No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2014-12-02JOINT MEETING CITY OF ITHACA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD & TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. December 2. 2014 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. This is a joint meeting of the City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to review the Draft Scoping Document for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) that will be prepared regarding the proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project. The proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project seeks to redevelop the 800,000 +/- square foot former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility and construct new buildings on portions of the 95-acre site that traverses the City and Town of Ithaca's municipal boundary. A copy of the Draft Scoping Document (revised November 26, 2014) and other project information about the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project is available during regular business hours at the City of Ithaca's Planning Division, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, NY , and can be accessed online at http://www.citvofithaca.org/departtnents/planniim/proiects/index.cfm or http://chainvvorksdistrict.com/. 2. Adjournment NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747 or SPOLCE@TOWN.lTIIACA.NY.US. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, December 2, 2014 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,Joseph Haefeli,John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty,Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk City Planning and Development Board Members Present: Garrick Blalock(Chair),John Schroeder, Jack Elliott, McKenzie Jones-Rounds, CJ Randall City Staff Present:JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development; Lisa Nicholas, Planner; Adam Walters, Consulting Attorney Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the joint meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. AGENDA ITEM This is a joint meeting of the City of Ithaca Planning&Development Board and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to review the Draft Scoping Document for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement(GEIS) that will be prepared regarding the proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project. The proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project seeks to redevelop the 800,000 +/-square foot former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility and construct new buildings on portions of the 95-acre site that traverses the City and Town of Ithaca's municipal boundary. A copy of the Draft Scoping Document(revised November 26, 2014) and other project information about the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project is available during regular business hours at the City of Ithaca's Planning Division, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, NY, and can be accessed online at www.cityofithaca.org/departments/planning/projects/index.cfm or chainworksdistrict.com. Mr. Wilcox stated that it is the town planning board's and staff's job to provide feedback and information on what should be included and clarified in the scoping document. The focus should be on substantive issues, not typographical errors. Mr. Walters stated that the city hoped to gain substantive feedback from the town from this meeting. Everyone knows what needs to be in a scoping document and that those seven specific components that are in the draft must be adequately covered. The whole point of scoping is that when the developer submits the draft Environmental Impact Statement(DGEIS), it includes all of the elements that were identified and listed in the Scoping Document. We don't want to be in a position to need something analyzed that was not identified in the scope. The lead agency is looking for specific environmental impacts that need to be analyzed. We are looking at the conceptual level at this point. He suggested the board consider discussing scheduling and timelines and that they didn't need to spend a lot of time on the non-impact-related elements. We should make sure that the level of discussion is adequate to make the dGEIS adequate. There's a lot of information; is there enough Planning Board Minutes 12-02.2014 Page 2 of 12 substance? He suggested that the discussion start at Chapter 6 Potential Impacts and Mitigation.At the end of this process, the lead agency has to make findings that the project mitigates any identified impacts to the extent practicable. SEQR requires the scope to flesh out alternatives and the statute requires a no-build alternative. The process includes choosing what the other alternatives will be. The lead agency should pick two of the alternatives to explore; those will give us a sense of comparison between adverse impacts of the proposed development and the two alternatives. Mr. Schroeder pointed out that the city planning board will have the opportunity to discuss this in the future, so he did not want to comment, but to hear what the town had to say. Mr. Bosak stated that he was confused about 6.1. Why would a summary of Chapter 5 be necessary in two different sections? Ms. Ritter commented that more detail could be put into these sections. For example, under Water Resources, section 6.3.1 is supposed to be describing the surface water impacts.You would anticipate more detail so we know exactly what we are expecting when we get the DGEIS. Mr. Wilcox stated that under section 6.5 Public Health and Environment, there is a mention of the "use or storage of materials that will require Spill Prevention, Control ... " His concern is with the storage, use, disposal of whatever chemicals or oils or solvents that could be used in light manufactur- ing. It's tough to noodle through this when you're doing a generic environmental impact statement because we don't know what sort of light manufacturing will be there.We're all aware of the issues on the site and don't want any more. It would be nice to flesh that out more, including disposal. Ms. Balestra said she wanted to speak a little about the lack of detail that Sue Ritter was alluding to. Town staff received the SEQR pos dec Notice of Intent that included a Draft Scoping Document that was more of an outline and contained much more detail about what the dGEIS would study. We were wondering why the later scope that the city considered passing was more general. Mr. Walters responded that there is an approach to scoping that includes more detailed content, and that can happen when the lead agency issues a positive declaration of environmental significance on a project and starts the EIS process.We talked about the need to make sure that the final scope met all the requirements of SEQR.And we suggested to the applicant some restructuring of the scope. The more general document is what we got back. The framework is probably where it needs to be; it's now a question of more substance and details. The applicant added that the way it is set up right now is that a lot of detail is in Chapter 5 Environ- mental Setting,where it refers to the existing condition. Chapter 6 is the mitigation. Mr. Schroeder said that what seems odd in the way 6.5 is worded is that it's about future operations, whereas the public health concern the committee is worried about is more like what's in the existing building. He thought the tenses ought to be changed to talk about both the existing conditions and the potential future operations. The emphasis is incomplete. Ms. Brock stated that section 6.6 Historic and Archaeological Resources says, "If necessary, a Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory will be completed." She asked who makes the determination of whether a Phase I Inventory is "necessary." Planning Board Minutes 12-02.2014 Page 3 of 12 The applicant responded that they know there are archeologically sensitive areas within the project boundary. Ms. Brock asked that if they already know there are archeological resources on the site, then why say "if necessary"? Shouldn't the scoping document instead say that the Phase I Inventory will be done? Mr. Wilcox stated that he recalls that Phase I is a "light" survey and it helps determine whether a Phase II or more detail is necessary. So the question for him is: is a Phase I going to happen? The applicant responded that they will follow whatever is required by the NYSDEC. It is the State Historic Preservation Office's (SHPO) determination on whether a Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory is necessary. Ms. Erb said she was thinking more of the historic parts of the building and that the applicant might have an idea about sections that might be set aside or have some sort of preservation, either interior or exterior. She was looking for that in the document. Ms. Collins agreed and said she asked the applicant at the last meeting whether there was any desire or plan to do any historic preservation.The answer she got was that there would be. She sees no reference to that. She wants to make sure the cultural and historic preservation is included, not just the archeological stuff. Ms. Erb said that there's a vague general reference to talking to the agency that handles those things, but she wants to know which buildings they're thinking about.With the number of buildings involved and the number of acres involved, she thinks they can be a little bit precise. Ms. Randall asked which areas are archeologically sensitive. The applicant responded that two small segments are archeologically sensitive: a small portion closest to the city near where the trail will go and a small portion in the town. Mr. Schroeder asked whether we have to rely on SHPO to determine whether there should be a study. He thinks the historic resources should be studied - period. It should not be up to a state agency. Mr. Walters responded that New York has come to rely on their SHPO office in the last several years; but their role is not really a SEQR role. Their role is generally advisory, but they are often considered an involved or interested agency in the SEQR process.As a result of that role and that statute, they have the authority to make recommendations on a project, including additional studies to include in an EIS. But from a SEQR perspective, the lead agency makes the final determination on the studies that will be completed. Mr. Schroeder stated that there should be a cultural resources study. Period. 6.7 Transportation and Circulation Planning Board Minutes 12-02.2014 Page 4 of 12 Ms. Ritter reported on behalf of a town board member that there was no mention of trucking, not just for construction traffic, but for materials being delivered to the development and for finished manufactured products leaving the site. She also asked that another intersection be evaluated. It may not require intersection counts to be taken, but it does require consideration. We know that a certain population from this development is going to work at Cornell, and those working in the more eastern portions (East Hill Plaza,Vet School, etc.) are likely to take Coddington to Burns Road instead of going south into the city. In some form,we need projections on commuters taking this northern route to Cornell. Mr. Wilcox said we have the potential cut and fill issue if lots of fill needs to be carried away, which could be an issue on Aurora Street because of the grade. Then there's non construction-related traffic such as deliveries and shipments in and out of the site. Ms. Ritter added that there's an issue on Route 96B, at least in terms of heavy trucks not being allowed to travel very far south due to a bridge in Owego. She was not certain what the bridge inadequacy was and whether it would be fixed by the time the project was built, but suggested that this be investigated further. Mr. Bosak pointed out the very real possibility of a truck going out of control. Ms. Erb said there's also a substantial coming and going of trucking traffic just for deliveries and pickups involved in normal operations of a light industrial area. It might be that it's impossible because of terrain, but she was struck that there was no mention of trying to make a connection to the South Hill Business Campus - a way of getting people from one employment center to the other. Mr. Wilcox asked whether that is a site plan issue or an environmental concern. Ms. Erb responded that she's hearing about pedestrian and bicycle ways and circulation and routes to Ithaca College; South Hill Business Campus is on the same side of the road as this project, is a reasonably-sized employer, and it seems that there is potential for synergy between businesses at the two campuses. During construction, there's going to be a lot of contractor parking, spoils storage, materials storage, etc. She wants that to be on site and taken care of appropriately. Ms. Brock said she was confused in 6.7: "comparison of existing traffic conditions and estimates under the proposed development will be provided." Will the traffic analysis also look at performance of intersections under the proposed development? In 5.7, we're looking at the existing intersections, but in 6.7, now we're looking at how they will function with the proposed development.A reference needs to be added to the intersection performance. In terms of the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, we need to specify what those are. Looking at the build condition, she asked what assumptions will be made about background growth that is also going to be happening at the same time. Do you have specific projects that aren't yet part of our existing traffic, but are likely coming online that might add to traffic in the area?You should include in the build-out analysis the growth anticipated from various projects. Within the town, the Troy Road project has come in for sketch plan; it is a housing development with 130 units that is a known project. College Crossings has been approved for a number of years. Ms. Cornish commented that 20 years ago, she worked on Evan MonkemeyerIs project. Planning Board Minutes 12-02.2014 Page 5 of 12 Ms. Randall said there's not much on internal transportation. That has to be considered. Ms. Collins said South Hill School certainly has to be brought into this. It's already kind of a mess when school is letting out. 6.8 Utilities Ms. Erb said she was surprised she saw nothing about alternative energy - the potential for solar on roofs, etc. Mr. Walters responded that this is addressed in Chapter 10. Energy and conservation measures are considered separately and will be a chapter unto itself. Ms. Erb pointed out that it mentions only LEED and green buildings and doesn't mention the potential for distributed heating systems or solar energy. Ms.Jones-Rounds said it is certainly a concern for the lead agency. Mr. Schroeder stated that the city planning board has had numerous discussions that their environ- mental review documents and basic forms do not give enough emphasis to providing information on green building practices, so he is very sympathetic about beefing that section up. Ms. Brock asked whether there is any limitation on the amount of natural gas available in this part of the county. She said that in the Town of Lansing, the gas lines don't have the capacity to service all the new development. She said that 6.8 doesn't specifically mention natural gas, and she thinks it should.A lot of developments in Lansing are bottled up and can't go forward. She also asked whether the sewer capacity issues had been resolved. Mr. Wilcox said that around 10 years ago, there were infiltration problems in the town on South Hill, which, by the time you got down to South Cayuga Street extension, they were getting overflow through the pipes. Ms. Cornish said the manhole covers were damaged and that the city has taken some measures. For stormwater impacts and mitigation, they have to check with the city's water and sewer department. The applicant said they've been working with Scott Gibson, who didn't give any indications that there were any issues. 