. All stormwater runoff from un-stabilized areas of the Project Site will be required to pass through control practices before discharge. The SWPPP will include sequencing requirement and regular inspections and reporting, in accordance with the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“SPDES”) General Permit and MS4 regulations. Permanent stormwater management will be contained in the SWPPP and will include Water Quality Volume treatment equivalent to 25% of the existing impervious soil cover plus 100% of any increase in impervious cover are required to be sized in accordance with criteria in the Design Manual related to Runoff Reduction Volume, Channel Protection Volume, Overbank Flood and Extreme Storm requirements. In addition, the Project will be required to employ four Better Site Design techniques. Description of specific stormwater management practices for each subarea and expected Better Site Design Techniques can be found in the application materials date July 12, 2018. Impacts and Mitigations The Project will permanently alter drainage patterns and increase volumes on the Project Site. Construction is anticipated to last 37 months during which large areas of land will be in a disturbed state resulting in a potential for increased erosion. According to information provided by the Applicant, the Project will disturb approximately 0.03%, of the 128 acres Fall Creek watershed and create minor increases stormwater discharges to the stream. The Project is not expected to affect the quantity or timing of the volumes of run-off from this Project and will not damage downstream structures. The Project will also employ bioretention filter practices that will provide runoff volume reduction and water quality treatment The Lead Agency has determined that with best practices and regulatory adherence for storm water retention and water quality in accordance with the approved SWPPP, no significant impacts to groundwater are anticipated. IMPACT ON AIR Existing Conditions Cornell’s North Campus area is primarily residential in nature and does not include facilities that affect air quality. Proposed Conditions Construction is expected to last 37 months, during which time Site preparation activities, including the removal of approximately 55,000 CY of materials for Site preparation, has the potential to create airborne dust. The Project includes a new 1,200 seat dining facility for which venting of air will be through the roof level. Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 6 of 23 Impacts and Mitigations 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 dust-control measures, as needed, during construction as described in the application materials date July 12, 2018. The Lead Agency has determined that the Project does not involve activities that require air quality control permits. With adherence to dust control measures during the construction period, the Lead Agency has determined that no significant impact to air is anticipated. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Existing Conditions The Project is in a developed area of the North Campus with roads, paths, buildings, programed greenspaces and recreation facilities. The Applicant has submitted an arborist report dated May 29, 2018 which provides an inventory and assessment of all trees on the Project Site. The report states that there are a total of 555 trees of all sizes within the Project Site of which 458 have a diameter at breast height (“DBH”) of less than 12” and 97 have a DBH of greater than 12”. Proposed Conditions Project Site preparation and construction will require the removal of 250 smaller trees and 41 mature trees as well as lawn areas and landscaped beds. 17 trees are slated for potential transplanting. Landscape plans have been submitted and the Applicant states that 320 new large canopy trees will be planted as well as other landscaping, including: low grasses and woody plants in bioretention areas, as well as ornamental grasses, shrubs, and smaller multi-stem trees throughout the Project Site. Impacts and Mitigations Project Site development will result in a net reduction of 6 acres of lawn and landscape/pervious surface and the removal of 291 trees. As a result, a moderate impact on plants is expected. However, the removal of trees will be mitigated by the installation of new landscaping that includes 17 trees to be potentially transplanted, and 320 new trees, and other plant materials. A more detailed Planting Plan will be developed during Site plan review and will include a full plant schedule and planting specifications. The Lead Agency has determined that with the mitigations proposed by Applicant, no significant impacts to plants and animals are anticipated. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The Project Site is located in an urbanized area, and there are no agricultural resources located in proximity to the Project Site. Accordingly, the Lead Agency has determined that no significant impact to agricultural resources is anticipated. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES Existing Conditions The Project Site is located on the North Campus and is primarily residential, characterized by fairly intense development of dorms ranging from nine to three stories tall in differing architectural styles and sizes. The area also has student facilities, such as dining halls, peripheral athletic fields, integrated open spaces and several surface parking lots, including the 386 space CC lot directly off Jessup Road. Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 7 of 23 The Project Site is close to residential neighborhoods east, west and north of campus. Forest Home to the east in the Town of Ithaca and Cornell Heights to the west in the City of Ithaca are both lower density residential neighborhoods and Historic Districts. The northern portion of the Site borders the Village of Cayuga Heights within the campus and has a mix of larger scale residential development across Jessup Road, smaller scale non-residential University buildings, and athletic fields. The Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventory identifies one Distinctive View and one Noteworthy View which are near the Project Site. Proposed Conditions The Applicant has submitted a visual analysis dated July 12, 2018 showing before and after visualization of the Project from 22 viewpoints. The viewpoints include six views within the Cornell Heights Historic District, four views within the Forest Home Historic District, and several views from vantage points identified in the Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventory (“Inventory”). Views 6, 7 and 9 (two views each) are within the Cornell Heights Historic District. The visualizations demonstrate that Building 1 of the Sophomore Site will be highly visible from within the Historic district from vantage points in the vicinity of Triphammer Road and Sisson Place. The west and southwest facades of Building 1 will be visible behind Kappa Delta and Delta Gamma, replacing current views of Sigma Alpha Mu located at 10 Sisson Place which will be removed as a part of the Project, and parking. Views within the Forest Home Historic District, including one ‘Noteworthy View’ (20) and two views along the Forest Home Drive Scenic Road (19 & 21) from the Inventory, demonstrate that the Project will not be visible from these vantage points. Views 10, 11 and 12 demonstrate that the five-story building 2 of the Sophomore Site will be highly visible from vantage points on Jessup Road in the Village of Cayuga Heights but within campus. These views will be significantly altered from the existing view of CC lot and north campus building beyond. Views 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17, two of which are identified in the Cornell Master Plan as important views, show buildings 1 & 3 of the Freshman Site from Jessup Road and Pleasant Grove Road within the campus. The buildings are highly visible from these points. In addition to the visual analysis which provides only basic massing of the buildings, the Applicant has also provided several renderings of the proposed buildings that include more information about building design and materials. Impacts and Mitigations Views identified in the Inventory and Forest Home Historic District will not be affected by the Project. Views within the Cornell Heights Historic District and along Jessup and Pleasant Grove Roads will be most altered. The Lead Agency finds much can be done to minimize any potential impact to views during Site Plan review through the selection of building materials and colors, and the development of a landscape plan that incorporates year-round screening in particularly sensitive areas. The Lead Agency has determined that with further development of the building and landscape design, which is required in conjunction with Site plan review before the Lead Agency, no significant impacts to Aesthetic Resources are anticipated. Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 8 of 23 IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Planning Board has received a comment form the City Historic Preservation Planner stating: The proposed project is located adjacent to the Cornell Heights Historic District, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places and locally designated in 1989. This historic district is architecturally and historically significant as an exceptional intact example of a turn-of-the-century planned residential suburban development placed in an outstanding natural setting. The size and scale of the proposed buildings contrasts dramatically with the size and scale of the historic residences and their close proximity to the district boundary will make them highly visible from the historic environment. As the new buildings, particularly Building 1 and Building 2, have the potential to visually effect the historic quality the adjacent district, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission respectfully requests the opportunity to work with development team and the Planning and Development Board during the Site Plan Review process to minimize any negative impacts. The Board will seek the advice of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission during Site Plan Review regarding minimizing visual impact to the Cornell Heights Historic District to the extent possible. See also impact to Aesthetic Resources (previous section). IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATION Existing Conditions The Project Site does not contain public parks or public open spaces. However, the Project Site does contain recreation facilities that serve the Cornell community, including four tennis courts, three multipurpose fields and two basketball courts. Proposed Conditions The Project proposes to retain the four existing tennis courts and one basketball court and replace the three multipurpose fields with one artificial turf field. The Project’s landscape design, which will be further developed during Site Plan review, includes plaza and landscape areas to provide green, interconnected spaces. Impacts and Mitigations The removal of the two multipurpose fields and one basketball court may impact University students but does not result in a major reduction of open space or recreation facilities to the broader community. The Applicant states in the application materials date July 12, 2018 that the three current fields are poorly drained and occasionally too wet for activities. The single new field will have artificial turf that allows quick drying and drainage from the surface, and therefore more potential recreational access. The Applicant also states, and the Lead Agency agrees, that the removal of the existing facilities is balanced by other campus recreational facilities such as outdoor basketball, tennis and volleyball courts, as well as a disc golf course and ready access to trails in natural areas. Outdoor recreation is complemented by fitness centers in Helen Newman Hall, and Appel Commons. The Project will also include a fitness center. The Lead Agency has determined that there are no community wide adverse impacts to Open Space and Recreation as a result of this Project as the facilities are private. Furthermore, with the mitigations proposed by Applicant, there will be no adverse impacts to the affected students or to recreation. IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS There are no Critical Environmental Areas located within the City of Ithaca. Therefore there will be no impact to any Critical Environmental Areas. However, the Project Site is in proximity to two Unique Natural Areas Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 9 of 23 (“UNA’s”). The Freshman and Sophomore residence halls are located between 825 and 75 feet north of the Beebe Lake Woods/Gorge Unique Natural Area (“UNA-132”). A second UNA (“UNA-104”), which includes Palmer Woods is the next closest to the Project, located 350 feet away to the north. The proposed action is not expected to reduce the quantity or quality of the unique natural area, nor impact the function or enjoyment of the resource. The Lead Agency has determined that no adverse impacts to the Beebe Lake Woods/Gorge UNA or Palmer Woods are anticipated. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Existing Conditions There are approximately 45 miles of roads within the Cornell Campus Master Plan Boundary. Of these roads, 17.5 miles are maintained by Cornell, 10 by the City of Ithaca, and 6.5 by the Town of Ithaca. The remaining roads are maintained by New York State, Tompkins County, or neighboring municipalities. Existing Vehicular/ Transit / Bike and Pedestrian Capacity The Applicant has submitted a “Transportation Impact Study for the proposed North Campus residential Expansion” dated June 2018 and prepared by SRF Associates (“TIS”). The study measures the existing and proposed capacity of 16 intersections. According to the analysis on pages 6-8 of the TIS, three intersections (#1: Thurston Avenue/University Avenue-Forest Home Road, #13/14: Triphammer Road/Hanshaw Road/East Upland and #15: Pleasant Grove Road/Hanshaw Road) contain some turning lanes that currently function at a Level of Service (“LOS”) of D, E or F during peak am and pm travel times. The Applicant also submitted a North Campus Residential Expansion Circulation Study dated April 2018 and prepared by Kimley Horn of New York, PC. (“Circulation Study”), the purpose of which was to evaluate current and future transportation constraints in order to develop solutions for mobility challenges facing vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (“TCAT”) modes. The Circulation Study identified areas with missing sidewalks and below standard crossings, area where bike facilities need improvement and provided and inventory of TCAT service in and around North Campus. The Circulation Study identified five locations with conflict between pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic, as well as conflict with bus traffic and bicycle traffic. Campus Wide Parking Application materials dated July 12, 2018 provide information on Cornell’s campus wide parking system. Parking at Cornell University is managed by the Transportation and Delivery Services Department. On an annual basis Cornell delivers a compliance report regarding parking to the City, reviewing it from a campus-wide perspective. This report provides annual parking updates based on the following calculations: 1 parking space per 7 full-time undergraduate students; 1 parking space per 2 full-time graduate and professional students; 3 spaces per 4 full-time employees; and 1 space per 25 people for total undergraduate students, graduate/professional students, employees. Participants in a Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) program are subtracted from the above calculations. As of fall 2017, Cornell had 11,364 parking spaces. Based on the metrics above, Cornell should be providing a minimum of 7,745 spaces. Site Specific Parking Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 10 of 23 The Project Site currently has 653 parking spaces spread over nine parking areas. The largest of these are the CC lot with 386 spaces and the Appel Commons Lot with 102 spaces. Campus Wide TDM Program In the application materials dated July 12, 2018, Cornell’s two Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) programs are described. OmniRide and RideShare encourage walking, bicycling, transit use, and other alternatives to single-occupant vehicle commuting by all members of the campus community. Based on information provided by the Applicant, over 30% of faculty and staff commute by public transit or carpool. Over 50% of graduate students and 40% of undergraduate students have transit passes, while 15% of graduate and professional students and 5% of undergraduate students purchase parking permits. First year students receive free transit passes with unlimited access to TCAT buses anywhere in Tompkins County. As of Fall 2017, the OmniRide program has approximately 5,700 undergraduate students, 4,600 graduate students, and 2,000 employees participating. The RideShare program has approximately 1,200 employee participants. A total of 13,500 people participate in the TDM program. Proposed Conditions Vehicular Capacity The TIS identified four (4) locations that are projected to experience a decrease in LOS as a result of the traffic changes associated with the proposed development: Eastbound on University Avenue at Thurston Avenue: The delay increases 0.4 seconds per vehicle resulting in a change in level of service from “D” to “E” during the PM peak hour. This is a result of the background borderline condition as the threshold between LOS “D” and “E” is 55 seconds per vehicle. This change will be imperceptible to users of this intersection. Westbound on Hasbrouck Circle at Pleasant Grove Road: The delay is projected to increase 1.5 seconds resulting in a change from LOS “B” to “C” during the PM peak hour due to the borderline condition for this approach. The threshold between LOS “B” and “C” is 15 seconds per vehicle. Motorists will notice very little, if any, changes in operating conditions at this intersection as a result of the proposed housing development. Southbound left turn movement on Triphammer Road at Hanshaw Road: The delay is projected to increase 2.7 seconds resulting in a change from LOS “B” to “C” during the AM peak hour due to the borderline condition for this approach. The threshold between LOS “B” and “C” is 15 seconds per vehicle. Motorists will notice very little, if any, changes in operating conditions at this intersection as a result of the proposed housing development. Southbound left and through movements from the Express Mart driveway at Pleasant Grove and Hanshaw Roads: These movements are expected to operate at LOS “D” and “F” respectively with moderate to long delays (on the order of 27 to 50 seconds per vehicle) during the AM peak hour. It is noted that the volume of traffic executing these movements is extremely low (only 3 vph) and these operating conditions are reasonable for this driveway. Site Parking The Project will result in a net reduction in parking of 396 spaces from 653 to 257 spaces. Parking will be enhanced at the Robert Purcell Conference Center to accommodate visitors and conference attendees. At both the Freshman and Sophomore Sites parking facilities sufficient to service ADA requirements, residence hall live-in staff, and maintenance/delivery access will be provided. Accessible parking and service needs will be redistributed into small lots throughout North Campus with A Lot continuing to be the primary satellite parking for staff as well as faculty and visitors. Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 11 of 23 Cornell University anticipates 823 new Sophomores and 1,256 new first year students will live on North Campus. Historical data indicates that approximately 4% of Freshman and 12% of Sophomores living on North Campus currently bring cars, resulting in 149 additional parked vehicles. New students living on North Campus are expected to park in the same four parking lots mentioned above. Vehicular Traffic Generation The TIS calculated that the North Campus Housing development is expected to generate approximately 7 entering/3 exiting vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 7 entering/33 exiting vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Pedestrian Circulation During Peak Vehicular Hours Based on an analysis in the TIS, it is estimated that approximately 210 pedestrian trips will be added to the surrounding roadway network during the peak 15 minute time period during the A.M. commuter peak. New trips with origins on North Campus and destinations on central campus will create additional pedestrian and bicycle flow back and forth throughout the day. Flow to classes on central campus will coincide with the morning commuting peak. The pedestrian flow back to North Campus is more staggered throughout the day. Proposed Service Trips Five additional service vehicles per day (Cornell trades/maintenance/Grounds vehicles) are anticipated during normal operations. In addition, five delivery vehicles are expected to access the Site daily during normal operations (delivery to dining). It is unlikely that any of these vehicles would arrive or depart during the A.M. and P.M. peak traffic times. Transit Transit will continue to serve the perimeter roads, providing connections to Central Campus, perimeter parking, and regional destinations. The quantity, location and condition of existing bus stops have been evaluated by Kimley-Horn in coordination with TCAT. The Applicant is working with TCAT to add two new buses to North Campus routes in order to increase current capacity. Construction Activities Construction will result in approximately 55,000 cubic yards of materials being removed from the Site over an 18 month period. On average, each Site is expected to generate approximately 1,665 haul trips over a period of a year (3,700 *0.45). This averages to approximately 6-7 trucks a day (1,665/261 working days in a year = 6.3) for each Site. When both Sites are actively excavating, an average of 12-14 haul trips per day is anticipated. The haul trips will be spread throughout the day, and peak hour additions to the traffic network, during the most active Site excavation, are likely to consist of 2 trucks. Northcross Road, a campus-owned connection between A Lot and Jessup Road, is anticipated to be closed in order to be used for staging of deliveries and trucks during construction. The vehicular and bus loop through A lot (which has two exits on to Pleasant Grove Road) will remain open. Approximately one acre of open lawn area north of A- lot (currently a Frisbee golf course) is anticipated to be used for contractor parking. The application materials dated July 12, 2018 state that construction deliveries are expected to fluctuate between 10 to 20 per day with a maximum of five arrivals and departures during the morning and afternoon peak times at the height of construction. The Applicant intends to schedule special deliveries (oversized loads and multiple truck loads) to be outside of peak travel times. All construction vehicles will be directed to use Route 13, via Triphammer Road to Hanshaw Road, and take Pleasant Grove to enter and exit the Project Site. Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 12 of 23 The Applicant estimates the maximum workforce to be 280 on the Project Site at any one time, with 75-100 workers being the norm during the construction period. It is estimated that the maximum workforce size for the Balch Hall renovation will be 50 on the Project Site at any one time, with 20-30 workers being the norm during the construction period. The one-time maximum workforce sizes for the two Projects are not anticipated to coincide. The daily workforce will typically arrive prior to 8:00 a.m. and depart prior to 4:30 p.m. Impacts and Mitigations The Lead Agency has received many internal and involved agency comments regarding transportation. A list of comments and responses in found at the end of this document. Construction The Applicant intends to provide contractor parking on one acre of open lawn area north of A-lot (currently a Frisbee golf course). Contractors will be shuttled to the Site along a designated route through campus and will be prohibited from traveling through Forest Home. University community members who use the CC parking lot south of Jessup Road, and other parking spaces disrupted by construction, will be re-directed to other parking areas on campus. A-lot permit holders will not be displaced as a result of construction activities. Cornell will manage all impacts from construction parking within its surplus of campus parking inventory. Emergency The Applicant is in active discussions with the Ithaca Fire Department regarding emergency access requirements on the Project Site. Access will be consistent with the road and path layout as shown in the drawing titled Illustrated Site Plan on page 25 of the Application Report dated July 12, 2018, however specific road widths and aerial access points will be finalized and approved by the Fire Department before final Site Plan Approval. Special Events Move In/Out The Applicant has submitted a letter dated 10-19-18 from Pat Wynn, Executive Director of Campus Life to Tom Parsons, City of Ithaca Fire Chief et.al. describing the University’s plans to address issues with emergency access during move in/out days. As explained in the letter, the “University acknowledges these challenges and has formed a committee consisting of knowledgeable and competent staff from across the campus to revise Cornell's move-in processes beginning with fall 2019.” The revised processes include improved scheduling, staffing and communications and will be formalized before Site Plan approval. Vehicular, Pedestrian, Transit and Bike First, the Lead Agency acknowledges that the Project sponsor’s existing management of parking, and transportation through its TDM programs currently functions to mitigate potential impacts as the increases in students and staff will result in more participation in these programs. Furthermore, the Lead Agency finds that while providing additional beds on campus does increase the number of staff potentially commuting to campus, it necessarily decreases the number of students potentially commuting to campus by car or bus by approximately 2,079. The Applicant proposes the following improvements, all of which will be formalized before final Site Plan approval, to mitigate traffic impacts associated with the increase in student and staff population: 1. Vehicular Improvements: Together with the Town and Tompkins County, explore the possibility of Cornell realigning the intersection of Cradit Farm Drive and Pleasant Grove Road (County owned) to direct traffic more Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 13 of 23 readily to the Cornell Campus. Cornell would fund and manage the Project once approved by Cornell, the Town of Ithaca, and the County. 