Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2018-09-04 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday,September 4, 2018 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Joseph Haefeli, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Liebe Meier Swain, Melissa Hill Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter; Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Marty Mosely, Code Enforcement Officer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Sprint Co-Location on Existing WVBR Radio Tower, 170 Pidgeon Place. Robert Willson said Sprint is in the process of improving their wireless network in the town. They’ve identified an existing tower that will satisfy their needs. This tower doesn’thave an existing fence around the base; Sprint will install their own to improve security for their equipment. It’s an existing structure, and they’re not going to extend the tower or the existing lease area the tower is sitting on. The access road to the tower comes off 26 Dove Drive; there’s a deeded 10-foot access for that road. Mr. Wilcox said he couldn’t find Pidgeon Place on the town map, Cornell’s official map, Google Maps. Mr. Bates explained that Pidgeon Place was given that name in March, so the maps probably haven’t been updated. It’s a private road owned by Cornell. We had to rename it because the town had an existing water tank at that location that they called the Hungerford tank. Then they put up a new water tank on Hungerford Hill Road, so we had to name that road for 911 purposes. Ms. Fogarty asked about there being a “riverine” system on the parcel and noted that it’s listed as being in an archeologically sensitive area. Ms. Balestra said there was a memo from the town’s environmental review committee. She doesn’t know where a riverine system is near this property. The nearest body of water is the Six Mile Creek watershed, which is almosta mile away.The State Historic Preservation Officehas a map that shows an area with a little circle that’s five miles or more in diameter; they say that there might be some archeologically sensitive items somewhere in the circle. If the site has been previously disturbed, this board has made the determination that anything that might have been archeologically sensitive has already been dug up. PB Resolution No. 2018-30: SEQR, Sprint Telecommunication Facility Co-Location, 170 Pidgeon Place, Tax Parcel No. 61.-1-7.2 Moved by Liebe Meier Swain; seconded by Joseph Haefeli Planning Board Minutes 09-04-2018 Page 2 of 16 WHEREAS: 1.This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility located at 170 Pidgeon Place (off Dove Drive), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61.-1-7.2, LowDensity Residential Zone. The proposal involves co-locating six wireless telecommunications antennas onto the existing WVBR radio tower. The antennas will be mounted at the 90’ level on the existing tower. The proposal also includes installing equipment cabinets on a 10’ x 10’ equipment platform within a new 12’ x 20’ fenced compound. New electrical and fiber utilities will be installed on the proposed equipment platform. Cornell University, Owner; SprintCom, Inc., Applicant; Robert Willson, Project Manager, Pyramid Network Services, LLC, Agent; 2.This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the telecommunications proposal; 3.The Planning Board, on September 4, 2018, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted and prepared by the applicant; Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Town Planning staff; a narrative, drawings titled “Sprint NSB, Upstate New York Central, AL90XC493A, 170 Pidgeon Place, Ithaca, NY 14850, Tompkins County,” prepared by C & S Engineers, Inc., including sheets T-1, SP-100, C-101, C-201, C-501, C-502, and C-503, dated July 2018 and revised 8-16-18, and other application materials; and 4.The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi- cance with respect to the proposed project; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Hill AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility located at 170 Pidgeon Place (off Dove Drive), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61.-1-7.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves co-locating six wireless telecom- munication antennas onto the existing WVBR radio tower. The antennas will be mounted at the 90’ level on the existing tower. The proposal also includes installing equipment cabinets on a 10’ x 10’ equipment platform within a new 12’ x 20’ fenced compound. New electric and fiber utilities will be installed to the proposed equipment platform. Cornell University, Owner; SprintCom, Inc., Applicant; Robert Willson, Project Manager, Pyramid Network Services, LLC, Agent Planning Board Minutes 09-04-2018 Page 3 of 16 Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m., and hearing no one, he closed it at 7:20. PB Resolution No. 2018-031: Sprint Telecommunication Facility Co-Location, 170 Pidgeon Place, Tax Parcel No. 61.-1-7.2 Moved by Joseph Haefeli; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1.This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility located at 170 Pidgeon Place (off Dove Drive), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61.-1-7.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves co-locating six wireless telecommunications antennas onto the existing WVBR radio tower. The antennas will be mounted at the 90’ level on the existing tower. The proposal also includes installing equip- ment cabinets on a 10’ x 10’ equipment platform within a new 12’ x 20’ fenced compound. New electrical and fiber utilities will be installed on the proposed equipment platform. Cornell Uni- versity, Owner; SprintCom, Inc., Applicant; Robert Willson, Project Manager, Pyramid Network Services, LLC, Agent; 2.This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the proposal, made a negative determination of envi- ronmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted and prepared by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by staff; and 3.The Planning Board, at a public hearing on September 4, 2018, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative, drawings titled “Sprint NSB, Upstate New York Central, AL90XC493A, 170 Pidgeon Place, Ithaca, NY 14850, Tompkins County,” prepared by C & S Engineers, Inc., including sheets T-1, SP-100, C-101, C-201, C-501, C-502, and C-503, dated July 2018 and re- vised 8-16-18, and other application materials; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1.That the Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the pur- pose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board; and 2.That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility located at 170 Pidgeon Place (off Dove Drive), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61.-1-7.2, as shown on the plans and materials referenced in Whereas #3 above. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Hill Planning Board Minutes 09-04-2018 Page 4 of 16 AGENDA ITEM Presentation and discussion of the proposed Cornell University North Campus Residential Expan- sion project. Cornell University proposes to construct two residential complexes (one for sophomores and the other for freshmen) located on North Campus between Triphammer Road, Jessup Road, Pleasant Grove Road and Cradit Farm Drive. The sophomore village will have four residential buildings with 800 new beds and associated program space totaling 299,900 SF and a 1,200 seat, 66,300 SF dining facility. Buildings for the sophomore village will be located entirely in the city, while a small portion of the site work is proposed for the Village of Cayuga Heights. The freshman village will have three new residential buildings, each spanning the City and Town of Ithaca municipal line, with a total of 401,200 SF and 1,200 new beds and associated program space – 223,400 SF of which is in the city and 177,800 SF of which is in the town. The building heights will be between two and six stories. The project is in three zoning districts: the U-I zoning district in the city; Low Density Residential zone in the town; and the Multiple Housing District within the village. The project also includes various outdoor amenities, including a plaza, amphitheater, open lawns, landscaped spaces, and walkways. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP, Agent. Ms. Meier Swain, who recused herself from the proceedings,sat in the audience. Kathryn Wolf said there would be two presentations: one focused on energy and the second focused on transportation impacts. A week ago, the city voted to be lead agency for the project. She intro- duced Steve Beyer, who has been a practicing engineer since 1989. He was the project manager and helped create the Cornell Climate Action Plan. He also set up the original Cornell green building program. He helped with management and permitting of the Cornell combined heat and power project. He’s currently facilities lead on the earth source heat project. Working with Cornell’s utility experts, he created the design, goals, and standards of this project. Mr. Beyers shared the energy presentation: Cornell has web pages that provide public information on many aspects of their energy systems. Energy Fast Facts provides detailed energy and emissions data year-by-year throughout the campus. They have real-time building energy data, and there’s information on lake source cooling, on the combined heat and power plant, and on the climate action plan. The North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) will tie into Cornell’s district energy systems. The project covers about 4 percent of the overall square footage of the campus, but the amount of energy use is 1.4 percent, or about one-third of what the average building uses on campus. The new buildings are built with a lot of energy efficiency attributes and when modeled, they’re 30 percent less than the New York State energy code, resulting in less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. With