The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTB Minutes 2021-06-14MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD Monday, June 14, 2021 5:30 p.m. ZOOM ID 566 489 2655 1. Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Persons to be heard and Board Comments 3. Public Hearings a. Regarding a noise permit application for Ithaca Beer Co Summer Music Series i. Consider Approval/Denial b. Energy Code Supplement (ECS) local laws: add Chapter 144 "Energy Code Supplement" to the Ithaca Town Code, and adding Energy Code Supplement References to Chapter 125, "Building Construction and Fire Prevention," Chapter 207, "Rental Property," and Chapter 270, "Zoning" and Chapter 272, "New Neighborhood Code" i. SEQR ii. Adoption of Local Law(s) 4. Consider setting a public hearing regarding a local law to override the Tax Levy limit 5. Consider setting a public hearing regarding a noise permit for summer music series at: a. RaNic Golf Club and Parilla Restaurant (formerly Country Club) b. Agava 6. Consider approval of the 2022 Access Oversight Committee budget 7. Consider speed limit requests from: a. Elm St Ext b. Hopkins Rd between Bundy Rd and Hayts Rd c. Deer Run Subdivision Roads 8. Consider designation of second Town Depository and opening a Certificate of Deposit 9. Discuss 2021 City of Ithaca Fire Department budget 10. Consider setting a public hearing for a proposed local law entitled "amending Zoning Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Zoning: Special Land Use Districts" to modify and expand the permitted uses in Planned Development Zone No 12 (South Hill Business Campus) 11. Consider authorization for the Supervisor to sign a supplemental agreement with Behan Associates re. Inlet Valley/Elmira Rd 12. Consider Consent Agenda a. Approval of Town Board Minutes b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Approval of Bolton Point Abstract d. Approval of closing Capital Project — 96B Sidewalk e. Acknowledge receipt of Ethics Disclosure Forms f. Acknowledge receipt of IC Wetlands Easement Inspections 13. Report of Town Officials 14. Review of Correspondence 15. Adjournment 1, Becky Jordan, being duly sworn, say that I am the Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: ADVERTISEMENT/NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL F1 NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PUBLIC [.1 INTEREST ORDER • Proposed LL Adding Chapter 144 Energy Code Supplement • Proposed LL Amending Chapters 12 207, 270, & 272 adding refences to ECS • Noise Permit Application for Ithaca Beer's Summer Music Series I Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 *Becky Jor D Dutv4 eputy To lerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this V' day of June 2021. otary 3ublic N"cQoRumeDsvliiiEmwwBWOoinohMEs*cam uYMtaALYLEY yUC,M O-W mYy— O No.0IK6025073 C17.209RK3 Public Notices Town of ithaca ' � Notice of Public Hearings The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold public Ihearings at 5:30 p.m. at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga treet, Ithaca, New York on the 14th day of June, 2021 and via,the ZOOM video and audio conferencing plat- form, ZOOM ID 566 489 2655 per Governor Cuomo's Exec- utive Order(s) and Extension(s) regarding safety efforts associated with COVID-19 and in -person attendance at igs, for the purpose of considering the fol, sed local laws. iw addinp Chapter 144, Title "Enervy Code -Tcleme t- I cl� u* If it r. Che Town o haca Code k A Local L"endlng Chapter 125, "Buildin Con struction in&Flre Prevention,"' to Add Energy Co a Sup- plement References to the Town of Ithaca Code 3. A Local Law Amending Chapter 207 "Rental Property, AdclEnergy Code Supplement References'to, the Town Ithaca Co e I N� 4. A Local Law Amending Chapter 270, "Zoninq" to Add Ene"', ode Supplement References to the Town of Itha ca C.&C 5 A Local Law Amending Chapter 272, "New Neighbor- hood Code," to Add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code And to consider 6. An application for a noise permit submitted b Ithaca Beer for their summer music series held Wednes ay eve niln frogs beginning in June and running through September, m 6pm-apm Information on all topics can be found on the Town ,website under notices or from the Town Clerks office by emailing tgt rraglerk tcswvnj haca. Yus. Paulette Rosa Town Clerk June 2, 2021 6/5/2021 Monday, June 14, 2021 5:30 p.m. The meeting was held via video conference due to the extension(s) of Gov. Cuomo's Executive Order suspending certain aspects of OML. MINUTES Board Members Present: Rod Howe, Supervisor; Members Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman, Tee -Ann Hunter, Pat Leary and Pamela Bleiwas Staff Present: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Judy Drake, Director of Human Resources; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Becky Jordan, Deputy Town Clerk; Joe Slater, Director of Public Works; Donna Shaw, Director of Finance; and Dan Thaete, Director of Engineering 1. Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance Mr. Howe opened the meeting and lead the pledge. 2. Persons to be heard and Board Comments There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. Mr. Howe commented that June is Dairy month and Pride month, and the Pride flag is hanging at Town Hall. We are also one of the municipalities recognizing Juneteenth to mark the celebration which happened 2 years after some slaves in Texas learned about the Emancipation Proclamation and celebrated when they found out and became known as Juneteenth. We recognize that there are still things in our society that need to be addressed. 3. Public Hearings Mr. Howe opened the public hearing. No one wanted to address the Board and the hearing was closed. Mr. DePaolo moved the resolution and commented that this is a great example of how businesses and residents can work together to find what appear to be equitable solutions to balance the needs of both residents and businesses. This has worked out so far, and he anticipates it will continue. a. Regarding a noise permit application for Ithaca Beer Co Summer Music Series TB Resolution 2021 — 071: Noise permit for Ithaca Beer Co. for a Summer Music Series TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 1 Whereas, the Town Board held a public hearing on. June 14, 2021 regarding a noise permit application for a Summer Music Series received by Ithaca Beer Co., and discussed the request, and Whereas, as stated in the application speakers will be faced to prevent amplified noise bouncing off brewery and a straw or acoustic paneled backstage will be used, now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board grants a noise permit to Ithaca Beer Co. for the purpose of entertaining Guests at their location of 122 Ithaca Beer Dr., on. Wednesdays from 6:00 pm — 8:00 pm through their 2021 summer series of June 16th through September 29th, with the following Conditions: 1. That the mitigation measures detailed on the application and used successfully in past years are continued, and with the following Findings: 1. The waiver from the requirements of Town Code Chapter 184 for the above music