2. Transit Improvements: Provide a larger bus pull-off on Jessup Road (Cornell owned) in front of RPCC. The bus pull-off as currently shown accommodates only one bus at a time. The Applicant will work with TCAT to add two buses to the North Campus routes to accommodate the increase in student population. 3. Pedestrian & Bike Improvements: Provide improved crosswalks along Jessup Road between the Project Site and the Townhouses to the north. Together with the City of Ithaca, work to develop and approve a reasonable pedestrian improvement plan for the intersections of Thurston Avenue (City owned) and Cradit Farm Drive and Thurston Avenue and Wait Avenue (City owned). Cornell would fund and manage the Project once approved by Cornell and the City. Widen Cradit Farm Drive (a Cornell-owned road) in front of Appel Commons and Helen Newman Hall to provide bicycle lanes, bus pull-offs on both sides and improve pedestrian crossings. This section of Cradit Farm Drive is the only section without bicycle lanes. Cradit Farm Drive is along major bus routes and has heavy pedestrian traffic. The Lead Agency has determined that with the above mitigations proposed by the Applicant as well as those already in place, no significant impact to transportation is anticipated as a result of this Project. IMPACT ON ENERGY Existing Conditions Cornell has an integrated energy production, monitoring and conservation program that includes district energy distribution, Lake Source Cooling, campus-wide energy use monitoring, a user based program to encourage conservation, and implementation of a Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) formalized in 2009. Cornell’s district energy system is powered by its Combined Heat and Power Plant (“CHPP”) which uses gas to generate electricity and heat to meet a large share of the energy needs on the Ithaca Campus. The CHPP utilizes “waste heat” from the initial generation of electricity for additional electricity production and heat for the campus. According to information submitted in the materials dated July 12, 2018 this dual use is an extremely effective use of energy; up to 80% of the source energy can be converted to some useful form (by contrast, standard power plants release generated heat, and a standard gas turbine-generator converts only about 33% of the source energy to some useful form). Cornell’s Lake Source Cooling (“LSC”) utilizes the University’s chilled water loop to cool campus buildings. LSC uses Cayuga Lake’s deep water passing through a heat exchanger to cool the campus’ chilled water loop. The same water (typically raised in temperature from 39°F to 45-55°F) is then returned directly to the lake, without addition of any chemicals or other additives. According to information in the application materials dated July 12, 2018 , LSC’s efficiency significantly reduces peak electric use because a minimal increase in energy is needed to increase pump speed and ramp up production. Cornell’s CAP demands the Ithaca Campus reach Carbon Neutrality by 2035. Infrastructure that supports this goal includes Cornell’s District Energy System: Lake Source Cooling, solar farms, hydroelectric plant, and Central Energy Plant that utilizes Combined Heat and Power. Cornell’s CAP also includes a goal to match all of the Ithaca campus net annual electricity needs with power from new wind, water, and solar photovoltaic generation facilities. The power from Projects located off campus will feed into the state electricity grid, offsetting electricity used on campus. The CAP also includes the potential future integration of the Earth Source Heat (“ESH”) initiative, an Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 14 of 23 area being actively researched for bringing geothermal heat for direct campus heating. Similar to Lake Source Cooling, ESH researchers are exploring the potential for using water circulated through hot rocks accessed through deep wells to transfer heat directly to a campus heating loop, eliminating the need for fossil fuels for heating. Based on information provided by the Applicant, Cornell’s North Campus has grown 20% in square footage between 2000 and 2018. Despite this growth, the energy usage of Cornell’s North Campus has remained relatively constant since 2000. In addition, Cornell runs a Residential Sustainability Engagement Program for on-campus housing to encourage lower energy consumption by building occupants. This program is described in a memo dated 9/2/18 from Kimberly Michaels, Principal Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP to Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, City of Ithaca. Proposed Conditions Energy Use for Building Operations: The Project will have total square footage of approximately 761,000 SF, representing a 4% overall increase in campus building square footage. According to information submitted in the application materials dated July 12, 2018 the Project will increase overall energy usage on campus by 1.4%. The CHPP and LSC have the capacity to serve the Project and will not require the extension of distribution lines to the Project Site. The Applicant has submitted a report titled Energy and Emissions Impact Assessment of the North Campus Residential Expansion at Cornell University prepared by Taitem Engineering and dated July 6, 2018 (“Taitem Report”) that calculates and analyzes energy use and impacts of the Project. The report states that the CHPP will supply 95% of the electricity used by the proposed buildings. The regional power grid will supply 5% of the electricity used in the proposed buildings, as well as 100% of the electricity needed to drive LSC. The Project is the first Cornell construction required to install a new low-temperature heat distribution system for the future integration of renewable energy sources. Currently, heat is distributed as steam, through radiators and heating coils that operate at 180° or higher. Cornell is now requiring projects like the current Project to design building heat transfer equipment for lower temperatures (130° F max). Energy Conservation/Reduction Measures Based on information provided by the Applicant, the Project is expected to use about 30% less energy than the current New York State Energy Code permits and is targeted to achieve LEED Gold certification (with 20 credits in the energy category). Building design approaches to achieve these goals focus on specifications for mechanical, electrical and plumbing equipment, building envelope design, and interventions to control internal loads. A full description of these approaches is found on in the application materials. Building Energy Monitoring The buildings within the Project will be designed to be highly efficient and this efficiency will be confirmed through LEED commissioning. In addition, Cornell provides constant energy monitoring and internal maintenance once the buildings come online as described above. Energy Conservation due to renovations of adjacent buildings The Project will result the creation of "surge space" so that nearby facilities (for example, Balch Hall) can be renovated to be more energy-efficient. Currently, the lack of available space has prevented substantial residential Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 15 of 23 energy conservation efforts (i.e., buildings that require significant reconstruction, which is incompatible with continuous habitation). Energy Use/Emissions During Construction: Building construction will produce a one-time release of greenhouse gas emissions. The Taitem Report estimates 8,768 MT CO2 Project related emissions during construction. Thresholds Exceeded The Lead Agency acknowledges that the proposed Project exceeds two specific thresholds and one ‘other’ threshold identified in the NYSDEC’s Full Environmental Assessment Form (“FEAF”) Part 2 under # 14 Impact on Energy: c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MW hrs per year of electricity, d. The proposed action may involve the heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when completed Other: C02 emissions, production/ use of non-renewable energy sources, lack of consistency with Cornell net- zero goals The Lead Agency has received several public comments stating that the proposed Project exceeds one additional threshold under # 14 Impact on Energy: “the proposed action will require the creation or extension of en ergy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a commercial or industrial use”. The Lead agency has determined that the Project does not exceed this threshold. According to information provided by the Applicant, the CHPP and LSC have the capacity to serve the Project. The Project only requires installation of distribution lines within the Cornell North Campus to connect to the existing system. Impacts and Mitigations The Project is large and will increase energy use. Based on information provided by the application materials dated July 12, 2018, the Project will account for approximately 1.4% of energy loads on campus. Natural gas will be used to generate the majority of power for the Project as Cornell’s CHPP, which will provide 95% of the power for this Project, currently uses natural gas as its source energy. Increase of energy use has indirect impacts, including consumption of non-renewable resources and upstream C02 emissions associated with the extraction of natural gas by hydraulic fracturing and its transport by pipeline. After careful evaluation, the Lead Agency has determined that the Applicant is minimizing the use of energy, including non-renewable resources (specifically natural gas), and any potential impacts from its use, in the following ways: The Project will connect to Cornell’s CHPP and LSC, both highly efficient systems The Project will be 30% more energy efficient that is required by building code The Project will attain LEED Gold status, with many points under the category of Energy and Atmosphere Project energy use will be monitored and adjusted through the required LEED commissioning as well as the campus-wide monitoring system. The Project incorporates a low temperature distribution system for future conversion to renewable energy Occupants of the Project will participate in the Residential Sustainability Program Engagement The Lead agency also finds that the Project does not conflict with Cornell’s CAP net zero goals. Based on information provided in the application materials dated July 12, 2018, although the Project will equal about 4% of campus building footprint, it will only utilize about 1.4% of current campus electric, heat, and cooling loads Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 16 of 23 because of its energy efficient design features. After Project completion Cornell's energy Projections, based on planned energy conservation Projects over the next several years, forecast reduced energy demands for campus (about 2% below current needs), offsetting the additional energy needs of this Project. Cornell projects that natural gas use at the CHPP will be lower when the new Project facilities open than they are today. The Lead Agency has received many comments from the public and information from the Applicant regarding the usage of the CHPP to provide energy for the Project and the resulting use of natural gas including upstream C02 emissions associated with the extraction of natural gas by hydraulic fracturing and transport by pipeline. The DEC, in analyzing energy impacts in an environmental impact statement, guides its Staff to include a qualitative discussion of upstream GHG emissions when a project proponent has demonstrated that the project as designed has minimized emissions to the maximum extent practicable. Although this guidance is not applicable to the Project, it does serve good guidance for taking a hard look at the issue. Accordingly, the Lead Agency asked the Applicant to quantify upstream emission as a result of the Project. Based on information provided by the Applicant in the memo dated October 12, 2018 from Kimberly Michaels, Principal Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP to Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, City of Ithaca, upstream GHG emissions for the Project as proposed is estimated at 3,857 metric tons of CO2 per year. Given the total amount of annual CO2 emissions in the United States, the upstream CO2 emissions from the Project are acknowledged but are not considered significant. Conformance with Local Energy Plans The Lead Agency has received numerous comments arguing that the Project does not conform to a number of local plans and initiatives including the City’s Green Building Policy adopted in 2017, the County’s Energy Road Map of 2016 and Cornell’s 2009 CAP. 2009 CAP The Applicant has provided the information about the Project’s relationship to the CAP and has concluded that the Project specifically incorporates or enables actions of the plan in the areas of green building, alternative transportation and fuel mix and renewables. The Applicant states that “As documented in the original FEAF materials, this high level of performance is consistent with Cornell policy and in line with community and state low energy standards and goals.” City Green Building Policy The City Green Building Policy has not yet been adopted as law. Moreover, the implementation of the policy may exclude certain institutional buildings. The Applicant is proposing LEED Gold buildings that use 30% less energy than current building code. Therefore, the Lead Agency does not see a conflict between this Project and the Green Building Policy. Energy Road Map The Lead Agency finds that the Project is in conformance with the Road Map for the reasons stated in this section. In summary, the Lead Agency acknowledges the significant public concern that has been raised regarding the use of natural gas associated with the Project. Many commenters have urged the Lead Agency to take a leadership role to address nonrenewable energy consumption and GHG emissions and that the Lead Agency should force the Applicant to do more to combat climate change. A careful review of the record shows that the Applicant has provided a tremendous amount of documentation relative to the Project’s potential impacts to energy and that the Project has been designed to minimize energy impacts and is consistent with the Applicant’s CAP and local Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 17 of 23 sustainable energy plans. Thus, the Lead Agency has determined that based on the mitigations proposed by the Applicant and described above, there will be no significant impacts to Energy as a result of this Project. IMPACT ON NOISE, ODOR & LIGHT Existing Conditions North Campus is a student residential area with dorms, recreation facilities, dining and other related services. Proposed Conditions Construction is expected to last approximately three years. During this time noise producing construction activities will be present from both building construction and the extensive Site work proposed for the Project Site. Mechanical equipment serving the proposed buildings at the Sophomore and Freshman Sites will include energy recovery units, air-handling units, make-up air handling units, exhaust fans, fan-coil units (interior to the buildings and serving interior spaces) and emergency generators. Air from the dining hall will be exhausted at the roof level and will include scrubbers on the grease exhaust to minimize any potential odors. Lighting for the Project is in design and will be further developed and approved during Site Plan approval. Exterior lighting will include fixtures at parking lots and building entrances as well as Pedestrian-scale fixtures including light standards and bollards. Project Site lighting will be dark sky compliant LED fixtures that include cutoffs to focus lighting in needed areas and minimize light spillover onto adjacent areas. The lighting system will be designed to provide high quality lighting that is glare-free, flexible and easily adjusted for user comfort and ease of use. The lighting system will be designed to meet requirements listed in Cornell University Design and Construction Standards and to meet best practices, including a color temperature of 3500K. Impacts and Mitigations Noise The Applicant is proposing the following noise-control strategies be incorporated into the Project design as equipment selection and placement decisions are made: Selection of packaged air-handling units: sound-producing fans are internal to these units and shielded from exterior sound receptors by insulated panels that both reduce heat loss/gain and provide sound attenuation; Air-handling equipment with variable speed motors; Occupancy-based setback strategies; Sound-attenuating enclosures on all emergency generators; Scheduling emergency generator testing between 7:30 AM and 9:00 PM; Locating rooftop equipment away from the roof edge. Doing so maximizes the shielding of residents from rooftop generated sound; Locating rooftop equipment, louvered air intakes/discharges and emergency generators to maximize distance to residents; Installation of in-line sound attenuators, acoustical louvers, and/or lined plenums where air discharge is located at the building face; and A No Idling policy for all delivery trucks serving the Sophomore and Freshman buildings. Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 18 of 23 Noise resulting from normal construction practices is inevitable and will impact the surrounding area. There is currently no plan for blasting operations during construction. Construction noise will be muffled to the extent practical and will not exceed levels allowed by law. In accordance with local noise ordinances construction activities that result in exterior noise will be limited to 7:30 AM to 9:00 PM. In addition, the University will work closely with the contractor to implement Best Management Practices (“BMP”) for noise reduction to the extent possible. BMP mitigation measures listed by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation include: • Source reduction by using mufflers, dampers and electric motors instead of air compressors. • Duration and impact reduction by limiting times worked. • Use of equipment inside the building to reduce noise. Small to moderate impacts from construction noise are expected as a result of the Project. Construction noise is an unavoidable but a temporary negative impact as a result of the Project. Odors The Project includes a new 1,200 seat dining facility. In a letter dated September 5, 2018 from Kimberly Michaels, Principal Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP to Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, City of Ithaca, it is stated that air vents will include sound attenuation on the discharge air and return air connections of the air-handling unit serving the dining hall to mitigate noise. Light The Applicant has proposed an approach to lighting design, as described above, which is mindful of potential impacts. Lighting design will be refined and reviewed by the City and Town Planning Boards during Site Plan review to confirm that all lighting is dark sky compliant, no spillage occurs onto adjacent properties, and that nighttime lighting of buildings does not impact adjacent city neighborhoods. The Lead Agency has determined that with the mitigations proposed by the Applicant as well as further refinement of lighting design during Site Plan review, no significant impacts to noise, odors or light are anticipated as a result of this Project. IMPACT ON HUMAN HEALTH The Project Site has no known history of potential contamination, nor is it within 2,000 feet of any Site in the New York State Environmental Site Remediation Database. Therefore, construction activities are not anticipated to involve the handling or transport of any hazardous materials. If there are asbestos containing materials involved with the demolition of Sigma Alpha Mu or the renovation of Balch Hall, the removal and disposal of such materials will be done by a NYS licensed professional. Project operations will not involve the generation, storage, handling or disposal of hazardous materials and will not store quantities of natural gas or other flammable liquids. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impacts to human health are anticipated as a result of this Project. CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY PLANS Existing Conditions Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 19 of 23 The Project Site is in Cornell’s North Campus area and is primarily residential, characterized by fairly intense development of dorms ranging from nine to three stories tall in differing architectural styles and sizes. The area also has student facilities, such as dining halls, peripheral athletic fields, integrated open spaces and several surface parking lots, including the 386 space CC lot directly off of Jessup Road. The Project Site is close to residential neighborhoods east, west and north of campus. Forest Home to the east in the Town of Ithaca and Cornell Heights to the west in the City of Ithaca are both lower density residential neighborhoods and Historic Districts. The northern portion of the Site borders the Village of Cayuga Heights within the campus and has a mix of larger scale residential development across Jessup Road, smaller scale non-residential University buildings, and athletic fields. This area of campus is served by: The University’s utility system, including CHPP, LSC, water treatment plant (see Impacts to Energy and Water); Bolton Point Water treatment Plan (see Impacts to Water); Cornell Public Safety , police and fire; City of Ithaca Police and Fire; and City of Ithaca wastewater treatment plant. Proposed Conditions The Project will add a total of 400,000 SF of building over the Freshman and Sophomore Sites, 2,079 new student beds, approximately 75 new residential employees, approximately XXXX new non-residential support staff. The primary goal of the Project is to provide all Freshman and Sophomore students with on campus housing while accommodating planned enrollment growth of 900 students (at a rate of 225 per year starting in the year 2021). The Project will require the extension of service lines to provide heat, power, water and sewer service to the buildings. Additional demand for services includes the following: • Additional 104,000 GPD wastewater; • Additional 104,000 GPD additional water demand (see Impacts to Water); • Emergency Services; and • Additional energy (see Impacts to Energy). Impact to Utilities Discussion of additional water, heating and cooling are described in Impacts to Surface Water and Impacts to Energy. The City of Ithaca Waste Water Treatment Plant (“IWWTP”) has the capacity to serve the additional demand, however the City Water and Sewer Division has identified segments to the sewer system that will require upgrades to accommodate projected flows. In a memo (attached in the appendix) dated 10/12/18 from Erik Whitney, PE, Asst. Superintendent of Public Works, Water and Sewer Division to Kim Michaels, RLA of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, Whitney states that “The City and Town of Ithaca share the costs of maintenance and replacement for this interceptor and will need to explore and discuss how to facilitate and fund a Project to replace and upgrade this sanitary sewer.” The Board will require a written commitment as a condition of Site Plan Approval, and a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the upgrade is complete. Impact to Local Housing Market Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 20 of 23 The University enrolls approximately of 23,006 students of which 14,315 are undergraduates. The majority of students - 54% of undergraduates and 94% of graduates currently live off campus. Based on Cornell’s 2016 Housing Master Plan, the University offers approximately 7,100 beds for its 14,315 undergraduates including dorms, co-op housing program housing and Greek affiliated housing. At Project completion Cornell will increase the amount of undergraduate beds by 2,079 from 7,100 to 9,179. Factoring in a planned enrollment increase of 900 students, it is anticipated that at Project completion and full enrollment, about 1,200 less undergraduate students will live in neighboring communities off campus than under current conditions. The Project, combined with a rise in both purpose-built student housing in Collegetown as well as apartment development in other areas of the City, may have an impact of the local housing market. As housing supply increases there may be several outcomes that have a long-term benefit to the community, including lower pricing and more opportunities for work force housing near employment. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, and with the mitigations proposed by Applicant for emergency access and sewer upgrades, no significant impacts to Community Character are anticipated as a result of this Project Prepared by: Lisa Nicholas, AICP,108 E Green St, City of Ithaca, NY 14850 607-274-6557 (contact for more information) Supporting Environmental Information Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluations for Foundation Design for Site #1- CC Lot Proposed North Campus Housing, Ithaca, New York, February 8, 2018, John P. Stopen Engineering LLP Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluations for Foundation Design for Site 2- Appel Fields Proposed North Campus Housing, Ithaca, New York, February 7, 2018, John P. Stopen Engineering LLP Public Archeology Facility Report, Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey, Cornell University North Campus Project, City and Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County New York, MCDs 10940, 10906 , Andrea Zlotucha Kozub, Binghamton University, State University of New York, April 11, 2018 Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed North Campus Residential Expansion, City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County New York, June 2108, SRF Associates, Rochester NY North Campus Residential Expansion, Circulation Study, April 2018, Kimley Horn of New York P.C. Energy and Emission Impact Assessment of the North Campus Residential Expansion at Cornell University, 7/6/18 Taitem Engineering, PC, Ithaca, New York. North Campus Residential Expansion, Review Application Report, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY July 12, 2018. Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 21 of 23 Memo dated September 17, 2018, from Kimberly Michaels, Principal Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP to Brent Cross, Village of Cayuga Heights. Memos dated October 12, 2018 and September 17, 2018, from Kimberly Michaels, Principal Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP to Chris Balestra, Planner, Town of Ithaca. Memos dated November 14, 2018, October 12, 2018 and September 5, 2018, from Kimberly Michaels, Principal Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP to Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, City of Ithaca. Responses to Internal and Involved Agency Comments: The Lead Agency notes that it has received many internal and involved agency comments regarding transportation issues below: 1. Both the City transportation Engineer and the Village of Cayuga Height Board expressed concerns that parking utilization rates at AA and CC lots were underestimated based on informal Site visits. The Lead Agency understands that neither informal Site visit found the lots near capacity. Therefore they currently have surplus space - even if utilization rates are increased. Furthermore, the Applicant has demonstrated a campus-wide parking surplus of over a 7,000 spaces. 2. Concern that a combination of factors related to the Project will shift parking demand from Cornell Campus into nearby neighborhoods in the City and Cayuga Heights. The Lead Agency recognizes that although students and staff cannot be prohibited from parking on public streets in adjacent neighborhoods, the Project sponsor has comprehensive campus-wide TDM programs to incentivize travel by transit and discourage commuting by single occupancy vehicles. The Project is providing numerous pedestrian and bike improvements and reassigning parking to other lots, and has demonstrated a parking surplus on campus. 3. Should consider implementing a high-frequency transit service within the campus as described in Cornell’s 2008 Master Plan for the Ithaca Campus to encourage parking at the periphery of the Core Campus. The Lead Agency understands that the Project sponsor is working with TCAT to add two new buses to the North campus loop and is making improvements to transit stops. 4. Concerns that pedestrian counts are inaccurate and should be redone. The Lead Agency recognizes that the Project sponsor is already proposing pedestrian improvements in the area of most conflict. If additional counts are needed, they should be done to inform the design phase of the improvements but are not needed at this time. 5. Requests for pedestrian improvement outside the Project boundary on Wait Ave and the intersection of Jessup and Triphammer. Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 22 of 23 These intersections are no doubt in need of improvements, however they are on the periphery of the Project Site and are unlikely to see increased pedestrian traffic as a result of the Project. The Lead agency encourages Cornell to make these improvements in the future. The Lead Agency sees that the Applicant is proposing significant improvements in the areas of highest pedestrian traffic. 6. Documentation that the Project sponsor is in contact with TCAT and Rideshare for the proposed improvements. Lead Agency response: The Lead Agency understands that as a major funder of TCAT and a member of its Board, the Project sponsor will be in a position to work with TCAT to achieve the proposed improvements. 7. Concern that service vehicle trips have been undercounted The Lead Agency understands that these trips are accounted in the background traffic growth in the TIS and are not likely to occur at peak travel times. 8. Concern about Site distances for proposed new driveway A Site distance analysis will be done during design of the driveway and will be reviewed and approved by engineering staff as part of the street permitting process. 9. The Village of Cayuga Heights Board disagrees that there will not be a significant impact to Village intersections. Many intersections in Community Corners already have a failing LOS and the Project will produce more traffic through these intersections. Although the amount of traffic (less than 100 additional peak hour vehicular trips) may not be considered ‘substantial’ according to TIS methods, the increase will likely exacerbate existing delay times - even if it does not produce worse LOS grades. Therefore, although the Project did not create failing LOS grades for Village intersections, the Project will worsen these conditions even if the degree to which they will worsen can be debated. The Lead Agency acknowledges the concerns of the Village. However, it finds that the combination of already poor conditions with the small increase of traffic going through the intersections does not warrant requiring additional mitigations from the Applicant beyond their existing efforts to reduce trips by single occupancy vehicle. 10. The Village Board has requested the following mitigations to address traffic impacts in the Village: Establishment of a park-and-ride lot in a North Triphammer Road mall to “catch” commuters before they drive through the Village and TCAT to add express bus routes for the Park & Ride. The Lead Agency feels that this option functionally exists as there is a bus router that goes from the mall to campus. 11. Create a new road link from Warren Road to Pleasant Grove Road, north of the Robert Trent Jones Golf Course, to reduce Cornell-related traffic on Hanshaw Road and ease congestion at Last updated: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Page 23 of 23 the Hanshaw and Pleasant Grove Road intersections as well as to divert Cornell-bound traffic heading south on Warren to Pleasant Grove. The Lead agency does not find this option to be feasible or practicable as there does not appear to be a possible road alignment for this scenario because the golf course extends up to Hanshaw Road. 12. Potential mitigation during construction could include restricting construction truck traffic during peak AM and PM traffic hours and requiring off-Site contractor parking on Palm Road near Route 366 (with a shuttle) rather than on the Frisbee golf course near A lot adjacent to Pleasant Grove Road. The Lead Agency finds that parking closer to the Project Site will alleviate any potential traffic problems related to contractor parking. 13. In a letter dated October 18, 2018 to the City Planning Board from the Town Planning Board, an involved Agency in this action, the Town Board stated their support for the following mitigations proposed by the Applicant: To work with TCAT to provide two additional buses to the existing Cornell North Campus routes to accommodate the increase in student population in that area. To upgrade the existing bicycle and pedestrian networks on and around Cornell’s North Campus including improved crosswalks, new sidewalks and pedestrian crossings, new bicycle lanes, and the implementation of a pedestrian improvement plan covering a variety of intersections within the Project (based on a circulation study prepared by the Applicant’s consultant). To realign of the intersection of Pleasant Grove Road and Cradit Farm Drive as it will alleviate the current and future cut-through traffic that moves through the Forest Home neighborhood. 14. The Town Board states that these mitigation measures will be further discussed, possibly modified, and likely included in any eventual approval that might be granted by the appropriate municipal boards. We expect that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, in its Site Plan review process, would condition any approvals upon the implementation of these proposed mitigation measures. To that end, the Board does not consider the transportation impacts related to the Project as having the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. The Lead Agency acknowledges and appreciates these comments and has carefully considered these comments in its evaluation of the Project’s potential adverse environmental impacts. Page 1 of 10 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 - Identification of Potential Project Impacts Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could be affected by a proposed project or action. We recognize that the lead agency=s reviewer(s) will not necessarily be environmental professionals. So, the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that can be answered using the information found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. When Part 2 is completed, the lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity. If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Tips for completing Part 2: Review all of the information provided in Part 1. Review any application, maps, supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook. Answer each of the 18 questions in Part 2. If you answer “Yes” to a numbered question, please complete all the questions that follow in that section. If you answer “No” to a numbered question, move on to the next numbered question. Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact. Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency checking the box “Moderate to large impact may occur.” The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis. If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact, it may help to review the sub-questions for the general question and consult the workbook. When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity, that is, the Awhole action@. Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts. Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project. 1. Impact on Land Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, NO YES the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1. D.1) If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 2. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3 feet.E2d b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater. E2f c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface. E2a d. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons of natural material. D2a e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. D1e f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). D2e, D2q g. The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area. B1i h. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ "HFODZ6TF0OMZ<*GBQQMJDBCMF> 1SPKFDU %BUF Cornell N. Campus Residential Expansion 11-7-18 Page 2 of 10 2. Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, NO YES minerals, fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2.g) If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, move on to Section 3. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Identify the specific land form(s) attached: ________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ E2g b. The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a registered National Natural Landmark. Specific feature: _____________________________________________________ E3c c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 3. Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water NO YES bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part 1. D.2, E.2.h) If “Yes”, answer questions a - l. If “No”, move on to Section 4. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may create a new water body. D2b, D1h b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water. D2b c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from a wetland or water body. D2a d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body. E2h e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion, runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments. D2a, D2h f. The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s) for withdrawal of water from surface water. D2c g. The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s) for discharge of wastewater to surface water(s). D2d h. The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. D2e i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action. E2h j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body. D2q, E2h k. The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, wastewater treatment facilities. D1a, D2d Page 3 of 10 l. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 4. Impact on groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or NO YES may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. (See Part 1. D.2.a, D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t) If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 5. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand on supplies from existing water supply wells. D2c b. Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer. Cite Source: ________________________________________________________ D2c c. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and sewer services. D1a, D2c d. The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater. D2d, E2l e. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations where groundwater is, or is suspected to be, contaminated. D2c, E1f, E1g, E1h f. The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products over ground water or an aquifer. D2p, E2l g. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources. E2h, D2q, E2l, D2c h. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 5. Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. NO YES (See Part 1. E.2) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, move on to Section 6. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway. E2i b. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain. E2j c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain. E2k d. The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage patterns. D2b, D2e e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding. D2b, E2i, E2j, E2k f. If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action, dam E1e Page 4 of 10 g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 6. Impacts on Air The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. NO YES (See Part 1. D.2.f., D,2,h, D.2.g) If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, move on to Section 7. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits, the action may also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels: i. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2) ii. More than 3.5 tons/year of nitrous oxide (N2 ) iii. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon equivalent of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) iv. More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) v. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of hydrochlorofl urocarbons (HFCs) emissions vi. 43 tons/year or more of methane D2g D2g D2g D2g D2g D2h b. The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more of any one designated hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous air pollutants. D2g c. The proposed action may require a state air registration, or may produce an emissions rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs. per hour, or may include a heat source capable of producing more than 10 million BTU=s per hour. D2f, D2g d.The proposed action may reach 50% of any of the thresholds in “a”through “c”, above. D e. The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. D2s f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 7.Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1. E.2. m.-q.) NO YES If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 8. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a.The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. E2o b. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any rare, threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federal government. E2o c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of any species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. E2p d. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any species of special concern and conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government. E2p Page 5 of 10 e. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect. E3c f. The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any portion of a designated significant natural community. Source: ____________________________________________________________ E2n g. The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging, or over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site.E2m h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat. Habitat type & information source: ______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ E1b i. Proposed action (commercial, industrial or recreational projects, only) involves use of herbicides or pesticides. D2q j. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 8. Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1. E.3.a. and b.) NO YES If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 9. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System. E2c, E3b b. The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc). E1a, Elb c. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil profile of active agricultural land. E3b d. The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10 acres if not within an Agricultural District. E1b, E3a e. The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land management system. El a, E1b f. The proposed action may result, directly or indirectly, in increased development potential or pressure on farmland. C2c, C3, D2c, D2d g. The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland Protection Plan. C2c h. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________ Project will disturb approx 26 acres and remove 291 trees and other vegetation Page 6 of 10 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in NO YES sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part 1. E.1.a, E.1.b, E.3.h.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, go to Section 10. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource. E3h b. The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination or significant screening of one or more officially designated scenic views. E3h, C2b c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points: i. Seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ii. Year round E3h d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is: i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work ii. Recreational or tourism based activities E3h E2q, E1c e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource. E3h f. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed project: 0-1/2 mile ½ -3 mile 3-5 mile 5+ mile D1a, E1a, D1f, D1g g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological NO YES resource. (Part 1. E.3.e, f. and g.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 11. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any buildings, archaeological site or district which is listed on or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on the State or National Register of Historic Places. E3e b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory. E3f c. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory. Source: ____________________________________________________________ E3g Project is visible from the Cornell Heights Historic District. Project changes the view along Triphammer Road See Part 3 Cite Arch Report Page 7 of 10 d. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ e. If any of the above (a-d) are answered “ ”, continue with the following questions to help support conclusions in Part 3: i. The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part of the site or property. ii. The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property’s setting or integrity. iii. The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting. E3e, E3g, E3f E3e, E3f, E3g, E1a, E1b E3e, E3f, E3g, E3h, C2, C3 11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a NO YES reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. (See Part 1. C.2.c, E.1.c., E.2.q.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 12. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions, or “ecosystem services”, provided by an undeveloped area, including but not limited to stormwater storage, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat. D2e, E1b E2h, E2m, E2o, E2n, E2p b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource. C2a, E1c, C2c, E2q c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area with few such resources. C2a, C2c E1c, E2q d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by the community as an open space resource. C2c, E1c e. Other impacts: _____________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical NO YES environmental area (CEA). (See Part 1. E.3.d) If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, go to Section 13. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. E3d b. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. E3d c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ The project results in some loss of greenspace on North Campus Page 8 of 10 13. Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. NO YES (See Part 1. D.2.j) If “Yes”, answer questions a - . If “No”, go to Section 14. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network. D2j b. The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or more vehicles. D2j c. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access. D2j d. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. D2j .The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods.D2j . Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 14. Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. NO YES (See Part 1. D.2.k) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 15. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation. D2k b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a commercial or industrial use. D1f, D1q, D2k c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity. D2k d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when completed. D1g e. Other Impacts: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. NO YES (See Part 1. D.2.m., n., and o.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, go to Section 16. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. D2m b. The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence, hospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home. D2m, E1d c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day. D2o a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network.D2j C0 emissions, production/use of non-renewable energy sources, lack of consistency with net -zero goals, Page 9 of 10 d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties.D2n e. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing area conditions. D2n, E1a f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 16. Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure NO YES to new or existing sources of contaminants. (See Part 1.D.2.q., E.1. d. f. g. and h.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - m. If “No”, go to Section 17. Relevant Part I Question(s) No,or small impact may cccur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed day care center, group home, nursing home or retirement community. E1d b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation. E1g, E1h c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation, or a completed environmental site remediation on, or adjacent to, the site of the proposed action. E1g, E1h d.The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the property (e.g.easementdeed restriction) E1g, E1h e. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health. E1g, E1h f. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future generation, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the environment and human health. D2t g. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste management facility. D2q, E1f h. The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste. D2q, E1f i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal, or processing, of solid waste. D2r, D2s j. The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. E1f, E1g E1h k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill site to adjacent off site structures. E1f, E1g l. The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the project site. D2s, E1f, D2r m. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ m. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Outdoor Lighting is proposed see specifications Page 10 of 10 17. Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. NO YES (See Part 1. C.1, C.2. and C.3.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, go to Section 18. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action’s land use components may be different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use pattern(s). C2, C3, D1a E1a, E1b b. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%. C2 c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. C2, C2, C3 d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use plans. C2, C2 e. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure. C3, D1c, D1d, D1f, D1d, Elb f. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development that will require new or expanded public infrastructure. C4, D2c, D2d D2j g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g., residential or commercial development not included in the proposed action) C2a h. Other: _____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 18. Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. NO YES (See Part 1. C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, proceed to Part 3. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. E3e, E3f, E3g b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire) C4 c. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where there is a shortage of such housing. C2, C3, D1f D1g, E1a d. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized or designated public resources. C2, E3 e. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character. C2, C3 f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. C2, C3 E1a, E1b E2g, E2h g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Green Building Poilicy County Action Plan Town Action Plan - See Part 3 PRINT FULL FORM Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project and Setting North Campus Residential Expansion North Campus, Cornell University See attached. Kimberly Michaels, RLA, Principal; TWMLA 607-277-1400 kam@twm.la 1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 201 Ithaca NY 14850 Paul Stemkowski, Project Manager; Cornell University 607-255-2251 ps522@cornell.edu Humphreys Service Building, Suite 102 Ithaca NY 14853 Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 51 52 53 54 ~ 2,079 beds (see attached) A dining hall is included in the buildings (see attached) 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 recommendations and conceptual improvement plans to address issues of capacity,safety} wavfindlng,circulation/and accessibility. These recommended transportation improvements for the NCRE project focus on prioritizing pedestrian}bicycle,and transit modes of transportation over the personal automobile to improve safety and provide opportunities for better wayfinding.This focus is entirely consistent withthe 2008 Cornell Master Plan for the Ithaca Campus.The Cornell Master Plan was a comprehensive undertaking whose process was shared with,and obtained input from/the broader community,including City ejected and appointed officials and City planning and public works staff. Two of the infrastructure treatments under consideration are at or near the intersections of (1) Thurston Avenue with Cradit Farm Drive and (2)Wait Avenue with Thurston Avenue.They would primarily address safety for pedestrians and cyclists and provide improved access to the Tang Welcome Center.Thurston Avenue and Wait Avenue are,of course,City of Ithaca public streets,while Cradit Farm Drive is a Cornell road. The proposed treatments are still conceptual.They include the ideas of raised intersections to slow traffic and features that alert motorists they are approaching a unique area which has high volumes of pedestrian,bicyclist,and transit interactions.Consolidating pedestrian crossings with raised crosswalks,reducing turning radii to slow traffic and relocating bus stop pull-offs to prevent buses from blocking through-traffic are also suggested to ameliorate any safety concerns. Mutual Intention:At th is time,we wou Id like to invite the City of Ithaca to engage with the Cornell team in developing plans for the transportation infrastructure improvements in the immediate vicinity of the intersections of Thurston Avenue with Cradit Farm Drive and with Wait Avenue.We propose this letter as our letter of Mutual Intent and ask that you countersign it and return a copy to my attention.Cornell is committed,and would like the City's commitment in principle,to the cooperative process of going from concept to design for a mutually agreeable and beneficial project for the improvement of these areas}the improvements to be funded by Cornell.The goal is for the process to result in a firm agreement between the City and Cornell.As IJmsure you appreciate,it is of great importance to reach this point ina timely manner that win allow the improvements to be made when they may reasonably be least disruptively,most timely/and most cost-effectively constructed. We should acknowledge that this letter,when countersigned by the City}shall be a Jetter of intent only}and not a contract or other binding commitment by either party.The parties agree to engage in good faith discussion/share information,and provide professional response to draft plans that are exchanged.- - all in a timely fashion so as to facilitate a projected completion date that coordinates with the completion of the NCRE.It should also be understood by the parties that this intention to work toward an agreement shall be without 2 Dlversity and Ircluslon (Irea partof CornellUniversity's heritage. "Ve/re an employer and educator recognized for valuing AA/EEO,Protected Veterans,and Individuals with Disabilities expectation of reimbursement by one party of the other party's cost of its staff's time and expertise (or that of any consultants it wishes to engage). We trust you share our excitement about the NCRE.It addresses housing needs both at Cornell and in the community at large ..The concepts being proposed for improvements on public streets in the vicinity are also exciting and we think the City will be well-pleased with the collaborative process that will allow Cornell to bring them into being alongside the NCRE. SinCereIY~~ ,.,// / l .'/. /(;//- RickBurgess Vice President Facilities and Campus Services cc: JoAnn Cornish}Director of Planning and Economic Development,City of Ithaca lisa Nicholas,Senior Planner,City of Ithaca Michael Thorne,Superintendent of Public Works}City of Ithaca Susan Ritter}Director of Planning,Town of Ithaca Linda Woodward]Mayor,Village of Cayuga Heights Katie BorgeJla,Commissioner of Planning and Sustalnabllltv,Tompkins County Joel Matinal Vice President for University Relations,Cornell University Ryan Lombardi}Vice President for Student and Campus Life Tiffany Robertson,Project and Communications Coordinator,Cornell University Gary Stewart,Associate Vice President for University Relations}Cornell University Paul Stemkoskl,Director of Project Management,Cornell University Chris Davenport"Facilities Manager Projects,Cornell University Kim Michaels,Trowbridge,Wolf and Michaels Letter of Mutual Intent:The above is acknowledged and agreed in principle. City of Ithaca: By:_ 3 Dated:_ Diversity and Inclusion are a Plitt of Cornell University's heritage. "Ve',.!.?an employer and educator recognized f01'valuing AA/EEO,Protected Veterans,and Individuals with Disabilities 1 LETTER TO THE CITY OF ITHACA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD To: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board Re: Cornell’s NCRE and Beyond Date: December 6, 2018 CC: Ithaca City Council, Town of Ithaca Planning Board Respectfully submitted by: Sara Hess, Joe Wilson, Charles Geisler, Anthony Ingraffea, Brian Eden, Mitchell Lavine, Marie McRae, Carol Chock, Irene Weiser, Regi Teasley, Elmer Ewing, Eliza Evett, Lisa Marshall, Paul Mazzarella The public’s response to Cornell’s dorms has pushed the needle for all projects coming before the Planning Board when it comes to cleaner energy. We see that we need to spend time creating new environmental protection guidelines that would apply across the board and not just to certain projects that get targeted. - Paraphrased comment of one Planning Board member This was the good news we heard at the conclusion of the meeting on September 27 in City Hall. Like you, we are fully in support of Cornell’s building these dorms. And we are grateful the seven large buildings will be built at 30% better than the current energy code by their plans, and that Cornell will follow their own legal contract ual obligation to use union labor. But while the community benefits are significant, unnecessary damage from increased green house gas emissions from the energy plans presented to the Planning Board cannot be ignored. We sincerely appreciate the time and attention that the Planning Board members and Planning Department staff gave to this project review, especially the effort you made to hear and read hundreds of comments and questions from the public about the project, starting in August and continuing for the past four months. You know better than we do how many individuals submitted comments. We are grateful to you for considering our information and opinions. We, in turn, also learned a great deal from listening to your discussions, from Cornell’s presentations, and from our own research. In particular, we broadened 2 our knowledge of both the technical issues of Cornell’s power plant and the state’s SEQRA policies, which use community knowledge to influence public decision-making. On the issue of the planning process, we have observations to offer about the Board’s actions to date. We hope these can be seen as constructive and respectful rather than simply critical. The public needs to have faith in the professional work of the Board. We look forward to working together and the best policies come from open communication. 1. Independence of the Planning Board is everything. It must avoid bias toward the developer as the sole expert on questions of environmental impact, in this case, green house gas emissions and possible mitigation measures. On this central issue, we believe the Planning Board, time and time again, gave up their responsibility of independence by allowing the developer to make decisions about factual information regarding extent of the impact (total amount of GHG added), and about feasible mitigation possibilities. Experts from the public challenged Cornell’s analysis and numbers, but the technical field was , at many times, beyond the members’ and staff’s ability to understand, much less make a decision about accuracy or relevance. This fact was acknowledged several times by Board Members. Yet, no outside expert was called in to help, even though that cost-free possibility was briefly considered. We were very disappointed that the Board did not hire one or more technical experts, knowing that the volume and technical nature of information from both the public and the developer was overwhelming. Instead, we felt the expert information we offered may have been read but was then disregarded as erroneous or irrelevant by Cornell, and then by extension, the Planning Board. On the other side, while Planning Board members and involved agencies asked for a great deal of additional information from Cornell, the information it provided, as far as we could see and hear, was accepted whole cloth, rarely challenged except occasionally to ask, “So you did the analysis, right?” And then and there, the matter was settled, as if the developer’s opinion was sufficient in determining what is best for our environment and climate. Of much lesser importance but also related to independence, we note that within the Planning Board, several Board Members depend on Cornell for their living. It 3 may be of small consequence, but we did not see any public acknowledgment of even a potential conflict of interest. This contrasts with the Ithaca Town Planning Board's approach where, when any of their Members is affiliated in any way with the developer, that person must step into the audience and speak, if at all, as a member of the public. 2. Concerns about following SEQRA guidelines. Collectively, we have attended all public meetings about this project, including two of the last two Project Review sub-committee meetings. We have video- taped several of the meetings for review. During those meetings we believe Board Members expressed considerable unfamiliarity with the basic SEQRA processes and substantive requirements. We did see Board members raise multiple questions right from the beginning of the process about specific requirements under SEQRA ranging from “How do we decide to require an EIS?” to “What criteria apply to decisions on the magnitude of a potential impact?” and “What are the criteria we use for deciding the ‘significance’ of a potential impact?” It was not until the last two meetings, however, that an attorney was present in a public meeting to answer these questions. We could not help but note that the attorney hired by the City appears to have a pro-developer bias, made plain by his firm’s website. And the advice he gave focused not on the specific DEC- recommended SEQRA thresholds for magnitude and significance of environmental impacts, but rather on the Planning Board’s discretion to do what seemed to be most comfortable and legally defensible for them. This approach led to multiple solicitous questions to Cornell about whether an EIS would upset its construction schedule and to a majority of Board Members preemptively announcing – before the Part 3 Findings draft was even completed – that they would not vote to find any significant environmental impacts and that they would, therefore, vote for a Negative Declaration. The Board was also encouraged to give great weight to whether or not previous developers had been required or had volunteered to do an EIS. Volunteering for an EIS, versus being required to do one, is not a recognized criterion for whether or not the Lead Agency will mandate an EIS, according to our study of SEQRA. 4 Instead, the final criterion is whether one or more significant impacts are found to exist. That decision should be based on the magnitude, duration, probability, and importance of each potential impact, given the setting, values, history and preferences of the community. We also believe we saw that if an applicant generates a great deal of technical data and packages it in quasi-EIS form, the Board will treat it as the same as an actual EIS. This is a serious illusion. The SEQRA-EIS is a study of possible alternatives and mitigation measures identified by the Lead Agency, not by the developer, for the purposes of deciding how to reduce or eliminate the negative environmental impacts which the Lead Agency, not the developer, has identified. By treating the application itself as though it were an EIS, the Planning Board gave up its independence and short-changed its duty to protect the environment – the environment which belongs to the public, not the developer. 3. Breaking precedent with past decisions regarding energy and environmental impact. Board members appear to believe that if no previous Planning Board required an EIS to examine mitigation of significant GHG emissions, this Board cannot do so now, nor can it do so in the future until specific new policy guidelines are written. We believe that this is simply incorrect. Each project is different, not the same. Each project can create its own unique, negative environmental impacts which must be addressed when and if they are identified as such. Moreover, as several Board Members acknowledged, climate change is accelerating dramatically, thereby presenting new challenges of much greater magnitude than those recognized even in the very recent past. Whereas previously, when mitigating effects of natural gas use could be put off because the consequences were seen to be somewhere in a distant future, we now have evidence (from Cornell, ironically) of the damaging impacts of climate change occurring here and now in Ithaca and Tompkins County. This means that wherever the Planning Board finds significant, negative environmental impacts – whether caused by burning of gas or some other activity – the Board has a duty (and the discretion) to identify those impacts and to decide on how and to what extent they are to be mitigated. 5 4. Where have the community climate activists been up until now? We think Board members are not aware that we, and many others like us in fields of engineering and construction, have been collaborating with the County Planning Department and using other channels to advocate with developers in the City to mitigate GHG emission for many years. In fact, two of the current downtown projects under construction – CitiCenter and the Harold Square project – are both using electric heat pumps instead of gas, thanks to advocacy by these collaborators. In the Town of Ithaca, the large Maplewood development completed this fall is using heat pumps instead of gas because of our advocacy. In this effort, we worked with individuals from within Cornell as well as allies in local organized labor. For the past year or more, we have been actively engaged in discussing, improving and advocating for approval of the Green Building Policy by City Council and the Town of Ithaca Board. This policy will change the building requirements for new construction and gut-renovation or additions, making buildings far more energy efficient than current building codes. We also call your attention to Tompkins County’s 2018 municipal law 239, in case you are not familiar with it. It requires most new developments (some properties are exempted) to consider their “Recommendations for New Construction”. The section on energy conservation and efficiency includes many best practices that help reduce GHG emissions. In conclusion. Having shared our concerns, we are fully in agreement that the City needs better policy and frameworks for its future applicants, its Board Members, and the public concerning energy and mitigating damage to the environment. Working on an ad-hoc basis wastes time, money, and energy by all parties. We look forward to more communication and engagement among the Planning Board, the City’s Planning and Economic Development Committee, and Ithaca’s well-informed civil society. Please view us as an asset as you proceed rather than as adversaries. 6 As mentioned above, one important policy already available and needing attention is the City and Town’s own excellent Green Building Policy. When implemented, it will significantly reduce use of energy from whatever source. It was highlighted in Mayor Myrick’s State of the City message in January, and passed by both City and Town legislative bodies last May. Turning it into building code as quickly as possible seems an obvious step toward implementing fair and consistent policies for future development. This is one of many working partnerships we envision with you to make Ithaca an optimal living environment. Thank you for your attention to our concerns and suggestions. 11.27.18 Agenda: Cornell (NCRE) Denise Katzman [denisekatzman@gmail.com] To: Anya Harris Thursday, December 06, 2018 1:33 PM Good Afternoon: Gas is Methane. The short term polluter. At the end of it's life it degrades and becomes the long term polluter CO2. Methance contradicts Cornell's developmental Geothermal project. Rockefeller Brothers Fund | Philanthropy for an ... has been working for years to defeat unsustainable energy. NYC is divesting from fossil fuels. Ceres works with investors and corporations "tackles the world's biggest sustainability challenges, including climate change..." Which Methane contributes to. Buildings Policy – Architecture 2030 and idling vehicles promote Global Warming. Ithaca doesn't enforce its Stationary Vehicle Idling law. I worked on updating the NYC law. The GBP will ensure that new construction doesn't pollute. NYS is extremely fortunate to have SEQRA aka baby NEPA. SEQRA is more viable than NEPA. I contacted the NCRE's architect 3x and was ignored. As the Lead Generation Agent for Empower Equity Energy Made SIMPLE - Empower Equity (EMPEQ) I thought that I would at least get a reply. We are a NYSERDA portfolio company that works with state of the art sustainable infrastructure eg. ASHP. Yesterday we were chosen to participate in ConEd's 22.5 million clean energy project. Planning and Development can be the positive solution to move Ithaca into the sustainable energy sector. This and the GBP will generate a clean and sustainable environment, along with positive media. Best, Denise Denise Katzman [denisekatzman@gmail.com] Thursday, December 06, 2018 6:58 PM Adding CCA (Community Choice Aggregation) which is valid in NYS and not utilized. Ithaca can and should make the bold move to utilize CCA for solar and other sustainable energy via a public vote. Apologies for typos. Community Choice Aggregation | Green Power Partnership | US EPA 8.4.2018 https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/...Communities/...Communities.../Communit y-Choice-Ag... Best, Denise Denise Katzman [denisekatzman@gmail.com] Actions To: Anya Harris Friday, December 07, 2018 11:02 AM This is my last comment: 10.9.18 & 11.2.18. Methane is a primary component of Global Warming, Climate Change or Climate Crisis. Whatever imprimatur works, they are all relevant. Best, Denise Trump quiet as the UN warns of climate change catastrophe | US news ... https://www.thenation.com/article/mainstream-media-un-climate-report- analysis/?fbclid=IwAR0MWUZDITWCWNJyTFM6Qf88pF5B3_59zkaR0jo-W-nND4OXow7qzeezVJU 12/6/2018 approving new construction https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAARIsSZ0EVsS4n2MKDkun3eBwDjpccsYj4cR7Vd9alRbaQ2AAA7CXnDAADjpccs…1/1 approving new construction Margot Brinn [margotbrinn@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, December 04, 2018 10:49 AM To:Anya Harris Hello Ms. Harris, When I attended the meeting of the Planning and Development Board on November 20th, your email was listed as the contact for citizen concerns on the subject of approval of new construction, especially the Cornell dorms now under consideration. During the meeting, a union worker spoke compellingly to his concerns over the loss of jobs as steps are taken to reduce climate changing emissions. He referenced this Cornell project and the potential closing of the Lansing power plant. Jobs must be on the table as these decisions are made but I believe that the time has long past when the way of meeting those needs is at the expense of the survival of our environment. There are many ideas out there, including his point that the city needs a policy of hiring only union and local workers. He also wondered why Cornell was singled out. My perspective is that the city [and town and county] needs to make a policy of only approving 0 emissions buildings in the region under its jurisdiction. Thank you for your work and considering my thoughts. Margot Brinn 600 B Hector St Ithaca -- Not only is another world possible, she is on her way. on a quiet day, I can hear her breathing. Arundhati Roy http://thebloggingnana.wordpress.com/ 12/4/2018 comment https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAARIsSZ0EVsS4n2MKDkun3eBwDjpccsYj4cR7Vd9alRbaQ2AAA7CXnDAADjpccs…1/1 comment gillian pederson-krag [pedersonkrag@yahoo.com] Sent:Friday, November 30, 2018 2:08 PM To:Anya Harris To the Planning and Development Board Agenda I have seen that developers usually make expedient decisions that benefit them financially (for instance the fracked gas part of the NCRE proposal or the Falls Park Apartments clean-up issue for instance). As our elected officials, we are counting on you to give top priority to the scientific data showing the devastation of our ecological environment. I urge you to make your decisions based on some kind of long term thinking and demand that new buildings meet tough standards that will protect the environment. Sincerely, Gillian Pederson-Krag 7 Spruce Lane, Ithaca NY 14850 City of Ithaca Planning Board Greetings to the Board: On behalf of Distributed Sun,write to support Cornell's North Campus Residential Expansion, and specifically to endorse their plan to power these new student residences with electricity,heat, and chilled water from Cornell's exceptional district energy systems anchored by the Combined Heat and Power plant and Lake Source Cooling. Distributed Sun has partnered with Cornell in developing over 10 MWac of distributed solar power facilities (with 16 MW more on the way). We are also intimately engaged in discussions with State, Federal and private parties to finance and develop the "Earth Source Heat"project,and have offered our support to Cornell on other renewable energy projects in Tompkins County and beyond. As our name should imply, Distributed Sun's entire businessisfocused on integrating renewable energy into the electric grid, and we have established considerable expertise both in that integration and in understanding the impacts to the grid for new generation and new loads. I can speak from personal experience that Cornell's efforts to promote and develop renewable and zero-carbon energy are serious and impactful. Asa loyal alumnus whose family hassent four generations to Cornell, I am personally saddened to read letters,including those from other alumni,faulting Cornell for their efforts.In my view these individuals are mis-informed.Cornell's district systems are well designed and efficiently managed. Usingthose systems to power,heat, and cool the new buildings is the most appropriate and rational approach. Cornell's analysis of impacts to the grid are spot on. Asa strong advocate for solar power I understand the concept of "marginal emissions" all too well. Evenmore, using Cornell's district energy system to efficiently integrate and transfer energy is an excellent way to manage both current and future environmental impacts when compared with stand-alone heating and cooling, even with the best of current heat pump technology.Indeed,other clients we work with would have deep respect for assets like LakeSource Cooling and Combined Heat and Power. Those exceptional systems,together with Cornell's decades-long efforts at green building,deep energy conservation,and renewable energy integration,means that the energy impact of this facility will be much lower than other projects of its kind. Cornell should be lauded asa shining example of how to do things right. Thanks for this opportunity to support Cornell and your community.Should you have any questions regarding my expertise or views on the project,I would be very pleased to provide follow-up to the Board. Sincerely, Jeff Weiss Executive Chairman Distributed Sun RECEIV DEC --32018 DEPARl't,'ENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMeNT 60113th Street NW,Suite 450 South I Washington,DC 20005 I www.DistributedSun.com 12/6/2018 David Attenborough: collapse of civilisation is on the horizon | Environment | The Guardian https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAARIsSZ0EVsS4n2MKDkun3eBwDjpccsYj4cR7Vd9alRbaQ2AAA7CXnDAADjpccs…1/1 David Attenborough: collapse of civilisation is on the horizon | Environment | The Guardian Regi Teasley [rltcayuga@gmail.com] Sent:Monday, December 03, 2018 8:27 AM To:Anya Harris Anya, Please share this important article with the city planning board. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/03/david-attenborough-collapse-civilisation-on-horizon- un-climate-summit Regi Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living. Mother Jones 12/6/2018 Portrait of a planet on the verge of climate catastrophe | Environment | The Guardian https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAARIsSZ0EVsS4n2MKDkun3eBwDjpccsYj4cR7Vd9alRbaQ2AAA7CXnDAADjpccs…1/1 Portrait of a planet on the verge of climate catastrophe | Environment | The Guardian Regi Teasley [rltcayuga@gmail.com] Sent:Sunday, December 02, 2018 11:54 AM To:Anya Harris Anya, Please share this email with the Planning Board. I think the board members will find it relevant. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/02/world-verge-climate-catastophe Thank you, Regi Teasley City if Ithaca Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living. Mother Jones 12/11/2018 Past four years hottest on record, data shows | Environment | The Guardian https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAARIsSZ0EVsS4n2MKDkun3eBwDjpccsYj4cR7Vd9alRbaQ2AAA7CXnDAADjpccs…1/1 Past four years hottest on record, data shows | Environment | The Guardian Regi Teasley [rltcayuga@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, November 29, 2018 8:16 AM To:Anya Harris Cc:mayormyrick@cityofitjaca.com Anya, Please share this article with the City Planning Board. I urge them to read it. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/29/four-years-hottest-record-climate-change Thank you, Regi Teasley City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Falls Park Apartments, 121-125 Lake Street Date Created: 11/16/2018, Updated 12/12/18 1 * This document is in draft form and will be updated as additional information is provided by the project applicant * PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to build a 133,000 GSF, four story apartment building and associated site improvements on the former Gun Hill Factory site. The 74-unit, age-restricted apartment building will be a mix of one and two bedroom units and will include 7,440 SF of amenity space and 85 parking spaces (20 surface spaces and 65 covered spaces under the building). Site improvements will include an eight foot wide public walkway located within the dedicated open space on adjacent City Property (as required per agreements established between the City and the property owner in 2007) and is to be constructed by the project sponsor. The project site is currently in the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program (“BCP”). Before site development can occur, the applicant is required to remediate the site based on soil cleanup objectives for restricted residential use. A remedial investigation (“RI”) was recently completed at the site and was submitted to NYSDEC in August 2018. The project is in the R-3a Zoning District and requires multiple variances. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B(1) (h)[2], (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (11), and is subject to environmental review. IMPACT ON LAND The 2.37 acre project site is located in a developed urban setting and has been previously disturbed due to historic land use associated with the former Ithaca Gun Factory. The average depth to water on-site is greater than 15-feet, and both soil and water have known contamination due to prior use of the site. Soil and groundwater remediation will be completed as part of project requirements for redevelopment as well as the site’s participation in New York State’s Brownfield Cleanup Program (“BCP”). The site is currently vacant, however the project proposes to return the site to habitable use through remediation and redevelopment. The site will be required to be remediated to restricted residential use soil cleanup objectives due to the proposed use of the site for residential purposes. Depth to Bedrock According to a geotechnical report provided by the applicant dated August 24, 2018, bedrock depths are between the site’s surface and 8.5-feet from the surface, however no blasting is proposed to occur as part of development. The geotechnical report proposes conventional shallow foundations to be constructed to bear on stable natural rock or lean concrete to be placed during site preparation work. Approximately 4,050 tons of rock and unconsolidated materials will be removed from the site (15,000 cubic yards). Ground disturbance will not require blasting and primarily impacts areas that have previously been developed (i.e. concrete foundations, gravel, and some bedrock). A 0.57 acre net increase of roads, buildings and other paved or impervious surfaces is proposed, however the project additionally proposes to increase lawn and landscaping acreage by 0.14 acre. The project will disturb more than one acre of land, requiring a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) to be developed and implemented. City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Falls Park Apartments, 121-125 Lake Street Date Created: 11/16/2018, Updated 12/12/18 2 According to the site plan submitted on September 14, 2018 in reference to the above referenced geotechnical report: “The report recommends conventional shallow foundations bearing on rock for 85% of the building. The allowable bearing pressure provided is 15ksf….. A small area at the northeast portion of the building will require deep foundations due to the rock profile that is steeply sloping and will be much below the standard footing elevations. The footings in those areas will be supported by micropiles or other deep foundation options which have yet to be determined.” Portions of the building are required to be constructed on steep slopes, as referenced above. These areas will be supported by micropiles which can be installed in soil, rock, cobbles and boulders, through manmade obstructions or in areas of high water table. As described in additional information provided by the project applicant and dated November 27, 2018: “A micropile is a small diameter (6”-10“) friction pile that is bored or drilled to support axial and lateral loads. Micropiles may be cased or uncased depending on soil conditions. Reinforcement bars placed at the center of the pile and cementitious grout allow for load transfer into the bearing soil or rock.” Soil Volume Removal The applicant provided supplemental project information on November 27, 2018, estimating approximately 3,675 cubic yards of material to be removed as part of brownfield remediation efforts. See also section on Impacts to Transportation. IMPACT ON GEOLOGIC FEATURES The site is located contiguous to the gorge, which accommodates the Fall Creek (“the Creek”) waterbody to the north, a designated recreational river. Construction and site activities are not proposed to impact this geological feature. Silt logs are proposed to be used for perimeter protection along topographic contours, as identified in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C1.02) dated September 14, 2018. The applicant further proposes to periodically inspect and maintain all control measures during construction, and to clean out sediment when accumulated to 25% of the height of the silt logs. See also section on Impacts to Surface Water. IMPACT ON SURFACE WATER As stated in the prior section, the project site is located contiguous to Fall Creek. The applicant proposes to use best practices, identified in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C1.02) dated September 14, 2018, to minimize erosion and sedimentation that may otherwise adversely impact the Creek. Such techniques include installation of silt logs around the project perimeter and placement of filter fabric over stormwater drains until site stabilization occurs. Introduction of turbidity is anticipated to minimal and limited to the period of construction. Additional information needed Need narrative from the SWPPP. City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Falls Park Apartments, 121-125 Lake Street Date Created: 11/16/2018, Updated 12/12/18 3 IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER The potable water source to support the residential development is not site groundwater, which is known to have pre-existing contamination. The City of Ithaca will supply potable water to the development. According to the applicant’s preliminary site plan (dated September 2018): “Groundwater occurs at depths of approximately 30-feet below grade and within fractures of the underlying bedrock.” As part of remediation activities on the adjacent city-owned property, three 2-inch bedrock monitoring wells (MW-5, MW-6, and MW-7) were installed to investigate the site. Historic monitoring wells MW-3 and MW-4 were also sampled as part of this effort. Findings from groundwater monitoring activities indicated that site groundwater within the fractured bedrock has been impacted by volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”), particularly trichloroethene (“TCE”), and cis-1,2-dichloroethene. As summarized in the SMP for this portion of the site: The results appear to indicate the source is to the east emanating from the Former Ithaca Gun Factory site. Impacted groundwater migrates beneath the Western Accessway portion of the site and off-site to the west and northwest. The metals detected are likely attributed to dissolved metals in the groundwater. Future groundwater monitoring will be conducted by the NYSDEC. Groundwater contours taken from measurements obtained in October 2012 and December 2012 are mapped on Figure 3A and Figure 3B, included in the SMP and provided in Attachment X. These contours illustrate groundwater flow, and contaminant migration, off-site to the west and northwest, as described above. Groundwater is planned to be monitored and treated as part of site remediation, resulting in a net positive impact on groundwater quality for the site. According to the site plan submitted in September 2018, stormwater management is proposed to be addressed on-site, and include a combination of a bioretention filter and hydrodynamic separator units. Due to the depth of the groundwater, it is unlikely construction and site use will impact groundwater or that exposure to VOC contamination will occur following site remediation. The applicant is waiting on RIR approval from NYSDEC prior to development of a Remedial Work Plan, which will further identify groundwater monitoring and remediation efforts on the project site. IMPACT ON FLOODING The project is not located in the 100 or 500 year floodplain, and will not impact any waterbody that may contribute to flooding. Rainwater from roof areas will be conveyed via rain leaders to ground level. A below grade piping system will collect stormwater at the groundwater and convey water out of the building. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to flooding is anticipated. City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Falls Park Apartments, 121-125 Lake Street Date Created: 11/16/2018, Updated 12/12/18 4 IMPACTS ON AIR According to information provided by the applicant, construction is projected to last approximately 20 months. Excavation and preparation of foundations create the potential for increased airborne dust and dirt particles. As part of ERP site investigation on the city-owned parcel, a soil vapor survey was conducted which included sampling of four soil vapor points (SV-01 through SV-4) along the Western Accessway. The results of this survey indicated elevated levels of TCE at SV-01 and SV-02, and other low level VOCs. NYSDEC conducted additional off-site vapor intrusion investigations and based on the results, recommended institutional and engineering controls be enforced to address vapor mitigation in the event of future site redevelopment. The project proposes soil vapor mitigation measures as part of long-term site use. During remediation and construction activities, air monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the NYSDOH Community Air Monitoring Plan (“CAMP”). In addition, a Health and Safety Plan (“HASP”) will be developed and implemented during site remediation activities. During construction, the applicant will employ the following applicable dust control measures, as appropriate: Misting or fog spraying the site to minimize dust; Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site; Re-seeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils; Keeping roads clear of dust and debris; Requiring trucks to be covered; Prohibiting burning of debris on site. The Lead Agency has determined that with the mitigation measures during and after construction identified above, no significant impact to air is anticipated. IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS According to the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper, there are no rare or significant plant or animal communities located on or around the project site. In addition, the Environmental Resource Mapper does not identify any rare plant or animal species on or around the project site. The Northern long-eared bat is a Federally listed threatened species that is known to be located in the northeastern portion of the United States, including portions of New York State. The habitat for this species is generally in forested areas. Given that the project site is located in a predominantly urban area with limited forestation on the project site, it is unlikely the project (i.e., construction activities) will impact this species. According to supplemental information provided by the applicant on November 27, 2018: The project site includes removal of approximately seven trees greater than 1.5 inch diameter at breast height (DBH) in addition to areas of scrub that include young volunteer colonies of successional trees. All trees to be removed within the project limits are invasive successional deciduous tree species in fair to poor health. Dominant deciduous tree colonies include: Robinia pseudoacacia (Black Locust), Ailanthus altissima (Tree of heaven) and Acer platanoides (Norway Maple). City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Falls Park Apartments, 121-125 Lake Street Date Created: 11/16/2018, Updated 12/12/18 5 The applicant proposes an increase of approximately 0.14 acre of landscaped areas following site redevelopment. Plantings include deciduous shade trees, multi-stem ornamental trees/shrubs, deciduous shrubs/perennials, and mixed perennials and groundcover plantings. A detailed site planting plan and planting schedule was provided as Figure L4.01 as part of the applicant’s site plan submission dated September 2018. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to plants and animals is anticipated. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The project site is located in an urbanized area, and there are no agricultural resources located in proximity to the project site. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact agricultural resources is anticipated. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES The project site is visible from the public right-of-way used for routine, multi-modal travel by area residents. The project aims to enhance viewing of scenic resources (i.e., Fall Creek) through construction of a publicly accessible overlook. For discussion/additional information needed Need a better understanding of how much of the project will be visible from Fall Creek and Cornell Height’s Historic District. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project site is located on an area that has experienced significant prior disturbance. Furthermore, there are no sites, districts or buildings listed or on the State and National Register of Historic Places substantially contiguous to the project site. The site is located in proximity to the Cornell Heights Historic District. For discussion Need to determine whether or not project will be visible from the Cornell Heights Historic District. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION The site is an existing brownfield site with limited public access. The project proposes to enhance public access to Fall Creek by proposing construction of a pathway and overlook. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact open space and recreational resources is anticipated. For discussion/additional information needed Will the project be visible from Fall Creek (classified as a Wild and Scenic River) City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Falls Park Apartments, 121-125 Lake Street Date Created: 11/16/2018, Updated 12/12/18 6 IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS There are no Critical Environmental Areas located within the City of Ithaca. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to critical environmental areas is anticipated. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION According to the site plan submitted September 14, 2018, the project proposes 85 parking spaces to accommodate residents. In addition, the project plans improvements to the existing easterly drive. A Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”), dated June 13, 2018 and prepared by SRF Associates, was submitted by the applicant. The study includes a sight distance evaluation to identify the required Stopping Sight Distance (“SSD”) and Intersection Sight Distance (“ISD”) for the proposed access drive location. Findings indicate that the available sight distances at the proposed access drive location exceed the required SSD in both directions. The ISD is met to the west of the project site but is deficient to the east of the project site. Community members have expressed some concern regarding how sight distance will be impacted by construction of the retaining wall proposed for the site. According to the study, the Average Daily Traffic along Lake Street in front of the project site is approximately 3,075 vehicles per day. Estimated site generated traffic during morning peak hours is anticipated to be additional five (5) entering cars and 10 exiting cars. During the evening peak, it is estimated that 11 cars will enter and nine (9) will exit the site. There will be temporary transportation impacts during the construction period. The project is intended to be constructed in a single phase. According to information provided by the applicant in the September 14, 2018 submission: “All access to the east parcel will be from Lake Street. Access to the City-owned parcel for construction of the elevated public walkway located within the dedicated open space is anticipated to occur primarily from the east parcel and Lake Street. Work located within the City right-of-way that will require street permits from the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works include: new curbs, asphalt patch, two curb cuts, asphalt driveways, concrete public sidewalk and stairs, handrails, and a small quarry block retaining wall. Construction vehicles with regional northern and southern points of origin and destination will follow Lake Street west from the redevelopment site, connecting via East Shore Drive to State Route 13 and proceeding northeast towards I-81 (connecting to the interstate at Cortland).” According to the applicant, an estimated 3,675 cubic yards of material is proposed to be removed as part of remediation efforts. The number of trucks required for soil removal will depend on the moisture content of the soil. Assuming an average of 12 CY per truck, approximately 300 trucks are anticipated for brownfield soil removals. City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Falls Park Apartments, 121-125 Lake Street Date Created: 11/16/2018, Updated 12/12/18 7 The applicant should provide information about hauling route to remove soils from the site as well as routes and times for construction deliveries. The applicant should also provide information on construction staging. IMPACT ON ENERGY The applicant has provided the following information related to on-site energy utilization in the site plan submitted September 14, 2018: Electrical The electrical design shall be based on the following: Electric service provided by the local utility company; Each apartment is separately metered from a utility meter. An unmetered service will be provided for this need. Individual electric meters for each apartment will encourage more accountability among tenants and their energy usage. This will help to increase the overall building efficiency; and A separate metered electric service for house loads such as common spaces, garage, corridors, stairwells, amenity spaces, and the sort. On-Site Power Generation An on-site power plant will be provided to support the facility in the event of a power outage. The generator will be provided with a weather protective assembly, subbase fuel tank sized to support the facility for 24 hours at full load, and critical silencing type muffler to minimize sound. Loads supported by the generator set includes Emergency Systems, fire pump (if required), and Legally Required Standby Systems. Only one elevator will be powered during utility outage. Lighting Lighting throughout the building will be LED fixtures. Eight Approximately 14-foot high contemporary pole-mounted area lights will be sited around the surface parking area and near the southern entrance driveway to the basement level parking garage to illuminate primary vehicular circulation routes and the general vicinity nearest the surface parking lot. Supplemental low-level path lighting is proposed to be mounted to a cheek wall that runs the length of the primary sidewalk on the east of the building and the west side of the surface parking lot. Natural Gas Natural gas is available at the site and will be provided for the two rooftop units and amenity fireplace. For discussion/additional information needed Need more information related to energy conservation methods and compliance with Tompkins County Energy Recommendations for New Construction. City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Falls Park Apartments, 121-125 Lake Street Date Created: 11/16/2018, Updated 12/12/18 8 IMPACT ON NOISE, ODOR & LIGHT According the site plan review application provided by the applicant construction will last approximately 20 months. The project is located in an urban, residential area. Noise producing construction activities will temporarily impact residents in the immediate area. Noise producing construction activity will be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Site lighting may cast light onto adjoining properties. The project proposes to incorporate LED light fixtures as the exterior light source. The introduction of site lighting is anticipated to have a small impact on the area, and a final lighting plan will be submitted for site plan review. For discussion/additional information needed Need to determine light impacts from the building (large area of glass fenestration proposed) to surrounding residential and recreational uses. IMPACT ON HUMAN HEALTH The site is currently undergoing remediation for lead contamination, PAHs, and select VOCs in both the soil and groundwater. Proposed future use is a higher density residential apartment complex. Institutional (e.g., deed restriction) and engineering controls (e.g., soil vapor intrusion mitigation measures) will be required for residential occupancy of the site. Garage ventilation measures are proposed to minimize exposure to vapors. Remediation completed as part of site redevelopment is anticipated to have a net positive impact on human health and minimize exposure to any residual contamination. Brownfield Site Contamination The project site includes a 1.63 acre site consisting of two separate parcels: the eastern parcel being the site of the main operations of Ithaca Gun Company, and the smaller, western parcel containing the former boiler. Immediate adjacent to the project site is a parcel that was conveyed to the City of Ithaca (0.95 acre). City-Owned Property The City of Ithaca’s adjacent property, on which the public walkway will be installed, was remediated through the Environmental Restoration Program (“ERP”). Remediation was completed by the City with NYSDEC and NYSDOH oversight in 2017. At the conclusion of the program, the City was required to establish a NYSDEC approved Site Management Plan (“SMP”), outlining required institutional controls as well as required inspections, monitoring, maintenance and reporting activities as part of plan implementation. An Environmental Easement was granted for the property on December 8, 2016, in accordance to Article 71 Title 36 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and states: The controlled property may be used for Restricted Residential as described in 6 NYCRR Part 375-1.8(g)(2)(ii), Commercial as described in 6 NYCRR Part 375-1.8(g)(2)(iii) and Industrial as described in 6 NYCRR Part 375-1.8(g)(2)(iv). Project Site A Remedial Investigation Report (“RIR”) was completed by IFR Development, LLC and is currently under review by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) in consultation with the New City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Falls Park Apartments, 121-125 Lake Street Date Created: 11/16/2018, Updated 12/12/18 9 York State Department of Health (“NYSDOH”). Based on findings of the investigation, it has been identified that the primary contaminant of concern in surface and subsurface soils is lead, however polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (“PAHs”) and polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) have also been detected in isolated areas and will require cleanup. According to the August 2018 BCP Fact Sheet prepared by the NYSDEC: NYSDEC will complete its review, make any necessary revisions and, if appropriate, approve the investigation report. The approved report will then be made available to the public. The applicant may then develop a cleanup plan, called a ‘Remedial Work Plan.’ This plan describes how contamination will be addressed, with NYSDEC and NYSDOH overseeing the work. NYSDEC will present the draft cleanup plan to the public for its review and comment during the 45-day comment period. NYSDEC will keep the public informed throughout the investigation and cleanup of the site. Waiting on NYSDEC review of RIR The applicant provided supplemental project information on November 27, 2018, estimating approximately 3,675 cubic yards of material to be removed as part of brownfield remediation efforts. See also sections on Impacts to Groundwater, and Impacts to Air. The Lead Agency recognizes that any determination regarding the site remediation, the standard to which clean-up is required for the intended end-use, and the how remediation will be carried out, is under the jurisdiction of NYSDEC and the NYS Department of Health. This project cannot be implemented until NYSDEC and NYSDOH determine that the site has been remediated to the required standard for the proposed use. CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY PLANS The project requires several variances due deficient yard setbacks that result from a portion of the original property being dedicated to the City as open space. The project is located in an urbanized area and located in proximity to other higher density residential uses, and supports the Comprehensive Plan by providing affordable housing. In addition, the project intends to enhance and protect environmental quality through site remediation. According to additional information provided by the applicant, project sewer loads are anticipated to be 11,340 gallons per day. In a letter dated November 27, 2018, the city engineer indicated that they ran the demand scenario in their water model, and the results confirmed that there is more than adequate capacity in the existing downstream sewer system and water distribution system to support the proposed development. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to community plans is anticipated. City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Falls Park Apartments, 121-125 Lake Street Date Created: 11/16/2018, Updated 12/12/18 10 CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY CHARACTER The site at 121-125 Lake Street is currently vacant, and the project proposes to construct a 133,000 square foot structure on-site. Although this is in contrast to existing conditions, historically the site was used for industrial purposes and supported structures comparable to that proposed. The proposed residential development is in an area of the City that has historic and emerging residential uses. The project does not propose to replace any facilities or areas of historic importance to the community. The architectural scale and character of the proposed development is anticipated to have a small impact, and will be addressed and mitigated throughout the site plan review process. Need description from applicant of proposed building and site materials. Prepared by: Lisa Nicholas, AICP, and revised by the Planning Board PROPOSED RESOLUTION CEQR Negative Declaration Site Plan Review Maguire Ford Lincoln Additions &Improvements 504 S Meadow Street City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board December 18, 2018 WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for two new additions and site improvements for the car dealership at 504 S Meadow Street by John Snyder Architects on behalf of the owner,Maguire Family Limited Partnership,and WHEREAS:the applicant proposes to demolish a portion of the existing building and construct two additions with updated exterior materials.The existing building is 18,500 GSF, with 2,265 GSF proposed for demolition.The new building will be 24,110 GSF. Site improvements include incorporation of a new pedestrian walking path, and site connections to Wegmans.Approximately 311 parking spaces are proposed to accommodate customer,service parking,employee,and display parking.The project site is located in the SW-2 Zone, is subject to the 2000 Southwest Design Guidelines,and will require a zoning variance for a front yard that exceeds the maximum permissible in the SW-2 district (34 feet maximum permitted,69-feet,3-inch setback proposed),and WHEREAS:this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO")and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA");however, it will be treated as a Type I Action for the purpose of environmental review, and WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Planning Board,being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on November 27, 2018 declare itself the Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project,and WHEREAS:the Planning Board,acting as Lead Agency in environmental review,has on December 18, 2018 reviewed and accepted as adequate:A Full Environmental Assessment Form ("FEAF"),Part 1, submitted by the applicant,and Parts 2 and 3,prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board;the following drawings "Context Map,""Zoning Map and Analysis,""Survey,""Existing Conditions Plan,""Site Demolition and Erosion Control Plan,""Layout &Materials Plan,""Grading & Drainage Plan,""Greenspace Plan","Planting Plan,""Site Details,""Rendered Site Plan,""East & West Rendered Elevations,"''North &South Rendered Elevations,"and Perspective View 1; all dated December 5,2018,and prepared by John Snyder Architects et. aI., and, WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Parks,Recreation,and Natural Resources Commission has been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered,and WHEREAS:the Planning Board,acting as Lead Agency,has determined,as more clearly explained in Part 3,that the applicant has mitigated any potential negative impacts of the project to the maximum extent practicable,and,now,therefore,he it RESOL VED:that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Moved by: Seconded by: In Favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 - Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts and Determination of Significance Part 3 provides the reasons in support of the determination of significance. The lead agency must complete Part 3 for every question in Part 2 where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact. Based on the analysis in Part 3, the lead agency must decide whether to require an environmental impact statement to further assess the proposed action or whether available information is sufficient for the lead agency to conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. By completing the certification on the next page, the lead agency can complete its determination of significance. Reasons Supporting This Determination: To complete this section: Identify the impact based on the Part 2 responses and describe its magnitude. Magnitude considers factors such as severity, size or extent of an impact. Assess the importance of the impact. Importance relates to the geographic scope, duration, probability of the impact occurring, number of people affected by the impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to occur. The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project changes. Repeat this process for each Part 2 question where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact. Provide the reason(s) why the impact may, or will not, result in a significant adverse environmental impact For Conditional Negative Declarations identify the specific condition(s) imposed that will modify the proposed action so that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result. Attach additional sheets, as needed. Determination of Significance - Type 1 and Unlisted Actions SEQR Status: Type 1 Unlisted Identify portions of EAF completed for this Project: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 "HFODZ6TF0OMZ<*G"QQMJDBCMF> 1SPKFDU %BUF See attached narrative. 504 S meadow Stree 12-18-18 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, plus this additional support information and considering both the magnitude and importance of each identified potential impact, it is the conclusion of the as lead agency that: A. This project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. B. Although this project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, that impact will be avoided or substantially mitigated because of the following conditions which will be required by the lead agency: There will, therefore, be no significant adverse impacts from the project as conditioned, and, therefore, this conditioned negative declaration is issued. A conditioned negative declaration may be used only for UNLISTED actions (see 6 NYCRR 617.d). C. This Project may result in one or more significant adverse impacts on the environment, and an environmental impact statement must be prepared to further assess the impact(s) and possible mitigation and to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce those impacts. Accordingly, this positive declaration is issued. Name of Action: Name of Lead Agency: Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Title of Responsible Officer: Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Date: Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer) Date: For Further Information: Contact Person: Address: Telephone Number: E-mail: For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a copy of this Notice is sent to: Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located (e.g., Town / City / Village of) Other involved agencies (if any) Applicant (if any) Environmental Notice Bulletin: http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/enb.html 1BHFPG The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board PRINT FULL FORM City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Maguire Lincoln, 504 S. Meadow St. Date Created: 11/16/2018 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to demolish a portion of the existing building and construct two additions with updated exterior materials. The existing building is 18,500 GSF, with 2,265 GSF proposed for demolition. The new building will be 24,110 GSF. Site improvements include incorporation of a new pedestrian walking path, and site connections to Wegmans. Approximately 311 parking spaces are proposed to accommodate customer, service parking, employee, and display parking. Landscape design will improve vegetative cover; however, it will not meet the City of Ithaca’s impervious/pervious requirements (12%). The project site is located in the SW-2 Zone, is subject to the 2000 Southwest Design Guidelines, and will require a zoning variance for a front yard that exceeds the maximum permissible in the SW-2 district (34 feet maximum permitted, 69-feet 3-inch setback proposed). This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”); however, it will be treated as a Type I Action for the purpose of environmental review. IMPACT ON LAND The 3.106 acre project site is located in a commercial corridor in the southwest portion of the City of Ithaca, and is the site of an existing car dealership owned and maintained by the project applicant. Approximately 2.93 acres (94 percent) of the site is currently dedicated to roads, buildings, and other paved or impervious surfaces. The original proposal had a net increase of greenspace of 1,925 SF. This resulted in a change from the existing of 7,849 SF (5.8%) to 9,774 SF (7.2%), which was below the minimum 12% required and the 25% recommended. The applicant has revised the proposal from the original to include more greenspace. The greenspace plan dated December 5, 2018 shows a total of 16,234 SF of greenspace (922 SF of which is walkways and 15,312 of which is landscaping), meeting the minimum requirement of 12% over the 135,288 SF site. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to land is anticipated. IMPACT ON GEOLOGIC FEATURES There are no unique or unusual land forms on the site that will be impacted as part of the project. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to geologic features is anticipated. IMPACT ON SURFACE WATER The project is located in a built-out urban area and is not located contiguous or in proximity to any water features. Furthermore, construction will disturb less than an acre of land and therefore a SWPPP will not be required for the project. Nevertheless, there are areas of poor drainage on site. The Lead Agency encourages the applicant to grade the disturbed areas such that sheet drainage is directed towards the landscaped areas. City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Maguire Lincoln, 504 S. Meadow St. Date Created: 11/16/2018 2 The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to surface water is anticipated. IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER The project proposes continuation of the site’s use as a car dealership, with demolition of an old portion of the building and two new additions proposed. The operation will not generate new demand for water resources, and proposes to modestly reduce impervious surface cover with the addition of planting islands and/or landscaping. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to groundwater is anticipated. IMPACT ON FLOODING A portion of the project is located within the 100-year floodplain, which includes the proposed service drive bay addition. The applicant has met with the City of Ithaca’s Building Department and additionally proposes to meet ASCE 24 Flood Resistant Design and Construction requirements for the portion of the project located within the floodplain. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to flooding is anticipated. IMPACTS ON AIR According to information provided by the applicant, construction is projected to last approximately 7 months. Excavation and preparation of foundations creates the potential for increased airborne dust and dirt particles. Impacts to air quality will be limited to the period associated with construction activities. During construction, the applicant will employ the following applicable dust control measures, as appropriate: Misting or fog spraying the site to minimize dust; Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site; Re-seeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils; Keeping roads clear of dust and debris; Requiring trucks to be covered; Prohibiting burning of debris on site. The Lead Agency has determined that with the mitigation measures during construction identified above, no significant impact to air is anticipated. IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS According to the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper, there are no rare or significant plant or animal communities located on or around the project site. In addition, the Environmental Resource Mapper does not identify any rare plant or animal species on or around the project site. City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Maguire Lincoln, 504 S. Meadow St. Date Created: 11/16/2018 3 The Northern long-eared bat is a federally listed threatened species that is known to be located in the northeastern portion of the United States, including portions of New York State. The habitat for this species is generally in forested areas. Given that the project site is located in a developed urban area with limited forestation on the project site, it is unlikely the project (i.e., construction activities) will impact this species. The applicant has revised the proposal from the original to include more greenspace. The greenspace plan dated December 5, 2018 shows a total of 16,234 SF of greenspace (922 SF of which is walkways and 15,312 of which is landscaping), meeting the minimum requirement of 12% over the 135,288 SF site. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to plants and animals is anticipated. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The project site is located in an urbanized area, and there are no agricultural resources located in proximity to the project site. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact on agricultural resources is anticipated. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES The project site is visible from the public right-of-way used for routine, multi-modal travel by area residents, and is an existing use proposed for continuation. The remainder of the corridor is commercial in nature, and there are no known listed or locally recognized aesthetic resources in the vicinity of the project. See also section on Community Character. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact on aesthetic resources is anticipated. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project site is located on an area that has experienced significant prior disturbance. Furthermore, there are no sites, districts or buildings listed or on the State and National Register of Historic Places substantially contiguous to the project site. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to historic and archaeological resources is anticipated. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION The project is an expansion of an existing car dealership, on a site already being used as such. The project does not propose to impact any open space or recreational resources. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to open space and recreational resources is anticipated. City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Maguire Lincoln, 504 S. Meadow St. Date Created: 11/16/2018 4 IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS There are no Critical Environmental Areas located within the City of Ithaca. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to critical environmental areas is anticipated. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION According to the site plan submitted October 26, 2018: “We’re planning on providing a new parking configuration and striping layout to portions of the site along with a new sidewalk inside the lot to the north side of the building. This sidewalk will provide a new walk path for customers to view cars and also connect the service area of the building for the many customers who walk to the site to/from Wegmans. We are currently showing a total of +/- 311 total parking spaces for customer, service parking, employee and display car parking. Parking quantity is driven by Ford Corporate requirements.” There will be temporary transportation impacts during the construction period, which has an anticipated completion date of September 2019. The amount of available on-site parking will remain substantially the same as existing conditions. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to transportation is anticipated. IMPACT ON ENERGY According to site plan information provided by the applicant on October 26, 2018, construction of the additions will consist of the following: “[The JSA] team is led by a sustainably focused and LEED accredited mechanical engineers. The design goal of the new mechanical system is to design an energy efficient system replacing current inefficient systems. Our engineers are currently working on the new system design.” The internal layout of the building will be reorganized to improve employee flow, and will include expansion of second floor offices, new customer bathrooms and new parts of customer waiting areas. In addition, according to the applicant: “The project involves the renovation and replacement of existing systems we are unclear to what extent the existing systems will remain or whether they will be replaced …. Areas such as the service bay area will likely require modification of existing gas fired units. Our engineering team is currently evaluating the existing MEP systems and providing recommendations to the Owner.” The applicant has identified the potential to incorporate solar panels on the existing service bay structure. This consideration would require additional structural investigation and possibly a separate structural “dunnage frame” system above the roof to support the load. This design feature would further help the project comply with the Tompkins County Recommendations for New Construction. City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Maguire Lincoln, 504 S. Meadow St. Date Created: 11/16/2018 5 In addition, the additions are proposed to meet or exceed the Energy Code of New York State requirements. The applicant proposes to utilize continuous insulation wall systems for the exterior metal panel wall, and LED lighting and control systems at new installations. In addition, the project team is currently evaluating the existing MEP systems and providing recommendations to the owner to improve energy efficiency. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to energy is anticipated. IMPACT ON NOISE, ODOR & LIGHT According the site plan review application provided by the applicant, construction will last approximately 7 months. The project is located in an urban, commercial area. Noise impacts during construction are anticipated, and will be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday, as specified by the applicant. Paving and concrete installation work are anticipated to produce odors that may exceed more than one hour per day, but will be limited and diminish in the evening and once that scope of construction is completed. Following construction, noise impacts will be limited to heavy equipment operation, deliveries, customer and employee cars, inventory test drives and storage. These noises are consistent with current use of the property and will not be elevated above existing levels. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impact to noise, odor and light is anticipated. IMPACT ON HUMAN HEALTH The project site has no known history of potential contamination, nor is it within 2,000 feet of any site in the New York State Environmental Site Remediation Database. Therefore, construction activities are not anticipated to involve the handling or transport of any hazardous materials. If there are asbestos-containing materials involved with the demolition of the portion of the building slated for demolition, the removal and disposal of such materials will be done by a NYS licensed professional. Project operations will not involve the generation, storage, handling or disposal of hazardous materials and will not store quantities of natural gas or other flammable liquids. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, no significant impacts to human health are anticipated as a result of this project. CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY PLANS The east addition proposed for the building will require a zoning variance due to a front yard setback that exceeds the maximum specified for the district. The addition will bring the building six feet closer to the street, but is estimated to have a setback of 69-feet, 3-inches, compared to the required maximum of 34 feet required for the district. City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – Part III Project Name: Maguire Lincoln, 504 S. Meadow St. Date Created: 11/16/2018 6 The project is subject to the Southwest Area Design Guidelines. In application materials dated October 26, 2018 with a latest revision date of December 5, 2018, the applicant has outlined how the most current elevations of December 5, 2018 comply with the most of the guidelines and identified following they were unable to meet completely: • Primary exterior materials for commercial buildings are limited to masonry, including brick, stone, and block on all elevations. Applicant response: The applicant is proposing one type of masonry for the watercourse, the remainder of the building matches the Ford branding requirements, which do not include a masonry element. • Buildings should have at least two masonry types or colors used on its primary façade. The base of buildings should include a "watercourse" 18" in height of concrete or masonry on all facades. Applicant response: The applicant is proposing a partial watercourse on all new portions of the building. • Masonry pilasters and/or bays should occur every 40' horizontally and 20' vertically. Projections should be at least 3". Masonry projections should occur on all facades. Applicant response: The applicant is proposing additional windows and a green wall in lieu of this requirement. The Lead Agency has determined that based on the information above, the applicant has substantially met the Southwest Design Guidelines and, therefore, does not identify any conflict with community plans as a result of this project. Prepared by: Lisa Nicholas, AICP, Senior Planner and revised by the Planning Board John Snyder Architects, PLLC | 700 Cascadilla Street ‐ Suite 203 | Ithaca, NY 14850 | P. 607.273.3565 Date: October 26, 2018 (revised 11/27/2018) (revised 12/05/2018) Gino Leonardi City of Ithaca | Zoning Administrator 108 E. Green St. 