the efficient district energy system, they’ll use less source energy and less gas and create lower GHG emissions than if heat pumps are used. The energy performance will be documented through analysis and commissioning as part of their third-party LEED review and certification. One reason they use the LEED process is because it provides a lot of documentation. They don’t just make claims. Why is Cornell using their own utilities? They’re using lake source cooling because it has superior performance than any other option. It uses only a fraction of the energy of an efficient heat pump and it has no refrigerant. It provides more than 20 times the cooling energy to input electric, whereas a heat pump might be 3 to 5, under the right conditions. Planning Board Minutes 09-04-2018 Page 5 of 16 Why use combined heat and power?Cornell produces their own power on campus, so there’s no transmission losses, and when they produce power, all the heat that comes out of the back end of the turbine is used to heat the campus. About 90 percent of the heat on campus is from this repurposed waste, and only 10 percent from supplemental boilers. So by using combined heat and power, they get their heat as a by-product of their electric production. Cornell has a detailed campus-wide climate action plan with the goal to reduce or offset all green- house gas emissions by 2035. This project fits into that plan. When they design new buildings, they want the energy footprint to be as low as possible. They intend to get off fossil fuels and replace their fuel mix with renewables. How are they doing so far? They’re growing the campus without growing energy use. The campus square footage has been growing while the energy use has slightly declined. They’re continuing to do energy conservation and efficiency measures campus-wide and they’re projecting that when this project comes online, they’ll be using less energy than today at the central plant. Taitem Engineering did an analysis and one of the things they looked at was GHG emissions. When they compared Cornell’s system of using fan coils to a system using air source heat pumps or ground source heat pumps, they found the GHG emissions are lower with fan coils. The source energy use, which computes the amount of natural gas you need to start the whole process, is also lower. Cornell’s long-range vision. They have lake source cooling, which uses water from Cayuga Lake to cool the campus without the use of refrigerants; they want to do the same thing with geothermal energy. They’re going to heat the campus by recirculating a flow through the earth and using that heat directly for campus. There’s still some pumping energy, but similar to lake source cooling, they expect the energy input to be much smaller than the energy they get out. There are a couple letters that talk about how far-fetched earth source heat sounds. It’s being used around the world and in most of the world is advancing quickly, but unfortunately not so much in the United States. In addition to heat, Cornell will also need electricity, so they have a campus-wide plan for integrating renewable electricity. They’re looking at all their land and resources. They’ve helped put in place 10,000 kW of photovoltaic. They are also planning for wind sites, but are still looking for a community approvable location. They have a hydro plant below the suspension bridge, which provides about 2 percent of the campus electric. In addition to designing an efficient building, they’re designing the NCRE for a low, no-carbon future. It’s the very first major project using Cornell’s new campus design standard. They’re providing comfortable heating using lower temperatures. Distribution pipes will carry hot water, not steam, to the buildings. The reason they want lower temperatures is because it provides lower distribution losses and makes things like earth-source heat viable. With a lower temperature water, you can inject resources from other things like geothermal that provides a benefit that’s directly proportional to the temperature difference. They can also put in other kinds of renewables like biomass, waste heat, solar hot water, and air- and ground-source heat pumps. How well will the buildings perform? The energy code and the guidance that governs that code have been steadily ratcheting down over the last 20 years. The newest code is what they’re designing to now and they’ve maintained 30 percent under code; that gets harder and harder as they go, but they’re sticking to it. The first way to save energy in a modern building that uses a lot of mechanical ventila- Planning Board Minutes 09-04-2018 Page 6 of 16 tion, which is required by code to keep people comfortable and safe inside, is to recover heat from that ventilation. For example, on a 0 degree day, if they want to heat it up to 70, they don’t want to throw that heat out. That’s one of the main ways today that they reduce heat use in buildings. In the same way, they have demand-control ventilation, in which there are variable-speed air handling units to get just the right air for the number of occupants in the spaces. They have fancy motors on the fan coil units that use less energy. Plus, the highly efficient district energy systems use less source energy than standard systems or heat pumps. And their heating system temperatures are lower to accommo- date future energy sources. They use low-flow plumbing fixtures to reduce water usage, which also reduces water going to sewage facilities. They have high-efficiency LED lighting throughout the buildings. They have an overall lighting power use that’s 35 percent less than code and an exterior lighting power use that’s 50 percent less than code. All theirlighting is tied to occupancy and daylight sensors, so they’re not using lights when they don’t need them. They’ve reduced window-wall ratios, so in the residential portions, they have 22 percent window-to-wall ratio, they have high-performance glazing of the windows, high performance wall and roof insulation, all exceeding code. They’re using Energy Star appliances, demand-control dryer exhaust, and regenerative elevators, so when the elevator is going down with someone in it, it’s generating energy back that it uses when it raises people up. They also have to worry about how energy is used, so we have a residential sustainability engagement program. They encourage people to use cold water for laundry, take shorter showers, turn off electronics when not in use. They educate residents and staff on climate change and sustainability measures. They also have waste and energy competitions to keep them engaged in those topics. Within the student housing, they have sustainability practices like convenient recycling. They have rules such as unplugging and defrosting mini fridges over winter break, small things that all add up. They have sustainability reps, compost managers, program steering committees, campus green teams and internships. Transportation Presentation Ms. Wolf said Cornell has a robust transportation demand management program to reduce the number of cars that come to campus. Cornell is a partner with TCAT. First-year students are provided a bus pass free of charge, and all students can ride the bus for free on evenings and week- ends. Faculty and staff can ride free on certain routes. As a result, the numbers of first-year and sophomore students who bring cars to campus is quite low to begin with. They engaged a traffic engineer and undertook a traffic study. Their traffic engineers looked at 16 intersections surrounding the project site. Traffic counts were taken at all these intersections when schools, colleges, and universities were all in session. Counts were taken between 7 and 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 and 6 p.m. to insure that the surrounding commuter traffic was at its peak and they were documenting the worst condition. Each of these intersections was analyzed to determine the existing level of service. They also looked at background growth. The assumption is that even if this were not built, the surrounding traffic would increase. To understand that growth, the engineers looked at trends, historical records. They also looked at other projects that are under construction, recently approved, or expected to be moving forward into construction. Taking all that into consideration, an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent was applied to the traffic. The new traffic generated as a result of the North Campus project was added to that, and, together, they make the condition at full buildout. At the full buildout, the analysis identifies that the roadway network adequately accommodates all the traffic volumes. It is expected that at the a.m. peak, there will be seven additional cars arriving and three leaving as a result of the project. In the evening peak seven additional vehicles will be arriving and 33 leaving. The CC lot will be demolished, which is the location of the sophomore development. It’s an underutilized lot. Planning Board Minutes 09-04-2018 Page 7 of 16 There are 386 parking spaces, but on average there are 110 cars in the lot on any given day. Those vehicles will be assigned to other existing lots in the area that have capacity. Hasbrouck, for example, has excess capacity in their lots. There are changes to levels of service at some intersections, and some actually improve. Four intersections have a decrease in level of service. Two driveways are impacted. Pedestrian traffic is highest in the morning and becomes more disbursed later in the day; 210 additional pedestrians will be added to the network as a result of the projects, but the sidewalks were found to be robust and completely able to handle that capacity. They looked at the bicycle network, and a robust bicycle component is designed into the project. The looked at incorporating multiuse paths that link to the existing roadways or on-road bike lanes. It is expected that two of the bus routes will be at capacity, and TCAT is working closely with the university