Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2008-09-16REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 215 N TIOGA ST, ITHACA NY 14850 PRESENT FILE DATE Fred Wilcox, Vice Chairperson; Board Members: George Conneman, Larry Thayer, Susan Riha, Kevin Talty, Hollis Erb, Jon Bosak (Alternate). Staff: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Carrie Coates Whitmore, First Deputy Town Clerk, Public: Doug and Bruce Brittain, Robert McLaughlin, Dave Auble, Steve Ancerauage, Abraham Stroock, Shirley Egan, John Gutenberger. EXCUSED Rod Howe, Chairperson, CALL TO ORDER Vice - Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September 8, 2008 and September 10, 2008, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on September 10, 2008. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. ANNOUNCEMENTS Vice - Chairperson Wilcox announced that Kevin Talty was appointed to the Planning Board to fill the unexpired term of Eva Hoffmann and Jon Bosak was appointed as the Planning Board Alternate (vacated by Kevin Talty). Board Member Talty and Alternate Member Bosak took their Oaths of Office prior to the meeting. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox stated that Alternate Member Bosak would be voting as a. member of the Planning Board for the evening due to Chairperson Howe's absence. PERSONS TO BE HEARD Vice - Chairperson Wilcox solicited comments from the public on any item that was not before the Board that evening; there were none. Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final SEAR Determination: Rodeway Inn & Suites Modifications, 654 Elmira Road Vice - Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox welcomed the applicants and asked if they would give the Board a brief overview of their proposal. The applicants (no names provided) appeared before the Board and stated that they were proposing a two -room renovation to the motel. They wished to proceed and start their renovation as soon as the Planning Board gave their approval. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked for the current use of the building. The applicant explained that it's currently a storage room and it was previously used as a meeting room. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked if there were any environmental issues with regard to the renovation. The applicant was not aware of any. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox solicited questions from the Board with regard to any environmental issues. He noted that Board Member Thayer had the line of the night — Board Member Thayer referred to the project as "a simple two -room subdivision ". Board commended Board Member Thayer on his creative comment. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked for a motion on the proposed SEAR resolution; Board Member Conneman moved and Board Member Talty seconded. Alternate Member Bosak noted that there was a typo in whereas number 3 of the resolution; the date should be September 16, 2008 and not September 16, 2009. The Board agreed with the change. Ms. Brock stated that item 9 of the EAF indicates that the proposed action would lead to a request for public water and sewer. She thought that the answer to item 9 should be no. Mr. Walker agreed; the intent of item 9 is for the extension of public water and sewer mains. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox corrected the EAF to reflect that the proposed action would not lead to a request for public water and sewer. Alternate Member Bosak, referring to the Planning Department memo from Susan Ritter, stated that the memo reflects there is adequate parking available for the additional rooms with 4 spaces immediately fronting the building, but on the aerial photo shows that there are only 3 spaces fronting the building. He did not think it made a difference procedurally, but wanted to note the difference. Ms. Ritter verified that Alternate Member Bosak's observation was correct; there are 3 spaces fronting the building. With no further discussion, Vice - Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote. I% Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -082: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit, Rodeway Inn & Suites Site Modifications, 654 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel No. 33. -3 -6 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed site modifications at the Rodeway Inn & Suites, located at 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 -6, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting an existing building . that is currently used for storage, and was formerly used as a conference room, into two new rental rooms for the motel. Jamna Hospitality Inc., Michael Scott, Northeast Renovation Inc., Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on September 16, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, drawings titled " Rodeway Inn & Suites Addition" (which includes elevation drawings on page 1 and a floor plan on page 2), dated August 2008 and date stamped 8113108, and a site map titled "Conversion of an existing 900 S.F. Conference Room Building to an Two Bedroom Suite for a Motel in Ithaca" date stamped 7128108 and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning. staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part ll, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty, Erb, Bosak, NAYS: None. �Q Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed changes at the Rodeway Inn & Suites, 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 -6, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The project involves converting an existing building that is currently used for storage into two new rental rooms for the motel. Jamna Hospitality Inc., Owner /Applicants Michael Scott, Northeast Renovation Inc., Agent. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox read the public hearing notice and solicited questions from the Board with regard to site plan. There being none, he asked the applicants to have a seat in the audience. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox opened, the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. and invited the public to address the Board on the agenda item. There being no one, Vice - Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox solicited comments from the Board. Board Member Erb hoped that the color plan was coordinated among. all the buildings. In response, Vice - Chairperson Wilcox noted that in a commercial zone the Planning Board can look at architectural details such as color. He asked Board Member Erb if she would like that as a condition of the resolution. Board Member Erb stated that she just wanted to express out loud that she liked the fact that the buildings were currently coordinated and that she hoped that it would continue. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked the applicants to come back before the Board. He asked them if any changes were going to be made to the exterior of the building other than access to the two rooms. The applicants responded that it will be kept the same and verified the color would be the same as the existing buildings. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked that a condition be added to the resolution that the exterior color be coordinated with the other buildings. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox solicited further discussion from the Board. There being none, Board Member Thayer moved the proposed resolution as drafted and Board Member Erb seconded. Ms. Brock proposed adding a condition 2b to the resolution that stated, "The exterior colors of the renovated building will be coordinated with those of the other motel room buildings." Proposed change was accepted by Board Member Thayer and Board Member Erb. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote. 2 Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -083: Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit, Rodeway Inn & Suites Site Modifications, 654 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel No. 31-3 =6 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Hollis Erb, WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed site modifications at the Rodeway inn & Suites, located at 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 -6, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting an existing building that is currently used for storage, and formerly used as a conference room, into two. new rental rooms for the motel. Jamna Hospitality Inc., Michael Scott, Northeast Renovation Inc., Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the lead agency in environmental review Special Permit has, on September 16, environmental significance, after havin+ Short Environmental Assessment Form Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as with respect to Site Plan Approval and 2008, made a negative determination of 7 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 16, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings titled " Rodeway Inn & Suites Addition" (which includes elevation drawings on page 1 and a floor plan on page 2), dated August 2008 and date stamped 8113108, and a site map titled "Conversion of an existing 300 S. F. Conference Room Building to an Two Bedroom Suite for a Motel in Ithaca" date stamped 7128108 and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed site and building renovations at the Rodeway Inn & Suites as described above, finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270 -200, Subsections A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. 1. That the- Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 5 Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed site modifications as indicated in the drawings titled "Rodeway Inn & Suites Addition" (which includes elevation drawings on page 1 and a floor plan on page 2), dated August 2008 and date stamped 8113108, and a site map titled "Conversion of an existing 900 S.F. Conference Room Building to an Two Bedroom Suite for a Motel in Ithaca'; date stamped 7128108 subject to the following conditions: a. Receipt of a building permit from the Town of Ithaca for the building modifications, b. The exterior colors of the renovated building will be coordinated with those of the other motel room buildings. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty, Erb, Bosak, NAYS: None. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider public comments regarding the draft Cornell Transportation - focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t- GEIS). The t -GETS includes an identification, examination and evaluation of transportation - related impacts of hypothetical Cornell University population growth scenarios over the next decade on transportation systems and neighborhoods. The t -GEIS addresses these impacts by evaluating and proposing mitigation measures to encourage alternatives to single- occupancy vehicle use by those traveling to and from Cornell. A major objective of the t -GEIS is to develop ways to reduce the number of trips by motor vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods to and from Cornell, and to identify ways of getting people, not vehicles, to campus. The t -GEIS studies two independent but complementary forms of proposed actions. The first is in the form of approvals of future Cornell building and development projects that will use the t -GEIS as part of a basis for their environmental review. The t -GEIS will not be a substitute for site - specific environmental review under SEQR. This could be in the form of site plan or special permit reviews or other approval applications for future Cornell building projects. The second form of the proposed action grew out of the mitigations section of the t -GEIS. Based on the mitigations identified, Cornell University has prepared a 'draft ten -year strategic transportation plan, or Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS). Vice - Chairperson Wilcox read the public hearing notice to those assembled. Lai Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final Vice - Chairperson Wilcox stated that he had a couple of opening remarks that detailed the timeline of how the Board got to where they are today. Kathryn Wolf would be giving a brief presentation of about 10 to 15 minutes, followed by the public hearing. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox stated the project started 3 years ago when Cornell University proposed development of the T -GIS and TIMS in a report dated August 26, 2005. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board established itself as the lead agency on November 1, 2005 to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed T -GETS and TIMS. The Planning Board reviewed a preliminary draft scope on November 15, 2005 prepared by Cornell University. Two public scoping sessions were held by the Planning Board December 6, 2005 and January 3, 2006 to hear comments from public and interested and involved agencies about the scope and content of the proposed T -GEIS. The Planning Board determined on February 7, 2006 that the draft scope document as revised was adequate to define the scope and content of the T -GEIS. Cornell submitted the draft Transportation Focused GEIS on May 20, 3008 and the draft TIMS report on June 3, 2008. (Board Member Erb held up the report to show the audience its size.) The Planning Board reviewed and discussed the draft T -GEIS on June 17, 2008, July 1, 2008, and July 15, 2008; the review included amendments and revisions submitted by Cornell, Town Planning staff, Town Board members, and the Attorney for the Town. On July 15, 2008 the Planning Board determined that the revised draft T -GEIS was satisfactory with respect to scope, content, and adequacy for commencing public review. The Planning Board, at that time, set a public hearing for September 15, 2008 to hear comments from the public on the document. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox turned to Kathryn Wolf and asked that she begin her presentation. Ms. Wolf introduced herself to everyone and explained that T -GEIS was a pro- active initiative undertaken by Cornell University in cooperation with the Town. Ms. Wolf gave her PowerPoint presentation to the Board. See attachment #1. During presentation, Ms. Wolf clarified that TDM stands form Transportation Demand Management. Upon completion of the Ms. Wolf's presentation, Vice - Chairperson Wilcox stated that comments made by the public, the Board, or submitted to the Town will be collected by Cornell University and addressed in the Final T -GEIS document. He set out the guidelines for the public hearing and noted that there would not be time limits for individuals speaking, but urged that comments be not repeated and that individuals stay on the topic before the Board. At 7:35 p.m., Vice - Chairperson Wilcox opened the pubic hearing and invited the public to address the Board. Doug and Bruce Brittain appeared before the Board with a prepared statement. Mr. Bruce Brittain opened by stating that the document represents a tremendous amount of work. He stated that they went through the existing conditions section of the document. It contains a lot of interesting information, but it also contains a lot of errors. He noted 7 Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final that they read the report, but spent most of their time on Forest Home. Bruce stated the fact that they found so many errors in Forest Home led him to believe that there may be errors in other parts of the Town with which they were less familiar.. Doug and. Bruce walked the Board point -by -point through their prepared statement. Statement is attached to minutes as attachment # 21 Doug and Bruce thanked the Board for their patience and offered to answer any questions. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox thanked Doug and Bruce for their comments and stated that the Board would continue with the public hearing, but may have questions for them after the public hearing is closed. John Bowman introduced himself to the Board and stated that he is a new resident of Ithaca. He came to the meeting so that he could learn more about what was going on in town. Mr. Bowman felt heldid not have a good read of what has been proposed, but as a resident of Ithaca he cares and wanted to learn more about the project. He commented that when he thinks of livability he thinks of safety and he did not hear a lot about safety in the overview given by Ms. Wolf. Mr. Bowman hoped that the Town and Cornell focused on safety as much as possible as the facilitation of growth is looked at. As a resident of Forest Home, he was struck by the speed in which people drive on narrow roads. Some roads are heavily used, but do not have sidewalks or have very narrow shoulders and yet are still used by pedestrians. He commented that anything that the project could do to improve safety would be time well spent. Mr. Bowman explained that Cornell cares greatly for him as an employee. They care for his safety in the workplace, his health as an individual, and his responsible practices -in the workplace. He thought that it was outstanding that Cornell was putting the effort out there to try and make the community an attractive, livable, and safe place to interact with the community. He hoped that as the Planning Board looks into the details they hear what other residents feel and listens to what Cornell is committed to. Mr. Bowman reiterated that safety needed to "get its day in the sun" and that compromises and out - of- the -box thinking be considered for a safer long term environment. A personal request of Mr. Bowman was that when the volume of movement and traffic is calculated that the pressure of the movement and traffic is not overlooked. If the speed and the flow of traffic are controlled, safety concerns can be addressed as well as the pleasantness of commuting. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox thanked Mr. Bowman for his comments and asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Board. Abraham Stroock introduced himself to the Board and commented that it seemed that in the 3 year period over which the T -GEIS had been prepared the price of oil has tripled. He stated that basing numbers for today may already by inaccurate for what the present Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final is and projections may be severely inaccurate. He was interested to the extent to which the preparers feel that those were already partially incorporated into the document. If they haven't been, he wondered if there was a plan to update the document. based on the rapidly changing circumstances that are closely coupled to transportation. The other change that has occurred during the same period of time is Cornell's stance with regard to sustainability. Cornell has taken an institutional decision to become a sustainable and carbon neutral campus. Mr. Stroock stated the question is whether the plan represents post that decision or pre that decisions. In both cases there is opportunity for a much more ambitious plan with regard to mitigations, which could leave to more significant change even in the presence or absence of growth. Mr. Stroock asked if it was appropriate to get input. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox responded by stating the fact that Mr. Stroock had made his statement, Cornell would respond to it in the final document. He thanked Mr. Stroock for his comments. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked if anyone else would like to address the Board. There were none and Vice - Chairperson Wilcox decided to leave the public hearing open to give the public additional opportunities to speak. He then turned to the Board and asked for their thoughts. Board Member Riha thanked everyone for addressing the Planning Board with respect to the T -GEIS. She found the comments very interesting and well thought out. She appreciates the fact that people took the time to look at it and make interesting comments. Board Member Riha went on to say that in terms of some of the estimates and the feeling that there had been an underestimate in the background traffic growth and the multiplier affect, she could see how one could then see that the 3,000 scenario 4 is way underestimated. She wondered if the whole thing has to be tossed out if they could not say that scenario 4 probably represents scenario 2 or 3. Vice- Chairperson Wilcox did not want to jump to conclusions. He stated that Bruce and Doug have made their comments and Cornell University will have the duty and responsibility to respond to those comments in the preparation in the draft Final T -GEIS. Cornell will respond to them because if they don't the Planning Board will send it back. He thought it would be interesting to see the response. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox added that comments made by the Planning Board and staff will be included as well as written comment made by the public within the next 10 days. Board Member Conneman concerned about safety as there are two sides: 1) there obey the rules of the road. following traffic rules. Board to look at. stated that he agrees with Mr. Bowman because he is veil. It is alright to encourage people to ride bicycles, but needs to be a safe place to ride, and 2) bicyclists need to He commented that there is a problem with bicyclists Member Conneman felt that safety was an important issue Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final Board Member Riha added that she took the bicycle safety class at Cornell because she is afraid to ride on Town of Ithaca roads with a bicycle. As a bicyclists and a driver, she is appalled at how many roads are unsuitable for bike riding. She noted Warren and Hanshaw Roads in particular and how the shoulders of those roads are filled during rush hour with both bicyclists and pedestrians. Board Member Riha looked carefully at the T -GETS and did not get the sense of how they were going to do a total transformation of Town roads to make them first class roads appropriate for bicycling. If the Town is saying that is what they want people to do, then they should be given safe roads. Board Member Thayer commented that was the case all over Town, not just the northeast. Board Member Riha felt that it was important to address the issue somehow. Board Member Thayer stated that he sees traffic backing up behind bicyclists coming down Trumansburg Road and it's very unsafe. Board Member Conneman reiterated that part of safety is obeying the rules. Board Member Conneman went on to say that he was not concentrating on Forest Home, but he felt that there were ways to get traffic out of Forest Home and he has provided a list to Kathryn Wolf several times that include ways to do so. He noted that signage could be used as a way to deter people from going through Forest Home to get to Cornell and instead direct traffic to use Plantations Road. Board Member Conneman did not believe everyone was going to abandon their car because of the T -GETS, but even if there is less traffic going through neighborhoods there is still too much already. He agreed with Bruce and Doug that that was what needed to be mitigated. Board Member Conneman stated again that he had given his proposal to Kathryn Wolf, but generally they have ignored it. Alternate Member Bosak commented he was stunned by the amount of work and detail that has gone into the document. He was deeply impressed with the analysis — whatever its shortcomings may be. Alternate Member Bosak did not think that the population growth scenarios represented the probable outcome given current trends. The County Planning Department –has spent most of 2008 studying energy and greenhouse gas issues for Tompkins County. Two weeks ago they released the draft of the energy and greenhouse gas emission element for the County Comprehensive Plan, The County is assuming a projection that the cost of gasoline is going to increase on the order of $1 per gallon per year for the foreseeable future based on the expert testimony that they received. He has looked into the issue himself and noted that it was not an unreasonable assumption. Alternate Member Bosak stated that it turns out motorists are a lot more sensitive to price increases than many people thought they were once a "magical" threshold had been met. He commented that it looked as if that threshold was $3.50 per gallon of gas. TCAT saw an increase in ridership of 10 to 20% during the summer for some of rural routes as gas neared $4.00 per gallon. Based upon the County's projection, when people have to spend $8.00 or $9.00 per gallon of gas the affect on ridership is beyond imagining. He stated that this could give the situation that is at right angles to the four scenarios that were adopted as basis for the study. It is very easy to imagine 5 years 10 Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final out that at that price 3,000 of the people being talked about would abandon their cars as a means to get to campus. The challenge becomes like scenario 4 in that all of a sudden there are several thousand people, needing public transit for them, but at the same time roadway modifications are not needed because there is less traffic. Alternate Member Bosak stated technically speaking, his entire comment was out of scope because this was a framework for mitigations for increased traffic. He was trying to point out that that may not be what happens. It would make him feel better as a member of the TCAT advisory group to know that someone at Cornell is looking at what is appearing like a more likely outcome than any of the ones that form the basis for this study. If the County is right, there is going to be a tremendous