6.9 Air Quality Ms. Ritter said they need to specify how air quality will be assessed. Mr. Wilcox said especially for some to-be-determined manufacturing. 6.10 Visual and Aesthetic Resources Ms. Erb said she pulled our scenic resources report and looked through the photographs of the places she thought could see the project. They seem to be missing several points on Bostwick Road, Sheffield Road, Westhaven Park - they missed West Hill. She asked that they also check Tupelo Park and East Planning Board Minutes 12-02.2014 Page 6 of 12 Shore Park. It would be nice to say that the technical report will include the photographs and the changes in the development that will impact the view, like a building going higher. Ms. Ritter said the town has a scenic resources document. There are 14 significant views,which are most apt to be incorporated in any environmental assessment. Ms. Brock added that instead of just saying critical receptor points, they have to have a listing of what they are. The Outdoor Lighting Law that they have to comply with has to be referenced. It's a dark sky law. 6.11 Community Services Ms. Brock said that all community services from Chapter 5 are going to be analyzed.Which impacts will be examined? Can we assume it's going to be everything listed in Chapter 5? 6.12 Construction Activities Ms. Erb stated that a couple of years ago, a developer working on a city project came to the town planning board asking where they could park several hundred cars and pickup trucks. This was the huge apartment buildings on State Street and Mitchell; there was no plan for contractor parking, so they came to the town planning board. Staging activities need to include parking for all construction vehicles. Mr. Wilcox said there was also a large university project where they stored cars off site in an area they shouldn't have. We don't care whether they park in the town or the city part of the site, just whether there's sufficient space. Ms. Erb said she just wants to know; she doesn't want them to park on the residential streets in the town neighborhoods. Mr. Schroeder agreed that none of us wants them parking on the streets. Ms. Brock pointed out that we might care whether the on-site construction parking is in the town or the city. For this particular site, it might not make sense for on-site parking to be on the town portion of the property, because the town portion has steep slopes and undeveloped areas. The applicant pointed out that there are currently 1200 parking spots. Ms. Erb wanted it mentioned - so we can say that it will not be a worry - that there will be sufficient onsite parking. For projects going on for a long time,we give our residential neighbors something about the hours of operation. It has a lot to do with neighborhood livability. Ms. Cornish said the city noise ordinance states 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Chapter 9 Ms. Erb was struck throughout this document that there is no real consideration of the type of housing in the final build out: some idea of the number and type of housing units. It should include Planning Board Minutes 12-02.2014 Page 7 of 12 whether it is all going to be upscale housing or whether there will be any expectation of median-and low-income affordable housing. Mr. Bosak said that this has a direct bearing on the SEQR because if enough good housing is provided here, that becomes a mitigation to the negative impacts. That becomes a really relevant point. Many folks believe that we have a need for general housing, and the fact that you're providing x-number of units to some people might be a mitigation. Ms. Erb stated again that there is no analysis or discussion of the need for housing. That is a fault in the current document. There is a dearth of all types of housing. People aren't going to move into the region just to buy a condo with a big window looking onto the lake. There are two major areas of employment near the site. Mr. Bosak noted that the same thing could be said about the need for light manufacturing as a public good. Mr. Schroeder stated that one of his major concerns is going to be related to character of community. Is the emphasis or basic stylistic approach going to be an urban approach or a suburban approach; i.e., will every internal road have sidewalks on both sides, like every city street, or will it be more suburban?Will there be curbs on interior roads? Is the look and feel, particularly on the portion that directly joins the city, going to be urban in feel? It's an important issue in terms of character of community and adds a precedent for future development. Internal circulation on a site this huge is as important as external circulation. To him, it's an environmental impact that needs to be specifically addressed. The applicant responded that each area or zone will have a subset of guidelines; they've started working on that. Ms. Collins brought up character of the neighborhood. She has concerns about what will determine the type of housing: market conditions? She can't help thinking about gentrification. If there are several hundred housing units, how does that reverberate out into the surrounding community? It's always a little tricky considering economic things in an environmental statement, but it's a concern, so if one doesn't talk about diversity in housing up front, does it over time become a non-issue? The applicant said that certain existing buildings lend themselves to housing. There will probably be a couple hundred apartments. More buildings can be added to provide additional housing. He's confused: it's a hillside. If you're worried about visual impacts, if you develop the site, it will look different on the opposite hillside. Mr. Bosak said the heart of the SEQR process is looking at the alternatives and one of them is doing nothing. The lead agency will have to look at which alternative provides the most benefit. Ms. Erb added that she'll need to have a vague idea of the range of housing units to know whether we're mitigating. Mr. Wilcox said that this is a generic environmental impact statement, and in Chapter 11 Thresh- olds for Future Actions, the developer will have to say that the environmental impact statement Planning Board Minutes 12-02.2014 Page 8 of 12 includes building up to, say, 500 residential units and what the impact of those 500 residential units is. And assuming it's approved, if they come back for the 501st unit, they'll have to go through SEQR. Mr. Walters said that the thing we're struggling with is the scoping document requirement - a brief description where sometimes you need a little more information in order to evaluate whether there's an impact. The applicant said we will have to come up with those numbers when we do a traffic study. We will put assumptions there. Chapter 10 Mr. Bosak disclosed that that afternoon, he had received a message from John Graves (South Hill Civic Association) asking to note that he has submitted a public comment pointing to a couple of studies on the possibility of using a portion of the Emerson site for renewable energy options such as co-generation of power. Mr. Bosak would like to note that the need for public power generation is such a public good that if the contemplation of this possibility is in the plan, it would count for him as a public good. The applicant said they have an application in for the NYSERDA Cleaner, Greener grant. Mr.Walters said that as Mr. Bosak pointed out, we can't make you change your project; however if you make this a possibility,we weigh this and balance this against any potential impacts. Ms. Brock asked what the words "to the extent applicable" mean. She suggested that if they don't want that discretion, they might eliminate it. Mr. Schroeder said that as the EIS is informational, he'd like to know what the potential capacity is for solar, just on the rooftop, considering how much rooftop there is.Just as a parameter to make other decisions based off of, it would be nice to know what the actual, feasible potential solar use could be of the existing roofs. Chapter 11 & 12 Ms. Brock said the references to the DGEIS should also include "and relevant finding statements." Ms. Erb brought up cumulative impacts. She will be interested in knowing what the baseline is going to be and why. Ms. Brock said that it will be best if you can provide a list.At a minimum, these are the other projects taking place that the applicant needs to consider. It might be the same list they are using for the traffic. Mr. Walters said this requires a discussion of these items. Planning Board Minutes 12-02.2014 Page 9 of 12 Ms. Erb stated that the town's comprehensive plan suggests that a lot of development in the future would be desirable around the Route 96 and East King Road area. That whole area in the future is going to take pressure. Ms. Brock asked whether there other impacts besides traffic that would be subject to accumulation: noise, light, stormwater management? It would be useful if they would specify at a minimum what they are. Other topics Mr. Bosak found a number of issues, any one of which is substantive. To him, this is not a scoping document, but a random mixture of a scoping document and a dGEIS. He compared sections 2.3 and 2.4, saying that 2.4 is a section from a scoping document; 2.3 says absolutely nothing about what we expect to see in a dGEIS. There are many more examples. His overall comment is to pull out all sections that are not scoping language and substitute what we expect to see in a scoping document. Mr. Walters said the tentative schedule was to adopt a final scoping document at the city planning board's next meeting, two weeks from tonight.We still have this mix of dGEIS vs. scoping, good detail in some areas and others not, so there are clearly issues to address. Under SEQR, the draft scope becomes the final scope after 60 days. It makes sense to bake this further so the applicant is not spending a lot of time fixing up things that don't need fixing. If we try to jam this into the next two weeks,we'll have to err on the side of saying that they'll have to look at everything that was talked about at the meeting. He suggests that we take more time, but we can't force the applicant. The applicant said they understand that there are more comments. Can we get those comments, turn it around, then discuss whether we need to extend it? Mr. Walters responded that we have a 12-page comment memo to begin with and most of it says we need to understand what's going to be done to be able to evaluate the adverse impacts. He thinks the board will need another cut at the document; otherwise, the city board needs a new document finalized next Tuesday. If we kick it out a month, it will go to the January planning meeting. He suggested that what they want to have is an opportunity to get further information from the appli- cant, a revision to the document, a distribution to the lead agency, incorporating everything that was heard tonight, etc; that will also give an opportunity for others, such as Tim Logue, to weigh in.To a comment from the applicant, he stated that they are too far away from where they need to be for him to recommend that the lead agency accept a final scope. Let's not rush against false deadlines that make no sense. Mr. Schroeder pointed out that the city planning board hasn't even had its own internal discussion, which is happening next Tuesday. That will bring other issues forward. In addition, there will be town board and staff issues. Mr. Blalock asked what that means for the application. The applicant said it would cause another month of delay before we do SEQR. Planning Board Minutes 12-02.2014 Page 10 of 12 Mr. Blalock said the city hasn't had their internal deliberations.We haven't heard all the concerns from the town. He wondered whether there's a part of the document that they can move forward with as is - just trying to find middle ground. Mr. Walters said you can't evaluate other impacts before you have traffic impacts. The applicant said they provided a study months ago and didn't hear comments. Ms. Ritter stated that was not true. She provided a reply to Steve Ferranti in an email in October. She brought the Cornell commuter issue to their attention. Ms. Cornish said that they didn't have enough detail about the project itself to be able to comment adequately at that time. Mr. Walters agreed with Mr. Blalock's point and to extend the final scope, but to get the traffic study rolling. Mr. Blalock stated that this is the most exciting project that has happened in a long time. He didn't want bureaucrats to hold them up for a final document and thought having an analysis to do would keep the applicant team busy. He would also consider a special meeting in early January. Mr. Schroeder thought it made more sense to have a special meeting for a project of this size.At a regular January meeting, it will contain the regular docket of all the site plan stuff. This project is so huge, it deserves its own focus discussion. City members agreed; the applicant agreed. The applicant expressed frustration with the timeline thus far. Ms. Brock responded that there has to be a project proposed before the city planning&development board can do anything - the applicant has to submit an application to start that whole process.Your project is date stamped September 19`h. Because this is a Type I action, the city had to declare their intent to be lead agency and send it out to all the involved agencies. By law they have to give 30 days' time for the agencies to concur.That took us up to middle to late October. They declared themselves lead agency and issued the positive declaration October 28`h. So they moved as fast as they could. Mr. Blalock said that we're not the legislature, we can't change the law. The process is what the process is, but this board wants to move this forward. Mr. Wilcox stated that the applicant has agreed to a delay until January 13`'' for adoption of the final scoping document. Ms. Erb asked whether she could anticipate whether there will be a new draft scoping document for the town planning board to review at their meeting of January 6. Mr. Wilcox stated that this is the town planning board's final review, but he anticipated that if Ms. Erb, as a board member or citizen, had additional comments, they could send them in. Planning Board Minutes 12-02.2014 Page 11 of 12 Mr. Blalock said they would be delighted to have comments at either of the next meetings. Ms. Nichols said they will send out the new draft. Ms. Ritter said that when the