to add buses. They’re planning mitigations for the four intersections affected. Ms. Fogarty asked how many first-year students have cars and what Cornell is doing to reduce that. She thought the background growth seemed large. Mr. Wilcoxadded that some time ago, Cornell representatives said they needed to allow first-year students to have cars in order to stay competitive with other Ivy League schools. That seems to have changed. He’d also like to see how the number of cars has changed over time.He’s seen studies showing there will be a 2 percent background growth. Ms. Wolf said she would get those numbers. Ms. Brock said the documentation said the background growth included East Hill Village. Ms. Wolf said that potential growth was taken into consideration to arrive at the 1.5 percent. There’s a project in development at Community Corners, and those numbers were added to the analysis as if it were an actual project. Ms. Fogarty said it would be nice to see that laid out. She couldn’t find legends for some of the traffic studies. She’s also interested in the discussion Cornell is having with TCAT in terms of the new buses and how the situation will be resolved. In her experience sitting on the planning board, TCAT is usually stretched. Will Cornell pay for the buses? Ms. Balestra said with the timeline, we would need to get our comments to the city after the Septem- th meeting, so she encouraged the board to not limit their discussion to energy and transporta- ber 18 tion because staff would want to start preparing any comments in preparation for the next meeting. Ms. Fogarty had concerns that the soil drainage looked poor, and asked how they will deal with that, especially since they’ll have basements. She’s interested in where all the earth is being moved to and how it’s being routed. She didn’t see anything about how things will be reused; she thought that should be part of the plan. She was shocked at the number of trees coming down. Ms. Wolf said it’s documented that they’re putting in more trees than they’re taking down. Ms. Michaels added that 320 large canopy trees will be planted,plus a lot of shrub material. The tree diameter is three inches. Planning Board Minutes 09-04-2018 Page 8 of 16 Ms. Fogarty said that would take them a long time to become a large canopy tree. She asked about zoning. Ms. Brockresponded that low density allows dormitories, and they’re not proposing to exceed the allowable heights. Mr. Thaete discussed stormwater.There will be a more thorough discussion during site plan review in conjunction with the city. We work together as an MS4, so we have to sign off on these stormwater regulations prior to them submitting permits. Fall Creek is a fifth-order stream. Because it’s close to the outlet of Fall Creek, they’re allowed to discharge their impervious surfaces directly to the creek without mitigating them. That’s DEC law, and is not something we can override. Ms. Fogarty said the impervious area for the first-year student buildings goes form 23 percent to 65 percent. She thought there should be some way to work with that. We’re worried about stormwater runoff. Mr. Thaete agreed in some aspects, but reiterated that we can’t override DEC laws. They’ll be directly discharging stormwater into Fall Creek. Have their engineers looked at any of the potential choke points down Fall Creek to see if they can handle the additional impervious surfaces directly discharg- ing? To make them choke back that water, there’s reasoning to allow them to directly discharge to try to get the water out of the drainage system so the water upstream doesn’t get backed up. There’s a fine balance. Mr. Wilcox said the Cradit Moore house was moved to put in the playing field. Now where will they play? Ms. Wolf responded that one of the problems with the fields that exist today is that they’re extremely wet and not usable during much of the season. Although we’re losing two of the three fields, the one remaining is going to be developed at a much higher level with artificial turf and better drainage to give it a much longer playing season. Ms. Brock had a question on the energy generation. On page 169 of the application, it says that the combined heat and power plant heats the campus with leftover heat from electricity generation that would otherwise be wasted. And today, Mr. Beyer said 90 percent of the heat is the waste heat and 10 percent would need to come from supplemental sources. If this project weren’t built, would the waste heat not be used anywhere on campus? Mr. Beyer explained that there’s no new equipment for this project at the central plant. The90 percent is coming from something that’s already been generated. Today, they can’t use all the heat and most of the heat that this project will use would otherwise be wasted, unless it’s a really cold day. In that case, more gas would be used. Ms. Brock said it would be useful to have a narrative that spellsit out, very simply, and explains what the current operation is today, and then when you add thenew project, what theadditional GHG emissions from the project will be beyond what is already occurring and what will continue to occur without the project. For the additional GHG emissions that are being generated, she’d like to know what they’re being attributed to. Table 7 on page 189: she tried to go through it and found it hard to Planning Board Minutes 09-04-2018 Page 9 of 16 understand. It talks about direct emissions from stationary sources, and says they’re negativeduring the occupancy phase because the project is being served by the Cornell central plant, which is considered an indirect source, and you’re also getting rid of an existing fraternity, which is burning its own GHGs. But then when she looks at indirect emissions, most of the discussion is about the construction phase, but she thinks people want to understand the operation phase, and what the indirect emissions are from stationary sources supplying the energy for the operation phase above and beyond what’s happening even if this project is not built. Mr. Beyer responded that Tatitem provides all of that in Table 6. There are a lot of ways to calculate these things, so the numbers will be different depending on how you calculate them. Ms. Brock said Cornell has to pick a way to calculate it and explain why they’re calculating it that way and provide a narrative that walks us through it carefully in laymen’s terms. Mr. Beyer said they’d try. Ms. Brock commented on transportation and parking. It says on page 20 that once this housing comes in, Cornell will be able to increase the undergraduate population by about 900 students. She assumes that will be over time, but the increases propagate through and they eventually become junior and seniors. So while freshmen might not have many cars, as they propagate through, the upper classmen might have more cars. In the transportation study, did they go out several years to look at the impacts of these increase in students beyond saying freshmen can’t bring cars so there won’t be any extra vehicular traffic from them? Ms. Michaels said they didn’t project out to four years later when those students are upperclassmen and a portion of them may have cars. Their analysis is based on the year the project is open and running at full capacity. It’s not yet known how many students will be added per any given year, but not more than 900 total. Ms. Brock asked whether there was anything on the breakdown of multimodal split: how many walk, drive, take the bus, ride bikes. Even though 900 sounds like a lot, half will always be freshmen and sophomores, so maybe only 450, and then if only 10 percent have cars, that’s one thing, but if 50 percent do, that means something else. Maybe more explanation about all that would be useful. Regarding parking, Robert Purcell has a conference center and it will continue to serve as one. As you eliminate parking spaces, where will people park for those events? Ms. Wolf said parking at Robert Purcell will increase from 32 to 103 spaces. Ms. Brock asked whether everyone parks there when people attend conferences. Ms. Wolf said there’s always a management plan for those types of events. Ms. Brock asked if the 103 spaces are adequate because not all of them are available; they’re being used for other purposes. She requested that they provide more explanation of how that would be accommodated. Planning Board Minutes 09-04-2018 Page 10 of 16 Mr. Beyerwanted to revisit a previous question. In the winter, they’re running two turbines at full speed. In the future, they won’t need to use any natural gas at all other than to provide that tiny margin. But when they calculate the GHG, they calculate it as if they need that much more energy in electric and gas even though they have it available already. They do this so they can fairly indicate the extent of their impact; otherwise the number would be tiny. Because what they might generate in electricity and put out in the grid is displacing other gas, so it’s not emissions free, there are emissions associated with it. They’re calculating those emissions and reporting them t out there, but it doesn’t mean that in the future they’re actually going to burn more natural gas. They won’t the way they’re operating now for the winter season. It’s confusing, but accurate. Ms. Brock said she thinks it’s one thing if these buildings will be heated with waste heat that’s already being generated even without the project. That means something versus that there’s going to be a lot of additional GHG emissions because of this project. That means something completely different. We need some clarification. Ms. Wolf said the use of the waste heat is precisely why hooking into the existing system produces less GHG emissions than putting in heat pumps. Mr. Wilcox said that implies to him that the waste heat right now is wasted and that the waste heat in the future will be captured and used. Mr. Beyer said they use a lot of the heat and on cold days, they use all of the heat, but on shoulder seasons, they use