event is necessary for a valid purpose, because music might not be able to conform at all times to the requirements of Chapter 184, and Ithaca Beer's Planned Development Zone specifically allows for music events, subject to or upon the issuance of any permits required (Town Code §271-15.1)(3), and 2. The waiver is the minimal intrusion needed, because the amplification is needed to provide dinner music to the area, and music is limited to 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., which hours are within "daytime hours" as defined by Town Code § 184-4; the entertainment is intended to be and has proven to be background in nature and not overly intrusive; the amplification speakers must be located on the taproom lawn and face Route 13 and have hay bales stacked to provide some mitigation where the band is playing, and 3. On balance, the need for and benefits of the waiver outweigh the needs and rights of the surrounding neighbors to a peaceable and quiet environment, because the music is for a limited amount of time during the early evenings on the specified dates, with the above - listed limitations in place to minimize the intrusion on the neighbors. Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Eric Levine Vote: ayes — Bleiwas, DePaolo, Goodman, Howe, Hunter, Leary, Levine b. Energy Code Supplement (ECS) local laws: add Chapter 144 "Energy Code Supplement" to the Ithaca Town Code, and adding Energy Code Supplement References to Chapter 125, "Building Construction and Fire Prevention," Chapter 207, "Rental Property," and Chapter 270, "Zoning" and Chapter 272, "New Neighborhood Code" TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 2 Mr. Howe opened the public hearing at 5:41 p.m. Bruce and Doug Brittain — Doug Brittain stated that he hoped the Board had read the memo he and Bruce sent out. (Attachment 1 *with all comments regarding this topic) It is pretty clear that everyone had the best intentions to reduce emissions, but this law doesn't do this the way the law is written now. The reason is it we don't have a green grid. Right now we can produce enough green energy to supply 17% of demand as shown on NYSEG.com and the EPA environmental disclosure. If you add nuclear, you can get a little over half which leaves 47% by burning things, which creates CO2. That is what we have the excess capacity in and if we increase electrical consumption, that is what they will do, burn more to meet the demand. He would appreciate it if the legislation was put off until 2040 when it might be a possibility to meet demand cleanly. Until then, fossil fuels out of the buildings is not as important as getting fossil fuels out of the power generation plant because it is so inefficient to produce power by burning; 36% instead of a furnace that can be 97% and the law as written requires you to have your back-up heat source be electric heat, which will be 36% efficient instead of 97% with the gas back up for an increase of 2.7 times as much CO2 as the gas back up. Ban on fossil fuels in the future, fine, do it in 2040 or it will backfire. Bruce Brittain added that he agrees with Doug. The grid is only 17% clean and if we put a new electrical load on the grid and meet the demand, will be shoveling on more coal. So it doesn't matter how green the grid is now, if we can't meet the load now, and we can't, then it is going to be met with dirty electricity. The big advantage of this legislation is heat pumps because they are more than 1.00% efficient, but, the back up heat, if that is electric, and you make that back up through electric instead of natural gas, you increase CO2. Please do not require electric as back up. Also, just because fuel is consumed offsite doesn't mean that pollution is not created and it seems like there is a lot of wishful thinking that if we do it offsite, it doesn't happen. He then addressed windows. This is just on example of how this legislation is completely backwards. There is a 20% window to wall ratio. It doesn't matter how much heat loss you have through opaque glass doors, skylights etc., what this law does not restrict for glass, is heat loss, and what it does restrict is view! If there is a benefit from that view! If there is a benefit from that view, if it increases productivity, if it makes a small room feel bigger, if it makes you feel better, if there is a passive solar, that's what this law limits to 20%. There is a minimum percentage recommended for livability and this law flips that around and makes it the maximum and we are going to end up with sub -standard housing. TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 3 He said he had a couple seconds left and mentioned the biggest loss in a water heater is keeping a tank of water hot and the best and most efficient method is a tankless, on - demand water heater and this law won't allow it. There are a lot of provisions in here that end up wasting energy and creating green house gases and he hoped we could clean it up before passing it. Sarah Hess spoke, saying that she sent in a comment, but she really wanted to speak to the urgency in passing this legislation because the climate changes are shockingly rapid and there is no reason for delay. Maybe it would make sense to do them sequentially, but we don't have time for that. Consider that there has been four plus years of work on this and it is a solid piece of legislation and she urged the Board to pass it tonight. There was no one else wishing to address the Board and the hearing was closed. Mr. Howe stated that the Board did receive comments late in the day that were distributed. Mr. Howe asked if members or staff wanted to address any statements they had heard. Mr. DePaolo thanked the Brittains for digging into this legislation and thought they were a valuable resource, and he appreciated their time on this. He added that at different points along the way on this legislation he had expressed some of the same concerns about the current mix of the grid versus high -efficiency options. He asked if he understood that the law only allows for up to 10% of heat to be supplemented with resistance electrical heating? He wondered if the efficiency of onsite gas appliances, would be taken into consideration for some kind of credit as a high - efficiency device. There is a difference between old, inefficient styles and current 97% models. Mr. Goldsmith responded that 10% cap is correct; and that is stand-alone of the heat pump which contains some electric resistance components. We did redo the analysis on heat pumps vs high efficiency boilers and heat pumps were still the better option. Mr. Shapiro, a member of the committee which drafted the legislation, added that you can have greater than 1.0% if you are choosing something other than the "easy" path where you get points for heat pumps. We don't require heat pumps or the small windows, it is only an option and you can get credit for a high energy furnace and other ideas discussed by the Brittains, they just can't be used on the "easy path." Mr. DePaolo said then there is a time when they will be though correct? Mr. Shapiro said the path is definitely towards eventual fossil fuel free