town gets the revised draft, we can discuss it and collectively comment at one of the upcoming planning board meetings. We have business for each of the meetings. Mr. Walters said individual members of the town planning board should submit their comments. General Comments Ms. Brock said that overall, the organization is very confusing. Section 2.7.2 was puzzling. It says "Where applicable and significant, the GEIS will identify and discuss" the listed items. The whole point of the scope is to say, Here are the things that are applicable and need to be discussed. So you need to get rid of that type of wording and figure out where to put the items listed in section 2.7.2. They need to be integrated into the rest of the scope. There is also the whole issue of subdivision of the OUl parcel from OU2. It says that the city Planning and Development board issued a neg dec for the subdivision, but the notice of the pos dec included the subdivision as part of the things to be looked at in the DGEIS, although this scope doesn't mention subdivision approval. Ms. Brock stated that the notice of intent to prepare the dGEIS says "Name of Action: Planned Unit Development, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval." Your pos dec makes it sound like the subdivision is part of the dGEIS. It sounds like the subdivision process started a while ago, and you got to a certain point, and for whatever reason, you're not finishing it - maybe there are things holding up your ability to get final approval. If you're folding this into the dGEIS - are you? - that neg dec doesn't belong there. This might be considered segmentation, although there may be other factors and history that I am not aware of. Figure that out. If they need to rescind the neg dec to make the subdivision part of the dGEIS, maybe that's the easiest way. It's an area where you can get attacked legally. Ms. Brock brought up the alternatives,which are discussed in Chapter 3. It seems that there should also be other alternatives when you get to the impacts section.. There are some middle grounds there and it would be useful if these were spelled out.To a question from the applicant, she said considera- tion of other alternatives would at least have to be looked at for mitigation measures. The applicant said that some things seemed more like a threshold than an alternative. Ms. Brock responded.You might downsize the project, you might want to change the mix of uses,you may make changes to address visual impacts.You may decide you can't build up and you have to build out, or maybe you want to go up and not out.You may need to consider alternatives that change the scale, magnitude, or design. Figure out what you want to specify for alternatives. The applicant said are they going to analyze way too many alternatives. Planning Board Minutes 12-02-2014 Page 12 of 12 Ms. Brock replied that if they think there are certain economic or site constraint issues, describe them, but she thinks the scope should look at other some other alternatives - more than is listed here. Ms. Brock stated that for the piece in the town, there are a lot of slopes. You talk about dividing them into two categories: 0 to 15% and those greater than 15%. It's up to the planners to decide whether they think they need a finer gradation; having that break at 15% might not make sense. Section 5, looking at the environmental setting, some sections are looking at pre and post development, some were just pre. It was very confusing; you're flipping back and forth and should be consistent. The applicant responded that Chapter 5 should deal only with pre-development conditions. Ms. Brock said that's fine. The whole environmental contamination piece in Chapter 5 reads more like it should be in the DGEIS than in the scope. Section 5.7.1 says all intersections connecting the site to the existing street network will be analyzed. Are there other non-contiguous intersections that aren't touching the site that could be impacted? In 5.10 Visual and Aesthetic Resources: specify the critical vantage points. Ms. Ritter said she was mostly interested in projections of employment. Ms. Erb commented that at beginning of Chapter 3, there's an implication that there's only a single comp plan involved rather than one for each municipality, and she wants it specified that there are two separate plans. She read all three sections of their environmental assessment form and wondered why the Army Corp of Engineers is not an approving agency. Mr. Blalock reiterated that either written comments or attending a meeting are welcome. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Ms. Erb, the meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra DeAugiJ e. Deputy Town state Environmental Quality Review FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT for the CHAIN WORKS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Project Location 620 South Aurora Street NYS Route 96B City and Town of Ithaca, New York Project Sponsor / Project Sponsor Unchained Properties, LLC 225 Coloniai Drive Horseheads, New York 14845 Lead Consultants Pagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, PC 113 East Chemung Place Elmira, New York 14904 Lead Aoencv City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board 108 East Green Street - 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850 November 26,2014 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement Lead Agency Determination:October 28, 2014 Positive Declaration Issued:October 28, 2014 Scoping Session Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2014, 6-9 PM !!!j i liii Comments Accepted Through: December 10, 2014 Final Scope Accepted: Contact: ailKlpillj December 18, 2014 Lisa Nicholas, Senio (Tentative) ..tiii'ii'i.. r Planner lnlGholas@citvofrthaca.ora Dept. of Planning, Building & Economic Development i08 EastOreen Street!! Ithaca, Newi^ork 14850-5690 n n n . November26,2014 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents Executive Summary 8 Chapter 1.Introduction 9 Chapter 2. Project Description 2.1 Introduction, Background, and History. 2.2 Project Purpose, Need, and Benefit 2.3 Location 2.4 Site Program and Layout 2.5 2.6 2.7 Chapter 3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 iJP" 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.5 2.4.6 Residential Commercial.... Industrial Common ^jfeas and Other Facilities'and Services. Recreation .Jj. Parking j1.: Sustainable Pssign/LEED ND^..^.. Project Phasirig^.i:.:;.. State Environmental Review ProcesS.v.... 2.7.1 Overview ........ 2.7.2 Generic Impact Statement Required Approvats,...;.. Reasonable Altiliiqtives NolAction. Devil||i|nent in Adddrdance with Existing Zoning. Maximuni Development Scenario .10 .12 .13 .13 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .15 .15 .15 .15 .15 .15 .16 .17 .18 .18 .18 .18 Chapter 4. Public Participation 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Project Vision 4.3 Project Website 4.4 Public Involvement and Outreach, 4.5 Public Scoping Process .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 November26,2014 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement 4.6 Post-Scoping Public Outreach... 4.7 DGEIS Public Comment Period, .20 .20 Chapter 5. 5.1 5.2 , 5.6 5.7 5.8 Environmental Setting Land Use and Zoning 5.1.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning.. 5.1.2 Proposed Land Use and Zoning 5.1.3 Compatibility with Surrounding Lan |l 5.1.4 Land Use Impacts on Adjacent Land !i :!i iiiiikl!!*'" 5.2.1 Soils. 5.2.2 Surface Geology. 5.2.3 Topography. 5.2.4 Erosion Potential. 5.2.5 Cut and Fiji Impacts. 5.3 Water Resources ^ 5.3.1 Surface Water and HycfrbgeologicaW'^ Ilf 5.3.2 5.3.3 Groundwater...!;! '''i' StoriTfiwater, lir 5.4 Vegetation and Fauria||. i.:..... 5.5 Impacted Areas frorn Historic Use... 5.5.1 Site History. JiiK I nvesjig^ons"lilil! iii 5.5.3 If|His ntific^tion of Areas of Concern. toric and Ami|eological Resources l|||||sportation aii|i|irculatlon 1'fji'l ^1^.1 Traffic Conditions. D|i||ji)tion of Roadway Network. 5.7.111|j|j|ll|lstrian and Bicycle Facilities 5.7.4 T ransit 5.7.5 Parking 5.7.6 Emergency Access 5.7.7 ADA Access Utilities 5.8.1 Water Supply 5.8.2 Sanitary Sewers 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 29 29 ,30 ,30 ,30 ,30 ,31 ,31 ,31 ,31 ,31 ,31 November 26,2014 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement 5.9 5.10 5.11 Chapter 6. 6.1 5.8.3 Stormwater Infrastructure 5.8.4 Natural Gas 5.8.5 Electric, Telephone, Cable TV, and High Speed Internet. 5.8.6 Lighting Air Quality Visual and Aesthetic Resources Community Services i .32 ..32 ..32 ..32 ..32 ..32 ..33 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Land Use and Zoning 6.1.1 No Build Alternative. 6.1.2 Build Alternatives 6.1.3 Mitigation Measuresl 6.2 liii1 6.3 |ii|i, L»d 6.2.1 No Build Alternative 6.2.2 Build Altet'niiiives,.. 6.2.3 Mitigation Measures Water Resources ^.3.1; Sdrfacei Water and}Hydrogeol6gtc|i|;!§^tting.. 6.3.2 Groundvyater 6.3.3 ' Mitigatipri Measures ''•ilii iill!! '1 ,,,, Vegetation and ;F9una..:f 'W 6.4.2 6.4.3 No Bdild Alternative. Build Alternativesi|:., ' ' , Mitigation Measures Public Health and|ittyironment. 6.5.1 No Blip Alternative.■■'liiiife Itgailernatives.. llMllJation Measures 6.6 6.7 6.5.3 Historic and Archaeological Resources 6.6.1 No Build Alternative 6.6.2 Build Alternatives 6.6.3 Mitigation Measures Transportation and Circulation 6.7.1 No Build Alternative 6.7.2 Build Alternatives .34 .34 .34 .34 .34 .34 .34 .34 .34 .34 .35 .35 .35 .36 .36 .36 .36 .36 .37 .37 .37 .37 .37 .37 .37 .38 .38 .39 November 26,2014 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.7.3 Utilities 6.8.1 6.8.2 6.8.3 Air Quality.. 6.9.1 6.9.2 6.9.3 Mitigation Measures. No Build Alternative. Build Alternatives Mitigation Measures No Build Alternative. Build Alternatives Mitigation Measures Visual and Aesthetic Resources 6.10.1 No Build Alternative.. 6.10.2 Build Alternatives 6.10.3 Mitigation Measures. Community Services 6.11.1 No Build /Alternative.. 6.11.2 Build Alternatives ''is: liir' mk. 6.11.3 Mitigation Measures Constructipn Activities •-ipli, 6.12.1 Nb jBuild Alternative;......,....... 6.12.2 Descnptlon of Con^rUbtipn Staging and Activities 6.12.3 Erosion and Sediment Gpntrols During Construction , , 6.12.4 Gpp^jhpbp^ 6j1i2i5 Rempval of Non-recyclable Construction Waste 6.12.6 Construction Air Impacts 6.12.7 CPbstructioh Impacts 6.12.8 Cohstiruction Irnpacts to (natural feature). Chapter 7. .39 .39 .39 .39 .39 .39 .40 .40 .40 .40 .41 .41 .41 .41 .41 .41 .42 .42 .42 .42 .42 .42 .42 .42 .43 .43 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 44 Chapter 8. Unavoidable Adverse Effects 8.1 Short-Term Unavoidable Impacts 8.2 Long-Term Unavoidable Impacts. .45 .45 .45 November 26,2014 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 9. Growth Inducing Aspects and Character of Community 46 Chapter 10. Effect of Proposed Project on the Use and Conservation of Energy 47 Chapter 11. Thresholds for Future Actions 48 Chapter 12. Cumulative Impacts 49 References, Appendices Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES LIST OF ACRONYM November 26, 2014 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement This Scoping document has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law - State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR). This Scope defines the content of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) that is to be prepared at the direction of the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board as the designated Lead Agency for the proposed action. This Scoping document provides a general description of the proposed action, an overview of the SEQR process, a discussion of potentially significant adverse environmental impacts and associated mitigation, and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. DGEIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The executive summary will provide a brief overview of the proposed action, a summary of reasonable alternatives, a summary of ail ,, p^pntial environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures, and any issues of controversy. This will be formatted as follows: iiif' %: Introduction Project Objectives Brief Description of Prbpbsed Action Permits and Approvals , Summary of .potential Significant impacts I mpact;:d|;ji|||d ,,'00 Impact on Water and Drainage Impact on Air Impact on Plants and Animals Impact on Aesthetic Resources impact on Open Space and Recreation Impact on Transportation Impact on Energy Impact on Noisb and Odors Impact on PulD||:|Health Impact on Gro||| and Character of Community iilliii, -ill Copy of Adapted Scope November26,2014 8 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This first section of the DGEIS will introduce the Project by describing the project objectives, the project itself, its phasing and segmentation, a listing of federai, state, and locai permits and approvals which will be required, a list of involved agencies and their authority, a summary of potential significant environmental impacts, and the purpose of the DGEIS. m Ill''n't ''lillli t November 26,2014 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redeveiopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section of the DGEIS will include a concise description of the Chain Works District (CWD) in relationship to the site's background and industrial history. It will also describe the project's purpose, the public need and benefits of the project, and the objectives of the Chain Works Project Sponsor. A detailed description of the existing property. Its use, and rezoning as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Planned Development Zone (PDZ) will be outlined. This includes descriptions of the renovation of the existing structures and proposed buildings, their locations, layouts, sizes, heights, dimensions, and configurations on the project site, and architectural and landscape themes of the renovated existing structures and proposed buildings as currently envisioned. The description will also includej:||p|piled analysis of the programmatic breakdown of the development utilizing LEED ND al|||||f the justification for the number of dwelling units proposed in the prgdifai office, comt||||Cial, and industrial spaces, an analysis of the target market for the prop9g||;||PUD/PDZ, and ni^jiij^e development relates to the housing, office, commercial, and Industrial, needs of the Ithaca area, including needs for affordable housing. It will also describe the site*sl||preationj|j||issets, inSoli|^ a connection to the greater Black Diamond Trail network and vievvljSti toiipiiga Lake. TiiSj||oposed parking configuration and road details w||i|j|i!