what they need and the rest is wasted. Ms. Brock said it’s confusing to her to hear that being more efficient than the heat pumps is maybe a different question than what are the GHG emissions associated with heat pumps because that depends on the source of your electricity. Mr. Beyer continued with the presentation. Why doesn’t Cornell just use heat pumps and electricity from the grid to eliminate natural gas? They believe that if you use heat pumps and grid electricity, you could actually use more gas. These are their internal calculations. For an individual owner, heat pumps would be a good idea but because we have really efficient district heating and lake source cooling, there is less gas used to heat and cool and electrify the campus than if they used the grid and heat pumps. This is for this project. How can heat pumps using grid electric result in gas use? Gas on the grid varies with electric demand. There’s nuclear, hydro (24 percent), and no one is building new plants, wind (3%), but doesn’t have the ability to ramp up quickly, PV, which is taken in as it comes, plus biomass, which, together, equals 2 percent of production. There’s almost no PV in winter, and there’s no ability to ramp up. The good is that if you conserve energy, you’re cutting gas out of the grid. If you have a solar panel, you’re taking gas straight out. The same goes if you’re going to add a new load; whenever you add electricity, you’re going to change that gas mix. If you need more electricity, there’s nothing to do but add gas, and when there’s a reduction in electrical load, they take gas out. This is called the marginal or non-base load gas use. So Cornell looked hard at their climate action plan. They’re going to get this renewable heat; they need to get all this renewable electricity. That’s a big challenge in the state and for them. They don’t want to add heat pumps and make that worse. It would make it harder for them to meet their own challenge. Planning Board Minutes 09-04-2018 Page 11 of 16 Ms. Brock pointed out that for Maplewood, they put in heat pumpsandpurchased all their electricity from solar. Mr. Beyer said that’s not changing the gas that’s on the grid. It’s not adding solar; if someone takes that extra money and builds another farm, it does, but that’s not always a direct result. It’s still better for Cornell to connect to their own grid because even if that green gets a little bit bigger somewhere, they’re still doing better by using less gas now, until, at some point, there’s not gas, at least during part of the day on the grid. And that’s a ways off. So at least for the foreseeable future, this is a better option for the environment. In the longer term, Cornell is building to low temperatures; if it turns out to not be the right option, then they can turn to heat pumps. They have the ability to adapt to that. There’s a question of accountability: how to account for upstream emissions? They agree it’s a big question. The way Taitem did it is in accordance with the way it’s mandated, and everybody does it, so for comparing other projects, it’s the right way to do it. That doesn’t mean there aren’t upstream emissions and other concerns. Cornell’s point is that teyagree, but if another way of doing it, like using heat pumps, results in more gas, it’s just more upstream emissions. The trick is to get gas out of the system, and that’s what they’re trying to do. Mr. Hafeli asked if with the district system as it sits now, it uses x amount of gas per year, and you add the North Campus, the plant will continue to use x amount of gas, but will be more efficient per BTU? Because you’re saying it’s not running at full efficiency now and that you’re wasting heat. Mr. Beyer said it makes their overall efficiency a little better, but not significantly better. This project is a good match efficiency-wise for the electric and heat production together because residential facilities don’t have as high an electric load as some other ones and it works out really well. There’s an accounting: the electricity they might use for North Campus right now might go out to the grid, but when it goes out to the grid, it’s displacing some of the other gas, so it’s not like it’s carbon-free electricity they’re using just because it’s there – it has an impact on the environment somewhere else. Haefeli said it sounds like the plant is operating better, more efficiently, with a greater load on it. Mr. Beyer said when there’s a heat load to go along with the electric, yes, combined heat and power makes more sense. Burt Bland, associate vice president of energy and sustainability, is responsible for operating the plant. He said that after NCRE, they will use marginally more gas. They’re not adding any more natural gas infrastructure. The gas they burn to make the low temperature hot water is done very efficiently and within the capacity of the existing system. The plant runs at about 75 percent efficiency. Basically, they have two jet engines bolted to the floor that run flat out and make all the electricity for the campus and they supplement the waste heat in the fall, spring, and winter with gas duct burners. Mr. Haefeli asked if there were any options to run the district system on something other than methane. Mr. Bland said the climate action plan calls for the central energy plant to be shut down by 2035. In an updated plan, they talked about perhaps using air source heat most of the year and peak days usimg biogas. If there were a sustainable source of renewable biogas, they could run the engines. Planning Board Minutes 09-04-2018 Page 12 of 16 Mr. Thaete asked if theysometimes make more electricity than theycan use. Mr. Bland said yes, and it’s then sold to the grid. Mr. Beyer said that in the summer, some of the heat is used for reheat, which in air conditioning, helps dry out the air streams. Mr. Thaete asked if it’s possible to crank them down so theydon’t create so much heat. Mr. Beyer said when you run them at full speed, it’s higher efficiency, and anything that goes to the grid is displacing other gas. The reason they’re connecting the North Campus project is not to make the plant more efficient, but it ends up making it more efficient. They’re tying into their central system mainly because they don’t have a climate action plan if they don’t have a central system; that’s how they would distribute renewable energy. Air source heat can’t go building-to-building without some kind of system. If they start making electric buildings here and there, then they don’t have a climate action plan any more. They’d be relying on the grid to go green; they’re counting on being quicker than the grid. Ms. Michaels pointed out that with this plant, you burn gas once to make both electricity and heat; that’s the whole idea of the cogeneration plant. To get grid electricity, you burn the gas to get electricity, not both electricity and heat. Mr. Haefeli said he understands why Cornell would find this approach appealing: they already own the infrastructure and technology, so going off in some other direction isn’t very appealing. He just wondered how they could become disconnected from the use of gas. Mr. Beyer said turbines are replaced every 10 years or so, so it’s not like it’s a decision that lasts hundreds of years. Ms. Wolf said they are on a path to be off gas by 2035, with earth source heat. Ms. Fogarty asked if they’re creating this electricity that they sell back, why not just use that electricity on campus? Mr. Beyer said when this project comes online and there’s extra electricity, they’re going to be doing that. A lot of the time, the central plant won’t operate any differently than it does now: it will be the same gas coming in and the electricity will be used on North Campus instead of being exported. Ms. Fogarty said that perhaps there’s a way to incorporate some use of heat pumps in this project with this extra electricity so that you can cut down and at least keep the use of natural gas down. Mr. Beyer said if they use electricity in a heat pump for cooling, they’d be using more electricity than through lake source cooling, so that would be wasting electricity, like 4 or 5 times as much for the cooling side of the heat pump. If you use it just for the heating side, then you’re not using the waste heat because they’re using electricity to create heating. Even if they use a little bit, they’rejust throwing away the heat that was basically free waste. In the long run, the emissions would be higher doing that. Planning Board Minutes 09-04-2018 Page 13 of 16 Ms. Fogarty said you’re only supplying 90 percent; how about the other ten percent? She just wondered whether there was a creative way to not increase the use of gas. Mr. Beyer said the reason they don’t think that’s a good idea is because the electricity that goes out now is displacing some electricity on the grid. They can use it inside for some purposes, but then they’re making the grid worse. When you do the math of the emissions both ways, you’re making it worse by using heat pumps on campus. Because loads go up and down and the turbines run steady or they’re not very efficient, sometimes there’s extra and it’s going out; other times electricity comes in from the grid, but more goes out than comes in. Mr. Wilcox gave the public a chance to speak. Mr. Ingraffea, Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering, Cornell, vehemently disagrees with a couple things said. His comments are outlined in Attachment #1. Reggie Teasley, retired sociologist, is a resident of Ithaca. People who serve the public have to make themselves aware of the issues surrounding climate change. The thing about scientific evidence is that it’s real whether you believe it or not. Global warming can easily produce a world in which civilization that is lost. It’s urgent. We’re pushing the envelope of what’s livable for human beings. In WWII, everybody had to do their part to deal with an existential threat. She thinks everybody now has to do everything they possibly can as soon as they can. The