net zero, but with no restrictions on windows; those are optional points geared toward affordability. TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 4 Mr. DePaolo asked if it were fair to call this fossil fuel free net zero? Mr. Goldsmith said it is more accurate to say no onsite combustion of fossil fuels; we are well aware that they burn fossil fuels at a power plant. Ms. Leary said we have talked about these issues for a few meetings now, and it defaults back to the idea that some of these things we are encouraging are under the point system, but, if they are not that desirable, then why are we encouraging them anyway since they will become mandatory at the end. She said she has some hesitation about these issues that have been brought up many times, especially the grid. She said she understands NYS is further along than the country, but she said she still remembers the "push for clean energy" in the 70's and what a disaster that was, and to rely on a technology that we are not sure about may be premature. She said she has tried to listen to the answers, but they haven't resolved the issue to her satisfaction and she has some hesitation about the law as it is written now. Ms. Bleiwas asked Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Shapiro about the efforts to move power plants to more green operations. Mr. Goldsmith said the goals for NYS are to have 70% renewable energy by 2030 and 100% zero emissions energy by 2040. The difference in terminology is that zero emissions electricity allows you to count in nuclear. Where are we now; it is more nuances than both I and the Brittains have presented it. It is not the 17% just from the NYSEG or the 40% from NY Upstate. Upstate has the cleanest grid in the United States, NYSEG is noticeably dirtier because they use more natural gas than hydro. We are somewhere in between the two. He said he has been invited to use the NY Upstate numbers; that is what Cornell and folks who do green gas inventories do when they measure their emission numbers. There is no perfect number, but that is the data set we chose to use. He said NYS is moving very aggressively towards electrification of buildings. Statewide it is about 30% operate on renewables but 23% are in the pipeline to move toward renewables. Mr. Shapiro added that they have done the calculations over and over using the most conservative estimates and as of today, putting a heat pump in your house will reduce your carbon emissions and that will increase over time. If you are building solar on your own building, you are using that energy directly for at least part of your needs. On net, even without solar and the current grid status, we are reducing emissions immediately and over time that will increasingly be the case. Mr. DePaolo asked that the Brittains be allowed to speak again. TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 5 Mr. Goodman thanked Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Shapiro for their efforts. Mr. Goodman said, in terms of some of the comments made, he stressed what Mr. Shapiro had said in that those points are optional and if people want to put lots of windows in, they can, they just have to choose another path than the "easy" path. Some of the points about the future; in 2026 when we go to saying that no fossil fuels will. be used for water heating or clothes drying etc., people can still put in more windows at that point so that doesn't bother me at all. They can choose to do that at any point in this timeline. In terms of the cleanliness of the grid, we should go ahead with this legislation tonight and he believes that the legislation and State requirements that are going to be put into effect on the grid in the future will make our grid even cleaner. He believed that wind and solar are only going to increase and we benefit from the hydro power from elsewhere in the State. In terms of not taxing the grid before it is ready, he wanted to remind people that this legislation is only dealing with new construction and major renovations and the big increase to the grid demand will be when we move to addressing existing buildings and encouraging people to make the change and so this is not going to make an unreasonable demand on the grid and that the plans of NYS will be able to accommodate those. Mr. Howe allowed the Brittains to speak again. Doug Brittain stated that they like heat pumps, the problem is the back up heat where you are required to have it as electric without earning any points and you can't earn any points if you have any gas or other fossil fuels in your home. That is the problem; you are requiring inefficient electrical backup, that is what is going to result in unnecessary CO2. We know it is better with heat pumps, we like that. The second point is the easy point system. That is what you should be liking the best. The only people who are going to take the whole -house path are those that can hire an engineer like Cornell, not the average person who is considering a new furnace aren't going to do that, they are going to take the easy path, so you better make sure that is the best path. As to the future, yes, we are moving forward, but that is in the future, and in 20 years that will be great, and then yes, require it then, but and if you pass this legislation now, it is going to backfire. Bruce Brittain said the grid is only 17%, it is great that Niagara Falls is higher, but that power doesn't come to us, it goes elsewhere, so our number is 17% and that is what should be used, we can't count stuff that isn't ours. Mr. Howe turned to the SEQR. Moved by Ms. Hunter, seconded by Mr. Levine. There was no discussion on SEQR. (Attachment 2) TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 6 TB Resolution 2021- 072: SEAR Regarding (1) A Local Law Adding Chapter 144 to the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled "Energy Code Supplement," (2) A Local Law Amending Chapter 125, "Building Construction and Fire Prevention," to add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code, (3) A Local Law Amending Chapter 207, "Rental Property," to add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code, (4) A Local Law Amending Chapter 270, "Zoning," to add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code, and (5) A Local Law Amending Chapter 272, "New Neighborhood Code," to add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code. Whereas, this action is the proposed enactment of: l . A Local Law Adding Chapter 144 to the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled `Energy Code Supplement, 2. A Local Law Amending Chapter 125, "Building Construction and Fire Prevention," to add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code, 3. A Local Law Amending Chapter 207, "Rental Property," to add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code, 4. A Local Law Amending Chapter 270, "Zoning," to add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code, 5. A Local Law Amending Chapter 272, "New Neighborhood Code," to add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code, and Whereas, this is an Unlisted Action for which the Ithaca Town Board is the Lead