Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2011-03-15FILE DATE YL TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, March 15, 2011 i 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Chair: Fred Wilcox; Members: Linda Collins, George Conneman, John Beach, Ellen Baer; Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb, David Slottje (Alternate Member) ,I Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Deb DeAugistine, 'i Deputy Town Clerk; Creig Hebdon, Engineer; Christine Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard I Pat Dutt, 135 Westhaven Rd, began by thanking Board for all their work they do. She is in support of a moratorium on West Hill in order to give Town planners time to plan for the development on West Hill. Development is happening on a piecemeal basis without a plan. She argued that planners need the time to gather quantitative data that the Town does not have. The data we do have is obsolete, partial, and misrepresents conditions on West Hill. We need to give planners time to test assumptions and some of the egregious shortcomings of some of the studies done on West Hill, in particular, the Route 96 Corridor study. The argument has been made that the developers have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in time on their plans, but homeowners have collectively spent millions of dollars on their houses, including thousands of dollars in taxes every, year. Some residents have lived on West Hill for over 30 years and have investments, not only, in their homes, but in their communities. If large -scale development goes forward to break ground, that would defeat the purpose of a moratorium. She asked the Board to support a moratorium to support common sense and to support a plan for sustainable development that minimizes the strain on services and infrastructure. She urged the Town to consider allowing West Hill neighborhoods to participate in the planning process. Mr. Wilcox suggested, she also address her comments to the Town Board and the Planning Committee. Ms. Ritter�, noted that the Planning Committee has referred the moratorium to the Town Board, and that it will be discussed at the Town Board study session on Monday, March 21. Resident #2 echoed Ms. Dutt's comments and those of many residents on West Hill — those the Board have heard from and those they have not — who are in support of a moratorium. She realizes that the vote is not the Planning Board's, but individual projects do come up before the Board. She urged the Board, as the group with authority to approve, reject, or change those projects, to consider West Hill as a whole, not as a whole that will inevitably be developed, but as a community that already exists and faces challenges that will be exacerbated by projects before the Board. She thinks 'Ithe Board veers into red herring territory by being concerned about transportation: as a whole, people on West Hill don't mind waiting in their driveways a few extra minutes. It's not about I convenience; the infrastructure issues are public safety issues. The residents come in before the Planning Board and the Town Board on a case -by -case basis. She urged the Planning Board to begin to work with the residents of these neighborhoods and to encourage the Town Board, the planners, and the supervisor to begin working with these groups and with the City of Ithaca. Route 96 is a major issue. It can't be discounted that a large part of Route 96 is impassable to emergency vehicles. There are public safety issues with a development that have previously been approved, but at this point, that developer can't be held PB Minutes 03 -15 -2011 Page 2 of 9 accountable. This needs to be addressed in the future as the Board looks at all the projects as a whole. In particular, she urged them to look at crime statistics for Overlook; crime there continues to be an issue. She stated that it's a matter of public record that members of the Planning Board have said that had they known that Overlook would present some of these public safety and crime issues, they would not have approved the project. Mr. Conneman responded that he doesn't know if that is true, but would like to see the Sheriff's report regarding crime�at Overlook. The speaker commented that you can't compare apples to oranges; you can't compare Cornell or IC with West Hill. There is not a major employer or a major draw that is anything remotely like Cornell or IC. There is ono industry on West Hill; there's a hospital, which is not going to expand significantly in the future. They keep getting houses added, and housing requires services. The Town Board discussed crime statistics at Overlook. Ms. Brock stated that a',couple of years ago, the Sheriff's department said that the crime rate is not any higher at Overlook than at other neighborhoods. She does not know whether this Board has discussed that issue since then, so was surprised to hear that members of this Board had said otherwise. Ms. Erb stated that a former Board member did made comments about Overlook. I The speaker said those statistics are a matter of public record and suggested the Board work with other elected officials in the City, Town, and County to get those statistics. Resident #3 of Dubois Road stated that she has attended many Planning Committee meetings, where law enforcement issues at Overlook have been discussed. One of the Board members who attends the Planning 'Committee meetings has done research on that issue. She concurs with two previous speakers, regarding a moratorium for development on West Hill. Instead of a piecemeal approach, the residents deserve a plan that applies creative problem solving to today's concerns, such as traffic problems and preservation of green spaces and the views; whether or not the developments should become demographically integrated or remain segregated; the demand on infrastructure t6 build it now and maintain it long into the future after the project is done. Who will pay for that? 'For all of the people responsible for Town of Ithaca governance, it is not your job to placate developers, but to respond to the needs of residents, and a moratorium at this time meets their needs. She called for a moratorium on all developments at this time with no exceptions. Once built, you can't go back and change things — she's sure the Town would be changing, Overlook if they could. She has addressed the Town Board and the Planning Committee. She stated that this is their life and it's important to them. Mr. Wilcox addressed the issue of the moratorium. His understanding is that while the Town Board members and the Planning Committee think about a moratorium on West Hill, members of the Planning Board are obligated to act on the existing regulations, laws, and ordinances that exist. He stated that sound land -use planning and zoning do not operate on a four -year cycle of electing town Board members. If a moratorium was a good idea, it was a good idea last year and the year before, and he is not sure why it is suddenly making progress now. Mr. Conneman stated that he Has been on the Planning Board for ten years, and he does not remember ever placating a developer. The Board members operate according to the rules, and when a development is proposed, they try to make it better if it is not as good as they think it should be. 1I� I I I PB Minutes 03 -15 -2011 II Page 3 of 9 I The speaker said she did not mean to imply that, but that some things have been said at Planning Committee meetings that are contrary to Mr. Conneman's attitude. Ms. Erb pointed out that ('members of the Planning Committee might not be aware of the Planning Board's obligations under SEQR law. AGENDA ITEM Continuation of consideration of adoption of the Findings Statement for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, located between NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2 -41.2, 26 -4- 37, 26 -4 -38, and 26- 4 -39,i1 Low Density Residential Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The proposal involves the construction of 106 + /- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood 'l development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation proposes to acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Trail. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent. i Mr. Wilcox stated that since Friday afternoon, the Board have received information from the applicant, the Attorney fort the Town, and from Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer. He asked for opening comment I s from the applicant team. I Ms. Cutignola stated that li based on Mr. Logue's comments on the Synchro analysis, the applicants have revised quite a bit of the analyses. They separated the eastbound through and right movements and revised the signal timing. It shows a different level of service at Fulton Street than was previously shown. The primary difference in the LOS change has everything to do with an adjustment to the signal timing. The previous analysis showed poor levels of service, and they had developed re- timing to show that it could be better. Mr. Logue felt strongly that it should show how the state DOT has it set now at that location. The timing at that location now delays the southbound Fulton Street intersection so the east/west traffic can move more smoothly. Queuing on Fulton Street does not create an unsafe condition. This favors the east/west movement of 96, I'Iwhere there is less queuing space. Between that and the cross movement of the train, queuing in that location does create an unsafe condition. Even a slight increase in delay pushes it over to an LOS F. So she revised this in Table 1 -5 to show all this information in one table and in a format more easily understood. From the table, you can see that the difference between Build 60 and Built 80 is virtually immaterial — there's no significant change in the level of service or delay. The changes are really between the existing condition and the no- build condition. She applauds�, the Board's position at having to look at the overall condition, but from the applicants' perspective, they need to look at what impact they are creating that they should be held accountable for,, and they need to reach a consensus from the Board. Ms. Cutignola further stated that they looked at the NYS DOT timings provided by Mr. Logue. They plugged them into the Fulton Street/Route 96 intersection, which caused the change in the LOS. She pointed out that the purpose of the Synchro analysis is to look at how one intersection affects the adjoining intersection and the coordination between the signals. Once they identified the correct timing for the Fulton Street intersection, they identified related changes necessary for the Route 89 /Route 96 intersection. Because the Board was trying to compare the Synchro to the HCS, they applied the same set of timing to the HCS analysis and held the timing constant for all conditions: Build, No Build, Build -60, and Build -80. So there was a change to the timing, but it was held constant through the whole analysis. I i II PB Minutes 03 -15 -2011 Page 4 of 9 Mr. Brock verified that they input the actual current timing, and left it alone through all the conditions in both! in the Synchro and in the HCS. I Ms Cutignola described the ICU rating. The HCS and Synchro measure the delay to determine LOS. This is the accepted format by NYS DOT and what they want used for analysis. The ICU measures how many cars can go through an intersection under a given set of conditions. It does not look at separate lane analysis. It does not take into account peak hour factor. Traffic analysis is conducted at the peak hour so you can adjust for the worst case. The peak hour factor tells whether the traffic, is clumped into one 15- minute segment or evenly disbursed over the peak hour. The ICU does not take that into consideration. The ICU measures the amount of reserve capacity; it tries to identify how many more cars can fit through. The ICU analysis is more accurate in evaluating the capacity of how many more cars can go through an intersection, but not in measuring delay. The measure of effectiveness for HCS is delay, not just the bulk level of service. ICU is not to be used instead of HCS; it's a level of refinement. Questions and answers: Mr. Bosak stated that they are not here to judge delay or capacity, but environmental impact. What the ICU says is that the intersection in question is already over capacity, and this project will make it worse. His impression is that the applicants are saying that things might look bad, but if the timing were right, it could get better. He thinks Mr. Logue is saying that if the lights get changed, it will be to make Route 13 better at the expense of the east/west traffic, and that it will be NYS DOT's decision. Ms. Cutignola responded that they want an approvable project -- they want to portray existing conditions and traffic impacts that are a result of their project. They are here to provide mitigation to situations that arise. She is present to help the Board understand what the information shows and the applicant understand what needs to be done. She agrees with Mr. Bosak's statement regarding traffic. Yes, State DOT has said they will need to look at the overall network in terms of prioritizing what the signal timing is. Ms. Erb and Ms. Bosak requested that Mr. Logue's letter be included in the FEIS. Ms. Brock responded that it would be part of the appendices. Mr. Slottje asked if it is the case that these intersections are at or near capacity and that this project will make it worse. I Mr. Parks responded ;that the numbers speak for themselves. When it says 116 %, it is 116 %. The impact is between 116, 117, and 118 percent. Mr. Parks said that they are looking to build a good project. They are looking to work with the Board to come up with a project that will be approved. Mr. Logue's letter mentions that this is the way it is; it is not attributable to the Holochuck project. He also says it is n4 uncommon for projects to offer solutions to the problems. Mr. Parks said they don't want to appear to be glossing over this — they are here to address the Board's concerns and to come'' up with solutions. Mr. Wilcox reminded the Board that mitigations proposed must be in the purview of the applicant. Mr. Parks made a statement regarding the larger context. Having a project that is worth building hasn't yet been discussed. They have tried to come up with a project to meet many of the goals set forth by the Town regarding conservation of land: open space, clustered housing, etc. It is not possible for them to create 5000 units of housing; they can't be the node, but can be part of a PB Minutes 03 -15 -2011 Page 5 of 9 larger node developed in that area. He does not think they are in a position to offer commercial space, but the Cornell property is, since they have road frontage along Route 96. While he looks forward to ,a broader context discussion at the April 5th meeting, what they are supposed to accomplish' at today's meeting is to provide the Board with complete information so they can base their finding; s on accurate data. The applicants think they have addressed Mr. Logue's concerns -- that's the context of their previous comments. i To questions from Ms. Erb, Ms. Cutignola stated that DOT doesn't use the ICU as a standard. It's a factor of the information, but not complete in and.of itself. One hundred percent of capacity means that cars can proceed through the intersection in a free -flow manner; they don't have to wait for the cars in front of them. The cars are not restricted. One cycle gets everyone through. She also went on to explain that there is not a direct correlation between HCS and Synchro LOS B and ICU LOS B. The similarity is that they are both a progression, an ordered system (e.g., LOS F is worse than LOS A). I Mr. Parks, responding to question about the LOS going from bad to worse as a result of this project, stated that they would like to advocate for the case that they didn't cause this problem; they understand that this problem exists, they would like to help this problem, but it's not our fault. They don't want to be held accountable for an existing problem that they have no control over. They are; willing to be accountable for their impact on the problem. i Mr. Wilcox stated that the Board must determine mitigation efforts that are doable and that are reasonably effective in mitigating the increase. Revised!FEIS walk- through The Board and applicants discussed and made revisions to the Revised FEIS dated March 11, 2011, subtitled "Revised Text, Tables and Data Sheets for March 15 meeting." Changes were made to the pages listed below. Fred Wells will make the changes and create a redlined document for Board review, which will be attached to this document. Section, 1.0 Summary: • 1 -3' • 1 -4,' • 1 -5i • 1 -6i • 1 -7 • 1 -9 Section 3.6 Traffic and Transportation: 3.6 -4: ;Response to 3.6 -8 3.6- 5:;Response 3.6 -11 3.6 -6: Comment 3.6 -13 (paragraph break before "However ") and Response 3.6 -13 3.6- 7= 3.6 -8: Response to 3.6 -15 3.6 -8:: Response to 3.6 -7 3.6 -10: Response to 3.6 -21 3.6- 11- 3.6 -12: Response to 3.6 -25 3.6 -13: Response to 3.6 -27 3.6 -19: Response to 3.6 -45, Response to 3.6 -46., Response to 3.6 -47 PB Minutes 03 -15 -2011 ! Page 6of9 I i i PB RESOLUTION No. 2011 -022: SEOR, Acceptance of REVISED Final Environmental, Impact Statement (FEIS), Holochuck Homes Subdivision, Between NYS Route 96 & NYS Route 89, Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2 -41.2, 26 -4 -37, 26 -4 -38, and 26 -4 -39 i Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Ellen Baer I WHEREAS: I 1. This is the consideration of Acceptance of the Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) !for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, located between NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel I No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2 -41.2, 26 -4 -37, 26 -4 -38, and 26 -4 -39, Low Density Residential Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The project involves the construction of 106 +/- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks,! Recreation, and Historic Preservation will acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Trail. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent; and i 2. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board established itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, and issued a positive determination of environmental significance at its meeting on December 18, 2007, in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act) for the above referenced action as proposed, and confirmed that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) would be prepared; and I 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a Public Scoping Meeting on March 18, 2008 to hear comments from the public and interested and involved agencies regarding the scope and content of the DEIS, and accepted the revised Final Scoping Document (amended by the Planning Board at its meeting on March 18, 2008), as being adequate; and 4. The applicants prepared the DEIS, dated September 1, 2009, and submitted said DEIS to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for consideration of acceptance as complete; and ! 5. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board reviewed the DEIS and amendments at its meetings on September 15, 2009 and October 6, 2009; and on November 3, 2009, accepted the DEIS as complete and adequate for the purpose of commencing public review, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.9; and i i 6. The Town Planning Board scheduled a public hearing on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 7:15,! p.m. to obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, and extended the, public hearing and accepted written comments from the public regarding the DEIS until January 5, 2010; and I 7. During the comment period, the Tompkins County Health Department informed the Town of Ithaca via letter dated November 17, 2009, that a former dump located on the Holochuck property was noted in the County Health Department's 1995 database of abandoned landfills as the "Oddfellow's Refuse Site'; and PB Minutes 03 -15 -2011 Page 7 of 9 8. The DEIS identified two 20th Century trash dumps visible on the surface of the property that was the subject of the DEIS, including a trash dump identified as Locus 1; and 1 9. On December 11, 2009 Town Staff visited the Holochuck Property, located the dump site identified by the Tompkins County Health Department, and determined that it was not the same as the Locus 1 dumpsite indicated in the DEIS (although it may have been an extension of Locus 10, and further that it appeared to be located on the parcel proposed to be transferred !to the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation; and 10. The NYS O1,ffice of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation submitted a letter to the Town of Ithaca, dated January 4, 2010, stating that a subsequent site visit by Town of Ithaca Staff and Finger Lakes Regional Staff on December 28, 2009, determined that there were potentially two dumpsites of significant size located on the portion of land shown to be conveyed to the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation and that further site assessment for hazardous materials, documentation of the full extent of the debris field, followed by a cleanup /closure as directed by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, would be necessary before the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation' would agree to advance an acquisition of the property; and 11. The Planning Board determined that the newly discovered information about the various dumps on the Holochuck property was important and relevant and that there was a potential for significant adverse environmental impacts because of the potential public safety issues posed by these dumps located close to the proposed dense housing development. The dumps appeared to contain sharp, rusted metal, glass objects, medical refuse, and other unknown alld potentially hazardous items. Locus 1 was located within the proposed developed area and another dump was located in the woods only a few hundred feet away from the proposed developed area. Additionally, there was not much known information about whether these dumps may have contained or currently contained hazardous waste; and 1 12. The Planning Board, on January 5, 2010, found that the DEIS inadequately addressed the impacts of the two dumps identified in the DEIS, and further that the DEIS did not address the impacts of the dump(s) identified by the Tompkins County Health Department and observed by Town of! Ithaca Staff, and therefore required the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to the DEIS, to address the significant adverse impacts of the dumps; and 13. The applicants prepared an SEIS, dated July 27, 2010, concerning the two dumpsites referenced above, and the Planning Board, at its meeting of September 7, 2010, reviewed and accepted the SEIS as complete and adequate for the purpose of commencing public review, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.9; and i 14. The Planning Board held a public hearing at 7:05pm on October 5, 2010 to obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the dumpsites located on the site of the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, as evaluated in the SEIS, and accepted written comments by the public until October 15, 2010; and i 15. The applicants prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), dated November 4, 2010, regarding the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, and submitted said FEIS to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for consideration of acceptance as complete; and 16. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board reviewed and revised said FEIS at its meetings on December 7, 2010, December 21, 2010, January 4, 2011, and February 1, 2011; and i PB Minutes 03 -15 -2011 Page 8 of 9 I 17. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board accepted the FEIS as complete on February 1, 2011, and filed a Notice of Completion of the FEIS and distributed the FEIS to involved and interested agencies Ion February 9, 2011, pursuant to 6 NYCCR Part 617.9; and 1 18. Due to errors that were discovered in the EIS regarding traffic models affecting two City intersections (N.Fulton /Cliff Street [Buffalo Street] and Taughannock Boulevard /Cliff Street), the Holochuck applicant and the Planning Board agreed, at the March 8, 2011 Planning Board meeting, to re -open the FEIS for the limited purpose of having the applicant provide corrected traffic analysis tables and text related to the two City intersections; and I 19. The applicants submitted corrected traffic analysis tables and text to the Planning Board for consideration of acceptance of the revised FEIS at the March 15, 2011 Planning Board meeting; and 1 20. The Planning Board has reviewed and accepted as adequate the revised FEIS with revised traffic analysis and information for the two City Intersections, as further revised by the Planning Board on March 15, 2011; Iii NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: I 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby accepts the revised FEIS, dated March 11, 2011, and further revised by the Planning Board on March 15, 2011, for the Holochuck Homes Subdivision, as complete, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.9; and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby directs the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff to take those steps, including filing a Notice of Completion of the FEIS, as required under 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 and 617.12, distributing the revised FEIS to involved and interested agencies, as may be necessary or appropriate. Vote: AYES: Wilcox, Collins, Conneman, Baer, Beach, Bosak, Erb NAYS: None AGENDA ITEM PB RESOLUTION' No. 2011 -023: Minutes of February 15, 2011 I Moved by Fred Wilcox; Seconded by Hollis Erb I WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on February 15, 20111; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meeting on February 15. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Conneman, Beach, Bosak, Baer, Erb Nays: None I ' �I PB Minutes 03 -15 -2011 Page 9 of 9 i AGENDA ITEM Other Business On a motion'I by Mr. Wilcox and seconded by Hollis Erb, the Planning Board voted to hold a special meeting on March 22nd at 6 p.m. Adjournment Upon motion by Ms Erb, the meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ebra DeAu "tine, Deputy T rk 0 Holochuck Homes Subdivision FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT NYS Route 96 - Trumansburg Road TOWN OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK I �I Tax Map Identification: Town of Ithaca: Section 24, Block 3, Lot 3.2 Section 25, Block 1, Lot 5.1 and Block 2, Lot 41.2 Section 26, Block 4, Lots 37, 38 and 39 Lead Agency: TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Contact: Christine Balestra, Planner (607) 273 -1747 Project Sponsor: HOLOCHUCK HOMES, LLC 7 Brightside Avenue, East Northport, NY 11731 Contact: Mathew Holochuck (631) 757 -4507 Project Consultants: Environmental Planner. TIM MILLER ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York, 10516 Contact: Frederick Wells, Sr. Planner (845) 265 -4400 Project Engineer. KEYSTONE ASSOCIATES, LLC 58 Exchange Street, Binghamton, NY 13901 Contact: Mark Parker, Project Manager (607) 722 -1100 Project Attorney. SCHLATHER, STUMBAR, PARKS & SALK 200 E. Buffalo Street, PO Box 353, Ithaca, NY 14851 -0353 Contact: David M. Parks, Esq. (607) 273 -2202 Cultural Resources: PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY FACILITY Binghamton University, State University of New York Binghamton, NY 13902 -6000 Contact: Andrea Zlotucha Kozub or Nina Versaggi (607) 777 -4786 i Lead Agency Acceptance Date: March 15, 2011 March 15, 2011 Previously submitted February, 1, 2011, November 4, 2010, January 14, 2011 I Summary March 15, 201IFebFUeFy 1, I This document is a Final Environmental Impact Statement ( "FEIS ") prepared in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ( "SEQRA ") and its implementing regulations! 6 NYCRR Part 617. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( "DEIS ") and the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( "SDEIS ") are hereby incorporated by reference into this FEIS. The SEQRA documents have been prepared in support of the application of Holochuck Homes LLC (the "Applicant ") to construct a cluster subdivision for townhouse -style homes, called " Holochuck, Homes Subdivision ", on a 109 -acre site located between Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96) ,'and Taughannock Boulevard (NYS Route 89) in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. The SEQRA Process The SEQRA lead agency for this action is the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. SEQRA prescribes that the lead agency is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the FEIS. The DEIS, as amended by the FEIS, will form the basis for the lead agency's Findings that will conclude the environmental review process. The Planning Board will adopt a Statement of Findings relative to the environmental effects of this project prior to taking any action regarding approval of, the application. The Applicant is requesting Subdivision Approval, and other associated approvals necessary to implement !the project, based on the findings of the lead agency that result from the SEQRA process. A! fully detailed set of site development drawings meeting the requirements of the permitting 'agencies will be submitted to the agencies for review and approval after the conclusion of the SEQRA review. The approvals that are necessary for the implementation of the development plan are identified in the DEIS. In addition, NYSDEC Division of Solid and Hazardous! Material will need to review and approve the final remedial action report to be prepared after a limited site cleanup (subject of a Supplemental DEIS as described further below). SEQRA Background The Applicant prepared the DEIS for this application based on a written scope accepted by the lead agency on April 10, 2008. (The adopted Scoping Document is included in Appendix A of the DEIS.)I The lead agency reviewed the Applicant's preliminary DEIS for adequacy with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of public review, and after requested revisions were made, accepted the document as complete for the purpose of public review on November 3, 2009, and issued a Notice of Completion and Notice of Public Hearing on November 16, 2009. The notices are included in FEIS Appendix L. The lead agency held a public hearing on the DEIS and the subdivision application on December 15, 2009, at which time the hearing was closed, and held the comment period on the DEIS open for written comments through January 5, 2010. The lead agency received written comments from the public during the comment period. During the review of the project's DEIS, the lead agency became aware that the project site contained areas of surface debris including materials of unknown quantity and unknown Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 1 -1 Summary March 15, 2011FebFH8FY 1, environmental ',significance. The Town Planning Board thus determined on January 5, 2010, that a supplement to the DEIS must be prepared to provide information about the dumps on the property relative to the potential public safety hazards posed by these dumps, particularly as they would be located close to the proposed housing development.' The scope of the supplement was limited to the issue of potential environmental and public safety concerns relative to the 'debris. The Applicant prepared a Supplemental DEIS, which the lead agency reviewed for adequacy with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of public review, and after requested revisions were made, accepted the document as complete for the purpose of public review on September 7, 2010, and issued a Notice of Completion and Notice of Public Hearing on September 14, 2010. The notices are included in FEIS Appendix L. The lead agency held a public hearing on the SDEIS on October 5, 2010, at which time the hearing was closed. The lead agency received written comments from the public until October 15, 2010. The Planning Board accepted the FEIS on February 1, 2011, and filed the FEIS on February 9, 2011. At a special Planning Board meeting on March 8, 2011 that was scheduled for consideration of adoption of Findings and consideration of the preliminary subdivision application, ,the Board received new information that was considered material to the traffic analysis conducted for the project. This resulted in the Board and applicant consenting to re- opening the FEIS so specific information relative only to the traffic information that required correction could be corrected, thus beginning the FEIS acceptance process over again. The Applicant prepared an amendment to the FEIS, including revised traffic analysis data sheets, -arid three revised FEIS tables, and revised FEIS text relating to traff'c. On March 15, 2011, the lead agency reviewed and accepted the revised FEIS after making changes to the applicant's submission. . This FEIS document includes the revised information. The Final 'Environmental Impact Statement In accordance with SEQRA, this FEIS provides written responses to substantive comments on the DEIS and SDEIS that are relevant to this project proposal received by the lead agency during the public review period, including oral comments made at the December 15, 2009 public hearing. The transcript of the DEIS public hearing is included in FEIS Appendix N and the transcript of the SDEIS public hearing is included in FEIS Appendix O. All written comments received by the lead agency during the public comment periods on both the DEIS and SDEIS are included in FEIS Appendix P. Substantive and relevant public and agency comments received by the lead agency on the DEIS and SDEIS; together with responses to the comments as required by SEQRA, are provided in this FEIS in comment/response format and organized by subject matter following the sequence in the I DEIS. In some cases, an author's comment may be summarized or paraphrased to clarify its context, or combined with other similar comments, and some responses to comments that are previously addressed in this document refer to the prior response. The source of each comment is referenced. In Appendices N, O and P, a number referencing the FEIS response that addresses the comment is provided in the right hand margin. This FEIS has been prepared with the assistance of Keystone Associates, LLC, the project engineer; David Parks of Schlather, Stumbar, Parks & Salk, project attorney; and Tim Miller ' Town of Ithaca Planning Board Resolution No. 2010 -003, January 5, 2010. (SDEIS Appendix 1) Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 1 -2 Summary March 15, 2011FebirwaFy 1, Associates! Inc., planning consultant to the Applicant; based on input and guidance provided by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Town staff and Town advisors. The Project Description I The preliminary design drawings evaluated in the DEIS document have not changed for the FEIS, however, a fully detailed set of revised drawings will be prepared to address the plan - related comments received during this environmental review and meeting the requirements of the permitting agencies and submitted to the agencies for review and approval after the conclusion of the SEQRA review. The preliminary design drawings were developed to a level of detail that establishes the full extent of impact attributable to the project, thereby providing a thorough basis for defining the extent of impact mitigation that is appropriate for the project. Moreover, in response to various project - related environmental concerns heard during this review, the Iproposed project description has been modified, or its concept clarified, to further mitigate concerns in the following areas. Route 96 Congestion During the environmental review of the Holochuck Homes project, there was much discussion about the existing congestion on Route 96, particularly aggravated by the apparent limitations to improving the existing roadway due to the limitations imposed by existing development and the natural geography and topography of the region and the presence of Cayuga Lake, which create significant constraints to the region's transportation pattern at the northern entrance to the City of Ithaca from West Hill. This "bottleneck" to the economic center of the region is further aggravated Iby the operation of a freight train line that sporadically stops north /south traffic through the region including on NYS Route 96. These are existing conditions which predatestAFelated to this project. I NYSDOT Region 3 requested and was provided traffic study materials (Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis, Sight Distance measurements, SYNCHRO Analysis and Sensitivity Analysis) in addition to the DEIS and in its letter dated January 6, 2011, provided its comments on the submitted documents and a determination of the extent of mitigation that could be required of the Applicant for the proposed action. (The January 2011 letter is included in Appendix M.) The following bullet list summarizes the comments made by NYSDOT on the Applicant's traffic analysis. • The No -build traffic analysis (DEIS) included two identified potential developments and a annual background growth rate of 1' /z% as is standard practice and consistent with projections of future traffic conditions on a regional basis. • Based on the projected peak hour trip generation of the project, which is acknowledged by NYSDOT, the proposed site access will function at a level of service D for both peak hours, which is generally considered acceptable by NYSDOT. The proposed access must combine the project driveway with the existing Finger Lakes School of Massage driveway.2 • NYSDOT acknowledges the use of transit and the introduction of pedestrian /bicyclist features into the project, noting that further development of transit features on or near 2 Regarding other items noted by NYSDOT in its letter: The peak hour interval used in the analysis varies by intersection,; the peak hours are listed in DEIS Table 3.6 -1. Traffic counts for the existing Finger Lakes School 'of Massage driveway only indicate ingress movements since this is a one way entrance only. Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 1 -3 Summary March 15, 2011FebFUaFY 1, the site could reduce the peak hour trips, and recommending that project sidewalks and paths link with the public highway /facilities where appropriate. • The main project access will need to be aligned opposite the possible future access to potential development on the west side of Route 96 to achieve access management goals. The proposed project access shown opposite an existing emergency facility driveway may be incompatible with access management goals. [While an offset of at least 200 feet is often desired for two opposing driveways, the frontage of the subject propert y through which access can be gained is limited to 60 feet. The geometry and location' of the project access will need to be finalized during review by NYSDOT of highway, work permit plans.] • The traffic signal warrant analysis for the new main access intersection established that warrant; thresholds are not met and NYSDOT concurs that a new signal at this location is not warranted. The need for a southbound left turn lane on Route 96 for vehicles turning into they site has not been analyzed, however NYSDOT suggests that the Applicant donate or reserve a suitable strip of land along Route 96 for such a purpose. [It is noted that the ;subject property includes only 60 feet of frontage at the proposed main access point, although the Applicant's proposal does not preclude utilization of the frontage for such pu pose.] • The SYNCHRO analysis submitted to NYSDOT had not been fully reviewed as of its January i6, 2011 letter. NYSDOT indicates that its ability to make the timing changes may be liImited, considering the complex coordinated traffic signal system in the City. • NYSDOT recommends the Route 96 Corridor Management Study recommendations be implemented in conjunction with this project, specifically, those that include pedestrian connectivity along Route 96, transit usage, and nodal development. • Suitable fight -of -way be provided for construction of a signal or roundabout at the main site access. [As noted above, the Applicant's proposal does not preclude utilization of the frontage for such purpose.] • The geometry and locations of the project driveways will be finalized during review by NYSDOT of highway work permit plans. A full access driveway will serve the Finger Lakes School of Massage and Holochuck Homes. A right -in only secondary driveway will access the southern end of the project. • The Applicant will be required to provide a statement of dedication to limit access rights along Route 96. • The Applicant must obtain a NYSDOT Highway Work Permit for all work in the NYSDOT right -of -.way. This requirement should be included in the Town's project approval. • During the highway work permit process a signed and sealed engineer's drainage report will be required indicating no drainage effect on NYS Routes 96 or 89. i As previously described, the lead agency received new information that was considered material to the traffic analysis conducted for the project. This resulted in revised traffic analyses using both Highway Capacity Software (HCS) and SMCHROSyne4Fe, software. Revised data sheets for the modeling results are included in FEIS Appendix S and the lead agency will provide NYSDOT with the new information. i The revised HCS traffic analyses summarized in Table 1 -5 identifiesd all movements at all study intersections except one to be at level of service D or better in the Existing Condition, and weUld remaining at level' i of service D or better in the No -Build Condition and in the Build Condition Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS .1 -4 Summary March 15, 201IFebftiffy 1, (which includes the Proposed Action). At the Cliff Street (Route 96) / North Fulton Street signalized intersection in the City of Ithaca, signal timing and other technical operational adjustments made by the NYSDOT4Gity ef Ithaea to the two study intersections in the city for the purpose of traffic management of the city network result in a level of service E in the Eexisting conditions at this intersection. In the AM this level of service remains in the No -Build and Build conditions at this intersection; in the PM there is a decline to level of service F in the No -Build condition and F remains in the Build condition at this intersection. Traffic at the Cliff Street / Taughannock Boulevard intersection operates at level of service C or better in all conditions. The FEIS sensitivity analysis indicated no changes in levels of services in the Build condition from increased project traffic generation to the south from 60% to 80 %. The levels of service for the Cliff Street / Taughannock Boulevard intersection range from B to D; the levels of service for the Cliff Street (Route 96) /North Fulton Street intersection range from A to F. Table 1 -5 below summarizes four conditions each for the AM and PM peak hours: Existing, No- Build, Build with 60% project distribution, and Build with 80% project distribution. Changes from prior tables (DEIS and initial FEIS tables) reflect three primary revisions to the traffic models: • corrected existing count assignment at West Hill Drive / Dates Drive / Trumansburg Road • separation of EB -T and EB -R movements at Cliff Street / North Fulton Street signal timing and several other technical operational adjustments at the two city intersections as recommended by the City of Ithaca Transportation Engineer. Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 1 -5 Summary March 15, 2011 FebFUBFY 1, Table 1 -5 Level of Service Summary HCS Analysis t A.M. Weekday Peak Hour P.M. Weekday Peak Hour Existing No -Build Build 60% Build 80 /0 Existing No -Build Build 60% Build 80% Intersection Roads (Approach Direction Movement LLevelof ice la Level of Service Dela Level of Service (Delay) Level of Service Dela Level of Service Dela Level of Service (Delay) Level of Service (Delay) Level of Service (Delay) Trumansbur Road (NYS Route 96 and Ha is Road - Unsi nalized Trumansburg Road i Hayts Road 1 NB - L, T A 9.1 A 9.3 A 9.3 A 9.3 A 8 A (8.2). EB - L, R C 17.9 C 19.8 G 20.0 G 19.9 C 20.2 C 23.9 C 24.3 C 24.0 Trumansburg Road and Harris B. Dates Road / West Hill Drive - Si nalized West Hill Drive Harris B. Dates Drive Trumansburg Road Trumansburg Road EB - L EB - T, R B (16.2) C (26.4) B (16.2) C (26.5) B (16.2) C (26.5) B (16.2) C (26.5) B (12.8) C (21.7) B (12.8) C (21.7) B (12.8) C (21.7) B (12.8) C (21.7) WB - L WB - T, R B (16.9) C (26.1) B (17.0) C (26.1) B (17.0) C (26.1) B (17.0) C (26.1) B (16.4) C (22.2) B (16.9) C (22.2) B (17.1) C (22.2) B (17.0) C (22.2) NB - L, T NB - R B (12.3) A (5.9) B (12.6) A (6.0) 8(12.7) A (6.0) B'(12.7) A (6.0) D (35.9) A (7.5) D (48.8) A (7.5) D (50.3) A (7.5) D (49.7) A (7.5) SB - L, T, R I C 21.9 C 25.1 C 25.3 C 25.3 B 17.0 8 17.5 8 17.7 8 17.6 Overall 8 17.6 8 19.3 B 19.4 B 19.4 C 26.4 C 32.9 C 33.5 C 33.3 Truffiansburg Road and Finger Lakes School of Massa a Drive - Unsi nalized Trumansburg Road Site Access SB - L, T A 8.4 A 8.6 A 8.6 A 8.6 A 9.3 A 9.6 A 9.7 A 9.6 WB - L, R -- -- D 26.7 D 31.2 -- -- D 33.5 D 34.6 Trumansburg Road and Bundy Road - Unsi nalized Trumansburg Road Bundv Road ! L NB - L, T A 9.3 A 9.6 A 9.7 A 9.6 A 8.8 A 9.3 A 9.4 A 9.4 EB - L, R B 14.8 C (21.2)' C 22.1 C 21.4 C 16.6 C 20.4 C 21.8 C 22.2 Taughannock Boulevard and Cliff Street - Si nalized Cliff Street Cliff Street Taughannock Boulevard Taughannock Boulevard EB - L, T, R C 20.6 C 21.9 C 22.2 C 22.4 B 15.1 B 15.9 B 16.0 B 16.1 WB - L, T, R C 20.9 C 21.8 C 21.9 C 22.0 C 21.1 C 26.8 C 28.5 C 29.1 NB - L NB- T, R C (26.5) C (26.5) C (26.6) C (26.6) C (26.6) C (26.6) C (26.6) C (26.6) C (30.5) C (28.3) C (31.4) C (28.5) C (31.7) C (28.5) C (31.9) C (28.5) SB - L SB -T,R B (14.8) B 11.4 B (15.4) B 11.4 B (15.4) B 11.4 B (15.4) B 11.4 C (20.3) B 15.6 C (21.8) B 15.7 C (21.8) B 15.7 C (21.8) B 15.7 Overall B 19.5 C (20.5)* C 20.7 C 20.8 C 20.5 C 23.5 C 24.3 C 24.6 Cliff Street Route 90a North Fulton Street - Si nalized Cliff Street Cliff Street North Fulton Street j EB - T EB - R C (23.1) B (11.0) D (35.5)* B (11.3) D (39.3) B (11.4) D (41.3) B (11.4) C (21.0) B (15.8) C (23.6) B (16.1) C (24.1) B (16.2) C (24.4) B (16.2) WB - L * ** B 18.5 D (43.7)' D 44.3 D 44.6 -- -- -- -- WB - L,T A (7.7) A (7.9) A (8.0) A (8.0) C (20.5) D (42.8)* D (48.9) D (50.8) SB-L, T SB - R F (111.6) C (32.0) F (139.7) C (33.6) F (139.7) C (33.6) F (139.7) C (33.7) F (148.5) C (30.6) F (181.1) C (32.2) F (181.1) 1 C (32.2) F (181.1) C (32.7) Overall E 55.6 E 70.0 E 70.8 E 71.2 E 72.1 F (90.7)* F 92.2 F 92.7 * Indicates decline in level of service from previous condition. NB = Northbound, SB _ Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound. L = left, R = right, T = through, T, R = through and right, {e.g. WB - L = Westbound left). * ** Defacto Left Turn lane Holochuck Homes Subdivision FENS 1 -6 Summary March 15, 2011 FebFUBFY 1, I The Applicant has evaluated measures that may further minimize its contribution to future traffic: Resident access to public transit as a means to reduce vehicle trips on the local road network, and an alternative access design for the project via Dates Drive a0he Cayuga Medical Center to utilize an existing signaled intersection on Route 96, were evaluated by the Applicant in detail. Access to Public Transit Access to a public transportation bus stop for residents of the project was a concern during the review process. The Applicant investigated the following means of access to public transit. (As a reference, "Riders will typically walk one -fourth to one -half mile (about a 5- to 10- minute walk for most people) to and from transit." 3) 1) In response to the Applicant's inquiry as to whether a public transit bus stop could be relocated from Route 96 to within the project, TCAT indicated that it would not reroute its buses into the project (email dated October 19, 2009 in DEIS Appendix B). The Applicant, however, proposes to set aside an area on the plans for a possible future bus stop near the center of the project. 2) Access to the existing TCAT bus stop with a shelter on Route 96 in front of Lakeside Nursing Home was evaluated by the Applicant. A possible pedestrian path directly from the project through!a narrow piece of land owned by the Applicant to the existing bus shelter on Route 96 would be impractical due to its length and is not feasible due to the extent of grade change necessitating as many as eleven ramps or stairs. The distance is about 1,400 feet from the stop to the closest unit in the project. 3) Access to the existing TCAT bus stop (without shelter) at the School of Massage, serviced by two routes, is proposed on the project plans via a 10 -foot wide walkway /bikeway path parallel to the north entrance road. The existing bus stop is located adjacent to where the new northerly access road will intersect with Route 96. The distance is about 900 feet from the stop to the internal road intersection in the project or 36% of the units in the project within '/4 mile, a nd the most distant unit within '/z mile of the stop. 4) A pedestrian path between the project development and the existing bus shelter at CIVIC (conceptually shown on plans included in the DEIS) was further evaluated and walked by the Applicant. It was determined that such a walkway would be impractical and potentially unsafe for purposes of access to transit due to its length (access for only 10% of the units in the project within '/4 mile), the extent of grade change from one end to the other, and its location within dense woods (a public safety concern). Additionally, to make such a path ADA accessible would create a long and cumbersome alignment. The Applicant believes such a path would be especially underutilized in the winter months relative to its cost to construct and maintain and its environmental cost in tree removals and site disturbance. Concern about the location of such a walk at the extreme north end of the project was also raised by the Planning Board relating to the length of walk for a resident from the south end (up to 7/10 mile). It is further noted that the NYS OPRHP has indicated its unwillingness to accept land with a paved path or road. I 3 "Improving Transit Stop /Station ", Retrieved 1/13/2011 from www. walkinginfo .org /transit/access.cfm. (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center.) I Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 1 -7 Summary March 15, 2011 FebrueFy 1, 5) As noted in Ithe DEIS, the existing Gadabout and ADA paratransit services of TCAT will provide transportation for seniors and people with disabilities within this project on an on -call basis and provide curbside pickup and drop off for patrons at their residences. In summary, the Applicant's current proposal will provide direct access for its residents to the existing TCAT bus stop at the northerly project access road. Although the number of residents using transit may be relatively small, the direct route via sidewalk can accommodate and may encourage increased bus ridership by residents. In its e-mail dated October 19, 2009, TCAT stated "developments with characteristics (e.g. unit price, car ownership as evidenced by driveways shown in drawings, etc.) such as Holochuck Homes tend not to produce as much ridership as one would hope." Based on 2008 data from the Census Bureau for the Ithaca metropolitan statistical area (MSA), between 8 and 13 persons in this development are estimated to take a bus to work. Given that the project site is located outside of the Ithaca urban area, which is included in the MSA data, ridership would be expected to be at the low end of this estimate. For additional pedestrian connectivity, the Applicant's subdivision plan will set aside an area of land approximately 25 feet wide along the northwest property line (to be owned by the Home Owners Association) for a possible future pedestrian path from the project townhouses to the driveway at PRI. i Alternative Project Access at Dates Drive Alternative access via the existing traffic signal at Dates Drive (CIVIC entrance) was fully evaluated through) a cooperative dialog with representatives of CIVIC, the Town Planning Department and Planning Board, and the Applicant at several meetings. Of primary concern to CIVIC is maintaining the emergency traffic patterns (emergency vehicles and public vehicles) and necessity that 'any proposed connector road bypass the "Y" intersection where emergency traffic going to the hospital emergency room and hospital visitors pass through.4 Several alternatives were 'reviewed but none was found to be feasible. (Further described in FEIS Section 6.8) Additional Traffic Evaluation i Additional evaluations of traffic- related concerns were conducted by the Applicant in response to comments heard on the DEIS and specific requests of the New York State Department of Transportation ( NYSDOT). A meeting was held on January 26, 2010, including representatives of NYSDOT, the Town of Ithaca staff and Planning Board, Cayuga Medical Center, and the Applicant, to discuss various aspects of the project of concern in the EIS process. NYSDOT provided its written review comments in its letter dated January 6, 2011, as outlined above. The following list summarizes the items evaluated and the findings of each: • Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis evaluated whether the projected traffic volumes moving through the new main access intersection will warrant installation of a traffic signal. Due to the relatively low volume exiting the project, established warrant thresholds are not met and a new signal at this location does not appear to be warranted. NYSDOT concurs with this conclusion. • Sight Distance measurements at both proposed project access points were requested by NYSDOT and were provided by the Applicant. In addition the Applicant made actual 4 Mr. LoVecchio, Planning Board meeting 1/15/10. Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 1 -8 Summary March 15, 2011FebFU8Fy 1, measurements s of the prevailing vehicle speeds on Route 96 in the site vicinity. All of the surveyed sight distances measurements exceed the needed stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance for the posted speed limit (45 MPH) recommended by AASHTO,S and for the 85th percentile vehicle speeds. NYSDOT did not comment on the available sight distances. SYNCHRO Analysis (a computer program especially useful in modeling traffic signal coordination) was conducted by the Applicant to specifically analyze the two study intersections in the City of Ithaca. The analysis indicates the intersection of Cliff Street and �I North Fulton Avenue will require signal timing adjustments under future No -Build conditions (without consideration of the Holochuck Homes project) to maintain the existing level of service operating conditions. With these timing adjustments, level of service will be maintained upon completion of the Holochuck Homes development. The original SYNCHRO analysis (included in Appendix S) has been submitted to NYSDOT but had not been fully reviewed as of its January 6, 2011 letter. The signal timing changes must consider the greater coordinated traffic signal system in the City. Alternative Project Access - All participants of the meeting supported the creation of a roads connection from the project to the traffic light at Dates Drive, which could thereby relieve a number of concerns related to traffic. As further described in FEIS Section 6.8, no alternative plan was determined to be acceptable by all affected parties. Sensitivity Analysis - To evaluate a larger southbound traffic distribution, the Applicant prepared a Sensitivity Analysis which evaluates the effects of routing 80 percent of the site - generated traffic toward the City of Ithaca (compared to 60 percent southbound in the DEIS study). The results of this analysis are similar to those of the DEIS Traffic Impact Analysis. i The Applicant's proposal includes appropriate traffic - related measures in the form of proper design of the two access roads into the project in accordance with Town and State standards and safety requirements. The Applicant's proposal will not preclude future installation of a traffic signal at the north entrance or construction of a left turn lane if either is determined to be needed by NYSDOT, or construction of a roundabout at the north entrance as presented in the Route 96 Corridor Management Study. If a new signal is determined to be needed by NYSDOT during the course of project construction, the Applicant will make a fair share contribution toward this improvement. I Odd Fellows Refuse Site Cleanup i A full evaluation was conducted of three small refuse dump sites found to exist on the property and in its present state the existing debris is benign and stable posing no imminent health, safety or environmental risks while left undisturbed. To facilitate the transfer of open space land to OPRHP (in its letter dated January 4, 2010, OPRHP requires clean up of the dump sites as directed by NYSDEC prior to conveyance), as well as remove any possible hazard to future residents of the Holochuck Homes Subdivision, the NYSDEC approved the Applicant's proposed cleanup mitigation plan to fully remediate the dump sites in accordance with NY State regulations. SDEIS Section 8.0 describes the results of the investigations conducted, characterizes ,the on -site debris, and presents the proposed work plan to complete a site "cleanup" in accordance with applicable New York State regulations. e American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 1 -9 Summary March 15, 201IFebFUaFy 1, Transfer of Open Space to the State State acquisition of open space land through the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) will include the lands east of the development's eastern boundary line, which generally coincides with the Town's Conservation Zone boundary.' Transfer of open space land to the State will entail approximately 64 acres of the property in the revised plan, similar to thel DEIS plan. At the request of OPRHP, the revised site plan will show the area around "Locus 1" and the historic pumphouse to be retained within the lands of the HOA. (As noted elsewhere, Locus 1 will receive appropriate debris cleanup according to the accepted remediation plan presented in the SDEIS.) The pumphouse will remain undisturbed in the proposed plan and protective measures around the pumphouse will be shown in the revised set of drawings to be prepared and submitted by the Applicant for plan review after conclusion of the SEQR process. Mitigation of Visual Impacts The Applicant reviewed the proposed Landscape Design plan in response to concerns raised about visual exposure of the buildings from viewpoints in the project area. Further mitigation of potential impacts associated with the visibility of the project from off -site is proposed in the following area • The project proposal includes planting evergreen and deciduous trees in clusters along the east side of the buildings on the east side of the project (buildings 1 and 14 to 20). The planting will not screen opportunities for views from the project but will provide vegetation to soften the visibility of the project as a whole from points east. The Applicant proposes additional mitigation by expanding the fill pads where possible and adding evergreen trees of sufficient height ,to soften the impact on views from the east. The Planning Board acknowledges that the buildings do not need to be completely hidden from view from the east. • The Applicant proposes additional mitigation to buffer the project from the neighboring houses and church at the south end of the project by adding evergreen planting near the property lines west of and behind buildings 3, 4 and 5 to soften the impact on these adjoiniIng properties. • The Applicant will prepare a tree preservation & removals plan as part of the revised set of drawings to be submitted for plan review after conclusion of the SEQR process. Along with the proposed landscaping plan and the Applicant's plan to transfer a significant area of woodland to State ownership and stewardship as permanent open space, these plans will provide mitigation to offset adverse impacts relative to vegetation and wildlife that cannot be avoided in implementing the development plan. • The proposed development plan does not include any tree cutting solely for the purpose of creating views. • The Applicant proposes a neutral color scheme for the buildings (generally tan siding and brown roof). Earth tones of grey and tan building colors typically provide the optimal visual balance between natural and built landscapes, although color choice is very subjective. As a visual mitigation measure, the Applicant will submit a palette of proposed colors for the various building materials and architectural details in this project 'for review as part of the final submission to the Planning Board for its review. ' NYS OPRHP letter to Director of Planning Town of Ithaca, dated January 4, 2010. Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 1 -10 Summary March 15, 201IFebFuafy 1, In summary, the landscape plan revisions will mitigate the visibility of the project in views from the NYS Scenic Byways and parks on the east side of Cayuga Lake, including scenic views from East Shore Park and NYS Route 34 (East Shore Drive) identified in the Town of Ithaca Scenic Resource Inventory and views identified in the Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventory. The plan revisions will also reduce the visibility of the project from Cayuga Lake itself. Sewer Connection for the Project i The Town Public Works Department concluded its study of existing flows in the Trumansburg Road sewer system where it enters the City of Ithaca system and found that the sewer line is only at 30% capacity when at peak flows (see May 26, 2010 letter in Appendix M). Based on the Town's findings, the existing wastewater system is adequate to service this project. i i i Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 1 -11 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 201IFebFUaFy 1, 3.6 Traffic and Transportation I 3.6.15 Traffic and Transportation Comments and Responses Comment 3.6 -1 (Letter 3, Tee -Ann Hunter, December 11, 2009 ): The area does not have sufficient public transportation. The Town has no authority over the TCAT schedules. Response 3.6 -1: The project site is located on a bus line along Route 96, with two regularly scheduled routes serviced by Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Inc. TCAT bus Route 14 passes the site generally every half hour during the morning and evening rush and hourly in the off -peak times on weekdays, hourly between 7.30AM and 7 :30PM on Saturdays, and hourly between 10 :30AM and 6 :30PM on Sundays. Bus Route 21 also passes the site every day. TCAT buses will stop on any safe corner and can be flagged down on any of the rural routes. In addition TCAT's ADA paratransit service, provided by its contractor Gadabout, provides door -to -door, demand - responsive transportation for people with disabilities, which runs the same service hours and in the same areas as the TCAT bus system. Gadabout, a non - profit, door -to -door, demand - responsive service is provided for people aged sixty and older, and for disabled residents of Tompkins County. TCAT annually reviews its schedules and routes to make appropriate adjustments! based on actual ridership patterns. Comment 3.6 -2 (Letter 3, Tee -Ann Hunter, December 11, 2009):. The problems of the roadways, which serve the hospital and a fire station, are locally legendary. You will find them identified again and again in multiple municipal and regional planning documents, including the Town's own comprehensive plan. The community at large seems completely stymied by the bottleneck at the fool t of West Hill. Response 3.6 -2: The town and regional agencies have studied the Route 96 corridor over the years, as most recently documented in the Route 96 Corridor Management Study of December 2008. NYSDOT is the regional agency primarily responsible for this transportation corridor. Specific to the Holochuck project, NYSDOT requested copies of various traffic studies for the project for its review and provided its comments on transportation- related items that this project will directly influence (both impacts and mitigation measures). The NYSDOT comments are summarized in Section 1.5 of this EIS and a copy of the letter is included in Appendix M. It is noted that applicants for development projects on West Hill are not restricted from proceeding with site plan and environmental reviews at this time, while the Town proceeds with its planning studies. The Town'sl review of this project and others in the West Hill area will consider the known conditions regarding traffic and public safety on West Hill. Appropriate mitigation should be required for the sight distance at the project site's southern entrance, looking south, which is estimated at just 450 feet. Based on the posted speed limit for this area (45 mph) the recommended sight distance according to the DEIS Table 3.8 -2 is listed as 500 feet. Response 3.6 -3: As indicated by NYSDOT in its January 6, 2011 letter, a right -in only secondary driveway will be permitted for access at the southern end of the project. The geometry and locations of the project driveways will be finalized during review by NYSDOT of highway work permit plans. Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -1 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 2011FeI3FWaFy 1, Surveyed sight distance measurements from the two proposed access points are tabulated below. All of the surveyed measurements appear to exceed the needed stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance for the posted speed limit (45 MPH) recommended by AASHTO.' I Surveyed Sight Distances _ Holochuck Homes Subdivision Access Points Sight Distance Looking Sight Distance Looking North South North Main Access from 14.5' off traveled way 1291 Feet 2068 Feet North Main Access from 18' off traveled way 1459 Feet 1985 Feet South Access from 14.5' off traveled way 2935 Feet 596 Feet South Access from 18' off traveled way 2841 Feet 569 Feet Source: Keystone Associates, October 2010. Comment 3.6-4 (Letter 7, Steven Felker, December 15, 2009): The roadways are the arteries of public safety.) Jam them up, and help will not come in a timely way. The Hospital and Station 6 are both on the main artery of Route 96 / Cliff St. An overload of this roadway will result in a delay of emergency service. This should be considered from three fronts: 1. Ambulances '!!are garaged in the Bangs building on State Street. They are not (contrary to popular perception) garaged at the hospital nor Station 6. Your road planning must maintain best access from State Street and through the route to the hospital. Though an. ambulance might respond from the hospital after a patient discharge, that proximity to the needs of West Hill is by accident, not design. Increasing congestion is an increasing delay in critical medical response, not j l st to West Hill, but for the entire community in their utilization of emergency medicine at Cayiuga Medical Center (CIVIC). 2. Station 6 is riot adequately staffed to extinguish a working fire.... Unless firefighters ignore safety directives, Station 6 is of no meaningful fire service to West Hill by itself. For early assessment and operations set -up, Station 6 and it's personnel are invaluable.... In spite of the talent, commitment, and professionalism of the IFD and particularly those stationed on West Hill, the situation of public fire and medical attention on West Hill is tenuous at best. In view of proposed developments, to actively make decisions that will add to the call volume on one hand and increase the traffic load that must be negotiated by responses from Central on the other would, in my estimation, be a grossly negligent management of public safety by the Town of Ithaca. 3. Because of the critical emergency public resource the hospital represents, reserve capacity must be maintained in traffic flow. In the last year, there have been multiple full closures by design, but also by accident of one of the main arteries of West Hill. I live on Campbell Ave., which serves as the primary detour. I have watched busses break, semi's jackknife, and passenger cars get stuck on this little byway which is the only link between Station 6 / CIVIC and ' American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -2 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 201IFebFU8FY 1, the rest of West Hill when things break on Route 96 (Cliff St.) and Rt 79 (Hector). I've been in the traffic backed up more than a mile and seen a commute stretch a half an hour just to get off the Hill. Current capacity is questionable, and reserve capacity to provide public safety when "something breaks" is non - existent.... I do not feel at this time that the West Hill infrastructure is sufficient to serve the' needs of public safety. Response 3.6 -4: At a meeting with West Hill residents and Town staff (held on June 22, 2010 at Ithaca Town Hall -- see meeting notes in Appendix M), Ithaca Fire Department officials described various measures the Department takes to ensure appropriate emergency medical service and fire response to the West Hill area. These measures include utilizing Mutual Aid from other area departments (Trumansburg, Enfield, Newfield, Cayuga Heights, Danby, and /or Brooktondale), using alternative routes for responding trucks from the main station, and stationing one or sometimes two additional response vehicles with personnel at Station 6 when a large train is scheduled to pass through Ithaca. Specific to the commentor's concerns, IFD indicated at that meeting that it does not experience problems with traffic when ambulances or engines are going northbound out of Ithaca toward the hospital, although they acknowledged that West Hill does lack a network of connector roads. IFD indicated it can call on multiple stations and mutual aid departments to respond to an emergency, and has a system in place to do that depending on the type of response needed. M. Prosperi Stefanucci, Mary E. Prosperi, Joseph T. Scaglione, III, December 15, 2009): The problems with Rt'. 96 and public safety are also well known. It is one of the most dangerous roadways in the county, is too heavily traveled by both tractor trailers and private vehicles, often at excessive rates of speed at all hours of the day and night. ... It is nearly impossible for emergency vehicles to pass on long stretches on 96, beginning in the City and extending well into the Town; that is, when emergency vehicles are able to access the west side of the train tracks given the minimum two trains a day that bisect the town and prevent access to the hospital.... This is a public safety issue. Response 3.6 -5: Refer to Responses 3.6 -2 and 3.6 -4. Scaglione, III, December 15, 2009): The Holochuck traffic data is based on either outdated data or a one -day study in April 2008. In addition, other previous traffic studies on West Hill have been similarly flawed, for a variety of reasons. They are often undertaken during college and public school breaks or on either side of a holiday weekend (when anyone who works at Cornell knows peopled take Thursday and Monday off). In this age of cell phones and do not call lists, a phone survey is also not sufficient, nor is a study that does not include visitors to the hospital, Lakeside, or Alterra, that does not encompass the Town and City of Ithaca and Jacksonville, or that does not include regular riders who traverse West Hill. Response 3.6-6: Standard operating procedure to assess traffic conditions is to count actual traffic turning movements during the peak hour of traffic activity. The objective is to identify volume's of traffic for a "typical" day, not a holiday period or the days just before or after a holiday nor a weekend. In this area, it is imperative to identify a day when all the colleges are in session and to eliminate traffic anomalies as best as possible. Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic counts were manually collected on Tuesday, April 29, 2008,1 from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. This was determined-to be a "typical" traffic day. The counts identified the weekday morning and Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -3 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 201IFebfuaFy 1, afternoon peak hour commutation travel periods. The a.m. weekday peak hour occurs typically between 7:00r a.m. and 8:45 a.m. The afternoon traffic typically peaks between 4 :15 p.m. and 5:45 p.m. Comment 3.6 -7 (Letter 11. Deborah Homsher, December 17, 2009k. Our neighborhood has been affected by new traffic patterns that have resulted from the apartments that have already been built. Which have sent more automobiles down our streets and lanes, as people have looked for short-cuts to avoid congestion on Highway 79. We hope that the Town's planners take these facts and concerns into account and consider the situation of the city residents who are faced with this increased traffic and stalled at the bottlenecks - the few bridges - that have to carry this traffic across the Inlet, into downtown Ithaca and over to Cornell and Ithaca College, where many peoplelwork. Response 3.6 -7: Refer to Response 3.6 -2. Comment 3.6 -8 (Letter 12. Marty Hiller, December 17, 2009L I was also incredulous when I read that the traffic on Route 96 was (and would continue to be) at a level where cars can get through all intersections in less than a minute. I've experienced the delays coming into town in the morning, and they're frequently "way" more than one minute per intersection. I'm sure they are exacerbated by the trains that sometimes come through during peak hours, but even under normal circumstances the delays can be significant. Response 3I6 -8: Field oAbservations of the traffic conditions made in January 2010 at the City of 11thaca intersections analyzed in the study indicate that, although the intersections i are operating close to capacity, they clear out in a single signal cycle and the delays appear to be within reasonable limits. It was also observed that the operation of the Norfolk Southern freight train can have a significant impact on the flow of traffic through these intersections when train operation coincides with peak hour traffic conditions. These ar^T� ; existing conditions that predate this project and beyen e� resolve. However, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) data provided in FEIS Appendix M, Correspondence (memo by the City of Ithaca Transportation Engineer dated March 14, 2011), shows that Cliff Street / North Fulton Street intersei tion operates beyond capacity in the p.m. peak hour. Comment 3.6 -9 (Letter 12. Marty Hiller, December 17, 2009): 1 believe it makes sense, given the existing congestion along Route 96, to plan to maximize the use of public transit by Holochuck residents.l. Studies have shown that bus systems are much more heavily used if the bus stop is within a'5 minute walk of residences, and if there is a weather- appropriate bus shelter. The existing stop is 1.2 mile away, which is too far -- they need to add a bus stop at the entrance to the devel� pment, with an appropriate bus shelter. They should also be working with TCAT to improve the frequency and scheduling of bus service to better serve the needs of the residents. I don't know what the schedule is on 96, but most outlying areas have no late evening bus service, which severely limits their usability. Improvements to the bus service would go a long way toward addressing my concerns about traffic. Improving the bus service along Route 96 would also help to:alleviate the existing traffic problems in that area. i Response 3.6 -9: The project proposal includes an internal sidewalk system and a sidewalk connection to the existing TCAT bus stop for Finger Lakes School of Massage on Route 96, land provisions for a future bus stop within the project. At this time the Applicant does not propose to construct a bus shelter on Route 96 since it does not own enough frontage on that roadway to do so and does not have sufficient information to Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -4 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 201IFebFU8FY 1, determine the feasibility or cost of doing so on the neighboring property. At the present time, the extent of physical grading and construction needed for a shelter structure, ADA accessibility, and a bus pull off is not known, nor is the ability to acquire rights for such work on the neighboring property and in the road right -of -way. It is further noted that the more appropriate location for a shelter would appear to be on the west side of Route 96 so as to better serve riders traveling south toward the city. Refer to the discussion entitled Access to Public Transit in FENS Section 1.5. 1 Error: Page 3.6 -3, the Cliff Street AADT number is either mislabeled or incorrect. It is labeled as "NYS Route 13 in the City of Ithaca" and is listed as having 19,720 vehicles per day. What is the correct AADT data for Cliff Street? Response 3.6 -10: According to NYSDOT counts the AADT for Cliff Street (NYS Route 96) south of the City of Ithaca's northern border and west of NYS Route 89, is 13,456 vehicles. Page 3.6 -5 of the DEIS states that the "volume of cars making left turns in the a.m. peak hour (lam - 8:45am) at Cliff /Fulton Street intersection exceeds a threshold within the traffic analysis software ". Explain. Response X3.6 -11: There are some limits as to the information that can be modeled by the HCS software. NYSDOT requested further analysis using SYNCHRO software, which has j modeling capabilities beyond those of the HCS software. The revised SYNCHROI analysis, which is included herein in Appendix S, will be submitted to NYSDOT for review. . Signal timing decisions have been implemented by NYSDOT that extend delays of the southbound movement, where sufficient queue space is available, in favor of the east - west movement to enhance the overall function of the City of Ithaca traffic network. Thus, this intersection is operating at an overall level of service EIF during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours- respeettvefy. The 8 GHRG analysis provided by the Applieent to prejeetThe Route 96 Corridor Study else- indicated that signal timing adjustments would likely be necessary in the future. Section 3.6 -6 - Future Site Improvements: The northern access road is proposed to be 35 feet wide total and the southern access road is proposed to be 20 feet wide total. This may or may not be in compliance with the Town of Ithaca road standards and specifications. This will need to be confirmed by the applicant in consultation with the Public Works Department. Response 3.6 -12: The northerly access road includes two 10' travel lanes, 2'6" gutters on each side of the roadway, a 4' grass median and a 10' wide combination sidewalk/bike lane. The main subdivision road from the southerly access on the DENS plan includes two 9' travel lanes, 2'6" gutters on each side of the roadway, a 4' grass median and a 6' wide sidewalk. The narrower main road section was proposed based on the Applicant's conversations with the Town Planner and Town Engineer in October 2008, which recommended 9' travel lanes and a sidewalk on one side of the road following deisign guidance from the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan: Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -5 Traffic and Transportation i March 15, 201IFebFU8FY 1, In l igeneral, the total curb -to -curb width of the roadway should be minimized, while tal ng into account safety and livability needs. A narrower street width reduces vehicle travel speeds, the amount of impervious road surface area, and the distance that pedestrians must cross. Lanes should be no wider than required to serve their role in the streetscape. Travel lanes on low - volume residential streets, such as those internal to a subdivision, can be 840 feet wide, depending on circumstances (such as shoulder and drainage conditions). The Applicant was informed that the Planning Board and Engineering Department have latitude to consider such narrower roads. However, the revised site plans to be submitted for approval will reflect 10' -wide lanes indicated by the Public Works Department to be required for this project. When comparing the LOS Existing with the No Build scenario (per Summary table 3.6 -11), the changes in LOS appear to be: a. Bundy Road EB onto Trumansburg Road - change from LOS B to C in am peak b. Cliff Street at Fulton Street (EB -T,R) - change from LOS C to D in pm peak c. Cliff Street at Fulton Street (WB -T pm peak) increase from 22 to 32 second delay In addition, there are some increases in delays at certain intersections, but that doesn't change the LOS. However, in further comparing LOS No Build with Build conditions, the Cliff Street and Fulton Street intersection appears to change from a LOS C to a LOS D in pm peak. Although the DEIS states that this LOS change is not significant, the Board will need to decide whether this is an acceptable change and if the additional traffic impacts to the Cliff Street/Fulton Street intersection can ;, be reasonably mitigated. Response 3.6 -13: Changes to traffic operating conditions that are projected to occur under future No -Build conditions are those that would happen without the proposed project being built and this is the case identified in items a, b, and c above. These do not describe i project related impacts. Traffic impacts attributable to a proposed project are assesse i when comparing the future No -Build conditions to the future Build conditions. Responding to the second comment above, aA "SYNCHRO" traffic analysis prepared for NYSDOT (which was revised on March 11, 2011, andwhieh is included herein in Appendix S), provides an additional level of detail compared to the HCS analysis in the DEIS, and indicates the intersection of Cliff Street and North Fulton Street would require signal timing adjustments under future No -Build conditions to achieve level of service D operating conditions. NYSDOT has not fully reviewed the original analysis but hasend indicated 11 signal timing changes must consider the greater coordinated traffic signal system inIthe City. As identified in FEIS Table 1 -5, the overall levels of service EIF being experienced at this intersection are occurring under Eexisting conditions, and not as a result of the Holochuck Homes project. However, the overall delay in this intersection increases luo to 2.0 seconds between the No -Build and 80% Build scenarios.A- feview e During the environmental review of this project, there was much discussion about the existing congestion on Route 96, particularly aggravated by the limitations imposed by Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -6 Traffic and Transportation i March 15, 201IFebfueFy 1, the natural geography and topography of the region and the presence of Cayuga Lake, which create significant constraints to the region's transportation pattern at the northern entrance to the City of Ithaca from West Hill. This "bottleneck" to the economic center of the region is further aggravated by the operation of a freight train line that often but sporadically stops north /south traffic through the region in close proximity to NYS Route 96. Upon completion, the Holochuck Homes project will contribute approximately 27 a.m. and 32 p.m. peak hour trips to the projected No -Build volumes at the Route 96 /North Fulton Street intersection in the City of Ithaca. This represents less than a I% increase in traffic volume during each of the peak hours and does not change the level of service at the intersection. Letter 14, Janis M. Gross, NYS Dept. of Transportation, Dec. 29, 2009): Under Build Conditions, the ILOS at the new northern site access will operate at a LOS D, in both am and pm peak, which according to the DEIS, "at average delays of less than 55 seconds, is considered 'acceptable' fora signalized intersection by the DOT." However, the applicant is not proposing a signalized intersection at the northern site access. The NYS DOT comments regarding the Holochuck DEIS state that the DOT will require a "traffic signal warrant analysis" in order to make a determination whether or not the main northern access will require a traffic signal, and that the review of the proposed site access by the DOT should occur during the SEQR comment period. The Planning Board will need to decide whether this is an acceptable LOS for the northern access and if the traffic impacts can be reasonably mitigated. Response 3.6 -14: All movements at the proposed northern site access intersection are projected to operate at levels of service acceptable by NYSDOT for an unsignalized intersection.z The Applicant conducted a traffic signal warrant analysis at the north access, which indicated that traffic volumes do not appear to meet warrants necessary for a signal. This analysis has been submitted to NYSDOT for review and comment and NYSDOT concurs that a new signal at this location is not warranted (letter dated January 6, 2011, in Appendix M). The Applicant's proposal will not preclude future installation of a traffic signal at the north entrance or construction of a left turn lane if either is deter- mined to be needed by NYSDOT, or construction of a roundabout at the north entrance, as presented in the Route 96 Corridor Management Study. Design review of the project proposal by NYSDOT relative to site access will occur as part of the State Highway Work Permit Application process as the project moves further into the design phase. Comment 3.6 -15 (Letter 13. Christine Balestra, Planner, Town of Ithaca, Dec. 30, 2009 Figure 3.6 -6 shows the estimated distribution of trips generated by the project onto the road network. The estimate shown in Figure 3.6 -6 notes that 40% of site - generated trips leaving the site go northbound on Route 96 and 60% head southbound on Route 96. The EIS explains that this estimate is based on a review of existing traffic patterns in the area in consideration of vehicle origins and destinations. In the am peak hour, this would result in 18 vehicles leaving the site to go northbound and 27 going southbound (Figure 3.6 -7). Staff questions whether this estimate is realistic, given the probability that a higher number of residents will commute to Cornell, downtown, or other points to the south, as opposed to heading north. It should also be noted that Figure 3.6 -7 shows 7 vehicles coming from the Holochuck site access and turning right from Route 96 into the Medical Center driveway. 2 Delay as measured in level of service analyses is the average delay for all vehicles in the queue moving through the intersection. I Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -7 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 2011 FebFueFy 1, i Response 3.6 -15: To evaluate a larger southbound trip distribution, the Applicant prepared a Sensitivity Analysis which evaluates the effects of routing 80 percent of the site - generated traffic toward the City of Ithaca. As shown in FE/S Table 1 -5, t-The results of this analysis are similar to those of the DENS Traffic Impact Analysis. Table 1 -5 shows that there are no changes to the level of service as a result of this revised distribution and there are only minimal changes to the delays of individual movements as a result of this change. The Sensitivity Analysis is provided in Appendix S, and includes a Sensitivity Build Conditions Level of Service Summary Table and Sensitivity Level of Service Worksheets. The results of the Sensitivity Analysis have been incorporated into the Level pf Service Summary provided in FENS Table 1 -5. The DEIS states',that the sight distance looking to the south.from the southerly access is not within the AASHTO standards for both stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance. The NYS DOT comments regarding the sight distance issues state that the DOT will require the submission of "field- measured site distances" in order to evaluate the sight distance matter. Planning staff remains concerned that there may be safety hazards associated with the inadequate sight and stopping distance at the southern access road. Response 3.6 -16: Refer to Response 3.6 -3. Letter 25, Pat Dutt, December 15, 20101: The DEIS mentions data points /driveways for the driveway delay analysis, but does not mention where the driveways are that were studied. Those living and working in the area of the proposed development have claimed that they wait much longer than �55 seconds to turn left or right onto Trumansburg Road, especially at peak times. Staff believes that the neighborhood livability analysis provided in the DEIS may not accurately portrays real -life conditions and would suggest that a supplemental analysis might provide the Board it ith a better indication of existing and build conditions. Response �3.6 -17: The Driveway Livability Sample measurements in the DEIS were taken at driveways located on Trumansburg Road between Bundy Road and Dates Drive, as this section of road includes driveways closest to the project site, thus most directly affected by traffic from the Holochuck Homes project. As stated in the DEIS, the northern site access would bear a much higher volume than most area driveways with a slightly higher left turn volume than would be expected from a typical driveway, thus the projected level of