universities must lead, and housing is a perfect place to begin. Mitchell (Buzz) Lavine said he was a Tompkins County planner for 10 years and a town of Dryden planning board member for 20 years. His comments are in Attachment #2. Mr. Wilcox asked Mr. Lavine to clarify his comment regarding Cornell’s “speculative” earth source heat project being unlikely to be viable by 2035. Mr. Lavine responded that there are a lot of steps and a great expense. Each step depends on the previous step to know whether or not even to take it or how to take it. If they drill one deep well, that takes many years. Then they have to find out whether they’ve got the heat resource they need from it to make it worthwhile to drill the second well. Then they’llhave to communicate through the fractures in the deep earth at that level to get water pumped down the first well to come out the second well. And that would be the water that provides the heat for the system. If that works, it will be wonderful. He thinks it’s a low probability that it will work. Elmer Ewing, 1520 Slaterville Road, made his commentsin Attachment #3. He brought attention to Mr. Beyer’s comment that there a lot of ways to calculate these things. That’s the trouble. The figure that was previously used for methane as a greenhouse gas was that it was 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. That’s because they were using a timeframe of 100 years because methane gets broken down much faster than CO2. The trouble is, we don’thave 100 years. Changes are coming faster than the most pessimistic models had said as far as the development of global climate change. Also, they’ve been figuring these things out in more detail and now the accepted figure is 100 times more. Then there’s the question of upstream methane leakage being accounted for, and there are lots of figures for the percentage of leaking. There’s a need for some really good base data and for the board Planning Board Minutes 09-04-2018 Page 14 of 16 to have availablewhat data was used and how it was used and what arethe calculations. In other words, he thinks it deserves an EIS. He thinks the board should work as hard as they can to make that happen. Everyone seems to agree that it needs to be a tighter building, better than what was present- ed. We ought to be looking at Net Zero energy buildings. He still thinks that until we get better data, the heat pumps are a better way to go. And we ought to see the data to compare the two methods. Peter Bardaglio, resident of Trumansburg, focused his comments on building to net-zero standards. See attachment #4. Jonathan Comstock, HeatSmart program director, said the program tries to help residents of the county to do retrofits of their homes to improve the insulation and to convert to heat pumps, if possible. HeatSmart started in Tompkins County. We invented the name and the program. There is now HeatSmart Massachusetts. There are eight community programs around New York that call themselves HeatSmart. This is a recognized goal and priority by multiple states in the northeast and across the country. Mr. Beyer said it was a major goal to minimize any future increase in electricity. All of these regional efforts assume that when we go from a summer peak to a winter peak, we will be using more electricity. They also recognize there is no way to get off fossil fuels without employing beneficial electrification. In many places in the country, we have major storage capacity in the grid, so a lot of intermittency issues that get pulled up to say we couldn’t possibly do it with renewables are actually being solved and will be solved as we increase our amount of renewable energy. The only way this project ever becomes environmentally beneficial is if they manage to switch over to the deep earth source. There is no guarantee that if they ever drill those holes, it will actually work. It’s all an experiment. It’s like we’re going to Vegas and betting the planet on a roulette wheel. It’s a great research project, but it is not justifiable to assume that it smoothly moves in and takes over the energy demand. He mentioned that Jay Egg, an internationally recognized expert on geothermal at all scales, from full campuses to individual homes, will be coming to Ithaca and will address this project. Margaret McCasland, science and environmental educator, runs a project called Energy Savings for Renters. What can be done at this point? None of these meetings are early stage design charrettes. Cornell isn’t asking us for input on how they should be expanding their student residences; they’re preparing us for the inconvenience and the construction phase. They chose an architectural firm that’s primarily known for glass curtain walls and that considers LEED Silver a standard design option. When they retrofit those dorms on North Campus, she hopes they start choosing architects that are known for net-zero designs. Because the options at this point are limited, what Cornell needs to do is offset the limits to their options. Twelve years ago, she and others thought that combined heat and power was a really cool idea. We didn’t stop to think that boiling water to create steam to turn turbines to generate electricity is absurd. There is no good anything to burn and it’s an ineffi- cient way to turn turbines. Water turns turbines; wind turns turbines. It went online as a flex fuel plan, but it turned out that biomass wasn’t an option. The turbines last about ten years; this means they’re about to become replaced for another ten years. She hops they don’t get replaced a third time. What can be done in the meantime? We have to look at options besides the very iffy deep thermal. Cornell will need to offset the many emissions that will be generated because of relying on the combined heat and power for the North Campus expansion. When they start renovating the existing dorms, they should do as much as possible to turn those into net-zero buildings. They should do whatever possible to make sure the transportation for the over-3000 students the expansion will create is as fossil fuel free as possible. What they hopefully can still do is improve the building envelope, that the curtain walls use as efficient a gas as possible. Transportation is not just for those students, but the Planning Board Minutes 09-04-2018 Page 15 of 16 tens of thousands of students and staff going to and from campus every day. They should up their subsidy of the TCAT system. Joe Wilson, town of Dryden, is spending his retirement years studying these issues. He’s been to every meeting regarding this project and regarding the deep earth project. He doesn’t oppose the NCRE; he thinks it can be improved. His comments are in Attachment #5. Cornell’s proposal is not going to get greener. Couple this with Cornell’s East Hill Village expansion, and we are going to be drowned in methane emissions. So saying to Cornell, fix NCRE now, makes sense. The timeline is their timeline. The town is not bound by that. It assumes a negative declaration: no significant environmental impacts. That means no EIS, no systematic review of the data. That’s ridiculous. This is much too important. If there’s no EIS, then there will be no scoping, no outlining of what should be considered and how it should be considered. That means there will be no review of the findings the board makes. That means the public doesn’t get to see what you think and get to comment on it. If there’s no EIS, then Cornell can cherry-pick the methane emissions data it offers, the alternatives it professes to discuss, the mitigation measures it professes to discuss. It allows Cornell to shield themselves through Taitem Engineering and the report they wrote. That shouldn’t fly. If we’re to take the notion that by 2035, deep earth is going to be heating NCRE, when we know we have no funding for this. It’s going to take 17 years to get those holes drilled and see if they work. No funding and 17 years minimum, and no promise that it’s going to work. If you go deep into the application, you see that the alterna- tive to deep earth is ground source heat pumps. It’s basically saying that they’re engineering NCRE for ground source heat pumps because it’s the same plumbing as deep earth. If that’s so, do it now, and save us up to 50 years of straight methane emissions. He suggests that the board get the infor- mation in his memo and get it before theystart answering part 2 and part 3 of the FEAF, before you start drafting your comments to the city. And when you think you have competent information, then do those things. In the meantime, write the city and tell them there are potentially significant negative environmental impacts you think exist and signal to the city that Cornell’s timeline is not binding on them or you and that you will insist on competent and complete information before you do the work you have to do and share with the city what your concerns are. He understands that neither the town nor city has sent over the application to the county for a 239 review. He suggests they do. Mary Alice \[inaudible\], a concerned citizen, said she really applauds the board’s efforts and hopes they demand an EIS. She’s looking for leadership and as it comes, it’s always local, and she doesn’t see it coming from Cornell. She wants the process slowed down until we get competent and complete information, not on the Cornell timeline, not in 17 years when they decide they should go back to heat pumps. Hopefully, they’ll have the deep earth thing going in 17 years. Brian Eden, said if you’re not aware of the things other institutions are doing, this offer might seem generous, but we’re talking about a LEED Silver building. The city asked almost no questions. He asked them if we’re going to take this information from Cornell at face value. There is a varying level of climate alertness. He brought attention to two papers, both published in August. The first is the Hothouse Earth paper that talks about thatwe’re approaching thresholds where the feedback loops will kick in and then our decisions