Agency in an environmental review with respect to the enactment of these local laws; and Whereas, the Town Board, at its regular meeting held on June 14, 2021, has reviewed, and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Parts 1, 2 and 3, for this action, prepared by the Town Planning staff, now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review, and Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code 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, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Tee -Ann Hunter Seconded: Eric Levine Vote: ayes - Bleiwas, Goodman, Howe, Hunter, Leary, Levine nay — DePaolo Mr. Howe turned to the draft resolution of adoption, moved by Mr. Goodman, seconded by Ms. Bleiwas. Mr. DePaolo stated that his SEQR vote was because he doesn't feel qualified to render an expert opinion on the environmental impacts of the legislation and the fact that we are Lead Agency means we have to make a decision on this and I think it rises to a long form, not the short form. TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 7 My primary question is going from a 6 point requirement to a 12 point requirement within a year and a half and my assumption is that will increase costs and he wondered if there were assumptions that green energy was going to be more affordable then or are we just trying to make it easier to ease into these requirements. Mr. Goldsmith responded that we think requiring 6 points at the beginning for residential will not have a cost impact and businesses may have a small impact. Going up to 12 points to net zero, we put an upper limit of 15% increase for net zero but prices have come down significantly and Rocky Mountain Institute did an analysis on net zero homes, specifically for Ithaca, and found a 6-8% net cost increase over the base State Code. Green technology cost have lowered since then and so we think there will be a fairly small or no increase. Mr. DePaolo asked if there has been an analysis on payback of investment. Mr. Shapiro responded to both questions, saying there has also been the introduction of Community Solar with no upfront costs. As for payback, there absolutely will be a payback in that you will be eliminating gas charges and the gas meter charge and saving on your electricity costs to put against the added construction costs. Mr. DePaolo asked about the exemptions for agricultural buildings and if that was required by State law or put in for economic reasons. Mr. Goodman responded that the exemption was discussed at Committee level and currently, the State building code does not apply to ag buildings. Mr. Moseley confirmed that a truly ag building does not and can not be required to get a building permit. Mr. DePaolo asked about 144-R 502.5.6.5 — "Reduction of renewable energy shall not count toward energy reduction" and elsewhere in the document it seems to count renewable energy. What is "energy reduction" then. Mr. Goodman responded that is part of the OP 6 Custom Energy Improvement and asked Mr. Goldsmith to respond. Mr. Goldsmith responded that it means that you can gain points for renewable energy under the renewable energy point but you can't get any energy points under this Custom path. Mr. DePaolo asked why biomass earns as much as ground source heat pumps in the summary table? Mr. Goldsmith responded that there is a lengthy response to all biomass questions in the comments. We are considering biomass either carbon neutral or very low carbon and hence awarding it accordingly. He said he knows some people think it is not good, but a lot of his position is based on information on Cooperative Extension, available on their website. TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 8 Mr. DePaolo said the idea is that biomass is circular in that emissions will be recaptured by new growth. Mr. Goldsmith said the only technologies allowed are those allowed by NYSERDA which are specific to those that adhere to particular emission standards, not a fireplace, for example. Ms. Leary asked about heat pumps; is this allowing backups to heat pumps or are we assuming that eventually there will only be heat pumps. Mr. Shapiro responded that we allow up to 1.0% back up and up until 2026 there is nothing stopping you from having any type of back up, you just can't get the points for it. We do that because is to the Brittains point, the electric resistance is high in energy costs, but over time, as the grid greens, it will lesson and over the life of a building, it will have zero impact. Ms. Leary said her only experience with heat pumps was during a hot day and they were only using heat pumps and it was very hot and she was told something failed and they did not have a backup. Mr. Shapiro said they had older technology, but any system can fail and have to be fixed and heat pumps are no exception. Mr. Goodman commented, saying delaying some of the requirements further until the grid is cleaner, aside from the points made by Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Shapiro, another point is that this is applying to new construction, if we don't require people to do so sooner than later, they will be putting other systems in and they will be less likely to switch later and it is much more costly to retrofit a clean system than to initially install one and that is why it is important to require them now for new buildings. Mr. Howe did a roll call for accuracy. TB Resolution 2021— 072b: Adoption of (1) A Local Law Adding Chapter 144 to the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled "Energy Code Supplement," (2) A Local Law Amending Chapter 125, "Building Construction and Fire Prevention," to add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code, (3) A Local Law Amending Chapter 207, "Rental Property," to add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code, (4) A Local Law Amending Chapter 270, "Zoning," to add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code, and (5) A Local Law Amending Chapter 272, "New Neighborhood Code," to add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code Whereas, climate change is causing an increase in extreme weather events, such as storms, flooding, and heat waves that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure in the Town of Ithaca (Town), New York State, and across the world; and TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 9 Whereas, there is a clear emerging international consensus that to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, global warming should be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius; and Whereas, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to human activity are the main cause of global warming, and buildings within the Town of Ithaca are the most significant contributor to local GHG emissions, responsible for more than half of all community GHG emissions; and Whereas, the Town Board unanimously adopted the Town's Green New Deal on March 23, 2020, which sets forth a goal to achieve an equitable transition to carbon -neutrality community - wide by 2030; and Whereas, New York State, through its Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, has