|o be incluafflB^ opportunities ahd elements of sustainable design being implemen|ed ,t^^ renovMi:||{i,,of the existing architecture, the proposed architecture, and in the laridscape pll a b^ •l||)uded in this section. Finally, a description of the proposed project in rel^ipnship to the planning pjforts of the City and Town of Ithaca will be included. v Unchained Properties !LLC (Proj4|ijSponsor)'iis^|ks to redevelop and rehabilitate the existing 821,200 sf former Morse Ghain/Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca's ii^uniclpal boundary. The project parcel is located along the 96B corridor, South Aurora Itrpet / Danby Road, and where Turner Street and South Cayuga Street m|;|| |the riorthern edge of South Hill. The site is currently zoned as an Industrial l|j|n^ District (Cii|||j||gnd as Ihjdustrial (Town). The Project Sponsor has applied for a Planned Urift|||j|yelopment (Pftfe) in the City of Ithaca and a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) in the Town or it|j|^a for devei|||rient of a mixed-use district. This PUD/PDZ will be called the Chain Works Disii|lpjWhich in|p|les residential, commercial, office, and industrial uses. TheProject will be completed in fprfplp) primary phases over a seven to ten year period as follows: 1. The redevelopment four existing buildings (21,24, 33 and 34); 2. The repurposing of the remaining existing Emerson Power Transmission/Morse Chain Factory on South Hill; 3. Future new development within areas of the remainder of site adjacent to the existing buildings/parking areas; and 4. Future new development with areas of the remainder of the site. November26,2014 10 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement The following table illustrates the estimated deveiopment under each primary phase: Phase Approximate Acreage Existing Building Redevelopment Existing Building Removed New Building Development Total Development Phase 1 16.35 Acres 324,990 sf 0 sf 18,520 sf 343,510 sf Phase 2 10.04 Acres 403,860 sf 92,350 sf 68,080 sf 471,940 sf Phase 3 20.31 Acres N/A N/A J,890,700 Sf^890,700 sf Phase 4 16.20 Acres Natural Areas 32.13 Acres N/A N/A ' N/A N/A Total 95.03 Acres 728,850 sf 92;3p)sf 977,300 sf 1,706,150 sf ^ - Square Footage in Building Removai not||||pded in the T5!i|||Deveiopment estimate Ibstimates combinec- Phase 3 and 4 New Building Developrn, 1 m include removingi:|^|^cted |^|il^ings to cre&j|i,purtyards and a pedestrian, bicycle, and vbfilcular connection^ through the site management faciiities, lighting, utiiities and piantings. Development guidelines for the CWD wiii utilize LEED for'Neighborhood Deveiopment (LEED ND) as a framework. Thb project site wiii be divided into sub areas defined as: siliSliP'' I Natural ^ub Area (CW1) • (CW2)• N^i||j||rhodi|5^ Sub Xrea (CW3) • InduslS^gub Ari|:,(pW4) Each Sub Area will .have a set,of development guidelines to focus the Project Sponsor's vision for the creation oif the Chain 'Works District as a whole. This will be incorporated in the PUD/PDZ regulations during the zoning process. 'Iljlliiil "''IlliliS The Application includes the following: Related infrastructure work wiii network of open space, create from South Hili to Downtown Ithaca, reinforcing the e^i||!||g Loop Road on site whiie creating new access points into and within the site, mitigation environmentai challenges, fostering the development of a link to the Biack Didf||^pd Traii network, stormwater Pianned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning Amendment for the City portion of the parcei. Pianned Deveiopment Zone (PDZ) Zoning Amendment for the Town portion of the parcel. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Master Plan for the full Chain Works District. Site Pian Approvai for Phase 1 inciuding Buildings 21 and 24 in the City and Buildings 33 and 34 in the Town. November 26,2014 11 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement The Phase 1 Site Plan includes the following: • Building 21: Office Use - 43,340 sf (Redevelopment) • Building 24: Residential/Office Use - 111,050 sf (Redevelopment) with 18,520 sf (New Development) for 129,570 sf (Total) • Building 33: Industrial Use - 22,000 sf (Redevelopment) • Building 34: Industrial Use -148,600 sf (Redevelopment) All subsequent Phases will require Site Plan Approvals ii]|j||| corresponding jurisdiction in accordance with the GEIS process. The project parcel is listed on the New York State Inactive Hazardous Waste Site Registry as a "class 2 site" which indicates the site as one at which contamination constitutes a significant threat to public health or the environment (Site.,|||ii|pblO). The N|||||j|ork State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") issuediii||ii!ibord of Decision (^ft||l2") tor the site in 1994 and amended the ROD in 2009. The 2009 RO[|||||nendment divides *^"61111 '"to two Operable Units ("OU") with OU-1 constituting an area f^qlgn a|||||||b firewater''f^|||yoir and OU-2 constituting the remainder of the site which is the projecrparcel. The currefitlproperty owner has already applied for subdivision ■^pf . the . site to larg||y',. coincide with the OU-1 and OU-2designation in order to sell OU-2 to any willing buyers ana !i:)[||intain ownership and control over OU-1 where active, long-term groundwater treatment occurs! IWhiie the subdivision applicationis currently outstandirig|'^|Q|ty Planning .and Development''||prd has issued a negativedetermination of envirbnrnental significancie for the subSiv/isiiop^^^ Because the 2009ROD Amendment sets froth propl^ed remediation of the siti based on future industrial uses, DEC will need to further^pnd thb ROD to alloyv for the project sponsor's proposed mixed-use redevelopment pf the project parcpl. ^ 2.1 Introduction, Bdlliiround, ind Historyl|The proposalllipect is a rrii||b-use cieyelopment consisting of four primary phases: (1) theredevelopment of ^our existing |||dings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing Emerson Rower Transmission/Morse Chain Factory; (3) potential future development within areas of the remainder of the site adjacent to the existing buildings/parking areas; and (4)future development within|i|ipis on the remainder of the site. This redevelopment project will create a new District, consisting of residential, office, commercial, industrial, and open space within the existing 95 acre site. The DGEIS will evaluate the Project Sponsor's proposed build out of the overall project of approximately 1.7 million square feet. The 95-acre property is located along the New York State Rte. 96B corridor. South Aurora Street/Danby Road, and where Turner Street and South Cayuga Street meet the northern edge of South Hill. The site is currently zoned as an Industrial Zoning District (City) and as Industrial (Town). The Project Sponsor has applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Site Plan Review, and Subdivision November 26,2014 12 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement Review with the City, and a Pianned Development Zone (PDZ) with the Town of Ithaca. The project will involve approvals by the following agencies: • City of Ithaca Common Council • City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board (Planning Board) • Town of Ithaca Board • Town of Ithaca Planning Board • Tompkins County Department of Health (TC DON) • New York State Department of Transportation (NYS|pDj|)p • New York State Department of Environmental Cq||||jpatlon (NYS DEC) • New York State Department of Heath (NYS Development History of the Site The 95-acre project site contains the former, Morse Chain Company factory, the largest industrial facility in Tompkins County, which dFl||ated for o|er 80 yeam';;i^„,Jhis location. The Morse Chain Company was incorpor^ed in Trumal|||jrg:M^ and it ere|l|da new 80,000-square foot plant on the project site in 1906 for indusili|||i|itbmobile chains. B§!ween 1914 and 1916, the Ithaca plant quadrupled m jsize and expana||||ts operations beyond automobile chains to airplanes, adding machined, electrld clpc^^ ah||itYpewriters. By 1928, the plant expanded again to develop the roller chain and pbdket-sized ciaiculator. The facility continued to develop and expand in 1946,1957-59,1963-65,1967-69, and in thd 1970s, reaching its current size of over 800,000 sqilare feet. In the early 1980s, portions of the business were moved to other locations, such as a new "rfiiSliS? nelr:|ti|pM:Tompkins Regional Airport. By 1983, BorgWarner soldthe pr^|^|y 'to Emel|||, Power Transmission, where it continued to develop new products in the e)li|p|g facility. Emerson coripnued to operate and employ many Ithacans through the 1990s and 2000s. In 2007, it began to migrate operations to Cincinnati, Ohio and by 2011 it officially ended its operations iglthaca and closed the factory. Ill 2.2 Project .Need, dhd Benefit ill This section of the DGEiS w and the benefits the project will have for the community. '''jf describe the project's purpose, the need for the proposed project. November26,2014 13 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement 2.3 Location The site is located in New York State, South of Cayuga Lake in the Finger Lakes Region, and straddles the City and Town of Ithaca border in Tompkins County. The 95-acre project site is bounded as follows: To the east, the property follows South Aurora Street/NYS Route 96B, a major transportation corridor that connects downtown Ithaca to South Hill, Ithaca College, and the residential neighborhoods in the Town of Ithaca.' It is a primary route for travelers from Binghamton and points south. , '.I ' I To the north, the property borders residential neighbprhoods comprised primarily of single and multi-family homes. To the west, the property slopes stei|(|!|to meet Spencer Strei||||n the City of Ithaca, then traces the back of the residential properties lining the east side of Spencer Road. In the Town of Ithaca, the property line traces ;the alignment of the former Lehigh Valley Railroad and future Gateway |||a||^ as well as yi!i|||i$arcel of undevelofDid land.'1{| To the south, the property bdi^ers "th|^^outh Hi Ithaca. hIllness Campus in the Town of The site is currently zoned as an ilfidustrial Zoning District (City) and as Industrial (Town) and has largely been idle since 2011. 2.4 Site Pitpgram and Layout This section of the D(/ill pfoyjde a general description of proposed structures; proposed site layoutlgpposed Plartndd Unit Development District (PUD) delineation and regulations in the City of Ithaca; proposed Planned bevelopment Zone (PDZ) in the Town of Ithaca. 2.4.1 Residential mThis subsection potential square-footage, 2.4.2 Commerciai I describe what proposed areas residential will be located in, unit numbers, and dwelling unit types. This subsection of the DGEIS will describe what proposed areas commercial will be located in, potential square-footage, and commercial types. November26,2014 14 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement 2.4.3 Industrial This subsection of the DGEIS wili describe what proposed areas industrial will be located in, potential square-footage, and industrial types. 2.4.4 Common Areas and Other Facilities and Services This subsection of the DGEIS will describe what proposed areas common areas and other facilities and services will be located in, potential square-fp||||ge, and types of facilities and services. , • i ,' 2.4.5 Recreation This subsection of the DGEIS will describe vyhSt proposed areas fefeation will be located in, potential square-footage, and types of recreatiphal amenities and activiti|5:fc 2.4.6 Parking This subsection of the DGEIS will describe what propSi|;p| areas parking will be located in, potential square-footage, parking generation r^iiirements and number of spaces. P 2.5 Sustainable Design / LEEP ND n X... I.. I". This section of the DGEIS Will describe how LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED ND) guidelines have informed the desiign of the project, and the potential for attaining LEED ND certification! tt will alsp i|j|scribe sMStainabte and technologies being used in the ovi|i| approach to thii||te's re|g(elopmerrt 2.6 Project Phasing This section of the S|jE|S will .describe how the project will develop over the course of four primary phases, what wii|||||j|^eloped during that phase, and how long each phase will last. A brief description of the fouP'primary phases is as follows: (1) redevelopment of four existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) repurposing many of the remaining existing Emerson Power Transmission/Morse Chain Factory buildings with demolition of several other buildings to create open space, common areas, and/or improve site circulation; (3) potential future development within areas of the remainder of the site adjacent to the existing buildings/parking areas; and (4) future development within areas on the remainder of the site. rs November26,2014 15 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement 2.7 State Environmental Quality Review (SEOR) Process This section of the DGEIS wiii provide a generai description of the State Environmentai Quaiity Review (SEQR) process, it wiii describe the project ciassification and lead agency designation, describe the process and the documents and meetings involved and required, and the review and interested agencies involved in the review of the SEQR process. 2.7.1 Overview In accordance with 6 NYCRR, Part 617 of the SEQR |rj|t^menting regulations, the City of Ithaca has classified the Project as a Type 1 Action for thd ijyrposes of environmentai review. The City of Ithaca Planning Board was established jas the^fipad Agency for the purpose of carrying out the obligations of SEQR on QctoberilSSi 2014. The pjty of Ithaca Planning Board issued a Positive Declaration of Environmental ificance on Octl 8,2014. 2.7.2 Generic Envlronmeiital Impact Statem'W ^ ii i The format and content of the GElS jfpr this project will jbe prepared in accordance with the provisions of 6 NYCRR 617.9(b). The GEIS will be cleanlljand concisely written in English that can be understood by the general public; Wher||applicable the GEIS will identify and discuss the following , 15 ''III,,, '''w Assemble reievarit^ a^ materlM i|a(||p|ahaly^^ adverse impacts and evaluate reasonable alterpatives. Address the specific irripact categories that have been identified in the Scoping Detailed teclinical studies, whici) wlH be performed to specifically identify and analyze the pli||ntiali^ er^ironmental impacts. Such technical studies will |:||i|SummarizeJ|&^^ in the body of the GEIS and will also be included asli!|tjpendix to thy|||:umeriif: p Reailll^bly related ||brt-term and long-term impacts, cumulative impacts, and other associated environn[tintai impacts. • Adverse environmenfal impacts that cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated if the Project is implerngnted • Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of the environmentai resources that would be associated with the Project. • Any growth-inducing aspects of the Project. • impacts of the Project on the use and conservation of energy. Narrative descriptions wiii incorporate graphic illustrations and representations such as tables, charts, and maps to describe the project, its location, the affected environment, potential impacts, and mitigation measures. Qualitative descriptions will be supplemented with November 26,2014 16 Finaf Scoping Document Chain Works District Redeveiopment Project Draft Generic Environmentai impact Statement quantitative data, where appropriate, to thoroughly identify, describe, and evaluate potential environmental impacts. Full-scale site and PDZ plans will accompany the GEIS as an appendix, with pertinent and appropriate drawings and figures reduced and incorporated into the body of the GEIS. The GEIS Process will involve the following sequential stages: Scoping; Draft GEIS; Public/Agency Comment Period; SEQR Public Hearing; Final GEIS; and Findings Statement. The review agencies are: Known Involved Agencies: n New York State Department of Epy|fpiJtT|ental Conservation n New York State Department of Health n New York State Department,of Transportation n New York State Office ofliSlis, Recreation and Historic Places ilillllHieijlli''n Tompkins County Plannj|i Department Tompkins County Departili|||tipf Heal||i|| City of Ithaca Common Council Town of Ithaca Town Board . 