won’t be that relevant anymore; it will be taken out of our hands. The second article, Understatement of Existential Climate Risk, saysthatbecause scientists have been pounding so hard on the issue of climate change, they’ve made very conservative estimates, and they’re all falling short of what the predictions are. The project, if constructed ten years ago, would have been exemplary. The projected lifecycle emissions seem to be a moving target. The town and city need better justifications for why certain mitigation measures are not being incorporated into the Buubdinfou$2 Buubdinfou$3 Comments to Town of Ithaca Planning Board 9/4/18 Re: Cornell NCRE Project Mitchell Lavine buzz@baka.com Heating Systems and Climate Change I’m wearing my old planner’s hat in making these comments. I was a planner for Tompkins County for 10 years, and I also served on the Town of Dryden Planning Board for 20 years. In addition I have degrees in architecture and landscape architecture and was on the Cornell faculty for 10 years in environmental analysis and energy analysis. So I have relevant expertise and also have sat in your seats before, working to understand and review many project proposals. I will say that, from my perspective, you folks have been doing a verycommendable job in recent years. Importance of Methane Emissions In these comments I’m focusing on what I consider to be the most problematic aspect of the Cornell proposal -the heating systems and their outsized effect on climate change. This may seemrather specialized, but the rapidly increasing and often drastic effects of climate change make it important for the Town to consider it one of the most important concerns. Simply put, the Cornell proposal considerably increases natural gas demand, and that inherently increases methane emissions. And due to the speed with which methane acts as a powerful green house gas, reducing or stopping its emissions is our best hope for avoiding increasingly drastic climate-change effects. If we allow these buildings to increase methane emissions, the very students who will be living in those buildings will eventually blame us for their drastic climate-change effects that we could have lessened. I commend you for including a methane emissions question on your EAF form. Cornell answered “No,” that their proposal will not generate methane (page 57 of the application). I encourage you to require Cornell to consider the very consequential upstream methane emissions associated with using the natural gas that fuels theCombined Heat and Power Plant which is the source of heating the buildings. A more forthright answer to that question should be “Yes.” And the follow-up question should then be answered, to quantify the associated methane emissions. Cornell certainlyhas knowledge of these emissions and, with respect to the campus as a whole, has even quantified and published them before. They found that upstream methane emissions alone have nearly three times the effect of all the other greenhouse gas emissions combined for the In fact Cornell’s conclusion in that paper is that, campus. after recognizing those very large methane-emission effects, “we must transition as quickly as possible away from fossil fuels.”(See their “Sustainable Campus” paper on “Cornell Greenhouse Gas Emissions” https://www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/initiatives/greenhouse-gas-emissions-invent ory.) Need for Proposing Alternative Heating Systems Cornell’s plan to increase the use of natural gas in this project is in direct opposition to both the Town’s and the County’s plans to do just the opposite. Noting that, and heeding Cornell’s own conclusion above, you should require them to propose alternatives for heating the buildings. Those alternatives should aim toward reducing or stopping methane emissions from day one of operation. And don’t be fooled that Cornell’s very speculative and very far-in-the-future Earth Source Heat project will save the day. Ground source heat pumps, driven by grid electricity and perhaps eventually by Cornell’s own renewably produced electricity, seem like a good alternative, one that could be built from day one. SEQR & the Need for a Positive Declaration of Environmental Impact Note also that upstream emissions fall under the category of indirect and cumulative impacts that must be evaluated under SEQR. And the Town need not have inhouse expertise to review the calculations on this issue. Reviewers of reports under SEQR have the right to hire outside experts for that purpose -and charge the project proposer for the expense. It’s true that only the lead agency may charge the proposer such SEQR fees. However, because the lead agency’s review must include the concerns of all other involved agencies, it may use SEQR fees to cover the costs of hiring the experts. Therefore I encourage you to let the City, as lead agency, know of your concern, in writing, regarding such upstream emissions from the proposed project.The very large upstream methane emissions alone is sufficient for a positive declaration of environmental impact for this proposal. Taking the above steps should be quite straightforward. That’s our responsibility, in order to help avoid increasingly drastic climate change effects. At least then we’ll have done what we could for our kids and grandkids, and of course for the students who will be living in these buildings in the future. Buubdinfou$4 Commentsto Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on Cornell's NCRE Project September 4, 2018 I appreciate the chance to comment. My name is Elmer Ewing; I live in the Town of Ithaca at 1520 Slaterville Road. I am here to ask you to act as an "Involved Agency" under SEQR for this project.As such, I ask youto insist that Cornell provide the information necessaryfullyto address energyand emissionconcerns in an EIS. Joe Wilson, in an excellent memo that he sent to you and shared with me, has identified the concerns I have in mind. I won't repeat them here, but I want to say why I find them to beimportant. Two doomsday scenarios dangle over our heads: nuclear war and an out of control climate. Scientists have devised a clock to indicate how close we are to the former--they move the hand closer to midnight when world politics are looking ugly, and occasionally set it back a minute or twoif a nuclear treaty is signed. I ask you to imagine a similar clock for climate change. The hand has been moving at an accelerating rate. Human activity has caused this. If we change our ways, we can slow down the hand, but there comes a point after which we cannot set the hand back. When enough polar ice and glaciers have melted, no human act can restore them; clouds of methane released when permafrost melts cannot be recaptured; when the Gulf Current stops flowing because the salt concentration has been diluted, we won't make it run again. There is no place to put all the extra water when the oceans overflow. Cornell knows the inconvenient truth about this clock, but as an emeritus Cornell professor, I am deeply disappointed with the plan devised for the North Campus. I urge a much higher standard--near net zero buildings that require far less energy to heat and cool, buildings that use heat pumps rather than natural gas for the climate control that is needed. I know Cornell is in a hurry to get those dorms up, and for good reason. I know it wants to keep the costs down, and these days the cost matters. But the climate clock is running. It is time, it is past time, to prioritize the things that matter mostover the things that matter much. Please work to make what matters most happen.Thank you. Buubdinfou$5 Comments to Town of Ithaca Planning Board on Cornell’s Proposed North Campus Expansion Peter Bardaglio –September 2, 2018 I am a resident of Trumansburg and am the founder and coordinator of the Tompkins County Climate Protection Intiative (www.tccpi.org). I servedfrom 2002 to 2007 as provost at Ithaca College and am co- author of the book Boldly Sustainable: Hope and Opportunity for Higher Education in the Age of Climate Change(Washington, D.C.: National Association of College and University Business Officers, 2009). So I am very familiar with campus climate and sustainability issues nationally as well as locally. I’m writing to ask CornellUniversityand the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to take a closer look at the possibility of building zero net energy residence halls on the North Campus. Cornell built to net-zero standards recently on Roosevelt Island in New York City. I grant that the building receiveda major gift from Bloomberg Philanthropies,so the center clearly had lots ofbells and whistles that added to its cost. The point here is that Cornellclearlyknows how to build high performancebuildings, and they can do that in Ithaca without the bells and whistlesof the Bloomberg Center. Net zero energy residence halls, like Ithaca College’s LEED Platinum business school building,would be a powerful teaching and learning tool for Cornell undergraduate students. It would help provide them with both the hope and knowledge they need to face coming climate crisis, and coming it is, make no mistake about that. Without the bells and whistles,net zero energy buildings can be cost effective. As a 2014 National Renewable Energy Laboratoryreport, Cost Control Strategies for Zero Energy Buildings, states,"The prevailing industry perception is that zero energy is cost prohibitive and suitable only for showcase projects with atypical, large budgets; however, there is mounting evidence that zero energy can, in many cases, be achieved within typical construction budgets." The key factors to keeping a net zeroconstruction project on budget are as follows: 1) Setthe net zero energy goal at the beginning; 2) Put together an integrated, cross-disciplinary design and construction team;and 3) Take into consideration life-cycle cost impacts. Regardingthe last item: the most expensive part of any building by far is its operation and maintenance. Although it may