set ambitious goals to combat climate change through GHG reduction, and state goals are in line with many of the objectives of the Energy Code Supplement ("ECS"), including reducing emissions in buildings, electrifying space heating, water heating, and cooking systems, increasing the use of renewable energy, and reducing the use of fossil fuels; and Whereas, the combustion of fossil fuels in homes and other buildings decreases internal air quality and has adverse impacts on human health; and Whereas, for new buildings, the most affordable and cost-effective time to reduce GHG emissions is during the design and construction phases of a project, rather than at a time of later retrofit; and Whereas, pursuant to section 11-109 of the New York State Energy Law, and subject to the provisions and requirements of that section, municipalities may promulgate local energy conservation construction codes more stringent than the NYS Energy Code; and Whereas, Town Code Chapter 144, Energy Code Supplement, is a local energy code supplement for all new construction, certain additions, and major renovations, with requirements above and beyond the state energy code that will become more stringent over time; and Whereas, the requirements set forth give priority to electrification, renewable energy, and affordability, and will go into effect in three steps: 2021, 2023, and 2026; and Whereas, the ECS is intended to advance best practices in the design of affordable buildings that deliver reduced GHG emissions and to provide a rapid but orderly transition to buildings that do not use fossil fuels on -site for major building energy needs, such as space heating and hot water heating, by 2026; and Whereas, the 2014 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan recommends adopting a building code to require all new construction projects and major renovations to incorporate green building techniques and achieve specific energy efficiency standards; and TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 10 Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan includes the following guiding principle: The Town enacts and implements policies and regulations that integrate sustainability and climate protection into building and construction practices and land use planning; and Whereas, in 2017, the Town partnered with the City of Ithaca to engage a consultant team led by STREAM Collaborative, which included Taitem Engineering and Randall+West, to assist in development of a green building policy for the Town and the City to reduce GHG emissions in new construction; and Whereas, in May 2018, the Town Board adopted the Green Building Policy Report, which contained recommendations for code requirements and served as the basis for the Energy Code Supplement; and Whereas, throughout the development process, the Town and City convened regular meetings with internal and external stakeholder committees, which included staff, elected officials, the development community, major local institutions, and sustainability advocates; and Whereas, between 2017 and 2020, the Town and City held numerous public outreach sessions resulting in hundreds of comments and public feedback, which have been incorporated into the ECS; and Whereas, at several meetings of the Town Codes and Ordinances Committee (COC) in 2019, 2020, and 2021, staff gave presentations on the Energy Code Supplement, explained its features and development outcomes, answered questions, and heard comments, and on April 14, 2021 the COC recommended that the Town of Ithaca adopt the proposed Energy Code Supplement; and Whereas, the City adopted the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement on May 5, 2021; and Whereas, at numerous Town Board meetings, including most recently on April 26, 2021 and May 24, 2021, the Board received an update on the Energy Code Supplement and was given the opportunity to discuss, ask questions and offer suggestions on the proposal; and Whereas, a public hearing was scheduled for June 14, 2021 at 5:30 p.m., to hear all interested parties on the five proposed local laws entitled: 1. A Local Law adding Chapter 144 to the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled "Energy Code Supplement" 2. A Local Law Amending Chapter 125, "Building Construction and Fire Prevention," to Add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code 3. A Local Law Amending Chapter 207, "Rental Property," to Add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code 4. A Local Law Amending Chapter 270, "Zoning," to Add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code 5. A Local Law Amending Chapter 272, "New Neighborhood Code," to Add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code; and TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 11 Whereas, notice of the public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and Whereas, the public hearing was duly held on the date and time and all parties were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to the proposed local laws, or any part of them; and Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, adoption of the local laws is a Unlisted Action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to adoption of these local laws, has, on June 14, 2021, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3; and Whereas, the Town Board finds that the amendments to the Town Code, and the type of development it enables will further the health, safety, and general welfare of the community and are in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan; now therefore, be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts the following: 1. Local Law 5 of 2021: A Local Law Adding Chapter 144 to the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled "Energy Code Supplement"; 2. Local Law 6 of 2021: A Local Law Amending Chapter 125, "Building Construction and Fire Prevention," to Add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code; 3. Local Law 7 of 2021: A Local Law Amending Chapter 207, "Rental Property," to Add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code; 4. Local Law 8 of 2021: A Local Law Amending Chapter 270, "Zoning," to Add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code; and 5. Local Law 9 of 2021: A Local Law Amending Chapter 272, "New Neighborhood Code," to Add Energy Code Supplement References to the Town of Ithaca Code; and be it further Resolved, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the local laws with the Secretary of State as required by law. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas Vote: ayes - Bleiwas, DePaolo, Goodman, Howe, Hunter, and Levine nays — Leary Resolution passed 5 to 1 Mr. Howe thanked Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Shapiro. Mr. Goldsmith said there is a celebration on Thursday at North Star house with the Powerhouse there to show some of the technologies the legislation is promoting. Mr. Howe thanked the Brittains for their comments. TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 12 4. Consider setting a public hearing regarding a local law to override the Tax Levy limit Mr. Howe noted that this is our standard legislation to allow us to go over if necessary. TB Resolution 2021 — 073: Setting a Public Hearing ret!ardint! a proposed Local Law to Override the Tax Levy Limit Established in General Municipal Law 0-c Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a Public Hearing on July 12, 2021 at 5:30 p.m., local time, at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca, 21.5 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY, regarding adoption of a proposed local law to override the tax levy limit established in General Municipal Law §3-c, for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2022 and ending December 31, 2022. At such time and place all interested parties shall be heard regarding the proposed local law. Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Pat Leary Vote: ayes — Bleiwas, DePaolo, Goodman, Howe, Hunter, Leary, Levine 5. Consider setting a public hearing regarding a noise permit for summer music series at: Mr. Howe noted that this public hearing is for the weekly music, not the July 2nd event. Mr. DePaolo noted that the application does not give specific dates and it will be hard to have a public hearing without that information. Mr. Howe responded that the Clerks Office has requested additional information. Ms. Taylor Brous, applicant, responded that it is hard to contract with a place or bands without the permission, so it is a bit of a chicken and an egg, but the idea is two nights a week at Parrilla. She would be setting the schedule before the public hearing and will get that to the Town. She asked if the law is that it protrudes past the boundary or any amplification? Mr. DePaolo suggested that she close the broadness of the application such as number of days, times etc. to inform us of the effects, that would help convince us that the impact is manageable. Ms. Taylor Brous asked if she could advertise the event if she understands that it may have to be canceled if a permit is not issued. Ms. Brock responded that the Town is not allowed to regulate or address noise associated with fireworks and we cannot recommend a course of action. Mr. DePaolo added that the permit protects you against someone complaining about the noise, it isn't that we or someone is going to run up there and say you don't have a permit and you can't do this. It gives you something to show people that says the Board discussed this and weighed the benefits and detriments and issued a permit. TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 13 Mr. Howe changed the draft resolution to June 28th for both the weekly and the July 2nd event. TB Resolution 2021— 074: Set a public hearing regarding a noise permit for the July 2°d event and weekly entertainment events at RaNic/Parilla and Agava through September 2021 Whereas an agent for the owner of Parrilla/RaNic and Agava has submitted a noise permit application for a weekly music series and a July 2nd event at Parrilla, and a weekly music series at Agava, and Whereas the Town has asked for additional information to be submitted and available at least 10 days prior to a public hearing, now therefore be it Resolved, that the Town Board will hold a public hearing at their meeting on Monday, June 28, 2021 which begins at 4:30 p.m. to hear all interested parties regarding issuing noise permit(s) to Parrilla/RaNic and Agava music series and the Parrilla July 2nd event. Moved: Tee -Ann Hunter Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: ayes — Bleiwas, DePaolo, Howe, Goodman, Hunter, Leary and Levine 6. Consider approval of the 2022 Access Oversight Committee budget Mr. DePaolo explained that this is again a contingency budget because we continue to be in the midst of a dispute with Charter Communications about who is responsible for studio equipment upgrades. Hopefully we will be able to resolve the issue. TB Resolution 2021- 076: Adopt 2022 PEG Access Studio Capital Budget Whereas the 2003 Franchise Agreement between Charter Communications and the City of Ithaca authorizes Charter Communications to collect $0.15 per subscriber per month to be used for the purchase of equipment for the PEG Access Studio; and Whereas the Franchise Agreement outlines the creation of an Access Oversight Committee which shall be responsible for approving the timing, use and amount of PEG access equipment acquired each year over the term of the agreement; and Whereas the Access Oversight Committee has approved a 2022 contingency capital budget not to exceed $30,000.; and Whereas the Franchise Agreement states that participating municipalities, including the Town of Ithaca, must adopt the annual PEG Access Studio budget by June 30 of the preceding year; now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca adopts the 2022 PEG Access Studio budget as approved by the Access Oversight Committee. TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 14 Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Rod Howe Vote: ayes — DePaolo, Howe, Hunter, Leary, Levine, Goodman and Bleiwas 7. Consider speed limit requests from: a. Elm St Ext There were no comments from the Board. TB Resolution 2021 - 077: Approval of a Speed Limit Reduction Request for Elm St Ext Whereas, the Ithaca Town Board, with initiative from its Public Works Department, is requesting a reduction of the posted speed limit on Elm St Ext in its entirety, from 55 mph to 30 mph, and Whereas, the varying geometry, topography, residential density, and limited sight distances at intersections along Elm St Ext warrants reducing the speed limit to match the posted speed limit within the City of Ithaca's portion of Elm St Ext, which is 30 mph, and Whereas, the Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) has reported numerous traffic accidents in the last report between the years 201.5-2019, with the majority of the accidents not weather related incidents, now therefore be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca requests Tompkins County to forward to New York State Department of Transportation Traffic Safety Division the Town's request to reduce the speed limit on Elm St Ext, between Poole Rd and the City of Ithaca municipal line, from 55 mph to 30 mph. Moved: Tee -Ann -Hunter Seconded: Pat Leary Vote: Ayes — Bleiwas, DePaolo, Goodman, Howe, Hunter, Leary, Levine b. Hopkins Rd between Bundy Rd and Hayts Rd There were no comments from the Board. TB Resolution 2021 - 078: Approval of a speed limit reduction request for Hopkins Rd between Bundy Rd and Hayts Rd Whereas, the Town of Ithaca has received a petition from town residents requesting a speed limit reduction for Hopkins Rd between Bundy Rd and Hayts Rd from 45 mph to 30 mph, and Whereas, Hopkins Rd is a very popular "cut through" road and is considered to be within a small residential neighborhood, and TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 15 Whereas, the geometrical features are considered straight with no fog lines or center striping and it is a popular walking road for the neighborhood residents and their children and pets, and Whereas the Public Works Committee has discussed the request and recommended it to the Town Board for approval, now therefore be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca requests that Tompkins County forward to the New York State Department of Transportation Traffic Safety Division the Town's request to reduce the speed limit from 45 mph to 30 mph on Hopkins Rd between Bundy Rd and Hayts Rd. Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Tee -Ann Hunter Vote: ayes — Bleiwas, DePaolo, Goodman, Howe, Hunter, Leary, and Levine c.D eer Run Subdivision Roads There were no comments from the Board. TB Resolution 2021- 079: Request for Speed Limit Reduction in the Deer Run Development including the roads Whitetail Drive, Marcy Court, Teton Court, and Saranac Way Whereas, the Ithaca Town Board has received a petition from the residents in the Deer Run Development located on South Hill in the Town of Ithaca for a reduction in of the speed limit, and Whereas, the residents of this highly densified neighborhood are stating safety concerns for pedestrians and deer crossings as factors for their petition, and Whereas, the community is expecting more foot traffic due to construction of the new community park (Saunders Park), and Whereas the Public Works Facility has discussed the petition and conducted an analysis of the area and recommends the reduction to the Town Board, now therefore be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca requests Tompkins County to forward to New York State Department of Transportation Traffic Safety Division the Town's request to reduce the speed limit in the Deer Run Development including the roads Whitetail Drive, Marcy Court, Teton Court, and Saranac Way, between East King Road and Troy Road, to 25 mph. Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Eric Levine Vote: Ayes — Bleiwas, DePaolo, Goodman, Howe, Hunter, Leary, Levine 8. Consider designation of second Town Depository and opening a Certificate of Deposit Mr. Howe explained that we shopped around for the best rate TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 16 TB Resolution 2021 - 080: Designation of Town Depository and Authorization to Open a Certificate of Deposit with First National Bank of Groton in the amount of $8,000,000 for a Period of 1.2 Months. Whereas, at the May 10, 2021 meeting the Budget Committee discussed the re -investment of balances in the Town's various bank accounts, directing the Supervisor and Finance Officer to identify the funds and amounts that could be invested for a period of one year; and Whereas, the Supervisor and Finance Officer have recommended that $8,000,000 be invested at First National Bank of Groton in a Certificate of Deposit with a 12-month maturity and interest rate of 0.50% APY; therefore, be it Resolved, that the Ithaca Town Board hereby designates the First National Bank of Groton as a Town Depository, and be it further Resolved, that the Ithaca Town Board authorizes the opening of a Certificate of Deposit at First National Bank of Groton in the amount of $8,000,000 with a 12-month maturity and interest rate of 0.50% APY; and be it further Resolved, that the Ithaca Town Board authorizes Rod Howe, Town Supervisor, William Goodman, Deputy Town Supervisor, and Donna Shaw, Finance Officer, as authorized signers on this Certificate of Deposit. Moved: Pamela Bleiwas Seconded: Eric Levine Vote: Ayes — Bleiwas, DePaolo, Goodman, Howe, Hunter, Leary, Levine 9. Discuss 2021 City of Ithaca Fire Department budget There was no discussion from the Board. TB Resolution 2021-081: Approval of the City of Ithaca Fire Department Budget Amendments Whereas, the Town of Ithaca has entered into a Contract for Fire Protection with the City of Ithaca for the provision of fire and emergency medical incident response by the Ithaca Fire Department within a portion of the Fire Protection District of the Town of Ithaca, and Whereas, the Town Supervisor has received communication from the City of Ithaca informing him of the two proposed budget amendments to replace necessary equipment that was postponed in 2020 for $34,184 and another for $187,434 to fill vacant positions left unfilled in 2020, and Whereas, the Town's share of these proposed amendments would be 31.4% or $69,588 and within the amount currently budgeted for the City Fire Contract, now therefore be it Resolved, that the Town Board approves the proposed budget amendments. TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 17 Moved: Tee -Ann Hunter Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas Vote: Bleiwas, DePaolo, Goodman, Howe, Hunter, Leary, Levine 10. Consider setting a public hearing for a proposed local law entitled "amending Zoning Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Zoning: Special Land Use Districts" to modify and expand the permitted uses in Planned Development Zone No 12 (South Hill Business Campus) There were no comments from the Board. TB Resolution 2021 - 082: Setting a public hearing regarding a proposed local law entitled "Amending Zoning Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled "Zoning: Special Land Use Districts", to Modify and Expand the Permitted Uses in Planned Development Zone No. 12 (South Hill Business Campus)" Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a public hearing on July 12, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "Amending Zoning Chapter 271 of the Town Of Ithaca Code, Titled "Zoning: Special Land Use Districts", to Modify and Expand the Permitted Uses in Planned Development Zone No. 1.2 (South Hill Business Campus)". Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Eric Levine Votes: ayes - Bleiwas, DePaolo, Goodman, Howe, Hunter, Leary, Levine 11. Consider authorization for the Supervisor to sign a supplemental agreement with Behan Associates re. Inlet Valley/Elmira Rd There were no comments from the Board. TB Resolution 2021 - 083: Supplemental Agreement with Behan Associates Landscape Architecture to address cost overruns and providing professional services associated with the Inlet Valley/Elmira Road corridor Whereas, the Town Board authorized the Town Supervisor to execute a contract with Behan Associates Landscape Architecture for the purpose of providing professional services to assist the town in developing amended zoning regulations and design guidelines/standards for the Inlet Valley/Elmira Road corridor with a contract term from 11/1/2019 to 8/31/2020, and a subsequent extension through 8/31/2021, at a cost not to exceed $25,000; and Whereas, the consultant has indicated that they have incurred cost overruns on the project amounting to $3,885.00, for work, in large part, associated with the stakeholder and Economic Development Committee meetings during the February through. April 2021 time period; and TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 18 Whereas, additional cost overruns will be incurred for the preparations and presentation at the June 8tn Inlet Valley resident's meeting, and also for finalizing the project for delivery to the Town, estimated at approximately $2,365; now, therefore be it Resolved, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute a supplemental agreement with Behan Associates Landscape Architecture to increase the maximum expenditure for