1 1 , Town of Ithaca Planning Board : j s . , 'I:;,, Tompkins County AreSi Development f piTipkins Area Transit Town/City Corhmittees City of Ithaca Community Advisory Group Other Known Interested Agencies: ' " 2.8 il^equired Approvals This section i!l||ji|he DGEIS w|||;|putline and describe the approvals and respective agencies required for thi.|eyelopment Si |jie project to occur. The project will involve approvals by the following agenciek • City of Ithaca Commbri Council " 'llpiillijjflllli''' • City of Ithaca Planhihg & Development Board (Planning Board) • Town of Ithaca Board • Town of Ithaca Planning Board • Tompkins County Department of Health (TC DOH) • New York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT) • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) • New York State Department of Heath (NYS DOH) November 26,2014 17 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement CHAPTERS: REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES Responsible alternatives to the proposed action that are feasible and consistent with the objectives and philosophy of the City and Town's Comprehensive Plan will be described and evaluated. Alternatives to be considered will contain the following subsections. 3.1 No Action An evaluation of the potential adverse and beneficial impacts that would result in the reasonable, foreseeable future if the proposed action was|n||ijjndertaken 3.2 Development in Accordance with Existihg'Zoning This section will include an evaluation of deveipping the ful| project parcej. in accordance with the existing zoning under City and Town local oraiH|l|ges. ,j, feili'' 3.3 Maximum Development Scenario ^. An evaluation of the ppteriflal adverse and bepeficlal impactsf? that would result in the reasonable, foreseeable future prop6s|g aption were developed in a maximum build-out scenario (most intensive use) that would stHI ipbmply witli CEED ND Guidelines. For the purposes of this anaiysis, the Projed| Sponsor ^||:ptiiize a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.5 for the buildable a||^s. Utilizing the FAR definition from LEED ND, tha(Jiiiii||pin^^g^.65 l%i|gui^;feet of development. ' ' 5^',. 'f1 m- November26,2014 18 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmentai Impact Statement CHAPTER 4: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4.1 Introduction This subsection of the DGEIS wiil introduce and summarize the contents of Chapter 4. It will outline the project vision, various public meetings held by the Project Sponsor, the Sponsor's public outreach, the scoping process, and comments received throughout the process. 4.2 Project Vision This subsection of the DGEIS will describe the overall vision 6f the project to be a dynamic, mixed-use neighborhood district following in the project's motto "Live, Work, Play". 4.3 Project Website This subsection of the DGEIS will describe the website of the project (www.chainworkdistrict.com) and how it is a repository of all project documents and presentations for the public to access and comment on. A Facebook page is also being maintained as for the project, which expands its interface with the public. 4.4 Public Involvement and Outreach This subsection of the DGEIS will describe the Project Sponsor's efforts to provide transparency and various methods of outreach, including Unchained Properties sponsored public meetings held at a local venue, Cinemapolis. The contents of the presentations are posted to the website. 4.5 Public Scoping Process The City of Ithaca, as Lead Agency, held a public scoping meeting on Tuesday, November 18, 2014, 6-9 PM to seek public input on concerns and issues that should be addressed in the DGEIS. The Project Sponsor submitted a Draft Scoping Document by letter dated October 16, 2014 which was made available to the public via the City website and the Project website. At the public scoping meeting, one (1) comment was received requesting the Project Sponsor to consider renewable energy. Ail public comments received at the meeting and during the comment period are provided as an Appendix to this document. The transcript of the meeting is also provided. November 26,2014 19 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement 4.6 Post-Scoping Public Outreach This subsection of the DGEiS wiii describe the Project Sponsor's efforts to continue public involvement in the Project's SEQR and approval process. 4.7 DGEIS Public Comment Period After the Lead Agency determines that the Draft Generic !iE|vironmentai Impact Statement (DGEiS) is complete, a Notice of Completion for the DGEIS will be distributed by the Lead Agency in accordance with SEQRA requirements and published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB). Copies of the DGEIS will be made -l^Jijlli^i^lireuant to 6 NYCRR 617.12(b) and placed on the internet and the Project Spon||||^: website. A!|||||i|Diic Hearing will be held to solicit comments on the DGEIS and the prop||ip-^ and a 3^^ long public comment period will be initiated to receive written comrniBnts in addition to of'ln^ieu of the comments received at the Public Hearing. Following the .close of th| commen^'||;^g^ all comments received will be reviewed and inc^tporated intifif^^ ftf project, including all necessary revisions, Ions and clk|i;j|Mions to the docuni^nt as well as categorized responses to the received ^ibrnrrients. {'' November 26,2014 20 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section of the DGEIS wiii be structured to describe each existing component of the environment. 5.1 Land Use and Zoning This subsection of the DGEIS wiii introduce and summarize thei,existing and proposed iand use and zoning. 5.1.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning This subsection of the DGEIS will describe the structures, and other improvements. It wmi iiiion and dimen of all existing buildings, Town of Ithaca'sjfco discuss the Citf'^.iiliilpi,. ' requirements under the existing zoning. vi- i ^ Jii' 5.1.2 Proposed Land Use and Zgnfr^g This subsection of the DGEIS will analyze the redevelopmi||,pf the site under the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Plarined Develbpment Zone (PDZ) rezoning. 5.1.3 Conipatibiiity with Surrounding Land Uses This subsection of the D(3E|S will outline the cdmpatibiiity between the proposed iand use and zoning with the surrounding context. 5.1.4 l^nd Use Impacts on Adjacent Propel^ ''''■'lilillll:,.This subseCt|j|n of the will describe what impacts the proposed Planned UnitDevelopment and Planr^||, Development Zone (PDZ) rezoning wiii have on neighboring properties. ' ■1;., j:!:'-''"';'.:';!;'' ■ If''' 5.2 Land Natural features of the site include exposed bedrock along the steeper slopes and a heavily wooded area in the southern portion of the site. The proposed development will result in a physical change to the land within the project site. In order to properly address concerns associated with changes to the land, this section will include a discussion of the soils, surface geology, and topography as they exist, their erosion potential, and cut and fill and excavation impacts. November 26,2014 21 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement 5.2.1 Soils Soils on the project site will be Identified and mapped based upon soils data and mapping from Tompkins County, NY. It will also describe the suitability of onsite soils to support the proposed construction of roads, buildings, earthworks, and stormwater management facilities. 5.2.2 Surface Geology Surface geology on the project site will be identified and rnjaji)||pd based upon geological data and mapping from Tompkins County, NY. It will also describipe suitability of onsite geology to support the proposed construction of roads, buildings, earthworks, and stormwater management facilities. ^ _ . 5.2.2 Topography ii'li'ii!! The topography of the project site will be describ||j^ased u^pn the topog||||iic survey that was prepared for the proposed project. Mapping will ii^||ppajg||||p illustrate sll||||, in the following percent ranges: 0 to 15%, and sloppi|re^er than ' f!') W In general, the property slopes steeply jeast^lp^st with lf|||highest elevation, of approximately 800*, at the top of South Aurora Street aq^l the lowest, of app'rp|imately 440', where the property meets Spencer Street. Tha|!fiawing titlecj "Conceptual Site Plan||||jagram and Slope Analysis," illustrates that 53.3 acres of the site have'sjopes over 15|o pnd 42 acres have slopes of less than 15%. Portions of the site that are currently developed are primarily located in areas in which the slopes are less than 15®/o ^rade. 5.2.4 Eroslpii Potential "•'!!! This subSbction of the DGEIS I describe the potential for short and long term erosion impacts. 5.2.5 Cut anci Fill Impacts Proposed cut ancl l|l areas win^ identified and described, and a cut and fill analysis will be prepared to identify whether th'ere will be a need to bring in additional fill or dispose of excess cut off site. Impacts ol'||||||p^ fill or disposing of excess cut materials will be described including identification of nlui routes, impacts on the affected roadways, and the number of equivalent truckloads to import fill or export excess material from the project site. 5.3 Water Resources This section will describe the existing conditions of water resources in relationship to the site. It will also describe how the proposed development will result in increased water consumption and November 26,2014 22 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement will create additional impervious surfaces which can lead to an increase in stormwater runoff volumes, associated erosion, and sedimentation impacts. In order to properly address these concerns, this section will include a discussion of existing surface water, the site's hydrogeologic setting, and stormwater. 5.3.1 Surface Water and Hydrogeologlcal Setting There are two unnamed tributaries that converge and run east-to-west within the project site to Six Mile Creek. No other surface water or ephemeral water features are known to exist. A consultation will be held with NYSDEC and US Army Corps of Engineers concerning regulatory status of all streams that may be affected by the D|||j|||d development. This section will describe pre-development conditions including pfl||itS aS|||j||pff-site watershed mapping, hydrologic characteristics of the watershed, andiiSiiainage pairellis. It will also describe and quantify the amount of additional impervious surfaces that will be created by the proposed development. '' 'JV "''' This subsection will also identify and describe streams, and associated watersheds on and in the vicinity of the project site including stream name'andjiegulatory classification in accordance with federal, state, and local laws. It vvjll also discuss the pre- and post-development drainage patterns, proposed drainage structuresi impacts to stre'aiil including number and type of proposed stream crossings, proposed strearn rnBiifications, ai||taount of physical disturbance to existing stream banks|'jJ;.vj:|:^^ ij||' 5.3.2 Groundwai6i^>||:;.^^. This subsection will describe pre-development conditions for groundwater beneath the site as described in numerous prior environmental studies. ^T^ impacts to groundwater from historic uses will be presented under Sectiori 5.5, Impacted Areas from Historic Use. 5.3.3 This subsection.^|l describe p'|||development conditions including on-site and off-site location, size, and capacli|j|of existin||||]]stormwater drainage facilities. Some on-site stormwater infrastructure is in pia|||j;|pe ||||||^vious development, all of which predate current State, Local, and Federal stormwater^gq^ There are numerous catch basins to collect stormwater runoff, but the extent, connei^iions, and outfalls of the system are currently unknown. 5.4 Vegetation and Fauna This section will describe the existing vegetation and fauna onsite. Seventy-seven acres, or approximately 80% of the project site, are currently forested (34 acres/35%) or in some unspecified vegetated state (43.7 acres/45.5%), while 17.3 acres, or 20%, comprise buildings, November 26,2014 23 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement roads, and other impervious surfaces. Conceptual plans anticipate an increase of impervious surfaces of 11.2 acres (from 17.3 acres to 28.5 acres), or approximately 11%. A consultation wili be held with NYSDEC and the US Fish and Wildlife Service concerning existing databases and files regarding plant and animal species and wildlife habitats relative to the project site. Field surveys of the project site will be performed by a qualified biologist who will inventory existing wildlife flora and fauna, giving special attention to the presence of important habitat for local wildlife and of important or locally scarce plant species. The project site shall be generally surveyed, including areas below the proposed development. Ah in-depth study shall include the areas to be directly impacted by t|||i||pposed development and the extent of the impact. Findings of the field surveys will be s||||lnarized to include any significant, important, threatened, endangered or rare plant or animal species or wildlife habitats that may have been identified. Included in the summary will be the length of the surveys and the time of year the surveys are performed. The amount of v|§|||(pe habitat to disturbance or removal as a result of the proposed development will,,jbijjplfantified. This \lii||j||clude a pre-disturbance characterization of areas that Would be cleare|ig!| specific portions of th|!bi]te 5.5 Impacted Areas from HistpOp jUfse '"ill This subsection of the DGEIS wiii introduce and surnmarizgiithe extent to which the site has ^ been impacted by its historical uses. This will consist of desci'j|jng the site's history, the past, present, and future investigations that have pr will occur,, and a''||j$criptive identification of the •: 'Areas of Concern basediOn thpifipdings of the investigation. , , 5.5.1 Site History '''•ipifipy,,. BorgWar||pl the , property from ^jDiPximately 1928 to 1983 and manufactured autom^i|p componei^i|||gnd transmi||ion equipment. Trichloroethene (TOE), or trichloroy||yi(ene, was utiiS||jj|by ^f^|y[|irner, Inc. for degreasing metal parts up until the late 1970s. ErTfe||on Power Trlli||liTiissioHi|lEP currently owns the site. Investigations in 1987 revealed grourl|j^|ter contamj||tion at tfie site that reportedly emanated from a fire-water reservoir located on itlie western; portion of the property. Due to this contamination, the site was added to the New St£^l|nactive Hazardous Waste Disposai Site (IHWDS) Program registry in July 1987 Site ("Significant threat to the public health or environment- action required.") and is ciOi||pmly undergoing remediation. There is a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) Record of Decision (ROD) for the site from 1994 and a ROD Amendment from 2009. The original ROD in 1994 was predominantly based on a Remedial Investigation (Rl) completed in 1991, along with additional studies. The 2009 ROD Amendment was predominantly based on a Supplemental Rl completed in 2008, along with additional studies. The previous RIs were completed while the site was an active industrial facility and the remedial objective at the time was for re-use as an November26,2014 24 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmentai Impact Statement industrial facility. The Unchained Properties intends to redevelop the site for mixed uses that include residential, commercial, and industrial uses. 5.5.2 Investigation LaBella Associates, P.C. conducted Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) of the former EPT facility located at 620 South Aurora Street, Ithaca, New York, hereinafter referred to as the "Site." Excluded from the definition of the "Site" is an area of the property designated as "OU-I" in the Emerson Power Transmission Company application for Minor Subdivision to the City of Ithaca, Tax Parcel #106.