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850 Lisa Nicholas City of Ithaca | Division of Planning and Economic Development 108 E. Green Street, 3rd Floor Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Re: Maguire Family of Dealerships ‐ Ford Dealership Additions and Improvements (304 Meadow Street, City of Ithaca, NY) Dear Gino, Lisa and Board of Zoning Appeals and Planning and Development Board members, We are pleased to be submitting the Maguire Family of Dealerships addition and improvement project to the Ford Dealership located at 504 S Meadow Street, Ithaca, NY. This project will improve the site, exterior appearance and interior design of the building. This improvement is driven by internal programmatic needs and Ford corporate dealership requirements. Although this project will not be constructed utilizing United Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED Standards we will employ sustainable design principles as we do with all John Snyder Architects (JSA) designed projects. This project will meet or exceed New York State Building / Energy Code and City of Ithaca Green Building Policy requirements. Our narrative and detailed description of the project is as follows: Building design: The project entails additions and renovations to the interior of the building to meet Ford corporate and customer experience requirements. We will also be reorganizing the internal layout to better serve customers and make the internal employee flow more efficient including expansion of second floor offices, new customer bathrooms and new parts and customer waiting areas. The additions encompass the following: A. West addition: This includes a service drive through addition to the rear (west side) of the building including the expansion of the existing second floor for additional offices displaced from the first Maguire Family of Dealerships ‐ Ford Dealership Additions and Improvements Page 2 of 11 floor. This addition replaces an existing canopy (open air) structure currently used for car parking. The first floor will be renovated to include a new service waiting area for customers. B. East and North Addition: This includes expansion of the showroom end of the building (north and east side) aligning the building with the existing service bay portion of the building currently located on the south side of the building. Also included in this addition is a new entrance to the showroom meeting Ford corporate branding requirements. The east addition will bring the building face approximately six feet closer to Meadow street however given site constraints we will not meet the City of Ithaca zoning requirements for this required front yard setback. A zoning variance is being requested for this deficiency. C. The exterior appearance: Ford Corporate requirements dictate new metal exterior panels that will encompass all sides of the building differentiating the showroom (north side) from the service side of the building with differing types of metal panels. The showroom addition also includes the new Ford “foil” curved form vestibule. This will transform the exterior appearance of the building making the exterior of this “utilitarian” car dealership into a modern, contemporary car showroom and service center. Structural Design: Elwyn and Palmer are the structural engineers for this project. The building additions will be steel framed with new concrete slab / foundation supporting structure. The existing steel frame will be modified as needed for new connections. The existing west “canopy” addition will be completely removed with the existing structural waffle slab left in place for the new west addition to be erected partially over top. Mechanical System Design: The JSA internal engineering team is working on the mechanical system design. This team is led by sustainably focused and LEED accredited mechanical engineers. The design goal of the new mechanical system is to design an energy efficient system replacing current inefficient systems. Our engineers are currently working on the new system design. Electrical / Data System Design: The JSA internal engineering team is working on the electrical system design. This new design provides for the relocation of internal outlet and devices and provision for new outlets and data outlets to meet requirements established Ford Corporate requirements. No new service utility company upgrades are required. Our engineers are currently working on the new system design. Plumbing System Design: The JSA internal engineering team is working engineering team on the plumbing system modifications. The internal layout requires removal of existing customer bathrooms and provision of new bathrooms at the rear (west addition) of the building. All new plumbing will connect to existing supply and waste lines currently in place inside the building. No City of Ithaca or connections to Meadow Street are needed for this project. Our engineers are currently working on the new system design. Maguire Family of Dealerships ‐ Ford Dealership Additions and Improvements Page 3 of 11 Site / Civil Design: Our team is working with the Saratoga Associates on the site and civil engineering portion of the building. The disturbance for this project is less than an acre (refer to attached drawings). We are planning on providing a new parking configuration and striping layout to portions of the site along with a new sidewalk inside the lot to the north side of the building. This sidewalk will provide a new walk path for customers to view cars and connecting the service area of the building for the many customers who walk to the site to / from Wegmans. We are currently showing a total of +/‐311 total parking spaces for customer, service parking, employee and display car parking. Parking quantity is driven by Ford Corporate requirements. We will employ all protections required for existing storm water during construction as dictated by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. A portion of the site is located within the 100‐year flood plain with the service drive bay addition located within this area. We have met with the City of Ithaca Building Department and we will meet ASCE 24 Flood Resistant Design and Construction requirements for this portion of the building inside the flood plain. Landscape Architecture: Our team is working with the Saratoga Associates on the landscape architecture design for the project. We will be providing an improvement over the existing site conditions with the provision of new tree planting islands within our work areas and new islands within the current parking lot. Existing trees and plantings within our construction zone as required by City of Ithaca requirements. We have revised our site plan and planting plan. The landscape design will be vastly improved and meet minimum landscape requirements dictated by City of Ithaca (12%). Schedule: Our team is working with Ford corporate to meet established deadlines necessary for this project. Because of these aggressive deadlines we will need to work collaboratively with the City of Ithaca, Planning Board and Board of Zoning Appeals on the building and site design components of this building. Unfortunately, these deadlines are strict, and we have little room for extension. Our current schedule is as follows: A. Ford final design acceptance is currently underway, and we are expecting final approvals in January 2019. B. After Ford corporate approvals we will be issuing drawings for invited contractor bidding. We are expecting to send this out no later than February 2019. C. We desire to seek a building permit in early spring (March) 2019. D. Construction must be complete and final occupancy by September 2019. Given these required deadlines and the fact the Board of Zoning Appeals is not having a December 2018 (and a January meeting) we will be seeking guidance from the City of Ithaca in order to dovetail all variance and site plan approvals required in order for this project to proceed and meet required internal schedules. Maguire Family of Dealerships ‐ Ford Dealership Additions and Improvements Page 4 of 11 Conclusion: The renovations and improvements to this site will change and improve the exterior and site design of this site creating a modern iconic building we will all be proud of. These improvements will require a collaborative approach and we are open and willing to work closely together with the City to achieve approvals given the aggressive schedule required for this project. Thank you for your time reviewing our application and zoning appeals. We look forward to working with the City on this important project. Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns and we look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, John Snyder AIA, NCIDQ, LEED AP President and Design Principal Attachments: SPR Application Owner Authorization NYS FEAF – Part 1 Zoning Analysis Area Chart Drawings o Context Map – Prepared by John Snyder Architects o Zoning Map – Prepared by John Snyder Architects o Survey – Prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. Engineers and Surveyors o Existing Conditions Plan – Prepared by Saratoga Associates (revised 12/5/2018) o Site Demolition & Erosion Control Plan – Prepared by Saratoga Associates (revised 12/5/2018) o Layout & Materials Plan – Prepared by Saratoga Associates (revised 12/5/2018) o Grading & Drainage Plan – Prepared by Saratoga Associates (revised 12/5/2018) o Planting Plan – Prepared by Saratoga Associates (revised 12/5/2018) o Site Details – Prepared by Saratoga Associates (revised 12/5/2018) o Rendered Site Plan – Prepared by Saratoga Associates (revised 12/5/2018) o Rendered Elevations – Prepared by John Snyder Architects (revised 12/5/2018) o Perspective 1 – Prepared by John Snyder Architects (revised 12/5/2018) o Perspective 2 – Prepared by John Snyder Architects o Perspective 3 – Prepared by John Snyder Architects o Perspective 4 – Prepared by John Snyder Architects o Attachment A – Response to Southwest Planning Guidelines o Attachment B – Response to Tompkins County Recommendations for New Construction o Material Board Sample (submitted 12/5/2018) Maguire Family of Dealerships ‐ Ford Dealership Additions and Improvements Page 5 of 11 Attachment A: Building Design as it relates to the Southwest Planning Guidelines A. Primary exterior materials for commercial buildings are limited to masonry, including brick, stone, and block on all elevations; Buildings should have at least two masonry types or colors used on its primary facade; The base of buildings should include a "watercourse" 18" in height of concrete or masonry on all facades; Response: The existing building is a rigid frame building originally constructed in 1983 with an addition constructed in 1999. We will be installing a 4’‐0” tall masonry watertable on portions of the new addition on the North and West Façade. The metal siding on the service bay area of the building will be replaced with new metal siding. Given the way this building was constructed it would be very difficult to install a masonry watertable on this portion of the building. The East and portions of the North elevations will be new facades matching Ford branding requirements. B. Masonry pilasters and/or bays should occur every 40' horizontally and 20' vertically. Projections should be at least 3". Masonry projections should occur on all facades. Response: Given the existing building constraints and the Ford branding requirements Masonry pilasters are not being implemented however we have provided additional windows as a mitigation to enliven the rear façade and a green wall as described below. C. Primary building entrances should be recessed for a full door swing or not less than 3 '‐0"; Response: We meet this requirement our front door inset is greater than 3’‐0”. Windows, awnings and arcades should not occupy less than 35% of the primary building facades with frontage on a street; i. West Elevation: Facing Wegmans – approximately 4,200 sf of wall surface with approximately 13% windows (includes doors). ii. East Elevation: Facing Meadow Street – approximately 4,164 sf of wall surface with approximately 22% windows (includes doors). iii. North Elevation: Facing Cecil Malone Drive ‐ Response: approximately 3,690 sf with approximately 29% windows. (includes doors). iv. South Elevation: Work on the building face will be the refurbishment (or more likely replacement) of the existing service bay overhead doors and exterior siding. Response: We meet this guideline. Maguire Family of Dealerships ‐ Ford Dealership Additions and Improvements Page 6 of 11 D. The design of rear elevations of all buildings should be compatible with materials used on other elevations. Response: We meet this guideline. This includes the 18" concrete or masonry "watercourse" and masonry pilasters and/or bays occurring every 40' horizontally and 20' vertically. Response: See Response to Item A and Item B above. Compliance with this may be mitigated using vegetation. Response: We are proposing areas of green wall construction on the East and West Elevations totaling approximately 1000 sf. E. Roof‐mounted equipment and mechanicals shall not be visible from any ground angle, and should be an integral part of overall architectural design with regard to form, materials and color. Penthouse structures should be used when the roof is clearly in view from the gorge trail of Buttermilk Falls State Park. Response: We will meet this guideline. Maguire Family of Dealerships ‐ Ford Dealership Additions and Improvements Page 7 of 11 Attachment B: Tompkins County Recommendations for New Construction: ENERGY STAR products include a wide range of equipment and appliances that are independently certified to save energy without sacrificing features or functionality. Water saving fixtures can reduce energy needed for hot water. Recommendations: o Require that water fixtures meet EPA’s Water Sense requirements. o Require that permanent appliances (apartment refrigerators, restaurant cooking equipment, etc.) be ENERGY STAR rated. Response: We will meet this recommendation. 3) Recent advances in heat pump design have reduced installation costs and made them more cost‐ effective than electric resistance heat, propane, and oil, and close in life cycle costs to natural gas. Use of electric heat pumps allows elimination of fossil fuels as they can be powered by renewable energy sources such as solar photovoltaic. Recommendations: o Utilize electrically‐powered heat pump systems (ground or air source heat pumps); avoid boiler‐assisted heat pump systems, avoid systems that burn fossil fuels. o Utilize air source heat pump hot water heaters. Response: This project involves the renovation and replacement of existing systems we are unclear to what extent the existing systems will remain or whether they will be replaced at this point. Areas such as the service bay area will likely require modification of existing gas fired units. Our engineering team is currently evaluating the existing MEP systems and providing recommendations to the Owner. 4) The state has a goal that 50% of NYS electricity will be generated by renewables (solar, wind, hydropower, biomass) by the year 2030. Recommendations: o Design roofs to be “solar receptive”: Maximize area available for solar collection systems. For pitched roofs, place roof‐mounted components (plumbing vents, exhaust fans, etc.) on north‐ facing roof surfaces, to keep south‐facing surfaces available for solar collection systems. Orient one roof surface to the south, plus/minus 30 degrees, to maximize potential for solar energy. Response: This project is a renovation of the existing building. The original building rigid frame building was not designed for the increased load of solar panels systems. An optimum location for solar panels would likely occur on the existing service bay structure. This would likely require additional structural investigation and possibly a separate structural “dunnage Maguire Family of Dealerships ‐ Ford Dealership Additions and Improvements Page 8 of 11 frame” system above the roof to support the load of solar panels. The new additions will be designed with this recommendation in mind. o Maximize solar collection systems on available roof areas, and consider using high‐ production solar panels to maximize solar production for a given roof area, especially for medium‐rise and high‐rise buildings. Maguire Family of Dealerships ‐ Ford Dealership Additions and Improvements Page 9 of 11 4) Energy efficient building design begins with the building envelope ‐‐ the walls, windows, foundation and roof. Recommendations: o Design to window‐to‐wall ratio less than 25% (the new energy code requires 30% or less). Keep large windows on south‐facing surfaces and important facades, minimize windows on north‐facing surfaces and in spaces which see low occupancy (stairwells, corridors, utility rooms, etc.). o Avoid unusually complex building shapes. o Use 20% more insulation R‐value than required by the energy code. o Use best practices for minimizing infiltration and stack effect, and require inspection/commissioning of these elements: vestibules at entrance doors, air sealing around window and door frames, sealing at exterior wall/floor junctions, and guarded blower door testing of individual spaces or entire building floors. Response: The additions provided to this building will meet or exceed The Energy Code of New York State requirements. We will utilize continuous insulation wall systems for the exterior metal panel wall. The JSA internal construction administration team will be engaged during construction to ensure successful implementation, inspection and commissioning of the contract documents. We recommend that all applicants for new construction of greater than 20 units also address whether they are intending to follow the recommendations under each of these three added elements. 5) Lighting controls and high‐efficiency lighting technology (such as LED or induction) offer significant benefits including greatly reduced energy use and cost, sophisticated controls, simplified maintenance and longer life. Recommendations: o Perform lighting design on a space‐by‐space basis, using the space‐by‐space lighting power density method (not the whole‐building method). Use LED lighting where possible. Design to lighting power density of 15% less than required by the energy code. o Require occupancy sensors where possible, for both indoor and outdoor lighting. Require short off‐delay (1 minute or less), and commissioning of lighting controls. Response: The additions provided to this building will meet or exceed The Energy Code of New York State requirements and we will be utilizing LED lighting and control systems at new installations. 6) High‐efficiency heating and cooling systems cost incrementally more than standard‐ efficiency but have a positive payback over their useful life. Maguire Family of Dealerships ‐ Ford Dealership Additions and Improvements Page 10 of 11 Recommendations: o Select high‐efficiency heating and cooling plants with rated efficiencies at least 15% higher than required by the energy code. o Select high‐efficiency domestic hot water (DHW) plants with rated efficiencies at least 15% higher than required by the energy code. o Avoid placing heating and cooling distribution systems in unheated spaces, such as attics, basements, etc. Give preference to systems that have efficient distribution systems and low distribution losses (for example, room‐by‐room fan coils). Response: Our engineering team is currently evaluating the existing MEP systems and providing recommendations to the Owner. We always strive to design high‐efficiency, hot water (DHW), heating and cooling systems. We are planning on locating heating and cooling systems in easy to access ”heated” spaces. o Use energy recovery ventilation systems in air‐conditioned buildings, and heat recovery ventilation systems in buildings that do not have air conditioning. Design ventilation systems separate from heating and cooling systems. Response: Our engineering team is currently evaluating the existing MEP systems and providing recommendations to the Owner. We always strive to utilize heat recovery ventilation systems wherever possible. o Assess ductwork for heating, cooling and ventilation. If leakage greater than 10% seal chases and shafts with aerosol duct sealing process. Response: Our engineering team is currently evaluating the existing MEP systems and providing recommendations to the Owner. Existing ductwork will not be reused in the North side of the building with provisions for new efficient ductwork. o Select heating/cooling systems that allow thermal zoning on a space‐by‐space basis. Response: Our engineering team is currently evaluating the existing MEP systems and providing recommendations to the Owner. We always strive to utilize thermal zoning of spaces wherever feasible and possible. 7) Whole building energy models can allow you to dramatically reduce energy costs, reduce carbon emissions and even reduce some construction costs. Recommendation: o Employ whole building energy modeling to optimize building energy performance. Response: The additions provided to this building will meet or exceed The Energy Code of New York State requirements Maguire Family Limited Partnership: Maguire Ford-Lincoln 504 S. Meadow Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 December 5th, 2018 Permit No: 38012 © 2018 John Snyder Architect, PLLC Rendered Site Plan Scale: 1” = 30’-0” Maguire Family Limited Partnership: Maguire Ford-Lincoln 504 S. Meadow Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 December 5th, 2018 Permit No: 38012 © 2018 John Snyder Architect, PLLC TRTRTRTRTRTR W W 30.0'±1.7'±1.0'±WW W W 3.8'±44.3'±113.4'±73.3'±384.5 385.0 385.5 386.0386.5386.03 8 5 . 5 384.5 385.0 38 5 . 0385.5385.0386.0386.0388.5386.5384.5388.5 386.0 385.5385.538 6 . 0 38 7 . 0 3 8 7 . 0 386.5 Existing Conditions Plan L100 NOTES: 1.) HORIZONTAL DATUM OF MAPPING IS APPROXIMATE NAD 83 AND VERTICAL DATUM IS APPROXIMATE NGVD29. 2.) UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS, FIELD LOCATIONS OF ABOVE GROUND STRUCTURES AND ANY MARKINGS PROVIDED BY THE UTILITY AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THESE LOCATIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE. THERE MAY BE OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND/OR STRUCTURES, THE LOCATION AND EXISTENCE OF WHICH IS NOT PRESENTLY KNOWN. LOCATIONS, SIZES AND MATERIALS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AS NOTED ABOVE. VERIFY ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION. 3.) IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE CONTENTS OF THE SIGNED AND SEALED HARD COPY DRAWING AND THE CORRESPONDING DIGITAL DRAWING FILE, THE HARD COPY WITH AN ORIGINAL STAMP AND SIGNATURE SHALL BE THE CONTROLLING DOCUMENT. DOWN SPOUT ENTRANCE ELEVATION SIGN DECIDUOUS TREE FIRE HYDRANT LIGHT POLE UTILITY POLE GAS VALVE WATER VALVE SANITARY SEWER MAIN UNDERGROUND TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANHOLE CATCH BASIN UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC STORM SEWER MAIN GAS MAIN WATER MAIN LEGEND: OVERHEAD WIRES CLEANOUT GUY WIRE SHRUB TELEPHONE PEDESTAL IRON PIN FOUND CALCULATED POINT EXISTING DITCH PROPERTY LINE MAP REFERENCES; 1.)"UFAIR REALTY CORPORATION..." DATED 2/2/1983 BY GEORGE SCHLECHT. 2.)"SURVEY MAP No. 504 SOUTH MEADOW STREET..." DATED 8/25/2016 BY T.G. MILLER P.C. 700 Cascadilla St Suite 203 Ithaca, NY 14850 P: 607.273.3565 www.js-architects.com DRAWINGS ALTERATION NOTICE: It is a violation of Section 69.5b of the New York State Education Department for any person, unless acting under the direction of the licensed architect, to alter this item in any way. If an item bearing the seal of the architect is altered the architect shall affix their seal and the notation "altered by" followed by the architect's signature, date of alteration, and a specific description of the alteration. COPYRIGHT: All production and intellectual property rights reserved. © Copyright 2018 John Snyder Architects, PLLC 2 2 1 1 A B C D PROJ # E F G H 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maguire Ford - Lincoln Site Plan Review 12/05/2018 504 S Meadow St. Ithaca, NY 14850 1905A Addendum Schedule NOTE: THIS SURVEY MAP PREPARED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE PROVIDED, SUBJECT TO ANY STATE OF FACT THAT AN UPDATED ABSTRACT OF TITLE MAY SHOW. Existing Conditions Plan Scale: Adjusted to 1” = 40’-0” Maguire Family Limited Partnership: Maguire Ford-Lincoln 504 S. Meadow Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 December 5th, 2018 Permit No: 38012 © 2018 John Snyder Architect, PLLC TRTRTRTRTRTR W W 30.0'±1.7'±1.0'±WW W W 3.8'±44.3'±113.4'±73.3'±384.5 385.0 385.5 386.0386.5386.03 8 5 . 5 384.5 385.0 38 5 . 0385.5385.0386.0386.0388.5386.5384.5388.5 386.0 385.5385.53 8 6 . 0 38 7 . 0 3 8 7 . 0 REMOVE EXTERIOR WALL 2 L600 L600 L600 CLEAR DRAINAGE STRUCTURE SAWCUT REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND SUBBASE REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND SUBBASE REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND SUBBASE SAWCUTSAWCUT INLET PROTECTION REMOVE RR TIE WALL AND TREES INLET PROTECTION REMOVE RR TIE WALL AND TREES REMOVE RR TIE WALL AND TREES SEDIMENT CONTROL FENCE REMOVE RR TIE WALL AND TREES REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT AND SUBBASE REMOVE ROOF STRUCTURE REMOVE STEEL PIERS 1 2 CLEAR DRAINAGE STRUCTURE CLEAR DRAINAGE STRUCTURE CLEAR DRAINAGE STRUCTURE CLEAR DRAINAGE STRUCTURE RELOCATE SIGN REMOVE CONCRETE WALKS RELOCATE SIGN STRIP TOPSOIL, REMOVE VEGETATION REMOVE CONCRETE WALKS RELOCATE SIGN REMOVE CONCRETE WALKS RELOCATE SIGNS (2) REMOVE RR TIE WALL STRIP TOPSOIL, REMOVE SHRUBS REMOVE OVERHANG AND PORTION OF BLDG (SEE ARCH. DWGS.)SAWCUT SAW CUT AND REMOVE RR TIE WALL (80LF) 386.5 REMOVE TREE OR OBJECT REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND SUBBASE SAWCUT PAVEMENT DEMOLITION AND EROSION CONTROL LEGEND DEMOLITION NOTES: 1.PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE A LOCATING SERVICE TO VERIFY UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS. 2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE DURING ALL REMOVAL OPERATIONS TO ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES TO REMAIN. DAMAGED FACILITIES INTENDED TO REMAIN SHALL BE REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 3.ALL DEMOLITION MATERIALS AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF IN A LEGAL MANNER. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE ALL DEMOLITION ITEMS INDICATED TO BE SALVAGED. DELIVER SALVAGED ITEMS TO A STORAGE AREA DESIGNATED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE TREES AS INDICATED, PROTECT TREES TO REMAIN FROM DAMAGE. 7.NYSDEC SHALL BE CONTACTED IF ANY CONTAMINATED SOILS ARE ENCOUNTERED ON SITE. 1 L600 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT AND SUBBASE SEDIMENT CONTROL FENCE 2 L600INLET PROTECTION 1. ALL SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW YORK STATE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, AUGUST 2005 2. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SEQUENCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE NOTES BELOW. 3. PAVED ROADWAYS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN AT ALL TIMES. 4. THE SITE SHALL AT ALL TIMES BE GRADED AND MAINTAINED SUCH THAT ALL SEDIMENT LADEN STORMWATER RUNOFF IS DIVERTED TO SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. 5. DUST CONTROL - WATER SHALL BE APPLIED BY SPRINKLER OR WATER TRUCK DURING GRADING OPERATIONS TO MINIMIZE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND MAINTAIN ACCEPTABLE AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS. REPETITIVE TREATMENTS SHALL BE DONE AS NEEDED UNTIL GRADES ARE STABILIZED. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE EFFECTIVENESS AND CONDITION OF EROSION CONTROL DEVICES DURING STORM EVENTS AND REPAIR OR REPLACE DAMAGED EROSION CONTROL DEVICES IMMEDIATELY. 7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE PREPARED TO IMPLEMENT INTERIM DRAINAGE CONTROLS AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE NECESSARY DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT SEDIMENT LADEN RUNOFF FROM LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE ONSITE ALL EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND LABOR NECESSARY TO EFFECT EMERGENCY EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AS SOON AS PRACTICAL. 9. ALL DISTURBED SOILS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED WITH PAVEMENTS, PLANTINGS AND LAWN AREAS. 1.CONTRACTOR TO STAKE OUT ALL NEW WORK IN THE FIELD. 2.INSTALL SEDIMENT CONTROL FENCE AND INLET PROTECTION AT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 3.AS WORK PROGRESSES, DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE AREA. 4.AFTER ALL DISTURBED AREAS HAVE BEEN STABILIZED AND THE FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN PERFORMED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, REMOVE ALL REMAINING TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES. EROSION CONTROL NOTES:CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING NOTES: REMOVE RR TIE WALL (65LF)SAWCUTREMOVE ASPHALT REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND SUBBASE SA W C U T SAWCUT AROUND SAWCUTSAWCUTREMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND SUBBASE REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND SUBBASE REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND SUBBASE RELOCATE LIGHT POLE LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN S AW C U T RELOCATE SAPLING RELOCATE SAPLING RELOCATE SAPLING RELOCATE SAPLING RELOCATE SAPLING RELOCATE SAPLING RELOCATE SAPLING REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND SUBBASE SAWCUTSAWCUTREMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND SUBBASE SAWCUTSAWCUT REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND SUBBASE SAWCUT REMOVE RR TIE WALL (20LF) REMOVE RR TIE WALL (20LF) RELOCATE SAPLING RELOCATE SAPLING RELOCATE SAPLINGS TO HERE Site Demolition and Erosion Control Plan L200 700 Cascadilla St Suite 203 Ithaca, NY 14850 P: 607.273.3565 www.js-architects.com DRAWINGS ALTERATION NOTICE: It is a violation of Section 69.5b of the New York State Education Department for any person, unless acting under the direction of the licensed architect, to alter this item in any way. If an item bearing the seal of the architect is altered the architect shall affix their seal and the notation "altered by" followed by the architect's signature, date of alteration, and a specific description of the alteration. COPYRIGHT: All production and intellectual property rights reserved. © Copyright 2018 John Snyder Architects, PLLC 2 2 1 1 A B C D PROJ # E F G H 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maguire Ford - Lincoln Site Plan Review 12/05/2018 504 S Meadow St. Ithaca, NY 14850 1905A Addendum Schedule Site Demolition and Erosion Control Plan Scale: Adjusted to 1” = 40’-0” Maguire Family Limited Partnership: Maguire Ford-Lincoln 504 S. Meadow Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 December 5th, 2018 Permit No: 38012 © 2018 John Snyder Architect, PLLC Layout & Materials Plan Scale: Adjusted to 1” = 40’-0”TRDUMPSTERSBODY SHOP SERVICE BSERVICE A PARTS RECEIVING LOUNGE PARTS SERVICE DRIVE THRU LINCOLN SHOWROOM WELCOME POD VEST. ENTRY TOWER FORD SHOWROOM 28 DISPLAY PARKING (8.5'X18') 40 7DISPLAY PARKING (8.5'X18') 5 SERVICE PARKING (9'X18')CUSTOMER PARKING (9'X18') SERVICE PARKING (8.5'X18') 22 2 20 DISPLAY PARKING (8.5'X18')DISPLAY PARKING(8.5'X18')20' WIDE AISLE17 22' WIDE AISLE 3 22' WIDE AISLE DISPLAY PARKING (8.5'X18') 20' WIDE AISLE EMPLOYEE PARKING (9'X18') HC SIGN 1126' WIDE AISLE8 18DISPLAY PARKING(8.5'X18')SERVICE PARKING(8.5'X18')2 EMPLOYEE PARKING (9'X18') VEHICLE DISPLAY EMPLOYEE PARKING CUSTOMER PARKING HC CUSTOMER PARKING SERVICE PARKING FORD SIGN PARKING TABLE LINCOLN SIGN TOTAL PARKING 308 4 67 22 1 214 DISPLAY PARKING(8.5'X18')12 22' WIDE AISLE 24'10 DISPLAY P A R K I N G (8.5'X18')DISPLAY PARKING(8.5'X18')CUSTOMER PARKING(9'X18')28 SERVICE PARKING (8.5'X16') 20' WIDE AISLE 22 60' ROW LINE SAWCUT 17' WIDE AISLE ONE WAY SAWCUT ASPHALT PAVEMENT 5 L600 ASPHALT PAVEMENT 5 L600 RELOCATED LP 22' WIDE AISLEASPHALT PAVEMENT 5 L600 ASPHALT PAVEMENT 5 L600 ASPHALT PAVEMENT 5 L600 SAWCUT RAISED DISPLAYRAMPSEAL COAT AND STRIPE EXISTING ASPHALT SEAL COAT AND STRIPE EXISTING ASPHALT SEAL COAT AND STRIPE EXISTING ASPHALT SEAL COAT AND STRIPE EXISTING ASPHALT 1. PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE A LOCATING SERVICE TO VERIFY UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE OUT ALL WORK IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 3. ALL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FROM THE FACE OF EDGING, CURBS, OR WALLS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4. ALL NEW PAVEMENTS AND CURBS SHALL MEET EXISTING PAVEMENTS AND CURBS WITH A SMOOTH TRANSITION AND FLUSH JOINT. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A 1.5% CROSS SLOPE ON ALL CONCRETE WALKS CONFORMING TO ADA REQUIREMENTS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE WARNING CONES AND BARRICADES AS REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. 7. SUCCESSFUL LOW BIDDER WILL BE PROVIDED A CAD FILE FOR LAYOUT PURPOSES. LAYOUT NOTES HC SIGNAGE LAYOUT LEGEND CONCRETE PAVEMENT WITH EXPANSION JOINTS AND SCORE JOINTS ASPHALT PAVEMENT 5 L600 TC FC FLUSH CURB 6' TRANSITION CURB 3 L600 4 L600 CONCRETE CURB 6 L600 11 L600 ADA RAMP 7 L600 ADA RAMP CONCRETE CURB (TYP.) 6 L600 CONCRETE CURB (TYP.) 6 L600 R=4'R=10' 7 L600 6'TC6'TC 5'FC EJ 11 L600 R=5' PLANT BED R=2' SAWCUT BOLLARDs 8 L600 HC PARKING LAYOUT SAWCUTLAWN LP R=5' R=10'R=5' R=5' R=5' 5'X5' COLLAR CONCRETE PAVEMENT-VEHICULAR LAWN SA W C U T R=5' 5' WIDE CONCRETE PAVEMENT-VEHICULAR 4 L600 SEAL COAT AND STRIPE EXISTING ASPHALT SEAL COAT AND STRIPE EXISTING ASPHALT 8' HGT. CMU WALL DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE LAWNLAWNLAWNTIRESEXISTING CONCRETE WALK EXISTING CONCRETE WALKEXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING RR TIE WALLEXISTING CONCRETE WALKEXISTING CURBSAWCUTS A W C U TSAWCUT SAWCUT ASPHALT PAVEMENT5 L600 6'TC R=5' R=5'SAWCUTR=5' 5' WIDE CONCRETE PAVEMENT-PEDESTRIAN 3 L600 CONCRETE PAVEMENT-PEDESTRIAN 3 L600 6'TC R=5'R=5' CONCRETE PAVEMENT-VEHICULAR 4 L600 R A M P S T O N E W A L L ASPHALT PAVEMENT 5 L600 3DISPLAY VEHICLE DISPLAY 2 SAWCUT BIKE RACK 15 LAWN DISPLAY PARKING (8.5'X18') 13 STONE WALLSAWCUTR=4' CONCRETE PAVEMENT-VEHICULAR 4 L600 CONCRETE CURB (TYP.) 6 L600 ASPHALT PAVEMENT 5 L600 R=5' ASPHALT PAVEMENT 5 L600 17' WIDE AISLE ONE WAY 20 DISPLAY PARKING (8.5'X18') CONCRETE STAIRWAY PLANTER LAWN LAWN CONCRETE PAVEMENT- PEDESTRIAN 3 L600 R=10' R=3' R=5' R=5' LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN L300 700 Cascadilla St Suite 203 Ithaca, NY 14850 P: 607.273.3565 www.js-architects.com DRAWINGS ALTERATION NOTICE: It is a violation of Section 69.5b of the New York State Education Department for any person, unless acting under the direction of the licensed architect, to alter this item in any way. If an item bearing the seal of the architect is altered the architect shall affix their seal and the notation "altered by" followed by the architect's signature, date of alteration, and a specific description of the alteration. COPYRIGHT: All production and intellectual property rights reserved. © Copyright 2018 John Snyder Architects, PLLC 2 2 1 1 A B C D PROJ # E F G H 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maguire Ford - Lincoln Site Plan Review 12/05/2018 504 S Meadow St. Ithaca, NY 14850 1905A Addendum Schedule Maguire Family Limited Partnership: Maguire Ford-Lincoln 504 S. Meadow Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 December 5th, 2018 Permit No: 38012 © 2018 John Snyder Architect, PLLC TRTRTRTRTRTR 30.0'±1.7'±1.0'±3.8'±44.3'±113.4'±73.3'±384.5 385.0 385.5 386.0386.5386.03 8 5 . 5 384.5 385.0 38 5 . 0385.5385.0386.0386.0388.5386.5384.5388.5 386.0 385.5385.538 6 . 0 38 7 . 0 3 8 7 . 0 BODY SHOP SERVICE BSERVICE A PARTS RECEIVING LOUNGE PARTS SERVICE DRIVE THRU LINCOLN SHOWROOM FORD SHOWROOM TC386.65 BC386.15+FFE 386.70 + + FFE 386.70 +386.40 +385.90 ++ TC386.40 BC385.90 + +386.60 + 386.30 +TC386.35 BC385.85 + TC386.60 BC386.10 TC386.60 BC386.10 + TC386.40 BC385.90+ TC386.40 BC385.90 + +386.50+386.20 +386.50 +386.50 SAWCUT TC385.20 BC384.70 ++ TC385.46 BC384.96 385 385. 5 TC386.25 BC385.75+ +TC386.10 BC385.60 +386.90 +387.40 +388.10 +385.84 SAWCUT SAWCUT 386.5 +TC386.40 BC385.80 3 8 5 . 5 CB#1 RIM 384.90 INV 383.00 6" HD P E 3 8 6 + TC385.70 BC385.20 +384.80 1.PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE A LOCATING SERVICE TO VERIFY UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS. 2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE OUT ALL GRADES IN THE FIELD AND NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE THE SITE TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO CATCH BASINS AND DRAIN INLETS. 463.55+ PROPOSED CONTOUR LINE PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING CONTOUR LINE DIRECTION OF SURFACE FLOW GRADING LEGEND GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES CATCH BASIN 13 L600 386.0 386.0 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION 6" HDPE STORM SEWER PIPE TRENCH 12 L600 +384.90 38 5 . 5 385.5+ TC385.80 BC385.30385CONNECT TO CB INV. 382.80 385 +386.50 +384.90 +384.75 +384.75 + TC385.37 BC384.87 +TC385.20 BC384.70 + TC384.81 BC384.31 +TC385.22 BC384.72 + TC385.25 BC384.75 +384.55 +386.50 385 +384.74 +385.00 +384.54 3 8 5 +385.15 +385.38 +TC386.50 BC386.00 +385.85+385.87 386.50 +386.40 + TC386.02 BC386.00 +TC385.60 BC385.10385+385.10 RAISE RIM TO 385.00 + TC385.10 BC384.60 +385.35 +386.50 385.5 38 6 386 +388.10 3 8 8 3883 8 8 TC386.60 BC386.10 + TC386.40 BC385.90 + TC386.60 BC386.10 + TC387.00 BC386.50 +387.00 + TC387.00 BC386.50 6" HDPECB#2 RIM 384.70 INV 383.20386+ 386.30 +384.80 BS TS 386Grading and Drainage Plan L400 700 Cascadilla St Suite 203 Ithaca, NY 14850 P: 607.273.3565 www.js-architects.com DRAWINGS ALTERATION NOTICE: It is a violation of Section 69.5b of the New York State Education Department for any person, unless acting under the direction of the licensed architect, to alter this item in any way. If an item bearing the seal of the architect is altered the architect shall affix their seal and the notation "altered by" followed by the architect's signature, date of alteration, and a specific description of the alteration. COPYRIGHT: All production and intellectual property rights reserved. © Copyright 2018 John Snyder Architects, PLLC 2 2 1 1 A B C D PROJ # E F G H 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maguire Ford - Lincoln Site Plan Review 12/05/2018 504 S Meadow St. Ithaca, NY 14850 1905A Addendum Schedule Grading & Drainage Plan Scale: Adjusted to 1” = 40’-0” Maguire Family Limited Partnership: Maguire Ford-Lincoln 504 S. Meadow Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 December 5th, 2018 Permit No: 38012 © 2018 John Snyder Architect, PLLC TRBODY SHOP SERVICE BSERVICE A PARTS RECEIVING LOUNGE PARTS SERVICE DRIVE THRU LINCOLN SHOWROOM FORD SHOWROOM LEGEND SITE AREA135,288 SF (3.10 AC.) PROPOSED GREEN SPACE (15,312 SF, 11.3%) DISTURBED SOILS (43,086 SF O.99 AC.) DISTURBED SOILS (1,444 SF)DISTURBED SOILS (1,935 SF) DISTURBED SOILS (35,158 SF) DISTURBED SOILS (456 SF) DISTURBED SOILS (152 SF) DISTURBED SOILS (553 SF) DISTURBED SOILS (476 SF) DISTURBED SOILS (497 SF) DISTURBED SOILS (378 SF) DISTURBED SOILS (1,033 SF)DISTURBED SOILS (132 SF) GREENSPACE (1,260 SF) GREENSPACE (3,515 SF) GREENSPACE (332 SF) GREENSPACE (4,579 SF) GREENSPACE (739 SF) GREENSPACE (196 SF) GREENSPACE (94 SF) GREENSPACE (407 SF) GREENSPACE (2,536 SF) GREENSPACE (114 SF) GREENSPACE (154 SF) GREENSPACE (252 SF) GREENSPACE (52 SF) GREENSPACE (136 SF) GREENSPACE (311 SF) GREENSPACE (114 SF) DISTURBED SOILS (625 SF)GREENSPACE (554 SF) RECREATIONAL WALKS TO WEGMANS AND SOUTH MEADOW STREET (922 SF, 0.7%) Greenspace Plan L301 700 Cascadilla St Suite 203 Ithaca, NY 14850 P: 607.273.3565 www.js-architects.com DRAWINGS ALTERATION NOTICE: It is a violation of Section 69.5b of the New York State Education Department for any person, unless acting under the direction of the licensed architect, to alter this item in any way. If an item bearing the seal of the architect is altered the architect shall affix their seal and the notation "altered by" followed by the architect's signature, date of alteration, and a specific description of the alteration. COPYRIGHT: All production and intellectual property rights reserved. © Copyright 2018 John Snyder Architects, PLLC 2 2 1 1 A B C D PROJ # E F G H 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maguire Ford - Lincoln Site Plan Review 12/05/2018 504 S Meadow St. Ithaca, NY 14850 1905A Addendum Schedule Greenspace Plan Scale: Adjusted to 1” = 40’-0” Maguire Family Limited Partnership: Maguire Ford-Lincoln 504 S. Meadow Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 December 5th, 2018 Permit No: 38012 © 2018 John Snyder Architect, PLLC TRBODY SHOP SERVICE BSERVICE A PARTS RECEIVING LOUNGE PARTS SERVICE DRIVE THRU LINCOLN SHOWROOM FORD SHOWROOM EXISTING TREE PLANTING LEGEND: TYPICAL DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING 10 600 9 600 1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY FIELD CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING PLANTING WORK AND NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY IF CONDITIONS DETRIMENTAL TO NEW AND EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL ARE ENCOUNTERED. 2.PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE A LOCATING SERVICE TO VERIFY UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE LOCATIONS OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE WHEN STAKING IS COMPLETE, AT WHICH TIME A MEETING WILL TAKE PLACE TO DETERMINE FINAL LOCATIONS. 4.ALL PLANT BEDS AND TREE PITS SHALL RECEIVE 4" OF SHREDDED BARK MULCH. 5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TOPSOIL AND SEED LAWN AREAS AND ALL AREAS DISTURBED AS A RESULT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. PLANTING NOTES:PLANTING LIST SYM.QTY. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT NOTE DECIDUOUS TREES CC 8 CERCIS CANADENSIS 'NORTHERN STRAIN'EASTERN REDBUD B&B PV 6 PRUNUS VIRGINIANA 'SHUBERT'CANADA RED CHOKECHERRY B&B TREE FORM TREE FORM 2.5"-3"DBH PLANT QUANTITY PLANT SYMBOL TYPICAL FLOWERING TREE PLANTING 9 600 LAWN 1 GT 2 CC 1 UA 2 PV 10 PF 4 RA 2 GT 1 GT 1 PV 1 UA 1 TC 1 PV 15 PF 1 CC1 TC GT 5 GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS THORNLESS HONEY LOCUST B&B3"-3.5" DBH TC 3 TILIA CORDATA LITTLE LEAF LINDEN B&B3"-3.5" DBH UA 6 ULMUS ACCOLADE ACCOLADE HYBRID ELM B&B3"-3.5" DBH 2.5"-3"DBH SHRUBS RA 17 RHUS AROMATIC GRO-LOW GROW-LOW SUMAC PF 41 POTENTILLA FRUTICOSA YELLOW YELLOW POTENTILLA #3 CONT.18"-24" HGT. #3 CONT.12"-18" HGT. 1 TC LAWNLAWN LAWN LAWN LAWNLAWN LINCOLN SIGN LAWN FORD SIGN LAWN LAWNLAWN 2 GT 5 PS LAWN LAWN 1 UA 1 UA 1 UA 1 UA 1 CC 2 PV 2 CC 2 CC LAWN LAWN 9 PF 3 PS 1 AS 1 AS 1 AS 1 AS 1 AS 1 AS 7 PF 15 RA 17 RA AS 6 ACER SACCHARUM 'LEGACY'LEGACY SUGAR MAPLE B&B3"-3.5"DBH PS 7 PANICUM VIRGATUM 'SHENDOAH'SWITCH GRASS #3 CONT.12"-18" HGT. JH 20 JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS 'BLUE RUG'BLUE RUG JUNIPER #2 CONT.12"-18" SPD. 5 JH PLACE JUNIPERS AMONG THE EXISTING STONES (TYP.) 5 JH 5 JH 5 JH Planting Plan L500 700 Cascadilla St Suite 203 Ithaca, NY 14850 P: 607.273.3565 www.js-architects.com DRAWINGS ALTERATION NOTICE: It is a violation of Section 69.5b of the New York State Education Department for any person, unless acting under the direction of the licensed architect, to alter this item in any way. If an item bearing the seal of the architect is altered the architect shall affix their seal and the notation "altered by" followed by the architect's signature, date of alteration, and a specific description of the alteration. COPYRIGHT: All production and intellectual property rights reserved. © Copyright 2018 John Snyder Architects, PLLC 2 2 1 1 A B C D PROJ # E F G H 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maguire Ford - Lincoln Site Plan Review 12/05/2018 504 S Meadow St. Ithaca, NY 14850 1905A Addendum Schedule Planting Plan Scale: Adjusted to 1” = 40’-0” Maguire Family Limited Partnership: Maguire Ford-Lincoln 504 S. Meadow Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 December 5th, 2018 Permit No: 38012 © 2018 John Snyder Architect, PLLC 8"ISOMETRIC VIEW SECTION 8'-0" O.C. MAX.MIN.20" 16" 36" HARDWOOD OR STEEL FENCE POST, DRIVEN MIMIMUM 16" INTO GROUND. ATTACH FABRIC SECURELY TO FENCE POSTS. LOCATE FENCE POSTS DOWN SLOPE OF FABRIC. TRENCH AND EMBED FENCE A MINIMUM OF 8" INTO GROUND BACKFILL TRENCH AND COMPACT SOIL SILT FENCE FABRIC 36" HARDWOOD OR STEEL FENCE POST, DRIVEN MIMIMUM 16" INTO GROUND. ATTACH FABRIC SECURELY TO FENCE POSTS. LOCATE FENCE POSTS DOWN SLOPE OF FABRIC. SILT FENCE FABRIC SEDIMENT BUILD-UP, MAINTAIN AT 12" MAX. TRENCH AND EMBED FENCE A MINIMUM OF 8" INTO GROUND 8" DEEP TRENCH, BACKFILL WITH COMPACTED SOIL UNDISTURBED GROUND DISTURBED AREA 2"x4" WOOD FRAME CATCH BASIN INLET18" MIN.3'-0" MIN.SPACE STAKES EVENLY AROUND INLET WITH A 3' MAX. SEPARATION DISTANCE SEDIMENT CONTROL FENCE FABRIC, EMBED IN GROUND 12" MIN. SECURELY FASTEN FENCE TO WOOD STAKES AND OVERLAP ANY JOINTS TO THE NEXT STAKE NOT TO SCALE INLET PROTECTION2 7"4" PROVIDE EXPANSION JOINT WHERE CURB ABUTTS CONCRETE WALK FINISH GRADE, SURFACE VARIES CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE CURB, SMOOTH RUBBED FINISH EXPOSED SURFACES 1" RADIUS #4 BAR CONTINUOUS, TOP AND BOTTOM, 3" CLEAR FINISH GRADE, ASPHALT PAVEMENT COMPACTED AGGREGATE SUBBASE MATERIAL COMPACTED SUBGRADE NOTE: PROVIDE VERTICAL EXPANSION JOINTS 20' O.C. MAX. SPACING. TOOLED JOINT SMOOTH FINISH SOFT BRISTLE BROOM FINISH 2" CONCRETE FINISH NOT TO SCALE SEDIMENT CONTROL FENCE1 3/8" WIDE COMPRESSIBLE EXPANSION JOINT FILLER WITH SEALANT SEE PLANS FOR LAYOUT 1" DEEP x 1/4" WIDE SAW CUT SCORE JOINT SEE PLANS FOR LAYOUT COMPACTED SUB-GRADE 3/4"Ø x 15" LONG STEEL DOWELS @ 24" O.C., 7 1/2" EMBEDMENT EACH END, GREASE ONE END 4" THICK CONCRETE PAVEMENT, PROVIDE SOFT BRISTLE BROOM FINISH PERPENDICULAR TO EDGE 6X6 - W2.9XW2.9 WWM (2" CLEAR) 6" COMPACTED AGGREGATE SUBBASE MATERIAL NYSDOT TYPE 2, ITEM NO. 304.12, COMPACTED TO 95% MODIFIED PROCTOR4"6"6"12"PLAN VIEW RAMP DOWN 1:12 MAX. SECTION ELEVATIONSCORE J OI NT SCORE JOINTRAMP DOWNSCORE JOINTS C O R E J O I N T 6'-0" TRANSITION CURB 6'-0" TRANSITION CURB6'-0"6'-0" CONCRETE RAMP COURSE BROOM FINISH IN DIRECTION AS SHOWN PROVIDE FLARED TRANSITION ONLY WHERE INDICATED ON PLANS. COURSE BROOM FINISH IN DIRECTION AS SHOWN 24" EMBEDED POLYFIBER DETECTABLE WARNING PANEL PER ADA REQUIREMENTS. COLOR: RED, FULL LENGTH OF RAMP CONCRETE CURBING TOP OF RAMP (FINISHED GRADE) 6" COMPACTED AGGREGATE SUBBASE MATERIAL. NYSDOT TYPE 2, ITEM 304.12 COMPACTED SUBGRADE 1/4" REVEAL FLUSH CURB 5'-0" TYP.1:12 MAX.FINISHED GRADE EXPANSION JOINT EXP. JOINT EXP. JOINT 2" SMOOTH TROWELED CONCRETE BAND AROUND PANEL NOT TO SCALE CONCRETE PAVEMENT-PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC3 NOT TO SCALE CONCRETE PAVEMENT-VEHICULAR TRAFFIC4 3/8" WIDE COMPRESSIBLE EXPANSION JOINT FILLER WITH SEALANT SEE PLANS FOR LAYOUT 1.5" DEEP x 1/4" WIDE SAW CUT SCORE JOINT SEE PLANS FOR LAYOUT 3/4"Ø x 15" LONG STEEL DOWELS @ 24" O.C., 7 1/2" EMBEDMENT EACH END, GREASE ONE END COMPACTED SUB-GRADE 6" THICK CONCRETE PAVEMENT, PROVIDE SOFT BRISTLE BROOM FINISH PERPENDICULAR TO EDGE 6X6 - W2.9XW2.9 WWM (2" CLEAR) DOUBLE ROW 12" COMPACTED AGGREGATE SUBBASE MATERIAL NYSDOT TYPE 2, ITEM NO. 304.12, COMPACTED TO 95% MODIFIED PROCTOR TOOLED JOINT SMOOTH FINISH SOFT BRISTLE BROOM FINISH 2" CONCRETE FINISH 1 1/2" ASPHALT TOP COURSE NYSDOT ITEM 402-128202 3-1/2" ASPHALT BINDER COURSE NYSDOT ITEM 402.198902 COMPACTED SUBGRADE 12" COMPACTED AGGREGATE SUBBASE MATERIAL NYSDOT TYPE 2, ITEM NO. 304.12, COMPACTED TO 95% MODIFIED PROCTOR5"12"NOT TO SCALE ASPHALT PAVEMENT5 STABILIZATION GEOTEXTILE NOT TO SCALE CONCRETE CURB618"6"6"6"1" NOT TO SCALE ADA RAMP7 STABILIZATION GEOTEXTILE STABILIZATION GEOTEXTILE 12"6" 6" CONCRETE CURBING CONCRETE CURBING 6" COMPACTED AGGREGATE SUBBASE MATERIAL. NYSDOT TYPE 2, ITEM 304.12 NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING9 NOT TO SCALE HC PARKING LAYOUT8 3" DIA. X 7' CEDAR STAKE, (3) AT 180° SPACING ROOT BALL TREE TRUNK #12 GAUGE GALVANIZED ANNEALED WIRE WITH TURNBUCKLE RUBBER HOSE FRICTION GUARD 4" SHREDDED BARK MULCH TREE RING FINISH GRADE, MULCH SURFACE 4" DEEP SAUCER BACKFILL TREE PIT WITH AMENDED TOPSOIL TREE PIT TO BE 1X BALL DEPTH BY 2X BALL WIDTH, SCARIFY ROOT BALL UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE RUBBER HOSE FRICTION GUARD 4'-0"3" DIA. X 7' CEDAR STAKE, (3) AT 180° SPACING #12 GAUGE GALVANIZED ANNEALED WIRE WITH TURNBUCKLE 3'-0"TREE GUYING DETAIL 4" WIDE PARKING LINE PAINTED BLUE ADA HANDICAP SYMBOL PAINTED BLUE NO-PARKING AREA PAINTED WITH 4" WIDE DIAGONAL LINES PAINTED BLUE MAXIMUM SLOPE WITHIN HC SPACE AND STRIPED ISLE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2%18'-0"8'-0"8'-0"9'-0" NON HC PARKING SPACE MIN.1'4" WIDE PARKING LINES PAINTED WHITE ADA HANDICAP SIGNCONCRETE CURB 5' FLUSH CURB AND RAMP 6' TRANSITION CURB UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE 12"18"10" DIA. CONCRETE FOOTING3'-0"FINISH GRADE STEEL U-CHANNEL TYPE A SIGN POST, PAINTED BLACK. NYSDOT ITEM 645.815'-0"BREAKAWAY COUPLING ENGINEER GRADE STEEL SIGN PANEL (MUTCD R7-8) PER ADA REQUIREMENTS NOT TO SCALE EXTERIOR SIGNAGE116"1'-0" SPACE AS NOTED ON PLANT LIST AND PLANS 1'-0"4" SHREDDED BARK MULCH ROOTBALL OR CONTAINER FINISH GRADE, MULCH SURFACE AMENDED TOPSOIL UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE MIN.MIN.MIN.LAWN AREAUNDER 6"PIPEMIN.18"PAVEMENTUNDER PIPE DIA. 6"6"MIN.DIA.AS REQUIRED SUITABLE NATIVE BACKFILL FINAL BACKFILL, UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE FINAL BACKFILL, COMPACTED STABILIZE SIDE SLOPES FINISH GRADE PAVEMENT SECTION INITIAL BACKFILL AND HAUNCH PIPE BEDDING, UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE STORM SEWER PIPE 6" SUBBASE MATERIAL, NYSDOT6" COMPACTED AGGREGATE TYPE 4, ITEM 304.14 SUBBASE MATERIAL, NYSDOTMATERIAL, COMPACTED AGGREGATE TYPE 4, ITEM 304.14 SUBBASE MATERIAL, NYSDOTCOMPACTED AGGREGATE TYPE 4, ITEM 304.14 NOT TO SCALE STORM SEWER PIPE TRENCH SLOPE FINISH GRADE, LAWN AREA 6"12" NYLOPLAST DRAIN BASIN (PVC BODY) 6" HDPE STORM PIPE 10" DIA. DUCTILE IRON FRAME AND GRATE GRATE HDPE PIPE ADAPTOR 6" DEPTH #2 CRUSHED STONE COMPACTED TO 95% MODIFIED PROCTOR AREA DRAIN STANDARD H20 RATED DUCTILE IRON ROUND FRAME AND GRATE BLACK PAINTED FINISH NOT TO SCALE CATCH BASIN 12 13 NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING10 5' x 5' CONCRETE COLLAR Site Details L600 700 Cascadilla St Suite 203 Ithaca, NY 14850 P: 607.273.3565 www.js-architects.com DRAWINGS ALTERATION NOTICE: It is a violation of Section 69.5b of the New York State Education Department for any person, unless acting under the direction of the licensed architect, to alter this item in any way. If an item bearing the seal of the architect is altered the architect shall affix their seal and the notation "altered by" followed by the architect's signature, date of alteration, and a specific description of the alteration. COPYRIGHT: All production and intellectual property rights reserved. © Copyright 2018 John Snyder Architects, PLLC 2 2 1 1 A B C D PROJ # E F G H 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maguire Ford - Lincoln Site Plan Review 12/05/2018 504 S Meadow St. Ithaca, NY 14850 1905A Addendum Schedule Site Details Scale: NTS Maguire Family Limited Partnership: Maguire Ford-Lincoln 504 S. Meadow Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 December 5th, 2018 Permit No: 38012 © 2018 John Snyder Architect, PLLC Perspective View 1 Revised Scale: NTS Maguire Family Limited Partnership: Maguire Ford-Lincoln 504 S. Meadow Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 December 5th, 2018 Permit No: 38012 © 2018 John Snyder Architect, PLLC East & West Rendered Elevations Revised Scale: 1/8” = 1’-0” EP-3MP-3 MB-1 MP-1 EG-1 MP-1EG-1 MP-2MP-1MP-2EG-1EP-3MB-1 East Elevation West Elevation Maguire Family Limited Partnership: Maguire Ford-Lincoln 504 S. Meadow Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 December 5th, 2018 Permit No: 38012 © 2018 John Snyder Architect, PLLC North & South Rendered Elevations Revised Scale: 1/8” = 1’-0” MP-1MP-6 MP-4 MP-5 MP-1MP-2EG-1 MP-3 MB-1 EP-3MP-3 MB-1 North Elevation South Elevation