challenge in providing that service. Alternate Member Bosak stated for conversation purposes, suppose that all the problems found by Bruce and Doug are correct and that all the mitigations laid out in the T -GETS are the best that can be done. He asked what conclusions the Board was suppose to draw if the mitigations are the best that can be done. He wanted to know the logical outcome of that chain of reasoning. Doug Brittain responded that he and his brother did not think their purpose that evening was to make suggestions, but he did have a few. Many board members were talking about bicyclists not obeying traffic laws and passing cars in traffic, when in reality it's the only way that bicycles can compete with cars on a speed basis. If a bicyclist is able to travel without stopping, he /she can average 15 to 20 miles per hour. A car averages 15 to 20 miles per hour as it drives around the City. With the right facility, Doug felt that a bicycle could be time competitive with a car. He added that one reason why people do not ride the bus is because it's never as convenient as a car at home. The only way to compete is to make the bus more convenient at the office. He also suggested extending Town Road to Cornell's research park at the airport. If Cornell grows, it provides them with a corridor to grow along. Internal Cornell campus would be able to drive around without going through surrounding neighborhoods. Doug stated that there are other mitigations that could be done and thought Cornell not growing was not necessarily a restriction because more research can be done without there being more people to do the research. This would eliminate the problem of handling more cars on campus and it might be cheaper overall to keep the Cornell campus from growing. Mr. Brittain stated another mitigation measure would be to have more Cornell employees live closer to their jobs. He thought that there were a lot of other things that could be considered and done that do not render Cornell dysfunctional. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox thanked Alternate Member Bosak and Doug Brittain for their comments. He looked to staff and the Attorney for the Town for any comments they may have. Ms. Brock pointed out that she had mentioned at past meetings that the background traffic growth was too low. It is something Cornell is looking at and will be addressing the Final EIS. She did not believe that the commuter traffic generated from the hypothetical Cornell growth scenarios is too low because those numbers are what they are. Everyone agreed upfront that they were going to assume that the population 11 .. Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final at Cornell would grow by 300 people over 10 years under scenario 2, 1500 under scenario 3, and 3000 under scenario 4; from that information, the commuter -bound traffic can be generated. The problem is that the background growth numbers are too low. Ms. Brock stated that the Brittains said that there were certain assumptions being made that were underestimating the amount of growth, but there were certain other assumptions that Cornell made that may or may not offset those. For example, it was assumed that all new population growth would be employees even though some of it will be undergraduate students. Employees drive in single occupancy vehicles at a much higher rate than graduate students, which was an assumption that was made that tried to overstate according to their perspective the numbers of people who would now be driving. She just wanted the Board to know that there were other counterbalancing assumptions that may or may not balance out. She was a little puzzled by the comment that the T -GEIS did not include any information about residents' concerns about their neighborhoods. The Brittains stated that just the physical attributes were discussed and there was no mention of widespread dissatisfaction with current traffic volumes. She explained that the existing conditions section for neighborhood livability does state where participants at the open houses did raise those kinds of concerns. For example in the Forest Home section it states, "Participants at the T -GEIS public open houses expressed concerns about too much traffic, pollution, noise, and speeding in the Forest Home neighborhood." She realized the Brittains made specific comments that did not make it into the document, but she didn't understand their. comment that the document didn't include that kind of information. Bruce responded that it's included, but only as comments made by a member of the public. So as far as he understood it, it was never officially recognized by the Office of the T -GEIS. It doesn't say that there is too much traffic on specific streets in the main text; it's only relegated to the comments section of people who came to meetings.. Bruce thought that there were a lot of comments that are made at meetings that are put in the Appendix, but it would have been nice, since the comments were directed to be looking at livability issues in neighborhoods, to be in the text. If too much traffic is a livability issue, it should be stated in the text and then addressed. Ms. Brock clarified that it is listed on page 209 of the text, but she did understand Bruce's comment. Doug added that the text mentions that someone said it, but it does not mentioned that a professional consultant does not agree with the statement. The statement is not in there as if anyone with anyone with any knowledge or authority says there is too much traffic in a residential neighborhood. Doug further commented that graduate students make more repeat traffic to campus than faculty; so the total number of trips by graduate students may be greater. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox thanked the Brittains for their comments and asked if there were further comments from staff. Mr. Kanter commented that there was a reference on page 371 of the TGEIS talking about Cornell's master plan recommendations for increased densities and housing and what has become known as the East Ithaca 12 Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final Village concept. It is described as one of the possible mitigating measures, which he felt was appropriate, but what is not said are the impacts of the mitigation. That is something that .cannot be fully fleshed out in the T -GEIS, but the Town is going to work with Cornell on what the impacts may be in some other process. Mr. Kanter thought it would be appropriate for the . Board to acknowledge that the impacts of mitigating measures are sometimes issues and should be noted or thought about. He was looking forward to hearing and reading some of the draft comments that Cornell will be putting together. He thought the Planning Board may want to have more discussions once those are available. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox agreed. Board Member Erb commented that she heard the Brittains say that it wasn't in fact the absolute worse case scenario that was modeled. She accepts the fact that it wasn't the worst possible situation that they could have thought about; she accepted that it was labeled worst case on the basis of being the worst of the four scenarios to which was agreed. She took it in that light —not as a complete back sliding of what is the worst possible thing that could happen in the future. Board Member Erb got a •little sense that the Brittains were upset that it wasn't a true worst case scenario. She stated it was simply the worst of the four scenarios presented. Second, Board Member Erb heard people situations may be changing, but when there point it needs to move ahead. Things will be will still review project specific proposals and are specific to that. The fact that the world is Board Member Erb to constantly stall the prod remark that the Board is out of date, is a very long plan being made at some revisited eventually. The Planning Board any traffic situations that they need that changing did not seem to be a reason to .ass for updating. Third, Board Member Erb believed that there was a very strong reason to make sure that a member of the public who has not attended many of the meetings where Cornell is explaining how to read the graphs should be able to read the graphs and figures. That means Cornell needs to work hard at presenting explanations for each type of graph. She thought that there were some issues with how to read the graphs and that it was incumbent upon Cornell to be very sure that a member of the public could read and understand the graphs. Discussion ensued regarding which version the Brittains were referencing in their submitted comments as the pages referenced did not match with the pages of the TGEIS Planning Board members had. Mr. Doug Brittain explained that when they were talking about it not being the worst case scenario, they did not mean scenario 4 as worst case. They meant when Cornell did their modeling and said it was the worst scenario, they said it was pre- mitigation. That implied that if they hired 1500 new people that 1500 new people would drive to work and that is not what they meant. What they actually did is say, "we are hiring 1500 new people; some will take the bus, some will ride, some will drive off- peak." Cornell 13 Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final figured that 331 out of 1500 new employees would drive during evening rush hour. He stated Cornell was already using TDM mitigation to bring that number down from 1500 to 331. Then they were taking the information and putting it on graphs. He noted that the information had been mitigated to current levels of mitigation. Mr. Bruce Brittain added that the TGEIS presented that as the worst case scenario — bringing in the new employees with pre- mitigation, before trying to reduce their transit. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox invited members of the public to address the Board one more time before closing the public hearing. There being none, Vice - Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked board members and staff if they had any additional comments or questions. There were none. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox stated that they would see the applicant again when they have responses to public. comments. He thanked every one for their comments. Minutes Vice - Chairperson Wilcox moved and Board Member Erb seconded approval of the minutes with corrections submitted by Board Member Erb, PB RESOLUTION No. 2008 -084: Approval of Minutes - September 2. 2008 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on September 2, 2008, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meetings on September 2, 2008. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Tally, Erb. Nays: None Abstain: Bosak. The motion passed. Other Business Vice - Chairperson Wilcox announced that Mr. Kanter became a grandfather last week. Mr. Kanter passed around a photograph of his new granddaughter. W Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final Vice- Chairperson Wilcox also announced that Paulette Neilsen was getting married on September 27th and that he wishes her well. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox thanked Ms. Kiley for arranging the field trip to Wilson Lab, Mr. Kanter gave the Board an, overview of the agenda for the October 7, 2008. Sketch plan review of the Carrowmoor project will be on the agenda. The Town Board has requested that the Planning Board take lead agency status on the project. Staff will be sending out notifications to involved and interested agencies indicating the Planning Board's intent to take lead agency status. Board Member Riha confirmed that it was sketch plan review of the project. Mr. Kanter agreed and stated that the . Planning Board had not been involved in on -going discussions of the project. He added that the Board would also be given a copy of the draft local law of the PDZ for the project. Board Member Erb asked how extensive the materials they are very conceptual. He explained that the draft information about the number of dwelling units, mixes down tightly on a site plan because it is currently submitted a letter with their sketch plan materials environmental impact statement. were. Mr. Kanter responded that local law also contains extensive of uses, etc., but it is not pegged a concept plan. The applicant indicating their intent to do an Mr. Kanter stated that a 2dot subdivision on Hayts and Bundy Roads and modification of the condenser building at the Heating Plant are also on the October 7th agenda. He noted that DEC was the lead agency for the condenser building project and Cornell contacted them to verify if the modification falls within their previous environmental review. The Town should be receiving confirmation from DEC regarding the environmental review. Board Member Conneman stated that at the end of the last meeting he challenged Ms. Coates Whitmore about the minutes and whether the Board should have summary or verbatim minutes. Ms. Coates Whitmore sent Board Member Conneman minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for his review. He stated, "I will have to say, the way it is done, it appears to me it is okay as opposed to word for word." It seemed to him that the minutes captured and reflected the essence of what occurred at the meetings. He apologized to Ms. Coates Whitmore —he challenged her and she won the challenge. Board Member Erb announced that the Comprehensive Plan Open House is Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. She asked if anyone had heard back from Mr. Weber of Cornell regarding the older of the modular buildings at Wilson Lab, Mr. Kanter responded, "Not yet." He added that the Town is doing some legal research regarding the status of the previous variance. Board Member Conneman commented on the need for sprinklers at the Wilson Lab temporary building. 15 Planning Board Minutes September 16, 2008 Final Upon motion, Vice - Chairperson Wilcox adjourned the September 16, 2008 Planning Board meeting at 8:59 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Carrie Coates Whitmore First Deputy Town Clerk Me D uo T v �3� 0 O cr 03�; a (D n (Q :3. cn O v O 3 r+� (D (Q N (n N O n O _O3 O (CD n cS v cn O O D 0- O cn (�D 0 (D Dp� Q� _0 0 _Q O'< O cn Q ��(:D O O 7 +1 3 (n o O ccn rn 3 (n 3 (D v C _ = (D (�DV� O � ((D 1 cn v O (n N p 0 -0 < F)* O 0 0-00 v v Ova 303 o 0 :3 3 :3_0 cn U) C 0-W l< cn cfl*(n rn O 3 cn 0� co • • • • • • cn D -n — rn ox -n <rn �, � �o a.D m* 0 —:3 o o cn �� 70 o ° 0 0 cD� 0 0 � v (D 0 M D : 0 a)0 0 cD W �� �o — 0� �Q �,_ L �< c _ . cn cn C: CD Z3 c� �( cn � � v �70 Q � ,�- v� 0 0° — G) 0- o° cn (D� v 0 z 0- cD Q m 0- �, o m :3 _0 =3 p <_ � cn m < 0 0 o —:3 -� 3 0 v v_ 3 0 0 (D C(D0 0 �- Q 0� � o 11 0 o 0- _— 3 < �C: �' o v � v v `< o cn c� cn cc m o D 0 O 1 1 0 sal n a � age 7 c fY � O IF it ■ eD a c A ^ n T CL c .�, 7 CL N D rp C_ C+ n c n 0 m n 0 3 c 1 7 N . . . 0o 0 o O Z D (D (D o 0 o 3 (D 3 C-0 O 0 �. Fn w 0 \ �3 w ° 00 (D (D O —+% m =h -a a m 3 ,o o 3 _ CD 0 3 c O CD (D o CAD +m cn (n o 0 (n O < CD con � O v =3 ° (n v a 3 U) v r, CD 3 .A v a (D (c 0 o a O 3 0 0 v o C� m m m O 3 (n �:3 D m (D Q c Q n o cn o a :3 o 0 cn m o (D (D v 3 v v cn Q v 0 0 0 r-: m (D `� (D 0 cn o 0 0 o v v v v (o CD 3 Q Q o a zy (n (D v (D M (D `< m O S O 2T O C � v Q Q E (D cn (Q < a) Q a (D (D (D O C �' `� cn 0 v (D U) (D 3 (n 3 Q (D � n � O c n Q (D (D v 07 O C (n zF cn (D O n O v Q.. 77 O . . . 0o 0 o m (D o o -0 o 0 C-0 0 0 0 m m (D (D m (D m 0 3 (D (D +m (D (D cD (D .cn U) -0 Z- o =r (c 00 o O 3 < 0 (D n c n Q c �:3 D 0 s O a Q Q 0 cn (D (D (D cn v v v v 0 0 0 0 (D (D (D 0 (n U) v v v v (o CD Q Q Q zy = Q v (D S O O O Q Q E (o cn < a) Q :D (n 0 (D (D (D 3 �' `� cn O 3 U) (D `G Q (D (D Q (D C7 07 O C (n zF cn (D n O Q.. O cn i� Q C) I I X N N N (D —� Cn zU. -o C -0. p rn ,< < c� Z CT (D O O o co rn cD C� o ° o a zT c cn o (D o n o a 0- 0 C) 0 o 0 0 Z 0 0 con. Z C) i� Q C) I I X :3 Cn Cn cn -o -0. O 0- c� c� 0 O O O -0 rn cD (D � (Q' 0- 0 0 0 0 0 con. 0 O C0D 3 � v 0 O n � O � O � CD cr r � Q i i Q (— °Q o 3 w -0 o C- CD 0 3 0') _0 � o I,< (1) U CD CD D < 0- rn 0- o 0 _0 l< 3 0 0 0 0 1 E o. C/) QL cn �< cn 0 -1. M o 0- zT (D cn C) --I 0 0 0 o cn v 3 _0 0 w 3 cn i 0 m 0 D v 0 o� rn rn 0 rn rn .. G) n CD v O A I O v Q Q O� O O a v n O Q v n cQ O C) (D v O O -0 n (D (D v O (D (D O CD C7 O =3 (D 0 (G O (D _0 - (D p (D (D O -0 (D C7 O 0 (D 0 (D �_CD O W (D 0 -O " `G (D O O CD 0 (D 0 :3 (D — 0 N �_ O N O � p CD 0 0 O — O v -*. O n (D W_ O ((D -, Uj n (D 0 .-. '••r rr C0 0 cn v O -a U) mo i�: _0 Z 0 CZ3 0 � v 0 � U) W v (D v O O C7 O v O O 0 cn O — O (D w 0 �. (D (D 0_ N m =; (D — w O 0 Ci n (D r: (D r: (D O 0 (n v O 0 0- O QL (0 (D _0 -0 = Q C-) (n (n cn Z Z -0 Z -0 Z 1 O 3 O� O O O O O n v o v a 0 (D n � O W =$ v:3 — —_ -* 3 o 0 0_ (D < 0_ Q N N 0_ Q p a O (D ° CD O — v v v v (n ° cn � v 3 v cn _ = c CD = m c (D (D m I m C1 o � CD CD o = o (D-13 CD CD CD Q) cn CD 0 I I I �O O 3 v o �. M o cD O -0 n Q:) o c� CD cn o � � -o CD _. CD �. CD c o CD cn 3 O cn (D O O o' lJJ v O c� v 3 w O CD Ism CD OE O C� O D 0 n O 3 3 cn (D c� n 2' D" N� �� n � o� O (D 0 �Q) D wO <0 3 n (D O n a' _0 3� ° p 3 o o m (n o u-c a o c c � 7� cn w 0 (D �a cno o o(D Q _.