-1-8. Full copies of the Phase I and 11 ESAs are available online: http://tinvurl.com/Emerson-ESA. 5.5.3 Identification of Areas of Concern The Phase II ESA was completed to determine whether suspected impacts associated with the Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) identified in the Phase I ESA existed, and to begin the process of evaluating the extent of those impacts. A brief summary of the results of the Phase II ESA, highlighting the most significant findings, is presented below. {For all references, see http://tinyurl.com/Emerson-ESA.) TCE in Groundwater & Soil — Buildina 24 A facility drawing identified former plating operations within Building 24 In an area where elevated VOC concentrations in sub-slab soil vapors were previously detected. The Phase II work identified TCE impacts beneath Building 24 in shallow soil and overburden groundwater in proximity to SB- 401 and in the uppermost weathered bedrock layer in proximity to LBA-MW- 40S. Impacts were not identified in bedrock groundwater beneath the weathered layer (i.e., top 3-ft.) in wells installed in Building 24. However, TCE was identified in an apparent groundwater discharge emanating from beneath the former transformer pad on the west side of Building 24 and discharging to the drainage feature in this area. Building 14/15 Salt Pots/Cvanide Area and Barium/Cvanide in Groundwater Building 14 has a history of being utilized for salt baths and Building 15 was known to store cyanide. In addition, a former Building 16 located in the northern portion of current Building 35 appears to have utilized cyanide. As recently as 1981, barium chloride, sodium cyanide and copper cyanide were used at the Site. Based on these operations, several borings and monitoring wells were advanced in/around Buildings 14 and 15. Elevated concentrations of barium were identified in several locations including residual crystalline materials on top of the concrete in Building 14, within the concrete floor slabs in the areas of the salt pots and within underlying bedrock beneath the salt pots. In addition, a sample of the bedrock in the area of the salt baths detected barium at a concentration of 4,720 parts per November 26,2014 25 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redeveiopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement million (ppm) which is almost 12 times the NYSDEC Part 375-6 Restricted Residentiai Soii Cleanup Objective (SCO) of 400 ppm and aimost 6 times the NYSDEC Part 375-6 Protection of Groundwater SCO. Barium also exceeded the NYSDEC Part 375-6 Restricted Residential and Protection of Groundwater SCOs in severai soii sampies down gradient of this area that were collected/anaiyzed as part of the 2008 Suppiementai Ri. As part of the Phase II ESA, barium was detected in 48 groundwater samples with 11 of those samples exceeding the Part 703 Groundwater Standard at a number of iocations throughout the property with a range of 1.3 to 10.8 times the Groundwater Stahdard. Cyanide was detected in 33 groundwater samples with 18 of those sampies exceeding the Part 703 Groundwater Standard at a number of locations throughout the propg|||i|||t]| ^ range of 1.65 to 44 times the Groundwater Standard. Free Petroleum Product Jiir '*|||,_ Historically, operations at the Site invoived ^i|||ficant amounts of oils|||!|cutting oil, quench oil, etc.) Areas with potential petroleum sources werl'ievaluated, A former quench oil pit in Building 9 where previous testing noted petroleum odors wad^idenjified'as one of se^eijal potential areas of concern for releases of oil. The pbtrpleum product impidts discovered to daite appear to be the result of at least two different sbuircbs, specificailyj tvvo subsurface quench pits located in Building 9 and 14, with the impacts found gerierally around ai]d directly downgradient of thoseareas. Furthermore, the 2009 ROD identified other areas of peti|j||||m impacts. VOCs in Groundwateir in MW-29 , s,. Monitoring weli LBA-MW^9 (locafe|, between Buildings 2 andi 17) was installed during the initial stage of the Phase II MSA .for several purposfes which included: 1) evaluating a proposed 'Degreaser= Tank%5ii} Buildihg i7j ^) gradient of Building 2; and, 3) the sanitar^;|i||i^rwlthinij|p |ilieyv^ and 17. A groundwater sample from this monitolii weil identifi^jllilprinSdd VOCs (CVoCs) with a total concentration of approximately 1.45 ppmlij|j|e worst casP'lj|||acts are .present between approximately 27-ft. and 39-ft. below LBAMW-29 to delih|||te,^ the chlorinated VOCs simnl!l||^ As part of the secl|||i,, stage o|: |||l(iase II testing additionai weils were piaced in the vicinity of jtient of Impacts found in LBA-MW-29. Concentrations of hose observed in LBA-MW-29 were not observed in the suppiementai welis. Based Ph the suppiementai results, it does not appear that a large scale source is present in this area. Southwestern Portion of Site - Buildino 30/Rice Paddv/Drivewav Area Based on disturbances seen on historical aerials and prior testing which identified eievated concentrations of metals, PCBs and SVOCs in the southwestern portion of the Site, LaBeiia advanced test borings and test pits in the southern portions of the Site in the area of Building 30, the 'Rice Paddy' area and in the area of the service road that extends south to the surface November26,2014 26 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redeveiopment Project Draft Generic Environmentai Impact Statement water tributary to Six Mile Creek. This testing identified metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, and lead) in several samples of soil/fill materials at concentrations above the NYSDEC Part 375-6 Restricted Residential and/or Protection of Groundwater SCOs. Pesticides were detected in one sample within the Rice Paddy area at concentrations above the NYSDEC Part 375-6 Restricted Residential SCOs and the same sample also detected PCBs above the Protection of Groundwater SCO. Samples from this area analyzed for Full Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) did not identify any concentrations above the characteristic hazardous waste criteria. ICE and PCE were also detected in a soil sample just north of Building 30 but only the ICE concentration exceede^::||§ Restricted Residential SCO. Sediments & Seeos i Based on surface contours and drainage ways at the Site, sediment samples were collected to evaluate potential areas of accumulated contaminants. Drainap areas are located down gradient of the main plant building and sampjes, of sediment from tw^ndrainage areas identified concentrations of SVOCs, metals, pesticide^and PCBs at concehtratlons that exceed the criteria identified in NYSDEC Technical Guld^pbe for Sgpning Cohtimjnated Sediments(1999). These sediment areas are located down ''||||gie|jj||jfi of ll|||j|igs 17/18 and Building 34. Based on the impacts above the NYSbi||||Pdiment criteria, thesfe two sediment areas appear to warrant further evaluation. Four seep samples were also analyzed. Qne seep §arnple was pbllected from below the former transformer pad on the western side of Building 24. This seep fidWs into a drainage feature that runs parallel to Building 24 arid fjpws to the north. This sample was analyzed for PCBs and VOCs; although PCBs were not identified aboyp laboratory method detection limits, TCE was detected at a concentration pyer 6 tlrtie§ the Grbupdwater Standard in this sample. Also, one of two seep from the bpepent of Building 18 (numerous pipes with running water wei|iif)sen/&iii^ identified concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloridei||||)ove the PartM| GrPrindW®^®'' Standard. A resampling of that seep performed by Emerson'l||a| non-detect "||||||,,all of the constituents mentioned. A sample of another seep emanating Trb||i|!a retaining vv^||t the top of Cayuga Street (directly downgradient of the Former Degreaser Area) detected TCE slightly above Groundwater Standards. Residual Materials in Sanitarv/Vvastewater Convevance Pioina. Manholes & Pits After observing sludge in a nuhfiber of manholes and pits, LaBella collected samples from several of these structures. The results of this testing identified elevated concentrations of metals in numerous sludge samples, and elevated cyanide in two samples (one interior pit and one in an apparent former oil/water separator in the former scrap loading dock area at the top of South Cayuga Street). Three of the four samples analyzed for reactivity detected reactive sulfides. PCB Impacts November 26,2014 27 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement Two of the 17 samples of concrete beneath/in proximity to former and current pad mounted and pole mounted transformers identified PCBs above 1 ppm. These 2 concrete samples were collected from the concrete pad northwest of Building 24. In addition, one surface soil sample with PCBs greater than 1 ppm was collected beneath the asphalt pavement in proximity to this same pad, indicating a release of PCBs to the environment requiring remediation. CVOCs in Soil in SB-223 A soil sample collected from SB-223 located approximately 50 feet east of Building 14 at a depth of 1-ft. bgs detected PCE above Restricted Residential ij^nd Protection of Groundwater SCOs. Soil Vaoor Intrusion The Phase II ESA testing included select buildijp||||?r SVI evalu^i^p that were not previously tested or that were tested to confirm previous resliits. The Phase'lj tSA testing indicated thefollowing additional requirements for buildings!!,||j||ie Site: • Mitigation of BpiWings 5, 6 • Monitoring of^iljdirigs 2 (baseilil||i!|ortion), 9, ISA, ancil7 tiffK .J It should also be noted that the other buildings pvaluated for SVI as part of the Phase II ESA also detected some level of VQCs in the sub-slab dnd ind^^ air. SVI testing for free cyanide in Buildings 8, 14, 15 and 35 did not identify conceritr^bhs of cyanlle above laboratory MDLs in the sub-slab soil gas.or':indoor Additional Investioation/Rdmediatibh' ' ^ ® Emerson. NYS DEC andEmersg|||pd currehtlyjj^psideHiJlyyhat, If aiiy, additional testing is required at the site to further delineate ^impacts to soil and groundwater disicbyered by the Phase II ESA. Emerson is also developiniiaiwork plan to remediate the PCB release discovered around the former transformer pad outside'^llging 24, to b|||||ubmitted |fo the U;S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NYS DEc 'loi^ijapproval belplf proceeding with additional action. Additional delineation will be needed before a Determination can be made about what other remediation and/or mitigation is required at the Site i||||lo^A^^ proposed redevelopment. NOTE: The area of the fire-water reservoir, known as Operable Unit 1 (OU-1), was not evaluated as part of this Phase II ESA. An application by the current property owner for subdivision of OU-1 is currently pending. Information about the contamination history and clean-up program for OU-1 will be presented. 5.6 Historic and Archaeological Resources November 26,2014 28 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement The project site is a place of industrial heritage for the City and Town of Ithaca. Some buildings may be eligible for inclusion on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. This section will document a consultation with NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine the potential impact on historic and archaeological resources. This will determine the need to perform a Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey. If required, a Phase 1A Cultural Resources Inventory by a qualified cultural resources specialist will be conducted. A summary of the results of consultation with SHPO and the Phase 1A Cultural Resources survey will also be provided if required. Finally, if required, a Phase 1B Report will be conducted. 5.7 Transportation and Circulation il A Preliminary Transportation Study to address ex|||jpg1:raffic iii|iijtrjansportation conditions will be prepared. The transportation study in the will include a||jtional analysis which will form the basis of discussion on this section DGEIS. It will assem|l^ and review available traffic data from NYSDOT, Tompkins Countyi !i||j:^d the Cit^ and Town Ithaca. It will also describe the existing roadway system serving includin§|||umber of lanes, roadway conditions, traffic controls, and signal timingl|l|j|||pescription will alsShclude existing pedestrian, transit, bicycle, emergency, and ADA acc^|si! around and to the site. It will also describe the internal road, transit, bicycle, an^d pedestrijan network within the proposed development. 'f ''III' 5.7.1 Existing Daily ddrrl^ortraffic Conditions This subsection of the DjSEIS wilj ,describe Andjyze all intersections connecting the site to the existing stj^|Ji|||^ork. Ah inyqntory of existing roadway network, peak traffic volumes and associaj^p^et (LOS) will be deducted, including the following intersections, which will befihalvzed durinq pdak hoiifs: NYS^SB^ing NYS 96^thaca College (Alumni) NYS 96B/Cbddington NYS 96B|(ifandview NYiliBB/Columbia'•ujiU NYS 96B/Prospect Aurora/State Aurora/Seneca Seneca/Cayuga Cayuga/Green Cayuga/Clinton Cayuga/Spencer November 26,2014 29 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement Spencer/Albany/Elmira/Park (roundabout) Albany/Clinton Albany/Green Albany/Seneca • Turner/Columbia • Spencer/Clinton/Turner • State/Green • State/Tuning Fork • State/Stewart • State/Mitchell • Columbia/Hudson • Coddington/Hudson. Ilili ill ll' 5.7.2 Description of Roadway Network "■'■'fililr-This subsection of the DGEIS wiil describe the jfji-llgsed Jlp^ roadwayii||pulation network and its ownership within the site as itfel^es to the iSiglpjiii^iing context. 'I 5.7.3 Pedestrian and Bicycie Facilities "■isii!!;:!;!:: [i:. This subsection of the. DGEIS iwill descrlSl existirig off , site pdiikrian and bike network and amenities in relationship to the prbposed action., ' 5.7.4 Transit This subsi®iohlf lleiiDGEIS will id^ existing and proposed transit service. 5-7.5 Pafting This subsecti(iiln;!