cost an extra 4-5% in somecases to build a high performancebuilding, that extra “cost” is actually an investment that will easily be recovered,and then some,over the life of the building. It should be pointed out that SUNY Chancellor Johnson has recently established importantclimate and energy goals for the SUNYsystem, including: o Sourcing 100% of electricity grid supplied electricity from renewable sources o Designing new buildings to be capable of zero-net carbon emissions o Performing deep energy retrofits on existing buildings to bring them to net zero I spokeby phone theweekbefore last withEricMazzone, energy managerfor the SUNY System Administration. Mr. Mazzone emphasized that SUNY takes these goals very seriously and they are not just aspirational in nature.As evidence in support of this commitment, he noted that SUNY Oneonta is currently retrofitting one of its residence halls to be net zero. The implication is clear: if SUNY Oneonta can do this, then Cornell should also be able to do this. According to the December 2017 issue of the SUNY Office for Capital Facilities Newsletter,“The Office for Capital Facilities believes the potential of achieving ‘net zero’energy usage in residence halls not only 2 helps support SUNY’s ongoing energy saving goals, but also provides campuses with an exciting opportunity to improve the overall living learning experience for students, all while lowering the operating costs of facilities.”I couldn’t agree more, and hope that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board will ask Cornell to up its game and take a closer look at the possibility of net zero or at least near net zero residence halls on the North Campus. In doing so, Cornell could tie into the district heating loop as proposed and preserve its option of moving to deep source heat if that technology proves viable, and thus forego the damage inflicted by a dramatic increase in methane emissions that would result from heating a building whose envelope is only 25 percent better than code, as the current plan calls for. 3 Buubdinfou$6 To: Members of the City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board Re: North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE): Need for More Information on Energy, Emissions, Alternatives, and Mitigation Measures Date: August 27, 2018 Respectfully Submitted: Joseph Wilson and 17 other signatories (listed at the end) We are residents of the City, Town, and County who have come together to review Cornell's proposal for the NCRE, with a particular focus on its energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. We have each spent years working on energy policy, building on our professional backgrounds in government and law; architecture, city and regional planning and development; education administration and policy; engineering, physical, biological and health sciences; and philosophy and other social sciences. Our analysis of the proposal and our comments on both the proposal and the application process also reflect our deep concern for the effects of climate change. For one analytical framework,we used the Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an Environmental Impact Statement (hereafter Guide), Department of Environmental 1 Conservation (DEC), 2009. We used the Guide firstly because Cornell's Application refers to some points in the Guide. Secondly, the Guide can be used by local agencies, such as your Board, serving as 2 the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Lead Agency. Thirdly, we have not found other pertinent guidance in either the City or the Town of Ithaca's environmental review laws. Two directions in the Guide are critical to your role as Lead Agency: must weigh the global warming implications of the propos\[al\]In making Findings, it remains fundamental that the alternative\[s\] to be selected or approved will avoid or minimize significant 3 adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable \[Emphasis added.\] Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) 4rd Workbook (hereafter the Workbook), The SEQR Handbook, 3 Edition (2010) (hereafter the 5 Handbook), and the applicable State regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 617. All are often relied on by planning staffs and Lead Agencies in completing SEQR-based environmental reviews. 1 https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/eisghgpolicy.pdf. 2 to use relevant parts of this guide when serving as SEQR lead agency for a project subject to an \[Environmental Impact Statement\] that includes a discussion of energy use or 3 Page 11, the Guide 4 http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/feafprint.pdf. 5 http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf 1/7 A. KEY INFORMATION MISSING Despite the Application being many pages long, it does not include information you should have before you to answer the FEAF Part 2 questions, make Findings under FEAF Part 3, and do the 6 Scoping of the Environmental Impact Statement. As Lead Agency you have the right to make 7 reasonable requests for additional information from the Applicant, and we believe the information described below exists or is readily available. 1. Missing: Amount of Methane Emissions Generated by Using Gas as Proposed. The primary component of the gas the Applicant proposes to use to heat and electrify the NCRE is methane (CH4). The International Panel on Climate Control says that methane has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) 100 times greater than CO2 over the first 10 years of being emitted into the 8 atmosphere. (In other words, methane traps 9,900% more heat.) Thus any methane extraction that can be avoided during the next 10-20 years will have a significant impact on reducing Climate Change. Both the Guide and the Workbook require a quantification and impact evaluation of methane 910 (CH4) separate and apart from CO2. Despite this requirement, Cornell left this information 11 out of its Application. 6 fication or expansion of information submitted in Part 1 \[of an FEAF\] if it is needed to answer the questions in Part 2. New information that is requested could come from currently existing or readily available sources, or site specific information collectInstructions for Completing Part 7 See page 3, Workbook Handbook, 8 http://csc-production.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/10/03/18/55/36/efe6d035-d108-4eb7-abbd-c2ee4c5be2cf/Methane Leakage and the Greenhouse Gas Inventory for Cornell University - 2016.pdf 9 o be a significant fraction of total project emissions, DEC \[or local Lead Agency\] staff may include these categories during scoping for the EIS. In these cases, \[the Lead Agency\] and the project proponent would also need to address quantification methodology in the EIS scoping Guide. See also: page 4, Guide 10 A Lead Agency has the discretion to identify such environmental impacts that it believes are negative and significant and to complete Part 2 and 3 of the FEAF to so indicate. The Lead Agency is not restricted to the form of the sub- -question or simply add language describing the significant impacts it has identified. See the policy statement in the Workbook the EAF's need to be completed according to the Part 617 regulations, interpretation on the size or significance of \[Emphasis added.\] See also: Workbook, regarding the Applicant's completing Part 1, Question D2, f, g, h, i at pages 33, 47, 48, 50 and Lead 11 In answering the question in the FEAF relating to whether methane would be generated by the project, Cornell 2/7 Because unburned methane leaks throughout the drilling, extraction, production, compression, storage, and transmission processes, it is when quantifying and assessing the impact of burning methane, in addition to the amount of CO2 released at the point of intentional combustion. Surprisingly, while not sharing this data in this Application, Cornell has done the calculations for the Ithaca campus as a whole, as posted on its web 12 2035. i this memo. Figure 2 shows that Cornell's greenhouse gas emissions have exploded since it began using methane - And yet Cornell proposes to burn even more gas in this way to power the NCRE, further increasing its emissions. Cornell Professor Robert Howarth, one of the world's acknowledged experts on greenhouse gas emissions, estimates that Cornell's annual emissions will grow to 5,700 metric tons of CO2e when upstream emissions are included. This is almost 13 Ironically, Cornell makes its own case against using more gas to power the NCRE: fully account for \[upstream methane leakage\], we further underscore what we have known for years that we must transition as quickly as possible away from fossil fuels, \[because\] the 14 additional shadow footprint \[of m \[Emphasis added.\] 2. Missing: Emission data in a way that is useful to your decision-making. According to emission data we have found, heat pumps driven by grid electricity would result in significantly less greenhouse gas emissions than methane burned in the co-generation plant. The data, however, should be produced for you and for the public in understandable formats. Here is a short list of the kinds of data and formats tha answ-questions about the amount of methane and mitigation measures were not answered. See page 57 of the Application. 