°<�q w (nv (O �+ N N O O (n 0 CD O < (n 3 _0 o D — (D (D cn c n p c cD (D (D N (D (<D N -� � � O (D (D (3D (n -��3 (n �v O< (D << (D Q c o' (D (� O (D (n N (pn (D (II< Q (D - C (SOD _0 cn O Q N p I- c (n O � (n O ( _0 N (D (D N c O c1 (D O Q n 2' D" 0 zrl- Cz y �F I r Q M 0 X X n� O O Q- Q 00 - n n Q (D O < D _ cn O N s? O v O� Q� (D 33 3 -0 :3 � ZY X O C (D �' � O :3 � 0 ( D O (D I?C % m w O -, (n Q(D v Q 3 Q ° cD v (D cn x O (n 3 O 0 N � � N n n N (D 7c (D O (D O Q _0 m' 3 `< 0. O (n (D (n < (D 0 zrl- Cz y �F I r I j w 1 L O C 0 (O v n O rn D U) 0 v cD 0 m Q y Z n Z y Z Z -0 CD T 0 0 Z3 (D (D :3 O X_ X- (D Q < . (D O O (D (D 0- O O O v � D n (D o �� v 3 C: O U) O (n (D n ° 3 U) m m CD m rn o < o (n :3 Q (n m O O -O (D CD o 0 o < 0 < (n m rn CD c o v Q o I j w 1 L O C 0 (O v n O rn D U) 0 v cD 0 m Q y Z n Z y Z Z i 0 Z y rhZ y O Z �1 Z Z . . vim X000 a� zr � a0 -0n � (D (D Q my �cnv �oo(D (Do n� m .o n D < 0 0 0 0 0 cn o (D � (D a) Z3 o oom D�'v :3 v - 0 o 0 � (D v (fl ,_, p - — 3 (�D �0-� v < m p �0 c < (n o `1 o o W'< cD N (D o° 0z3 -0 3 o0 �Q F-) n (D En cD� rnv Q �Q o ,� D n c�, moo= o° v o cn Qt rn x 3 T 3 cn O (n i 0 Z y rhZ y O Z �1 Z Z d (D cr c N N 1 CL a m A O 3 3 c m 0 0 O O M -{ ^ O v �+ <, > p o N n O� -o m O N :3 v O O n c !y N CD �/1 Q d C) CD j 3 A rr C m v z m C m m O m En r r m ��Ib oE -_r-foam �00001 board I Sepfevnh -er lut ;rah �T�%�ll�i EXISTING CONDITIONS This section contains a wealth of interesting and useful information. But not all of it is accurate. Errors in Physical Descriptions of Roads Unfortunately, there are many minor errors in the descriptions of the roads. For example: • Indicates that there is no walkway on Judd Falls Road south of the Judd Falls/Plantations Road intersection, and that it is not maintained in the winter (p. 59). In actuality, there is a 5 ft wide asphalt walkway here that is well - maintained by the University. • Indicates that the Warren/Hanshaw intersection has a dedicated right turn lane on the eastbound approach (Appendix I, p. 10 1) • States that segments of Forest Home Drive have speed limits of 15, 25 and 30 mph (pp. 120 and 209). In fact, the speed limit is 25 mph for the entire length of the road within Forest Home, from the intersection with Plantations Road near Beebe Lake to beyond the last stone house to the east. • States that there is a 5 -ton weight limit on the bridges in Forest Home (pp. 208 and 209). In fact, the weight limit is on the roads (including portions of Forest Home Drive, Judd Falls, and McIntyre Place), rather than. on the bridges. Errors in Determining LOS of Roads and Intersections There are also errors in determining operational aspects of the roads and intersections. Roads. The t -GEIS states that Warren Road north of Hanshaw, near the schools, has a free flow speed (FFS) of 35 mph (p. 124), and it is classified as a Class II road. However, Table 3.1.4 -1 on p. 113 indicates that a road with a 35 mph FFS should be classified as a Class III road. This misclassification causes the LOS to drop with background traffic growth, when it would otherwise not be expected to. Intersections. The LOS for the Warren/Hanshaw intersection is incorrect. It was calculated, not measured, which is unfortunate because the Highway Capacity Manual underestimates the through -put capacity of an all -way stop controlled intersection. According to the t -GEIS, the delay for all approaches was calculated to be over 20 seconds, with overall intersection delay of over 30 seconds. (Appendix I, p. 107) In reality, the average delay actually measured in 2007 was much less. As part of our analysis of the Hanshaw Road reconstruction project, we conducted a hand traffic count in April, 2007, with results reported to John Lampman (with cc to members of the Town Board) on April 13, 2007. We observed the intersection during evening rush hour, and noted that even with a northbound vehicle arrival rate of 480 vph, the longest delay we were able to record was 18 seconds. The average delay for that intersection (for all approaches) appears to be closer to 5 seconds during rush hour. While queues do form, they tend to dissipate fairly quickly. Since the HCM software inaccurately predicts existing conditions, it can not be expected to make accurate predictions about the future. Neighborhood Livability According to the Scope (p. 9), the t -GEIS was supposed to qualitatively describe neighborhood livability. Instead, it describes the physical attributes of the neighborhoods, but makes no mention of the widespread dissatisfaction with current traffic volumes. Many (and in some cases, most) residents of surrounding neighborhoods believe that traffic volumes on their streets are already too high, and this should have been included as part of the neighborhood assessment. If this t -GEIS document is ever used as a basis for future action, it is important to have a written record of the existing livability concerns. PROJECTED GROWTH RATES The t -GEIS underestimates the traffic impact of Cornell's growth, in several different ways. Background Traffic Growth The t -GEIS started with an estimate of 2.2% overall annual growth rate, based on historic traffic counts. It was then estimated that Cornell is responsible for approximately 30% of this (including commuter trips plus other trips of Cornell households). The remaining 70% of historic traffic growth was therefore attributed to non- Cornell sources. This led to an approximate annual 1.5% growth rate in background traffic, even with no Cornell growth (Scenario 1). (See p. 245 and Appendix E) For Scenarios 2, 3, and 4, the estimates of Cornell commuter trips were added to the 1.5% background growth, in order to estimate traffic volumes. Unfortunately, they neglected to add back in the non - commuter trips made by employee households. (Each time you add an employee, you add a household, and all its trips, and these should have been included.) This omission leads to a significant underestimate of the increase in traffic attributable to Cornell growth. Fortunately, the Scope specified that all these non - commuter trips of Cornell households will be included in background traffic growth numbers: "For the impact analysis, hypothetical Cornell population growth scenarios will be added to background growth. Background growth includes non - Cornell traffic and non - commuter trips of Cornell students' and employees' households." (Final Scope, p. 10) Had this been done correctly, there would not be one level of background growth rate for all four Scenarios. Scenario 2 adds 300 new employees and their households, Scenario 3 adds 1500 new employees and their households, and Scenario 4 adds 3000 new employees and their households. Clearly, these increasing numbers of new households would have an increasing effect on background traffic levels. Consequently, all subsequent analyses in the t -GEIS are invalid. Multiplier Effect Cornell growth drives community growth, but this so -called "multiplier effect" of Cornell employment was not considered in the traffic growth estimates: "There is a relationship between background traffic and Cornell employment growth. The Cornell Local Government Program estimates the multiplier effect of Cornell employment at 0.36 jobs, i.e., every new Cornell employee generates an additional 0.36 jobs in the community. Higher Cornell employment growth implies higher background traffic growth. Therefore background traffic growth may be underestimated under the high Cornell growth scenarios." (Appendix E, p. 3) If this multiplier effect had been included in the calculations, the background traffic resulting from Cornell's growth would be 36% greater. Resource Committee meeting minutes indicate that Herb Engman asked if the multiplier effect would be included, and George Alexiou assured him that it would be. (Appendix I) Although this was not specifically addressed in the Scope, it would be nice to have the analysis be consistent with verbal agreements, and to take all known factors into account. y.. Traffic Grows Faster Than Population This phenomenon has been observed nationwide, and is explained several times in the t -GEIS. For example, the observed 2.2% traffic growth rate is higher than the observed population growth rate over the same time period. The t -GEIS applies this phenomenon to background traffic growth, but does not apply it to Cornell commuter traffic. There is no reason to assume that Cornell employees and students are exempt from this national and regional trend. (There are more and more places to eat lunch off campus, and