||| ,the DGEIS'|||discuse existing and proposed parking. It will describe currentparking conditiort|i|nd capacitylll site provided by the former Emerson / Morse Chain facility. Adiscussion of parking leguirerneritk for the proposed development and residential, commercial,and office programmirig:l|iJi)|i|^^ It will include a description of the existing capacity ofthe on-site parking lots, if|p| other possible parking areas to expand the capacity of parking within the site, assess the estimated number of permanent users of parking areas versus temporary or visiting users, and provide a general strategy for parking capacity in relationship to the new population within the development. 5.7.6 Emergency Access This section will describe existing fire, ambulance, and police access to the area, it will also determine which municipality wiil service which areas of the project (City versus Town). Noveml)er26,2014 30 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redeveiopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement Proposed conditions to accommodate such services, such as accessibility and turning radii, will be discussed. A consultation with existing public service providers, such as police, fire, and emergency service providers will occur to discuss the capacity of these providers to serve the proposed development and identify any additional resources that may be required. 5.7.7 ADA Access This subsection of the DGEIS will describe existing on site ADA access and amenities in relationship to the proposed action. ' 5.8 Utilities <il!l This subsection of the DGEIS will introduce,,id!®' __ -nn -.n - supply, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, gas, and blectric, telephone, caD||i|IV, and Internet Summarize the e|isting conditions of water On3}C3Dk 5.8.1 Water Supply This subsection of the DGEIS will quantify the existing wp|er consumption associated with the site. It will evaluate the existing water supply iand distributiofc identify and discuss the municipal water facilities that serve the site and ciiscuss any orf||ite constraints to the municipal water service. 5.8.2 Sanitary Sewers A consulta capacityil in 5.8.3 Stormwater Infrastructure representatives of the municipal sewer district will occur, and document of the Existing municipal sanitary sewer system. This subsection jof the DGEIS,ji^ill describe existing stormwater infrastructure capacity and constraints. ''■''lj|||j|j| 5.8.4 Natural Gas This subsection of the DGEIS will describe existing infrastructure for the conveyance of natural gas to the site. 5.8.5 Electric, Telephone, Cable TV, and High Speed Internet This subsection of the DGEIS will describe existing electric, telephone, cable TV, and High Speed Internet accessibility to the site. November 26,2014 31 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement 5.8.6 Lighting This subsection of the DGEIS will describe existing lighting. 5.9 Air Quality This section will discuss air quality in relationship to pre-development conditions. 5.10 Visual and Aesthetic Resources ^^||||l|!||| The project site sits high above the center of the|j3|||iiand the exi^||g buildings are a prominent feature from points within the downtown are|jii. ■_ n- The site extends for approximately % of a miiiji ||d the residential heighborhoods to the north.ir o *u A I u- u • fA StreeM^ which views ofathe existing buildings and parking areas arelow density residential developmeri|. There is on'i|j|brorf Aurora Street at the northernmost corner. There areWiy Lake and surrounding areas from withiifi th^ lite. irondijiiscreene ) diiiiby mature fe,,;by mature ve getation and limited site from Southillj; . . . '111!mt view into the , us and expansive ^lews to Cayuga 5.11 Community S^ljces F'ill! This subsection of the DGEIS will discuss existing and proposed community services the project will provide. This section will discuss the existing conditions as Jt relates visual and aesthetic ^resources. A photographic documentation and nag^ive, of the exiling visual landscape will be provided. A view shed map to illustrate areas from which the site may be visible based upon • topography and line of sight analysis will be prepared. A discussion of line of sight and existing visual buffers that affect yiews of the site from various vantage points will also be provided. Specific RQillSiillliiLconsld^^^^^ 'Ihclude .MeadoW ^Street, Stewart Park in the City of Ithaca,South 0|pga Stfeetiii|||ding sojg^^ and Cornell .University on east hili. Critical vantage pointswhere'l|||| visual envird'ii|||jit is lip^idered ah irhportant aspect of the site will be identified. Some uhalliponsideration liljude views along 96B Danby Road / S Aurora Street and the view across CayuqaiLake on South i»ll. November26,2014 33 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement CHAPTER 6: POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION This section of the DGEIS wiil be structured to describe each existing component of the environment in relationship to potentiai impacts from the proposed action and their mitigation. 6.1 Land Use and Zoning This subsection of the DGEIS will introduce and summarizeiiff^e contents of Chapter 5. It will describe the potential impacts within the site and around j zoning as a PUD/PDZ. Ilfbm changing the iand use and II ! 6.1.1 No Build Alternative This subsection of the DGEIS will describe a hbjl:^ijild condition of land use. and zoning. 6.1.2 Build Alternatives This subsection of the DGEIS will despirlbe build alternati|M^ to land use and zoning. 6.1.3 Mitigation Measures % This subsection of thb DGEIS will describe measures.thbt M be taken to mitigate potentiai impacts. 6.2 La This sObsfection of the DGEIS will Introduce and summarize the contents of Chapter 5. It will describe in|||ptential impsiqii|vithih th| site and around it from redeveloping and developing the land. 'Ill 6.2.1 No Build Alt||||tlve This subsection of the DGEIS will describe a no build condition on the land. 6.2.2 Build Alternatives This subsection of the DGEIS will describe build alternatives to the use of the land. Proposed construction in areas of moderate to steeply sloping terrain will be identified and described. A grading plan will be prepared to show existing contours and proposed earthwork and grading contours. November26,2014 34 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement 6.2.3 Mitigation Measures This subsection of the DGEIS will describe measures that will be taken to mitigate potential impacts. Future development of new areas will be primarily located in areas with slopes less than 15%. Mitigation will include conserving the Natural Sub Area - CW1, which contains areas with slopes greater than 15%. A grading plan will be prepared with the goal of balancing the amount of cut and fill to minimize the import/export of materials to and from the project site. Si^e slope grades of all cut and fill areas will be set to minimize the potential for future erosiorji In addition, this subsection of the DGEIS will discuss stream impacts including proposed grading detnp§ n control measures such as seeding and mulchin| swales and stream banks. It will also desc|||||p potential impacts. 6.3 Water Resources iUll;.measures to avoid or minimize■""UpliiiliiV., Stream''iib||k stabilization, and erosionP'disturbed a?||s along or within drainage her measures that will be taken to mitigate This section will focus on the potentiaf impacts of construction and development on the streamsand groundwater that trayerse the project site. By exarnining ll||a^s, non-protected bodies ofwater, surface and groundwater resources, drainage characteriSl, and surface water runoff, comparisons will be rriaicle between existing iponclitiohs, imjDacls of the proposed-action on the existing, and mitigatidh of such impacts. In order to properly address these concerns, this section will include a discussion of impacts to groundwater and stormwater, other potential impacts, and describe proposed mitigation pleasures to reduce impacts. 6.3.1 Sui;face Water and l^ydrbgfploglcal Setting '■'iii'ipp] '"'itiiiiSii.,.This subsecfi|||Will evaluateli|p potential impacts associated with construction activities andcreation of addliij||^l impervioii||||urfaces as they relate to changes in surface water quality andquantity, on and ad||||tream pl|||ie project site, including any impacts to Cayuga Lake. It will analyze potential for downstream flooding. 6.3.2 Groundwater This subsection will evaluate how each alternative may impact groundwater quality and influence the remediation of groundwater impacts from historic uses. November26,2014 35 Fina! Scoping Document Chain Works District Redeveiopment Project Draft Generic Environmentai impact Statement 6.3.3 Mitigation Measures This section will calculate post-development stormwater rates and volumes for various design year storms and compare to pre-development conditions, describe post-deveiopment stormwater runoff quality and compare to pre-deveiopment conditions, and discuss compiiance with NYSDEC and the City and Town of Ithaca requirements concerning stormwater management and the need to prepare a Stormwater Poliution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Stormwater discharges from construction activities for the R|ij|!t5t are required to obtain permit coverage through New York's State Poliution Discharge') Elimination System (SPDES). The design of the stormwater infrastructure shail foilow the New York State Department of Environmentai Conservation (NYS DEC) SPDES^Glneral Per|pj| for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-10-001) requirements, as weli and Town development guidelines. . 6.4 Vegetation and Fauna This section wili discuss the potential impacts to plant and wildlife habitat associated with the project site, particulariy with regard to the removal of some planted and habitat areas for the construction of the proposed new development. Cornparisons will be made between existing conditions, impacts of the proposed action on the existing, and mitj|ition of such impacts. 6.4.1 No Build Alternatiye This subsection Of the DGEIS will describe a no biiiJcJ condition on vegetation and fauna. 6.4.2 Build Alternatives This subsection of the DGEIS will descri!|e build alternatives in relationship to vegetation and . , . , i!Ill fauna. 'tii'ipli, :ii I;;'' 6.4.3 Mitigation Ml^|ures .i S!■lils. .ilillfirlir' A consultation wiil be helpfeh NYSDEC and US Fish and Wiidlife concerning any speciai mitigation measures that may be required to address any significant impacts. This section wiil describe measures that wiil be taken to mitigate potential impacts. It will discuss the applicable mitigation measures identified as necessary or required by the NYSDEC, US ACOE, or by the Town and City of Ithaca. It will include a reference and description of the Tompkins County Unique Naturai Area number TBD, as identified by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council's Unique Natural Area Inventory. November 26,2014 36 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redeveiopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement 6.5 Public Health and Environment The proposed project is a mixed-use development and will have an industrial component. The range of industrial uses anticipated may include assembly, food production, storage, incubators, fabricators, welding, etc. that can co-exist on a site with other commercial and residential uses. Heavier industrial uses, such as foundries, are not anticipated. Industrial uses may require the use or storage of materials that will require Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPOO) Plans. If that is the case, the Project Sponsor/Te|i.|||s will apply to the appropriate State/Federal agencies and, if necessary, the City or Tovyj All City/Town/State/Federal regulations will be followed. laca, for any needed approvals. In this section, comparisons will be made betweeh'^^isting condi|||n^, action on the existing impacts from historig|||||||i|s, and mitigatio||i| protection of public health and environment impacts of the proposed M such impacts for the 6.5.1 No Build Alternative This subsection of the DGEiS will qepi;ibe ,a no buildlllndition on the impacted areas from historic uses. 6.5.2 Buiid Alternatives This subsection of the i DGEiS will describe build alternatives in relationship to the impacted areas from historic uses. fi i; 1 Lsures that will be taken to mitigate potential impacts. Mitigation will include'iillchained Propie|||^s causing an amendment to the Record of Decision (ROD) to require remedi^||| of the projec|!jSite thsif 4llows for the mixed-use redevelopment. Institutional and engineering''^||rols anticj|||ted to be in place to allow for such development, such as monitoring and mkfq|||ance,|||^ restrictions in using groundwater, and sub-slab vapor intrusion technlqu||ig||te discussed with the understanding that the ultimate jurisdiction for determining the select^q||pmedial actions lies with the NYSDEC. 6.6 Historic and Archaeological Resources The majority of the 95-acre site is in an undeveloped state. If necessary, a Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory will be completed to identify any potentially significant impacts to cultural resources and the necessity for further investigation in areas where disturbance is anticipated. November 26,2014 37 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement This section wili discuss impacts as a resuit of development within or adjacent to sensitive historic or archaeological resources. 6.6.1 No Build Alternative This subsection of the DGEIS will describe a no build condition on historic and archaeological resources. 6.6.2 Build Alternatives i !|>, This subsection of the DGEIS will describe build aiteroatlyes in relationship to the impacted areas of historic and archaeological resources. n ' ' ' 6.6.3 Mitigation Measures This section will describe measures that will be taken to mitigate potential impacts. A plan to implement mitigation measures needed or required by SHpP and/or as rdpbmmended in the Phase 1A Cultural Resource Survey Shd Phase 18 Rdpbjiipli be developed. 