service D for the site access onto Trumansburg Road, which isere considered an acceptable levels of service by NYSDOT, represents a conservative worst case estimate of the conditions at local area driveways. Based upon this compari- son, delays !,at the driveways along Route 96 would generally be expected to be from less than 30 iseconds per vehicle to about 55 seconds. It is acknowledged that actual delays at certain times may be longer, since traffic is never static. I The recorded delays experienced by residents exiting their driveways into the traffic stream ranged from 2.2 seconds to 75.1 seconds for 21 vehicles at five drive- 1 ways. The average driveway delay was 29.3 seconds, with two vehicles in the a.m. and two in the p;m. experiencing approximately one minute or more delay. The average Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -8 i Traffic and Transportation March 15, 201IFebFueFy 1, delay equates to level of service D (average delay between 25 and 35 seconds per vehi'I le) at an unsignalized intersection. i Review of the change in delay projected at the intersection of Bundy Road and Trumansburg Road (Tables 3.6 -5 and 3.6 -10, pre - development No -Build condition to post - development Build condition) indicates average delay for vehicles entering the traffic stream would increase less than two seconds (from 21.2 seconds to 22.1 seconds in the a.m. and from 20.4 to 21.8 seconds in the p.m.) as a result of Holochuck Homes. Based on the results of the driveway measurements, the anticipated driveway delays after the proposed project is built and occupied will remain at level of service D or better under future Build conditions. The DEIS does not indicate where on the site asphalt, gravel, and other construction materials will be stored during construction. This should be further explored, as it could pose some environmental, concerns regarding vegetation, stormwater management and stream protection. Response 3.6 -18: There will be no storage of asphalt in the project and stockpiles of gravel and other construction materials are typically relatively small for a project such as this. Material stockpiles will likely occur near areas specified for topsoil stockpiles on the project'erosion control plans, smaller stockpiles and equipment storage will likely occur near the building then under construction, and all such areas will be protected by sediment barriers or other accepted means as appropriate to conform to the State requirements for water quality protection of stormwater and existing surface water resources throughout the construction period. Planning Boards, members have expressed concern that residents located in the middle or southern portion of the development may have to walk too far to reach the bus stop (if the proposed development is approved in its proposed configuration). The Board may want to request for the FEIS that the applicant find an additional location for a transit connection from the Holochuck property to Trumansburg Road, possibly creating a path along the third access to Trumansburg Road, or working with the Lakeside Nursing Home to provide access to the bus shelter at their facility. Response 3.6 -19: Access to a public transportation bus stop for residents of the project was evaluated by the Applicant. As a reference, "Riders will typically walk one -fourth to one -half m i ile (about a 5- to 10- minute walk for most people) to and from transit.' 1) In response to the Applicant's inquiry as to whether a public transit bus stop could be relocated from Route 96 to within the project, TCAT indicated that it would not reroute its buses into the project (e -mail dated October 19, 2009 in DENS Appendix B). TCAT stated "developments with characteristics (e.g. unit price, car ownership as evidenced by drive- ways shown in drawings, etc.) such as Holochuck Homes tend not to produce as much ridership as, one would hope. " 2) Access to the existing TCAT bus stop with a shelter on Route 96 in front of Lakeside Nursing Home was evaluated by the Applicant. A possible pedestrian path directly from 3 "Improving Transit Stop /Station ", Retrieved 1/13/2011 from www. walkinginfo .org /transit/access.cfm. (Pedes- trian and Bicycle Information Center, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center.) Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -9 II Traffic and Transportation March 15, 201IFebFUBFY 1, the project through a narrow piece of land owned by the Applicant to the existing bus shelter on Route 96 would be impractical due to its length and is not feasible due to the extent of grade change necessitating as many as eleven ramps or stairs. The distance is about 1,400 feet from the stop to the closest unit in the project. 3) IAccess to the existing TCAT bus stop (without shelter) at the Finger Lakes School of Massage, serviced by two routes, is proposed on the project plans via a 10 -foot wide walkway /bikeway path parallel to the north entrance road. The existing bus stop is located adjacent to where the new northerly access road will intersect with Route 96. The distance is about 900 feet from the stop to the internal road intersection in the project or 36% of the units in the project within % mile, and the most distant unit within mile of the stop. In summary, the proposed project will provide direct access for its residents to the exist- ing (TCAT bus stop at the northerly project access road. Also, as noted in the DENS, the existing Gadabout and ADA paratransit services of TCAT will provide transportation for seniors and people with disabilities within this project on an on -call basis and provide curbside pickup and drop off for patrons at their residences. Comment 3.6 -20 (Letter 14, Janis M. Gross, NYS Dept. of Transportation, Dec. 29, 2009: The DEIS addresses (page 3.6 -14) the sight distance concerns for the proposed southern access to the site. The Region will require the submission of field- measured sight distances in order to evaluate this matter. ,I Response 3.6 -20: Refer to Response 3.6 -3. i I Comment 3.6 -21 (Letter 14. Janis M. Gross, NYS Dept. of Transportation, Dec. 29, 2009: Please submit to the Region the electronic Synchro files used in the transportation analysis. Response 3.6 -21: The Applicant has provided original electronic SYNCHRO files to NYSDOT for review and comment as requested, and the lead agency will provide NYSDOT with the revised SYNCHRO analysis. Comment 31.6 -22 (Letter 14, Janis M. Gross, NYS Dept. of Transportation, Dec. 29, 2009: Please note (that for any work to be conducted within the State right of way for this project, the applicant will be required to apply to the Region for a highway work permit. The Region will require the applicant to provide a statement of dedication to limit the access rights along NYS Route 96 as 'I a mitigation requirement. Response 3.6 -22: The Applicant acknowledges a. Highway Work Permit will be neces- sary. ,Should access rights along NYS Route 96 need to be limited as determined by NYSDOT, the Applicant will provide a statement of dedication on the project deed as mitigation. I Comment 316 -23 (Letter 15, Tony Ingraham, ERC, Town of Ithaca, December 30, 2009) The estimated 600+ trips per day leaving the development would be much better suited from a flatter, signalized location such as the existing hospital access. As one commenter suggested at the public hearing, the hospital might be more inclined to accept this access if the development were to fund parking lot enhancements, or a more direct access to the emergency entrance for ambulances. It is clearly not ideal to have this high amount of traffic accessing the development on sloped driveways that would queue traffic due to a lack of a turning lane or traffic signal. It is Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -10 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 201IFebFUBFY 1, also abundantly clear that making a left turn from Route 96 is already difficult, and making a left turn onto Rte. 96 commonly results in waiting 5 minutes for a gap in traffic. Adding traffic onto Rte. 96 is not a simple percentage increase, but rather a decrease in available gaps. Since times between gaps during commuting times can exceed 5 minutes, adding 600+ trips a day will significantly decrease the available gaps, possibly making 5 - 10 minute waits for a left turn a reality during commuting times, and 1 - 2 minute waits standard. Response 3.6 -23: Alternative access via the existing traffic signal at Dates Drive (CMC entrance) was fully evaluated through a cooperative dialog with representatives of CMC, the ITown Planning Department and Planning Board, and the Applicant at several meetings. Of primary concern to CMC is maintaining the emergency traffic patterns (emergency vehicles and public vehicles) thus necessitating that any proposed connec- tor road bypass the "Y" intersection where emergency traffic going to the hospital emergency room and hospital visitors pass through.4 No alternative plan was determined to be; acceptable by all affected parties. Refer to Response 6 -1. Comment 36 -24 (Letter 18. Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer. City of Ithaca. January 4. 2010): There are a number of slight misstatements in the report that should be corrected: Fulton Avenue should be Fulton Street; Trumansburg Road is not a principle arterial, but rather a rural minor arterial; Taughannock Blvd. is not a minor arterial, but rather a rural major collector; Route 13 is not a two lane roadway, but rather a four to six lane roadway; Cliff Street extends fromMe city / town line to the bottom of the hill (where it turns into Buffalo Street) and is owned and maintained by the City of Ithaca; NYSDOT then owns the section of Buffalo Street from Park Road to Route 13. 3.6 -24: Comments noted. 4 2010: I think the traffic characterization of the West End in the city of Ithaca is incorrect, particularly the levels of service of Buffalo Street (Route 96 / 89) at its intersection with Taughannock{ Blvd. (Route 89) and its intersection with Fulton Street (Route 13 southbound). Table 3.6 -3 states that the southbound left turn from Taughannock Blvd. to Buffalo Street operates at a LOS B with the through movement at a LOS C. Though the latter may be correct, the southbound left is probably more like a LOS E, if not LOS F. Regularly in the morning peak, there is not enough receiving space on Buffalo Street because of the backed up queue for eastbound traffic at Fulton Street and the left turn has little through put. Similarly, the combination of the Fulton Street signal and the Taughannock Blvd. signal regularly backs up eastbound traffic on Buffalo Street, certainly between Fulton and Taughannock, but also back to the base of West Hill and sometimes up Cliff Street some distance. This, of course, is seriously exacerbated if �a Norfolk Southern train comes through the West End in the morning rush hour. The Table also suggests that the intersection of Buffalo and Fulton Street operates at a LOS C in both the morning and evening peak hours. Based on my modeling and observations, this intersection operates at an AM peak LOS D and a PM peak LOS F. Though none of this changes the traffic impact of the project significantly, I think it is important to have a clearer understanding of the existing conditions. The number of automobile trips into the City doesn't change, but we should know that the marginal impacts are more significant due to the already poor traffic conditions in the West End. 4Mr. LoVecchio, Planning Board meeting 1/15/10. Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -11 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 201IFebFUeFy 1, 8 Response 3.6 -25: Per the request of NYSDOT, the Applicant conducted an additional traffic analysis using SYNCHRO software of the two signalized intersections identified by the coImmenterer. SYNCHRO traffic analysis is particularly useful in evaluating the level of service of signalized traffic intersections that operate in a coordinated manner, where delays and queuing at one intersection have an impact on surrounding intersections. The results of the original SYNCHRO analysis submitted to the NYSDOT were reviewed by Mr! Logue, TransportationTq:a#ie Engineer for the City of Ithaca. W. Logue -rye . Based upon Mr. Logue's comments, the SYNCHRO aAnalysis of the Cliff Street (Route 96) /-ems North Fulton, Street intersection was rerun separating the eastbound right turn movement from the eastbound through movement to reflect existing operating conditions. In addition, timing 1 usedadjustments were ni in the SYNCHRO analysis to both study intersections in the City is prejeet consistent with data supplied by NYSDOT signal timing reports. In order to provide a comparison, signal timings were held constant for all conditions (Existing, No- Bbuild and Build). The timing identified by the NYSDOT specifically creates delay for the southbound movement on Fulton Street, to allow for better east -west movement at this location. There lis a significant amount of queuing space available on N. Fulton Street which allows, -1, this delay to occur without creating an unsafe condition. Gensistent WM W. This delay creates a situation where the modeled bevel of sService is F for the southbound movements. Due to the high volume of southbound traffic, this delay causes the overall operation of the intersection to be level of service E under Existing conditions and level of service F under No- Build /Build p.m. conditions.F-, even thei hl the -ether The east -west movements operate at level of service D or better under Existing conditions. Observations of the traffic conditions made in January 2010 confirm that, under existing conditions, operation of the Norfolk Southern freight train during the peak hour results in additional delays and queuing at the Cliff Street /North Fulton Street intersection. It is noted that this is an existing condition and not a result of the Holochuck Homes development. i Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -12 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 2011FebFUaFY 1, 4 4. 2010. Though the trip generation estimates are reasonable, I think the study has misrepresented the trip distribution by assuming that 40% of the trips will head north on Route 96. 1 would suggest that the employment and shopping centers in the City and the east half of the country will be a much stronger attraction and that the vast majority of trips will head south on Route 96, more on the order of 80 %. 1 don't understand why the distribution wasn't shown differently for theiAM peak and the PM peak. The PM peak tends to be a little more dispersed. Response 3.6 -26: Refer to Response 3.6 -15. 4 2010: Changing the assumptions about existing conditions and trip distribution will affect the no -build and build analyses. Response 3.6-27: Refer to Response 3.6 -25 regarding the existing conditions. -The to Response 3.6 -15 regarding trip distribution. The edehWenei Comment 3.6 -281 (Letter 21, Jon Bosak, Planning Board, Januay 18, 2010) The passage from the November 3, 2009 DEIS (page 3.6 -10) ... means that the annual rate of increase in traffic will be double what it would ordinarily be for the four years of the buildout. That is, if x is the amount that traffic would ordinarily be expected to increase, and the project adds that amount, then they expected rate of increase will be 2x. If we would ordinarily expect a two percent annual increase (as the Holochuck representatives have repeatedly maintained), and if the project then causes an additional two percent annual increase, as stated above, then we should expect a Ifour percent annual increase for the four years of the buildout. This is (understandably) not the way that the developers would like to put it, but that's the clear implication of the quoted passage. In fact, the figuresl provided by the applicant's representative show that the actual annual rate of increase will far more than double the rate that the area has experienced in the past.... It is clear that the projected annual rate of increase everyone assumes for the traffic on West Hill bears no relationship to reality. This applies not just to the Holochuck project but to other West Hill studies as well. The traffic - related problems already experienced by local residents and travelers entering (Ithaca down Route 96 have been caused by an annual rate of increase far lower than the rate of increase that will be caused by Holochuck and other West Hill developments.... Since we must assume that traffic will, in the absence of any projects in the area, continue to grow at the same 0.6 percent that it actually has grown over the past 15 years, this means that total traffic in the neighborhood of the project will increase by about 2.4 percent annually (with the (Holochuck project) or four times the rate of increase that the neighborhood has historically experienced. To put it another way, if the Holochuck development goes forward as proposed, traffic in the area of the development would increase more in the next four years than it has in the past 15. This projection based on actual data is much more in keeping with the fears repeatedly expressed by area residents than with the dismissive characterizations we keep hearing from the developer. Response 13.6 -28: The following lists NYS Route 96 AADT count data by NYSDOT in the vicinity of the Holochuck Homes project since 1991. Holochuck Homes Subdivision.FEIS 3.6 -13 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 201IFebFU8FY 1, YEAR MILEPOST MARKER NYS DOT AADT DATA 2006 96 3602 3039 8829 Actual (1211212006) 1999 96 3602 3039 8310 Actual 1997 96 3602 3039 7050 Actual 1993 96 3602 3039 8450 Actual 1991 96 3602 3039 8070 Actual I Calculate ) d from the above data, 1991 to 1993 saw a 2.4% annual increase, 1993 to 1997 saw a downturn in traffic (4.1 % annual decline), 1997 to 1999 saw a 8.9% annual increase, and 1999 to 2006 saw a 0.9% annual increase. It is noted that the commenter's cited 0.6 percent growth over 15 years includes the four year period where AADT volumes actually declined. After the; Holochuck project is fully built and occupied it is projected to generate an increase that is within the range (1.5 to 2.0 percent) of projected annual traffic growth used in the NYSDOT methodology for traffic analysis to evaluate level of service impacts on the local road network. Level of service is the metric used by NYSDOT to determine whether or not a project would be expected to have a significant impact on traffic. In this case, actual peak hour traffic counts were added to a 1.5 percent growth factor over a four year', build -out, added to the projected trip generation by two other known project proposals, and added to the projected trip generation from Holochuck Homes when fully built, to evaluate "worst case" levels of service at the study intersections. The projected annual growth factor is used to account for all development - generated growth in a region, particularly unidentified projects (sometimes referred to as background growth). In this case the method actually double counts the Holochuck project- specific traffic since it is also part of the regional background growth. Nonetheless, no significant changes in levels of service resulted in the traffic analyses. To illustrate a worst case scenario for Holochuck Homes in terms of average daily trips, if built over four years its daily trip generation equates to 1.9 percent annual growth (6761882914); more realistically if built over 8 to 10 years, 0.8 to 1.0 percent. This traffic growth isIaccounted for in the expected range of annual traffic growth. Bosak. Planning Board, January 18, 20101: It's important to note that the Holochuck development is not the only one contemplated for West Hill. A more detailed analysis will have to wait for the comprehensive traffic study recently authorized by the Town Board, but it's already clear that without the implementation of mitigations far more substantial than any currently under discussion, traffic increases due to large scale West Hill development will make historically recorded traffic growth and the attendant difficulties already experienced by residents and coi muters in the area look insignificant by comparison. Response 3.6 -29: The Route 96 Corridor Management Study was completed in December 2008. The Town Board recently set aside funds for a study of the West Hill Area, but this study is envisioned to be related to land use in general and not specific to Traffic Analvsis.6 6 Per phone conversation with Christine Balestra, Town of Ithaca Planning Department, October 20, 2010. Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -14 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 2011Fel3FU8Fy 1, TCAT is also faced with the same difficulties, which will be exacerbated by the additional traffic from the Holochuck development's two access roads onto Rt. 96. The DEIS refers to the project site as "well served" by TCAT, and that "buses will stop at any safe corner' (3.6.2 Existing Public Transportation). TCAT buses run once an hour from downtown to the hospital during most of the day, and there is no continuous service from West Hill to Cornell (the major employer) for the middle portion of the day, so a trip across town can take two hours. There are also no "safe stops" between the hospital and the corner of Buffalo St / 96 Taughannock Blvd. Buses can not pull over on most of Cliff Street because there is a guardrail on one side and a cliff on the other, so they have to stop in the middle of the street and hope they don't get rear - ended. When the road widens enough for them to pull off to the side, buses are passed on double -solid lines by strings of cars at excessive speeds because people are too impatient to wait 10 seconds for a rider to disembark.... That's well served? No, that means yet another car on the road. TCAT has also stated (Appendix B) developments like Holochuck's -- with 2 parking spaces per unit -- do not result in an increase in ridership. Further, deviating into the development is not realistic because it provides a disincentive for existing riders and creates an expectation that riders will be picked up and delivered to their doorsteps. This makes Holochuck's proposal of a TCAT shelter within the subdivision irrelevant. Holochuck residents will be driving, adding to the existing traffic problems on 96. Response 3.6 -30: Refer to Response 3.6 -19. Comment 3.6 -31 (Public Hearing & Letter 25, December 15, 2009, Patricia Dutt): Mention is made of the 2007 New York State Traffic Data Viewer which gives average annual daily traffic of 8,845 vehicles on the town part of Route 96, the city section almost 20,000 vehicles. This data is nearly three years old. Where does this data come from? How were these vehicles counted. 1, Response 3.6 -31: NYSDOT Highway Data Services Bureau provides continuous annual AADT counts on New York State Roadways. For each roadway segment, the counts are either actual, based upon Automatic Traffic Recording (ATR) devices or estimated, where actual ATR counts are adjusted based on counts at nearby intersections. Due to the continual nature of the program and the significant number of NYS counts, the data can take time to process before it becomes available. The 2008 AADT for NYS Route 96 north of the Ithaca City north boundary is 8,929 vehicles, the AADT for the portion between the north city line and the Route 89 Overlap is 13,456, and the AADT for the portion in the City near North Fulton Street is 19,908 vehicles. The peak traffic volumes weIre measured on one day, a Tuesday in April of 2008. That's all. Response 3.6 -32: Refer to Response 3.6 -6. I Comment 3.6-33 1 (Public Hearing & Letter 25, December 15, 2009, Patricia Dutt): Pages 4 -5, study reports 1that the intersection of Route 96 and North Fulton Street operates in service level of C or better. I suggest posting at the developer's expense an individual with a clipboard at the intersection of Route 96 and North Meadow Street to ask those in vehicles how they would rate the level of service, not just for one day but for several days and at times when trains are running through the West End. Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -15 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 201IFebFueFy 1, 3.6 -33: It is acknowledged that the sporadic operation of the Norfolk freight train causes delays and queuing in the West End. This is an existing ice and does not occur as a result of the traffic to be generated by the c Homes project, thus it is beyond the scope of the EIS to resolve. Refer to 3.6 -25. Comment 3.6 -34 (Public Hearing & Letter 25, December 15, 2009, Patricia Dutt)�. There is no mention made of what percentage of the West Hill residents use public transportation. ?sponse 3.6 -34: There is no available data specific to West Hill to determine actual ership of this population. Based on 2008 data from the Census Bureau for the Ithaca atropolitan statistical area (MSA), between' 8 and 13 persons in this development are timated to take a bus to work. Given that the project site is located outside of the aca urban area, which is included in the MSA data, ridership would be expected to be the low end of this estimate. Comment 3.6 -35 (Public Hearing & Letter 25, December 15, 2009, Patricia Dutt) The major employers with the exception of CMC, which has asserted is no longer expanding, are located either in the city or the other parts of the town, thus most Holochuck homeowners would certainly be contributing to the cross -town traffic. Thus unless the traffic study delineates how the 200 plus Holochuck vehicles or 600 plus Holochuck total daily trips contribute to the existing gridlock every day 4 to 6 p.m. for southward bound Route 13 traffic entering into the West End, then they current study is incomplete. -ponce 3.6 -35: The traffic impact study was conducted in accordance with the DENS pe adopted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board after a public hearing was held on draft scope for the environmental impact study for this project. Comment 3.6 -36 (Public Hearing & Letter 25, December 15, 2009, Patricia Dutt�j The lack of shoulders and sidewalks into the town, part of Route 96 makes walking and biking extremely treacherous. Additional traffic on this road will only further discourage people from walking, biking and taking the bus. espouse 3.6 -36: Comment noted. The Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan of 2007 calls for sidewalks to be extended on all residential and state highway streets in the ITown of Ithaca, however at this time there are no sidewalks on Route 96 for this project to connect to. To benefit pedestrians within the development the proposed subdivision plan includes an internal sidewalk system to benefit pedestrians within the development land the project plan includes a sidewalk connection to the existing TCAT bus stop for Finger Lakes School of Massage. Additionally, the Applicant has offered to provide easements along the limited project frontage on Route 96 as needed for future transportation improvements. Comment 3.6 -37 (Public Hearing & Letter 25, December 15, 2009, Patricia Dutt): Holochuck Homes projected an extra 21 TCAT riders to its population of 307 persons. However Holochuck Homes is a high -end development and its residents are likely to use their own vehicles rather than wait a half an hour for the bus in the rain and the snow and the cold. Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -16 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 2011 ,, onse 3.6 -37: Based on 2008 data from the US Census Bureau, approximately 8 ins (or less) in this development will take a bus to work. Refer to Response 3.6 -34. Comment 3.6 -38 (Public Hearing & Letter 25, December 15, 2009, Patricia Dutt)�. I see no compensation for the town of the wear and tear on the road during this time period when the trucks used in the construction of the 106 plus or minus townhouse units will be degrading our neighborhoo i roads. Response 3.6 -38: The proposed project will involve construction activity at the public road right of way and a Highway Work Permit will need to be approved by NYSDOT prior to any such activity. Appropriate measures for preventing and repairing damage to the road will be conditions of that permit. A stabilized construction entrance is proposed to be installed and maintained at the two project site access points on Route 96, in confor- mance with NY State regulations pursuant to stormwater management and erosion control. The stabilized construction entrance with a lined stone pad of appropriate dimensions is intended to reduce tracking of soil onto the public roadways. All construc- tion vehicles will use the construction access for ingress and egress. Construction vehicles and employees will park on -site at all times possible. Materials and equipment storage will be located on site. Once earthmoving machinery reaches the site, it is likely to remain on site until the completion of grading and excavation. The heaviest volume of construction traffic is expected to occur at the beginning of construc- tion ash site clearing and rough grading is conducted, and during the months that concrete and building materials are transported to the site. Construction material storage equipment staging and soil stockpiling will occur on graded stabilized areas of the site. With the se controls in place, it is anticipated that there will be no significant impacts as a result of construction to the surrounding roadway network. Should any inadvertent soil tracking I or pavement damage occur to NYS Route 96 as a result of construction operations, the Applicant will be responsible to repair such damage. Comment 3.6 -39 (Public Hearing & Letter 25, December 15, 2009, Patricia Dutt): The traffic study fails to take into account the cumulative effects of all developments. It does not mention the impact on traffic due to snow and construction, which we have for about half of the year, and the impact due t6 trains which we have every day. Response 3.6 -39: Cumulative traffic growth is a specific ingredient of the traffic analysis. 1I The overall analysis is predicated on typical, non - disruptive roadway conditions. The analysis is based upon an evaluation of existing vehicle movements and roadway ',conditions at the study intersections, which are projected into the future by increasing traffic by a standard growth factor, and then additionally considering the traffic to be generated by identified pending projects. In this case, traffic from developments on West Hill 1known as Lindenman Creek IV (72 units of Senior Housing) and Carrowmoor (up to 400, townhouse units) were considered in the traffic analysis. Comment 3.6-40 (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Warren Allmon): You can sit at the top of our driveway, the PRI driveway, now for up to five or seven minutes at 5:00 trying to get out. Response 3.6-40: As stated in the DEIS, the northern site access would represent a much higher volume than most area driveways with a slightly higher left turn volume Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -17 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 201IFebFueFy , than would be expected from a typical driveway, thus the projected level of service D, which is considered an acceptable level of service by NYSDOT, for the site access onto Trumansburg Road represent a worst case conservative estimate of the conditions which can also be expected from local area driveways. Based upon this comparison, delays at Ithe driveways along Route 96 would typically be less than 35 seconds per vehicle, on average, and in some cases would exceed that delay. It is noted that often- times the perceived delay by a motorist, especially at an'unsignalized access, is signifi- cantly longer than what is actually measured. Comment 3.6 -41' (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Lynn Bake: I don't believe that the secondary driveway is signalized. So especially in the morning people will have difficulty making a left, most of the! people living here are commuting across town. ...The scale, size of this thing is something like doubling the number of stand alone residential units in this neighborhood. Response 3.6 -41: As indicated by NYSDOT in its January 2011 comment letter (Appendix M), the agency will permit a right -in only secondary access at the southern end of the project. This access road will be unsignalized. The Town: of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the need for higher density housing near the hospital and sets forth the various advantages of clustered develop- ment. Chapter Ill of the Comprehensive Plan expresses the goals, objectives and actions of the plan, including the first objective identified for Housing and Residential Land Use is for the Town to have "A variety of housing styles and patterns of develop- ment to meet the diverse needs of the community', and the related action is to: "Require clustering las necessary for efficient use of land and other resources." The proposed Holochuck Homes project provides medium density housing near the Cayuga Medical Center as a cluster development to minimize the overall disturbance to land area and to preserve sensitive conservation lands. Comment 3.6- 42I(Public Hearing. December 15, 2009, Adrian William): Traffic impacts are going to be tremendous, both for town residents and city residents, and it doesn't seem to me appropriate for this board to be considering allowing this development to go forward without waiting for the town board's projected traffic study in this area. So I would urge you to wait until that further study gets completed. In fact I don't see how this scale of a development can proceed without having a tremendous impact on the traffic situation in the West Hill. Response 3.6 -42: Refer to Response 3.6 -29. the assumptions i during the day an hours. Response 3.6 -43: To evaluate a larger southbound trip distribution, the Applicant prepared ai Sensitivity Analysis which evaluates the effects of routing 80 percent of the site - generated traffic toward the City of Ithaca. The results of this analysis are similar to those of the DEIS Traffic Impact Analysis. The Sensitivity Analysis is included in Appendix S. Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Rich DePaulo): I question some of the traffic portion of the DEIS with respect to the number of trips generated the direction that people will take when they leave Holochuck in the morning Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -18 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 201IFebfueFy 1, Comment 3.6 -44 (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Mr. Brittain): On page 3.63 when it talks about Cliff Street, they give the average daily traffic counts for Route 13 instead. Response 3.6 -44: Comment noted. The AADT for traffic on Cliff Street, between the City of Ithaca northern boundary and the NYS Route 89 Overlap is 13,456 vehicles. Comment 3.6-45 (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Mr. Brittain): On Figure 3.6 -2 if you look at the traffic icounts for the hospital entrance you will notice what they are saying happens in the morning, 65 cars come from Trumansburg turn into that new housing development. Strikes me as being a lot more than 65. There are a lot more coming in according to them than going out during the morning rush hour. I don't think I've ever seen it that low. It may be what happened with whomever did that count got left and right mixed up. Maybe it was 70 was supposed to go in there instead of 65. And of course the rest of their traffic estimates are all based on existing iconditions so if this is incorrect, those would have to be corrected as well. Response 3.6 -45: The left and right turn numbers were reversed in the DEIS analysis. Revised Figures 3.6 -2, 3.6 -4 and 3.6 -9 and revised HCS analysis of the a.m. peak hour Existing, No -Build and Build conditions for this intersection are included in Appendix S. Signal timing adjustments were made in the revised analysis to accommodate the reversed movements. The revised analysis indicates that the intersection is operating at an overall Ilevel of service B during the a.m. peak hour and C in the p.m. peak hour under Eezisting, No -Build and Build conditions. Similar to the results of the DEIS analysis, operating conditions for each individual movement remain at level of service D or better for all movements at this intersection and these changes have no effect on the other intersections studied. Comment 3.6-46 (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Mr. Brittain). I just want to point out that as with most developers what seems to happen is the level of services is calculated and yes, it's consistent throughout the report, .but the calculations do not always agree with reality. So if they went out and measured the delays in the intersections, they probably would have gotten different numbers than the ones they got calculated. Response 3.6 -46: The Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted according to standard hHighway cGapacity analysis methodologies as defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration's Center for Microcomputers in Transportation (McTrans) utilizing Highway Capacity Software (Version 5.4 by McTrans). Additional analysis was conducted according to related highway capacity analysis methodologies using SYNCHRO software (Version 7 by Trafficware, Ltd.). Trip generation was based upon the most recent Institute of Transportation Engineers publication Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008. Comment 3.6-47 (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Mr. Brittainl: Directional distribution, they are saying 6b percent comes towards the city. That's very unrealistic. There is no documentation for that. If you look at the other driveways, even West Hill Drive it's more like, depending on which day you look at, if you ignore the morning commute they got wrong, seems more like 80, 86 percent of the trips in and out of there are coming toward the city. So it should be I think 80 percent anyway as a directional distribution. Response 3.6 -47: The Applicant prepared a Sensitivity Analysis, included in Appendix S, that evaluates the impacts if 80 percent of the site generated traffic were to seek the City of Ithaca as a destination. There are no changes in the levels of service between Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -19 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 201IFebFueFy 1, the 60% and 80% scenarios although there are some changes in delay. The fesults of Comment 3.6 -48 (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Mr. Brittain): What the easy thing to do is look at a trip generation manual and it asks you whether you live in a townhouse and during peak hour, each unit is going to have .6 trips during rush hour. That may be a national average, but in many ways Ithaca is not typical. I would not be at all surprised if we are not considerably more than that. We should be able to find out what they are for Ithaca. All you have to do is take an apartment complex or cul -de -sac with an appropriate type of houses on it, someplace where there are a low number of housing units and then look at the traffic. Then you put a traffic counter across their driveway and you find out that, you know, 100 houses on these little loop roads and they make X number of trips per day and you divide and now you know for Ithaca what is a more appropriate trip generation rate. So this is data that we may have some of it if you look around, but I presume it could be calculated if we have the data or take some counts and get numi ers that may be more realistic than the ones they are using. Response 3.6 -48: The projected peak hour trip generation of the project is acknowl- edged by NYSDOT in its letter dated January 6, 2011 (Appendix M). A survey at one facility in the local area, as suggested by the commentor, may or may not result in a different multiplier for this land use type, however such a survey cannot be relied on to be statistically accurate, nor was such a study identified to be required in the Scope for the DEIS traffic study or prior to acceptance of the DEIS as complete. Further, the commentor does not provide justification for his assertion that the rate in Ithaca is not the same as the national average. ITE Trip Generation for Townhouse as a land use (ITE Code 230) is compiled from recent surveys of more than 60 townhouse complexes throughout the US and Canada. This source is the industry standard for projecting trip generation for a specific land use category. Comment 3.6-49 (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Mr. Brittain): Speaking of traffic, their idea of traffic impact) on Cliff Street seems to be your ability to get out of your driveway and I would submit there is, much more a disability than ability to drive out of the driveway. i i Response 3.6 -49: Refer to Response 3.6 -17. i Comment 3.6 -50 (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Mr. Brittain): The nodal development got this big push a few years ago. If each node is a self- contained unit like a little village and you can maybe walk to work or if the kids can walk to school and you can walk to your job, then you're not putting traffic on the road.... The only way that you can get anywhere from Holochuck is to drive out onto 96. That's not nodal. But I think it's an opportunity to actually do better. You cannot be a hospital nodal without being connected to the hospital.... So I would see it would be to the hospital's advantage to connect to Holochuck. I think with good will and appreciation from all involved with the hospital, it should be possible to connect, which I would actually see as an alternative to the northern driveway. Response 3.6,-50: Alternative access via the existing traffic signal at Dates Drive was fully evaluated through a cooperative dialog with representatives of CMC, the Town Planning Department and Planning. Board, and the Applicant at several meetings. Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -20 However, no connected access plan was parties!; Refer to Response 6.0. Traffic and Transportation March 15, 2011FebruaFy 1 determined to be acceptable by all affected Comment 3.6=51 (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Mr. Brittain): Connecting to Route 89 1 notice is not in the cards. It looks like we have a conservation zone in the way now, but I see that as a loss of opportunity. I think connecting to Route 89 would be a huge benefit. That would be a benefit toy the hospital. Again would allow ambulances an alternative way if 96 is plugged. For the Holochuck people it would mean they would not have to take Cliff Street. They could go down to 89 and come in without driving by all these houses. And if you can reduce the number of cars going by houses, I see that as something that should be pursued. So I realize it is a steep hill, but it, is possible to have a road wandering down a steep hill. Response 3.6 -51: A proposal for a parkway known as "Northwest Parkway Concept" was submitted to the Planning Board relative to a previous proposal in this area known as the Cayuga Cliffs Subdivision. This was in June, 1992, prior to the multi -road improvements implemented by NYSDOT at the base of West Hill, locally known as the "Octopus ". Although the Northwest Parkway Concept showed some merit, it was determined that an alternative roadway was beyond the purview of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to implement. In the I to 1980's, early 1990's, NYS Department of Transportation extensively studied transportation patterns in relation to the "Octopus" redesign project. The full DEIS/FEIS documents (1988 and 1992, respectively) contain significant research and traffic analyses, alternative road design studies, visual, soils, and other analyses, and public and involved /interested agency comments, culminating in Findings prior to the Octopus improvements. The DEIS evaluated four alternative road alignment scenarios, two of which included constructing a new road up West Hill that would connect to Route 96 in the vicinity of Dates Drive, called Alternatives B and C. In its FEIS, NYSDOT eliminated Alternatives B and C from further consideration apparently due primarily to geotechnical (soils related) testing results. On November 3, 2009, Mr. Kanter reported that the 1992 report was a staff study and was not!, accepted by the Planning Committee nor recommended in the 2007 Transportation Plan. Instead, the 1993 Town Comprehensive Plan and more recently the Town's 2007 Transportation Plan cite a future town road connection between the Overlook urea on Route 96 and Route 79 as a planning goal, which would ultimately remove some traffic from Route 96. The Applicant's plan addresses another Town planning goal cited in the aforementioned 1993 and 12007 Plans: to preserve in perpetuity a significant portion of the site's eastern slopes facing Cayuga Lake in State -owned open space parkland, reflecting the Town's zoning forithis area. The zoning designation for this area is now Conservation Zone. Comment 3.6-521 (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Mr. Brittain) There should be some connection to the Black Diamond Trail. If the road went down there, that would do it. I was a little sad, that the DEIS said there is no offsite mitigation needed and I would think that if some funding were provided to help complete the Black Diamond Trail, that would be very useful to the people who live in this development. i Response, 3.6 -52: The project proposal includes transfer of a large parcel of land on the eastern side of the site to New York State that will facilitate completion of the Black Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -21 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 2011FebFU8FY 1, Diamond Trail along the site's eastern frontage near the shore of Cayuga Lake. The State has indicated it does not want any other trail connection within the transferred About the connection to 89, 1 circulated a 1992 plan that came out of our planning department here to actually build a parkway, scenic parkway.... So I'm interpreting Mr. Brittain's comments meaning that in his opinion this is 'a physically practical thing to do. 3.6 -53: Refer to Response 3.6 -51. Comment 34-54 (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Susan Riha) Given the narrowness of the roads and that its basically the only major way to the hospital, is that even taken into account in terms of level of services. Responnse 3.6 -54: Lane configuration, including the number of lanes and the width of each lane, among other considerations, are factors used in evaluation of the level of service! Comment 3.6 =55 (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Kathleen Friedrich): I can't begin to tell you how difficult it is to enter or exit my driveway. Not 50 seconds. It took us longer than that to leave this evening for the meeting at, after 7 p.m. The figures quoted about this in the statement I think are very misleading, if not outright misrepresentations. Fifty seconds is not the worst case scenario for trying to turn left. And I don't see how it's going to improve by adding I guess it's 676 more daily trips from Holochuck. i Response 3.6 -55: Refer to Response 3.6 -17. i Comment 3.6 =56 (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Kathleen Friedrich. The traffic pattern is inadequate to deal with increased development. There is no turn lanes or other features to facilitate turns from Trumansburg Road. Consequently northbound traffic, rather than wait for cars to � clear the intersection, pass on the shoulders and sometimes through my front yard. They seldom even slow down to make this ' maneuver. And this behavior is shared by those driving trucks and TCAT buses. My driveway, being directly across from Bundy Road, because of this I've had more than a few very close calls. ...and as mentioned this traffic driver behavior is not I policed well. So the excessive speed of the motorist isn't being addressed. Vehicles of every type barrel through here recklessly and impatiently and this has been a residential area for some time. The speed limit I think needs to be lowered. ...The thing about this letter also is that I wrote this in July of 2001. And believe me the traffic situation has not improved since then. It's gotten much worse and much more dangerous. It's not just congestion. It is a real safety', problem and we live with it on a daily basis. It's very unclear to me how adding the kind of developments that are being suggested can be supported. Response 3.6 -56: Comments noted. Due to the fact that NYS Route 96 is a NYS roadway,1 speed enforcement and any request to lower the speed limit are matters for the NYS Police and the NYS Department of Transportation respectively. Comment 3.6 -57 (Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Ken Walker): The trip generation figure that was in the DEIS was that this development would add 676 daily trips and I think that's ,probably a considerable underestimate. If you think that the trip generation is going to include not only people commuting to work, but the school buses and the UPS truck and people going Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS I 3.6 -22 Traffic and Transportation March 15, 2011Fel9FUBFY 1, to the homes to do plumbing work or whatever workmen people have in their homes, it just seems likely to be! quite a bit higher than that especially if you consider that these are upscale houses, townhouses if you want to call them. And the expectation that everybody ought to have, there will be probably two cars for every new development. Response 13.6-57. Trip generation rates are published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Ifor specific land uses, based on actual traffic counts taken at such uses across the I country. In this case, the trip generation rates account for commuting trips and ancillary trips made to the residential use as well as typical deliveries, repairman visits, school bus trips, visitors, etc. that may occur during the peak traffic periods. Comment 3.6- 581(Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Ken Walkers Also in the section about neighborhood livability ...it's ridiculous. Somebody said earlier you can sit in your driveway now for five to seven minutes waiting for a break in traffic to get out and they are telling us that the maximum is going to be 55 seconds. And to support that they say that they went out there on one Tuesday on a clear day when there wasn't rain, there wasn't snow, there wasn't weekend issues and they did one time, one day in the morning and that was their study. It's not a study. It's a snapshot or anecdote, but it doesn't say anything about the reality of the situation. Anybody; who lives along there will tell you that getting in and out of your driveway right now is plenty i ad enough. Response 13.6 -58: Refer to Response 3.6 -17. Comment 3.6 -59 ((Public Hearing, December 15, 2009, Ken Walkert. At the last meeting there was talk about the parkway idea that was proposed back in '92 and I looked into this and I think you could debate the merits of it a little bit and I think it might be distasteful to many people to put a parkway Ithrough what is designated now as a conservation zone and it might be politically impossible to do now. But if you build this development as it's proposed to do, you're going to make this impossible to ever do. There will be no possibility of ever mitigating traffic on West Hill by taking,the alternate route up the hill. Response 3.6 -59: Refer to Response 3.6 -53. Comment 3.6 -60 (Public Hearing. December 15, 2009, Andy Goodell). I live at the seven unit apartment building that is part of the buildings with the School of Massage and the PRI there. I can tell you from experience the driveway is so steep that anyone who says it takes five to ten minutes to get out of the driveway takes me about double that because the visibility is so poor because you re looking up at an angle to look left to make a turn in that way. It's extremely difficult to make that sort of turn. To expect 600 cars to be able to would be a mess. It would either not be used and everyone would be going out the other entrance and making that a mess also or people would just be in a queue which there is no signal. The problem is if you do put a signal in, you are slowing down thousands of other trips going up and down the hill. It's a major issue either way whl ether you want to signalize that intersection or not. Response 3.6 -60: Construction of the new northerly access road is designed to reduce the approach grade to Route 96 resulting in an improvement over the steep grade at the existing access. The Applicant conducted a traffic signal warrant analysis at the north access point for the project, which indicated that traffic volumes do not appear to meet warrants necessary for installation of a traffic signal. This analysis has been submitted to NYSDOT for review and comment. Holochuck Homes Subdivision FEIS 3.6 -23 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, March 15, 2011 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Consideration of acceptance of the revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, located between NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25 -1- 5! 1; 25 -2 -41.2, 26 -4 -37, 264-38, and 26 -4 -39, Low Density Residential Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The proposal involves the construction of 106+/ - town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Density Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation proposes to acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Trail. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent. 3. A I roval of Minutes: February 15, 2011, March 1, 2010, and March 8, 2011. 4. Other Business: 5. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street March 15, 20117:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name Address vs