12 https://www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/initiatives/greenhouse-gas-emissions-inventory 13 August 13, 2018 email from Howarth 14 2008 and is an accounting through 2016two years ago. In eight years, then, Cornell increased its methane emissions, alone, 10 times. This 600,000 MT of CO2e does NOT include the estimated additional 5700 MT of annual emissions of CO2e (285,000 MT over 50-year life of the buildings) to be generated if Cornell is permitted to power NCRE using gas - 3/7 proposed use of methane: a. all the data required by the Guide regarding methane. b. data comparing the emissions to be generated by using gas as proposed in the Cornell co- generation plant with the emissions to be generated by using grid electricity to operate NCRE (heat and 15 electricity) over the 50-year useful life of the buildings; (The emission data are to include upstream methane emissions for both sources.) c. the mix of fuels assumed to be making up the sources for grid electricity should be also specified over the 50 year useful life of NCRE. 3. Missing or Incomplete: Emissions Avoided by Building to Higher Standards than Proposed. f Silver-level certification under the LEED v4 -reviewed study comparing office buildings in New York City indicates that the proposed level of certification will not With regard to energy consumption and GHG emission, the LEED-certified buildings, collectively, showed no savings as compared with non-LEED buildings. ... LEED Silver and Certified office buildings underperformed other NYC office buildings. 16 As noted above, you have the right to make reasonable requests for additional information from the Applicant, and we understand your law provides for your getting independent advice on the effects 17 of building to higher standards. Given the inadequacy of building to LEED Silver, and because you are charged with investigating and deciding what alternatives to the proposed design are reasonable and practicable to be required, you should also get information on building to LEED Gold, Passive House, net--. This information should include comparative cost per square foot data. Cornell already has access to such information, since it recently built to Passive House 15 That grid electricity is less methane-intense (and less fossil fuel- its co-generation plant is acknowledged in the Application, although no specifics are offered. Also, grid electricity will become less and less methane-intense over the next 50 years because of State policy requiring suppliers to the grid to use an increasing percentage of renewables. Thus both now and increasingly over the life of these buildings, there will be fewer emissions from using grid electricity than from burning methane to generate electricity. (Obviously, should Cornell choose to power the NCRE with renewables from the start--which is do-able, emissions would be dramatically reduced.) 16 -certification in reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions for Energy and Buildings, Vol. 67, December 2013, pages 517-524 at page 524. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037877881300529X#fn0005 17 Most local municipalities have this provision in their laws; so we did not try to find the specific citation in City law. 4/7 standards on its Roosevelt Island campus; its developer built the Cornell Maplewood Graduate Student - House buildings locally. In addition, the SUNY system has a goal of designing new buildings to be capable of net-zero standards; thus the SUNY Office for Capital Facilities would also be a source of 18 pertinent information. such as cost per square foot must be shared. We also believe more comprehensive data should be provided regarding window-to-wall ratios. More specifically, there is a well-done discussion of this topic and its practicality in your own 19 Green Building Policy at pages 25-27. This discussion strongly suggests that Cornell could build inviting dormitories with much less glass than is now proposed, reducing energy demand and thus emissions. Therefore, we encourage you to obtain the data which would show how much emissions could be reduced by following the recommendations described. B. NOT FULLY ANALYZED: Alternatives and Mitigation Measures. your consideration: 1. Obtaining additional sources of renewable energy. Apparently Cornell sees itself as limited to its current renewable sources by State guidelines, but we understand there are do-able work-arounds, such as opening new accounts and/or establishing a micro grid. 2. Storing solar-heated hot water for peak demand periods. Cornell indicates that solar heating to create hot water is not viable because the demand is too great when residents want to shower at the same times. We are aware of campuses where storage addresses this issue. 3. Value engineering attractive) wall and floor coverings and then using the savings to offset the initial cost of installing ground source heat pumps. Simpler aesthetics for incoming students in the name of reducing their exposure to climate change would be a selling point to the generation who already face substantial Global Climate Disruption. 18 http://system.suny.edu/media/suny/content-assets/documents/capital-facilities/newsletter/OCF-Newsletter-Issue-22--- July-2018.pdf 19 http://www.ithacagreenbuilding.com/ 5/7 FINAL POINTS: In addition to the charges in the Guide to you as Lead Agency to consider the global warming implications of this project and to minimize emissions and energy consumption, you and we share responsibility as stewards of the environment. While methane was once promoted some of the most important ones done at Cornell, have informed us that extracting and burning methane (AKA natural gas) is as dangerous for local and global ecosystems as coal. In The Land Ethic, 20 As cited above, W\]e further underscore what we have known for years In designing and approving buildings for the North Campus Residential Expansion that are more energy-efficient and that have ecologically-sourced heat and electricity, Cornell University and the City of Ithaca can once again demonstrate their leadership in the construction and operation of ecological campuses, thus making the future safer for all of us. Respectfully submitted, Peter Bardaglio Margaret McCasland Thomas Blecher Marie McRae Carol Chock Judith Pierpont Brian Eden Kathryn Russell Eliza Evett Sara Schaffzin Elmer Ewing Antonia Lhamo Shouse-Salpeter Charles Geisler Regi Teasley Sara Hess Joseph Wilson Mitchell Lavine 20 https://www.aldoleopold.org/about/the-land-ethic/ 6/7 Figure 2: Cornell University Greenhouse Gas Inventory with Scope 3 Upstream Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Published 12.13.17 When we fully account for these new, additional sources, we further underscore what we have known for years that we must transition as quickly as possible away from fossil fuels, as the additional shadow footprint this illuminates adds well over 600,000 MT of co2e. Regardless, our ultimate goal is to reach carbon neutrality by 2035, and power the campus with 100% renewable ener- gy in that same time frame. We will continue to aggressively pursue those goals through Earth Source Heat, efficiency projects, wind, water and solar power procurement, and with your help engaging in living laboratory research and helping change behav- ior to create a sustainable culture on campus. i Figure 2: Cornell University Greenhouse Gas Inventory with Scope 3 Upstream Methane Emissions from Natural Gas 7/7 Buubdinfou$7 Sept. 4, 2018 To: Ithaca Town Planning Board Members From: Charles Geisler, Cornell Emeritus Professor I retired from Cornell three years ago and was proud of the university’s growing commitment to restrain global warming (Cornell Action Plan at https://www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/climate- ) and produce deep climate consciousness among its students. But earlier this year Cornell action back-tracked. It proposed to build housing for 2000 additional students heated with cheap natural gas, despite research on natural gas methane as an imposing GHG by respected Cornell scientists. As an individual I have few waysto directCornell toconsider alternatives to natural gas.But as aNYS resident, I have access to one of the strongestenvironmental review toolsin the country. This isNew York’s State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process. It’s established law acrossNYSand ready-made for projects like this. It would be derelict for a decision-making agency with Involved Agency standing under SEQR to allow anything less than a comprehensive EIS of Cornell’s application. No exemptions, no special deference. Cornell is not an island. Here are five reasons for adhering to SEQR in the application at hand: 1.Home ruleat its best: Thanks to SEQR,New York is one of only eight states that allows local governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts ofapplications. Regarding Cornell’s Application, Ithaca’s Planning and Development Board is the lead agency and the Town is an Involved Agency. In this capacity, you have considerable influence through what SEQR calls CoordinatedReview—assisting the lead agency in determining the significance of environmental impacts and in scoping the EIS. This collaboration is home rule at its best and NY is a strong home rule state. 2.Prudence: The SEQR process often arrives at a Title I Action designation (triggering an EIS) even if environmental harm only may be significant. If my fears are misplaced and the SEQR EIS finds theGHG effects of Cornell’sresidential build-outto be insignificant, Involved Agencies will have the satisfaction of requiring a fact-based assessment and following prudent behavior. 3.SEQR isencompassing: The lead agency must identify all relevant areas of environmental concern,regardless of whether these are within its jurisdiction, including those separated by time or distance.Climate change become immediately relevant. 4.Mitigation: Unlike most other states, SEQR canrequire changes that “mitigate” environmental impact and minimize adverse environmental impacts. This affordsthe Town, as an Involved Agency, bothresponsibility and opportunity. 5.Scoping: SEQR can facilitate beneficial scoping. It is allowed, not required. Scoping is an opportunity for the public to offer input; it is also the time and place to consider reason- able alternatives to the action—a cornerstone of SEQR. Scoping is good common sense. New York’s SEQR is the appropriate tool to weigh the wisdom of additional natural gas reliance in local jurisdictions and with global consequences. It embodies the cautionary principles of informed consent and informed restraint. Please, as an Involved Agency in the Cornell Application, insist on a full and fair SEQR process. .