6.7 Transportation and Circuiatioh The project will significaritly increase development density in an afba characterized by a heavy volume of commuter traffic to and from South Hili, including to Ithaca College via South Aurora Street/NYS Route 968. The development is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, which will be impacted by increased traffic volume. The development's proximity to the downtownrdppli^ Cbjlp^S makes jt weii-sit^ for alternative modes of transportation (e.g., walking, biking;'darpoolin^,;fnd mass trbpsjt); however, the potential impact on this area will need careful study td deterriline the magnitude of the impacts and the most effective mitigationsiil'is A complete analysis will be peiiprmed in a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the proposed project, identifying all poteml||Jmpacts= fhd project will have on the transportation system, along with incremental mitigatioi^' n^^as}ii;|^! The TIS will include a description of the existing roadway network, peak traffic vdlqpijpi, and associated Level of Service (LOS). There will also be discussion of any potential post-development impacts on the improvements, a discussion regarding traffic and mitigation, and a continuing discussion of the mutually acceptable future alignment of the planned Gateway Trail that will be developed by Others. A comparison of existing traffic conditions and estimates under the proposed development wili be provided. A capacity analysis of major roads leading to and around the site under existing and proposed conditions will also be included. Capacity analysis will consider average daily a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes under existing and proposed developed conditions, and wili November26,2014 38 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement factor traffic generated from Ithaca College and Cornell University when In full session. The analysis will also Include the total dally vehicle trips on Route 96B Danby Road / South Aurora Street. The TIS will also estimate the additional demand from the proposed development for transit service and the potential need for additional bus stops or shelters, especially along Route 96B. Impacts of additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic that may be generated from the proposed development and a description of provisions to accommodate this traffic will also be described. This will Include detailed locations and descriptions of sldew|lks, bicycle lanes, trails, and pedestrian connections to both Ithaca College and Dowi|fl||n. A discussion of the routes. frequency, and duration of construction vehicular trafflc^g||||||gacts on traffic operation will also be provided. Proposed measures for maintenance ar^||pbte^||g of traffic will be Included. The analysis will also provide a description of how ,the proposA relates to the recommendations of the City and Town of lthaj;||i|i|^nsportation Pli|j|s 6.7.1 No Build Alternative This subsection of the DGEIS will describe a no bul 6.7.2 Build Alternatives pfi on transportatli||||^nd circulation. This subsection of the DGEIS will describe build ajfern^lves to to the Impacted areas of transportation and circulation. i 6.7.3 Mitigation Meappr^s This sectidii.,,.., jiiir'. ill i d mit lili® igatid turning ip and traffic c Utilities liiiiii e meisci^es th^ mitigate potential Impacts. A description gtegles to minimize,traffic Impacts, Including the need for additional I devicbs at Impacted Intersections will be evaluated. A Utility Capacity Ana was held with the Clty"'li| public water and sanitary ed to determine any Impacts to utilities. A preliminary meeting pik Department of Public Works (DPW) to discuss the existing er services to the existing buildings. Initial discussions Indicate there Is sufficient capacity within the public systems for the project. The Project Sponsor will provide estimates of public water usage and sanitary sewer loadings, as well as coordinate with DPW to analyze the capacity for future development. 6.8.1 No Build Aiternative This subsection of the DGEIS will describe a no build condition on utilities. November 26,2014 39 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement 6.8.2 Build Alternatives This subsection of the DGEIS will describe build alternatives in relationship to the impacted areas on utilities. 6.8.3 Mitigation Measures This section will describe measures that will be taken to mitigate potential impacts. 6.9 Air Quality This section will discuss air quality in relationship to pre-develbpitient conditions, construction activity, and post-development. Comparisons will be made between existing conditions, impacts of the proposed action on the existing, and rhltl^ation of such impacts. Potentially impactful noise and odors may be a result of construction and remediation activities, as well as proposed future uses. Traffic generated as a result of the project could have an impact on air quality, depending oh |he jnterisity of thSl||pposed uses. Congestion and slow- moving traffic could elevate the amount of exhausj; emissidlrtfe area. %6.9.1 No Build Aiternatiye . ' 'feirv;-,;., .CM.;: V : This subsection of thb DGEIS will qescribe a h§ puild condition 6n air quality. 6.9.2 Build Alternatives This subsection of the PGEIS will describe build alternatives in relationship to the impacted areas of air quality. 6.9.3 Mitigatigii; Measures This section will describe measures that will be taken to mitigate potential impacts. 6.10 Visual and Aesthetic Resources This section will discuss the existing conditions and proposed in relationship to the impact upon area views. It will describe project components that may result in a change in the views from critical vantage points, including building colors, materials, height, and roof pitch. A visual impact analysis that will include the following will be prepared: November 26,2014 41 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement • Photographs of existing views of the project site. • Photographic perspectives of the proposed development condition from each critical receptor point. • Provide view descriptions from critical vantage points of the proposed development using photographs and graphic illustrations. • Discuss compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding visual context. The following will be also be considered: Design principles for architecture, landscaping, greenspace, site lighting, screening, and other aesthetic considerations (potential Design fliplejto^^ . Renderings and elevations. '''''llll?.,, Visual simulations from adjacent areas tfi^pay be impacted. Landscaping, including location and ,||||p"of plantings and how they may reduce any adverse visual impacts. Visuals and sections that demonstrate'ilibw tha|[i|jsting grade|i|levation with the • I .1 ..u • U*-l' J ..ijiliiilptir' 1/4. 14, Wlll'li,, ..development works with sight ilin.es and viewsrieM to thj| isite. Proposed signage. ij ;;!, 6.10.1 No Build Alternative This subsection of Pd |6GEIS ;|will describe adhSjBuitd on visual and aesthetic rocniirr*oe '.,rresources. „ , : 1© ^!, 6.10.2 Bulld»>Alternatlves This subsection of the feGEIS will describe build alternatives in relationship to the impacted areas of yispal and aestheti|j|!|^sources, 6.10.3 Mltlgli|||i,Measures''liil This section will depGhbe measures that will be taken to mitigate potential impacts. Discuss appropriate mitigation tactics to minimize any adverse visual impacts. These strategies may include architectural appplJohs and themes consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, visual screening and planting, and/or modification or relocation of components within the proposed development to reduce impacts. It will also discuss project lighting, including streetlights and other residential or commercial lights, and the possible impacts of lighting on the surrounding context. November26,2014 42 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement 6.11 Community Services This subsection of the DGEIS will Introduce and summarize the contents of Chapter 5. It will describe the potential impacts within the site and around it on community services. 6.11.1 No Buiid Alternative This subsection of the DGEIS will describe a no build condition on community services. 6.11.2 Build Alternatives This subsection of the DGEIS will describe build alternatives areas of community services. 6.11.3 Mitigation Measures ' ! ; ' ipjelationship to the impacted This section will describe measures that will be taken to mitigate potential impebts 6.12 Construction Activities This section will of the DGEIS will describe the impacts chrietruction will have on the surrounding area and the site,what measures Vvlll be tsil^n to mitigate such impacts. This includes a description' ef constrLietion staging arid activities, erosion and sediment controls during construction, hazardous materials removal and abatement plan, removable of non- recyclable construction waste, mitigation of construction air and noise impacts, and mitigation of construplrih iriipactS surrounding erivirpriment. 6.12.1 No Build Alternatlyik This subsection of the DGEIS wiil describe a no build condition on construction activities. 6.12.2 Description of Construction Staging and Activities This subsection of the DGHIS will describe what proposed construction staging and activities and what impacts they may have. 6.12.3 Erosion and Sediment Controls During Construction This subsection of the DGEIS will describe erosion and sediment controls proposed to be Installed during construction. November 26,2014 43 Fina! Scoping Document Chain Works District Redeveiopment Project Draft Generic Environmentai impact Statement 6.12.4 Coordination with Site Remediation This subsection of the DGEiS wiil describe how the construction process is coordinated with site remediation and impiementation techniques to minimize the exposure of construction workers and the community from the disturbance of impacted soiis and groundwater. 6.12.5 Removal of Non-recyciabie Construction Waste This subsection of the DGEiS wiil describe how non-recyciabie construction waste will be handled and removed. 6.12.6 Construction Air Impacts This subsection of the DGEIS will describe what air impacts constructipn will have 6.12.7 Construction Noise Impacts This subsection of the DGEIS will deibribe what noise impacts construction wiii Have. 6.12.8 Construction impacts to (natural featiires) This subsection of tt]e jD^ElS descH|;i| wha^ Impaqts^ c^ will have on natural features. November26,2014 44 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement CHAPTER 7: IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES This section of the DGEIS wiii provide a discussion of environmental resources that wiil be lost, converted, or made unavailable over the short and long term as a result of the proposed action. It will evaluate both the construction phase and the operating phase. November 26,2014 45 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redeveiopment Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement CHAPTER 8: UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS This section will identify and discuss any impacts that are likely to occur despite mitigation measures, and will compare the beneficial and adverse implications of such unavoidable impacts. 8.1 Short-Term Unavoidable Impacts To evaluate the impacts of the foreseeable future, this section will identify and discuss any impacts that are likely to occur despite mitigation measuilkjl ,^ijd will compare the beneficial and adverse implications of such unavoidable impacts. 8.2 Long-Term Unavoidable Impacts To evaluate the impacts of the prolonged life of the project^ :thi|. section will,,ii|||ptify and discuss any impacts that are likely to occur dejspite mitigation nrieasures, and will cornpajte the beneficial and adverse implications of such uhaypidable impacts^ , November26,2014 46 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement CHAPTER 9: GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY The project will impact the growth of the community. It differs in concentration and intensity of land use and can be expected to have impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods, and possibly other areas of the community. Impacts could include those related to changes in the flow of traffic (e.g., pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle), concentration of need for public safety response, and utility capacity. The project may also impact visual character. The proposed action will result in increased population and density, and will create additional demand for public services, facilities, and infrastructure. Thl^ section will identify any growth- Inducing aspects of the proposed project, including ecopd^ic, population, and employment growth. It will describe the impact of the area near rei||fPitiar|||ig(hborho and the economic character of the community. This section will: • Discuss the impact of the proposed dliliipment upon the cnijiicter of the surrounding neighborhood. 1111 • How the project will affect the existing nl|"I iibharacter wi to visual impacts, demand for public services, historic Mrlltpf^bs, noise, traffic, drainage, and the environmental setting of the ai;d|. • Explore how views from particular neighboring properties may be impacted by the proposed development. i . • Identify options for passive and active recreational oppotlUnities for the residents of the surrounding community and development. • Identify amenities provided by the project for the community including restaurants, cafes, shops, open space hetwork, circulation connections, and office spaces. November 26,2014 47 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redeveiopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement CHAPTER 10: EFFECT OF PROPOSED PROJECT ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY The DGEIS will discuss the impacts of the Project on the use and conservation of energy. Also, sustainability and energy efficient features will be considered in Project development and implementation consistent with LEED ND. Unchained Properties will consider design guidelines for the construction of "Green Buildings" and, to the extent applicable, evaluate the certification of buildings under LEED guidance. November26,2014 48 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement CHAPTER 11: THRESHOLDS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS This Chapter sets forth conditions, criteria or thresholds to guide future site-specific actions that may be undertaken. This includes requirements for any subsequent SEQRA compliance. This will include thresholds and criteria for supplemental environmental review to reflect specific significant impacts that were not adequately addressed or analyzed in the GEIS. For example, should a subsequent proposed action be carried out in conformance with the conditions and thresholds established in the GEIS, no further SEQRA compliance would be required. Conversely, if a subsequent proposed action was not addressed or its components would exceed defined thresholds or criteria set forth in the GEIS, then the appropriate environmental review documentation would be required to comply with SEQRA. vf::!: November26,2014 49 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement CHAPTER 12: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts may result from separately minor but collectively significant actions that take place over an extended period time. It is an impact that could result from incremental impacts of a proposed action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions by other entities separate from the proposed action. In the context of the project, independent initiatives taking place in parallel are in various stages of the planning process. A cumulative impacts assessment0|ll be a part of the DGEIS to consider projects approved or adopted by the City or the Town, This section will include a qualitative analysis of the relationship and implications of such projects in regards to the proposed action, noting any future environmental documentation efforts conducted with such projects. November26,2014 50 Final Scoping Document Chain Works District Redevelopment Project Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement REFERENCES APPENDICES This section will Include all relevant correspondences, tp||iiBal studies, reports, engineering and design documents, environmental assessments, and;analyses that were relied upon In preparing the DGEIS. Documents may Include, but are not llrriitpd |o, the following: '''Ilk Engineering Drawings and Details concerning the propbsed development. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Cultural Resources Studies. Biological Field Survey Data. Traffic Impact Studies^ Scoping Documentation. SEQR Documentation. Correspondence. fiP"' November 26,2014 51