with the shifting of some playing fields to Game Farm Road, more driving can be expected.) Cornell commuter traffic can be expected to increase even with no increase in Cornell population. Didn't Validate Model To validate the accuracy of a model, one should model a situation t -GEIS consultant could have modeled the current situation to see traffic growth rate of 2.2 %. Apparently this was not done. All of highest growth rate (Scenario 4), predict that traffic. will grow at a have been experiencing. This is not realistic. that has a known outcome. In this case, the if it correctly predicts the known overall the growth scenarios modeled, even the lower rate than the 2.2% annual rate that we Not only are the overall results unrealistic, but so are some of the predictions for individual streets. For example, in Scenario 3, there are 1500 new employees, and not one is expected to take Judd Falls Road through Forest Home during evening rush hour. (p. 206) Does this seem realistic? Other Ignores Part -Time &wlovees: Only included full -time faculty and staff, not part- timers, even though they still commute: "For the purposes of this study, the Cornell population refers to the number of full -time faculty, staff and students who study or work at the main campus in Ithaca. (Executive Summary, footnote, p. 3) Ignores OXPeak Travel: Considered the contribution of Cornell employees to evening peak -hour traffic flows, ignoring off -peak travel. During off -peak periods, Cornell will contribute a greater percentage of the traffic flow. DIDN'T CALCULATE WORST -CASE TRAFFIC IMPACTS The t -GEIS presents the calculated traffic volumes as representing the worst -case situation with no mitigation: "The potential impact analysis portrays what would occur under the various hypothetical population growth scenarios if no mitigations were undertaken, in order to examine the worst case." (Executive Summary, p. 3) This is not, in fact, the case. Chapter 4 details how the traffic impacts were calculated, and it was assumed that new employees would enroll in SOV- reduction strategies at the same rate as current employees. The result is that: Scenario 2: 300 new employees (p. 225) results in only 66 more vehicles during evening rush hour (p. 246) Scenario 3: 1500 new employees (p. 226) results in only 331 more vehicles during evening rush hour (p. 246) Scenario 4: 3000 new employees (p. 226) results in only 661 more vehicles during evening rush hour (p. 246) Therefore, the calculated traffic impact assumes that highly- effective traffic mitigation programs and strategies would continue in effect, with 78% of new employees not contributing to evening rush hour. This does not represent a "worst -case" scenario with "no mitigations" undertaken. In fact, it sounds more like the best -case scenario that is heralded in the Executive Summary: "Even in Scenario 4, the highest growth scenario, it is likely that Cornell can capture the equivalent of almost 75 percent of the new population through these measures." (Executive Summary, p. 10) It sounds as Cornell would consider a continuation of current practices to be a resounding success. IMPACTS Impacts on Traffic Level of Service for corridors and intersections is a measure of delay. The t -GEIS focuses on reducing commuting time as if that were the most important issue for Cornell students and employees. Why is this assumed to be the case? They liver throughout the county (and beyond); with an average commute time of 19 minutes. (Appendix A, p. 2) Living in the right neighborhood is apparently more important than saving 10 or 20 seconds on a commute. (see p. 209) . Focusing on livable neighborhoods might be more important to the Cornell population than focusing on LOS. If saving 10 or 20 seconds on a commute were actually that important, you would never be able to get anyone to walk, ride a bike, or wait for a bus. Traffic in Neighborhoods Traffic Reduction :. The t -GEIS was supposed to find ways of reducing traffic in neighborhoods: "A major objective of the t -GEIS is to develop ways to reduce the number of trips by motor vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods to and from Cornell." (Final Scope, pp. 1 and 3) In spite of this, the best that the t -GEIS can promise (Executive Summary, p. 10) is that mitigation measures would be sufficient to ensure no net increase in commuter traffic, provided that Cornell growth rates are modest. At higher growth rates, traffic in neighborhoods is projected to increase, even with all proposed mitigation measures. This major objective of neighborhood traffic reduction has clearly not been achieved. Livability: Perhaps we can now see why the t -GEIS did not acknowledge any livability concerns in the Existing Conditions section. According to the t -GEIS, there are no livability concerns in any neighborhood, even under the Scenario with the highest traffic projections: "As noted in Section 4.3, traffic volumes generally are not expected to exceed reasonable volumes in any of the three hypothetical population growth scenarios in which Cornell population is projected to grow." (p. 427) In order to reach this remarkable conclusion, the t -GEIS consultants found a source on "Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares" that apparently indicates that it's okay to have up to 25,000 vpd of traffic in a residential neighborhood. Other sources provide different results. For example, Buchanan (Traffic in Towns) suggests an upper limit of approximately 3000 vpd on residential streets. It is interesting that Cornell apparently does not apply the 25,000 vpd standard to its own campus, but instead works to reduce traffic. This is the appropriate approach to apply to the neighborhoods, as well as to campus. When the t -GEIS is rewritten, we hope that the authors will respect the Lead Agency's directive to adequately assess and address the impacts of traffic on neighborhood livability. Noise In spite of projected increases in traffic in neighborhoods, the report (incorrectly) concludes (p. 309) that "no noticeable increases in noise levels are projected for any of the corridors." This seems to indicate an insufficient appreciation of neighborhood livability issues, as well as a lack of familiarity with sound characteristics. It may be true that adding a few cars to a steady stream of traffic a few miles away would not appreciably change the background hum of traffic. But cars in neighborhoods, especially neighborhoods with houses close to the road, tend to be experienced as discrete events, with each new car noticed and resented. Pollution If Cornell contributes to neighborhood traffic, they will contribute to neighborhood pollution. Rather than acknowledging this, the t -GEIS simply predicts that, in the future, each car may pollute less than current models do: MITIGATION Section 5.1 contains a long list of possible mitigation strategies. While many sound useful, the list is unremarkable in that it apparently contains no new ideas or solutions. There are also no real projections for how successful each strategy might be if it were pursued, no priorities, no next steps. Traffic in Neighborhoods The t -GEIS was supposed to develop specific mitigation measures for neighborhoods: "Additional potential mitigation strategies will be identified for specific residential areas in which impacts in Section IV were not mitigated by the strategies identified in 5.2.1 - 5.2.3. These could include items such as traffic calming measures and safety improvements." (Final Scope, p. 15) Instead, mitigation measures for neighborhoods are restricted to "existing neighborhood elements such as tree lawns, on- street parking, and sidewalks" and "potential mitigations identified in previous sections of the t- GEIS" (p. 427) There are no mitigation strategies specifically targeted at increasing or even retaining existing levels of neighborhood livability. TIMS Since Cornell will author the TIMS, the Town may be handing over planning authority to the University: "Cornell plans to distribute. the TIMS and seek comment from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as well as the involved and interested agencies, and the public before finalizing it." (p. 436a) It sounds as if the University would then expect the Town (and City) to implement the mitigation measures which it has identified: "It is anticipated that the municipality having jurisdiction of the property on which the potential mitigation is proposed would lead the effort. However, funding may come from a different source or several different sources." (pp. 376 and 383) Taken together, the above two statements are troubling. If the University has some suggestions for projects they would like the Town to undertake, do they really need such an involved process for requesting that they be done? And to what extent does the TIMS tie the Town's hands, or pre- approve any measure that Cornell may propose? APPENDIX B Appendix B was supposed to contain all public comments made at t -GEIS Public Open Houses: "Appendix B includes documentation of all comments received at the public open houses." (Executive Summary, p..9) However, our comments made to George Alexiou relative to a new "backbone" road were not included, nor was our follow -up letter, sent to Mr. Alexiou on May 12, 2006, with copies to Fernando de Aragon, Cyndi Rottenberg - Walker, Bill Wendt and Kathy Wolf. More importantly, our suggestions do not seem to have been adequately considered, in spite of assurances that they would be. Were other people's comments and suggestions also excluded from the so- called "complete" list? CONCLUSION The t -GEIS report is unusable. The traffic projections are incorrect, the impacts are understated, and the mitigations are apparently not expected to be much more effective than the current SOV- reduction programs. It needs to be completely rewritten (or abandoned). CORNELL'S $20 MILLION FUNDING INITIATIVE Seems like a much better way to do things. Funding projects that help everyone. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, September 16, 2008 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Rodeway Inn & Suites Modifications, 654 Elmira Road. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed changes at the Rodeway Inn & Suites, 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 -6, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The project involves converting an existing building that is currently used for storage into two new rental rooms for the motel. Janina Hospitality Inc., Owner /Applicant; Michael Scott, Northeast Renovation Inc., Agent, 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider public comments regarding the draft Cornell Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t- GEIS). The t -GEIS includes an identification, examination and evaluation of transportation - related impacts of hypothetical Cornell University population growth scenarios over the next decade on transportation systems and neighborhoods. The t -GEIS addresses these impacts by evaluating and proposing mitigation measures to encourage alternatives to single- occupancy vehicle use by those traveling to and from Cornell. A major objective of the t -GEIS is to develop ways to reduce the number of trips by motor vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods to and from Cornell, and to identify ways of getting people, not vehicles, to campus. The t -GEIS studies two independent but complementary forms of proposed actions. The first is in the form of approvals of future Cornell building and development projects that will use the t -GEIS as part of a basis for their environmental review. The t -GEIS will not be a substitute for site - specific environmental review under SEQR. This could be in the form of site plan or special permit reviews or other approval applications for future Cornell building projects. The second form of the proposed action grew out of the mitigations section of the t -GEIS. Based on the mitigations identified, Cornell University has prepared a draft ten -year strategic transportation plan, or Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS). Copies of the draft t -GEIS are available for review at the Ithaca Town Hall, 215 N. Tiog4 Street, Ithaca, NY; at the Tompkins County Public Library, 101 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY; City of Ithaca Planning Department, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, NY; Cornell's Olin Library; Ithaca College Library; or on Comell's t -GEIS website: www.tgeisproject.org. Written comments on the t -GEIS will also be accepted through September 26, 2008, and may be addressed to Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, at Town Hall at the address indicated above. Questions may be addressed to Jonathan Kanter at (607) 273- 1747. 5. Approval of Minutes: September 2, 2008, 6. Other Business: 7. Adjournment, Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 2734747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, September 16, 2008 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time and on the following matter: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed changes at the Rodeway Inn & Suites, 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 -6, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The project involves converting an existing building that is currently used for storage into two new rental rooms for the motel. Jamna Hospitality Inc., Owner /Applicant; Michael Scott, Northeast Renovation Inc., Agent, Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, September 8, 2008 Publish: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CORNELL t -GEIS Tuesday, September 16, 2008 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing, pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR 617, also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code, will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency for coordination of the environmental review of this matter, on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time on the following matter: 7:15 P.M. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider public comments regarding the draft Cornell Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t- GEIS). The t -GEIS includes an identification, examination and evaluation of transportation - related impacts of hypothetical Cornell University population growth scenarios over the next decade on transportation systems and neighborhoods. The t -GEIS addresses these impacts by evaluating and proposing mitigation measures to encourage alternatives to single- occupancy vehicle use by those traveling to and from Cornell. A major objective of the t -GEIS is to develop ways to reduce the number of trips by motor vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods to and from Cornell, and to identify ways of getting people, not vehicles, to campus. The t -GEIS studies two independent but complementary forms of proposed actions. The first is in the form of approvals of future Cornell building and development projects that will use the t -GEIS as part of a basis for their environmental review. The t -GEIS will not be a substitute for site - specific environmental review under SEQR. This could be in the form of site plan or special permit reviews or other approval. applications for future Cornell building projects. The second form of the proposed action grew out of the mitigations section of the t -GEIS. Based on the mitigations identified, Cornell University has prepared a draft ten -year strategic transportation plan, or Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS). Copies of the draft t -GEIS are available for review at the Ithaca Town Hall, 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY; at the Tompkins County Public Library, 101 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY; City of Ithaca Planning Department, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, NY; Cornell's Olin Library; Ithaca College Library; or on Comell's t -GEIS website: www.tgeisproject.org. Written comments on the t -GEIS will also be accepted through September 26, 2008, and may be addressed to Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, at Town Hall at the address indicated above. Questions may be addressed to Jonathan Kanter at (607) 273 -1747. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 Publish: Friday, August 29, 2008 l�f nar SepEeberlU,j2008 1,;17E}ITHACA J0t1RNAL j Friday; August 29,,2008 THE,. THAOA JOURNAL: . Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street September 16, 2008 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGMN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name ff sto 'I Lt Address ?�v: ulne�A c-uk7&c�. A G c I S Acr�E'Vz,,< 1P I . TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday September 16, 2008 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Siwi Board — 215 North Tio ag_Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: September 8, 2008 September 10, 2008 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this I oth day of September 2008. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 /0