finalizing work on developing zoning regulations and design guidelines/standards for the Inlet Valley/Elmira Road corridor by $6,250 (from account B8020.403). Moved: Pamela Bleiwas Seconded: Rod Howe Votes: ayes - Bleiwas, DePaolo, Goodman, Howe, Hunter, Leary, Levine 12. Consider Consent Agenda Mr. DePaolo wanted to thank Mr. Smith for his work in doing this inspection and asked if the Town is compensated for this review by the developer if not on this one, then in the future for similar staff commitments in perpetuity. TB Resolution 2021 - 084: Adopt Consent Agenda Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the following Consent Agenda items: a. Approval of Town Board Minutes b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Approval of Bolton Point Abstract d. Approval of closing Capital Project — 96B Sidewalk e. Acknowledge receipt of Ethics Forms f. Acknowledge receipt of IC Wetlands Easement Inspections Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Tee -Ann Hunter Vote: ayes - Bleiwas, DePaolo, Goodman, Howe, Hunter, Leary, Levine TB Resolution 2021 - 084a: Approval of Town Board Minutes Resolved that the Town Board hereby approves the draft minutes of the meeting on May 12, 2021 as submitted, with non -substantial changes suggested by the Board made. TB Resolution 2021- 084b: Town of Ithaca Abstract No. 11 for FY-2021 Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 19 VOUCHER NOS. 641 - 710 General Fund Town Wide 67,246.30 General Fund Part -Town 6,541.01. Highway Fund Town Wide DA 23,257.24 Highway Fund Part Town DB 13,255.29 Water Fund 8,317.28 Sewer Fund 3,988.57 Forest Home Lighting District 218.37 Glenside Lighting District 81.77 Renwick Heights Lighting District 102.04 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 205.97 Clover Lane Lighting District 24.30 Winner's Circle Lighting District 75.54 Burlei h Drive Lighting District 82.89 West Haven Road Lighting District 259.54 Coddin ton Road Lighting District 155.03 Trust and Agency 5,872.50 TOTAL 129,683.64 TB Resolution 2021 - 084c: Bolton Point Abstract Whereas, the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented and reviewed by the governing Town Board for approval of payment; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers. Voucher Numbers: 204-258 Check Numbers: 19639-19693 Capital Impr/Repl Project $ 25,278.77 Operating Fund $ 95,763.59 TOTAL $ 121,042.36 Less Prepaid $ 20,567.77 TOTAL $ 100,474.59 TB Resolution 2021- 0184d: Authorization to Close the Town of Ithaca Route 96B Sidewalk Capital Project Fund Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorized the Town of Ithaca Route 96B/Darby Road Sidewalk Capital Project Fund under Resolution No. 2017-094 on August 7, 2017; and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca has certified the Route 96B Sidewalk project has been completed to the satisfaction of the Town; and TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 20 Whereas, after satisfying all obligations and liabilities of the fund there remains a positive equity in the amount of $369,434.03; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Town Board declares said project complete; and be it further Resolved, that the Town Board declares the Route 96B project complete and approves, authorizes and directs the Town Finance Officer to close the accounting and financial records for the Town of Ithaca Route 96B/Darby Road Sidewalk Capital Project Fund; and be it further Resolved, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the remaining equity in the Town of Ithaca Route 96B/Danby Road Sidewalk Capital Project Fund be transferred back to the General Fund where it originated. TB Resolution 2021 - 084e: Acknowledge receipt of annual Ethics Disclosure Forms Whereas the Town Code requires certain elected and appointed Town Officials to file an Ethics Disclosure Form annually with the Town Clerk, now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board hereby acknowledges receipt of said forms. TB Resolution 2021 - 084f: Acknowledge Annual Conservation Easement Inspection of the Ithaca College Wetland Mitigation Sites - Raponi and Rich Road Sites Whereas the easement between the Town and Ithaca College requires an annual inspection performed by the Town of Ithaca, and Whereas Michael Smith, Senior Planner has completed this inspection and submitted a report to the Town Board, which is filed with the Planning Department, now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board hereby acknowledges the Report as required in the agreement. 13. Report of Town Officials Mr. Howe reported that the State has passed a moratorium on a municipality's ability to relevy utility bills to Town taxes, so we are working through the affects of that legislation. 14. Review of Correspondence Mr. Howe noted that the Learning Farm request for a zoning change to allow many uses that are not currently allowed, and Ms. Ritter would like to know whether the Board would like the applicant to come to the Board first or refer to the Planning Committee. TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 21 Mr. DePaolo responded that there are a lot of variables, and we can hear from her at the Committee level and then report to the Board and determine whether or not they would like to have her appear in person. Matter is referred to the Planning Committee. 15. Adjournment Meeting adjourned upon a motion by Mr. Howe, seconded by Ms. Hunter, unanimous. Submitte Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk TB 2021-06-14 Pg. 22 Attachment 1 Paulette Rosa From: Elan Shapiro <eIanshapiro343@grnaiI.corn> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 4:18 PM To: Paulette Rosa Subject: Supporting ECS I fUlly SU or III,CS and urge you to adopt it this evening Sarah I less's comments below fully m�rror my thoughts and concerns lE I a in Ih a p i ro Ecovillage at Ithaca, Foy of Ithaca 1 Elan Shapiro ourcollectiveliberation.org Showing Up for Racial Justice Frog's Way B&B httl2s://frogsway-bnb.com/ elanshapiro343@gmail.com 607-592-8402 My artwork: https://fineartamerica.com[profiles/elan-shapiro 211 Rachel Carson Way Ithaca, NY 14850 Showing up is our power. Story is our way home. Truth is our song. 2 We are the brave and brokenhearted. We are rising strong. Brene Brown Paulette Rosa From: Becky Jordan Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 3:31 PM To: Becky Jordan; Bill Goodman; brock@clarityconnect.com; Daniel Thaete; Donna Shaw; Eric Levine; Joe Slater; John Little; Judy Drake; Marty Moseley; Pam Bleiwas; Pat Leary; Paulette Rosa; Rich DePaolo; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter; TeeAnn Hunter Subject: Comments for hearing on ECS tonight From: Sara Hess <sarahess63.0@.gM2u .corn> Date: June 14, 2021 at 3:03:27 PM EDT To: Paulette Rosa <,PR Rosa..( r 7ei µ1aca.:n .us> Subject: Comments for hearing on ECS tonight Please send these comments to the Town Board members ASAP. Comments on adoption of ECS, by Sara Hess I am writing in full support of the ECS and urge you to approve adoption this evening. I spoke several times at Ithaca Common Council meetings in support of the code as well. And I helped collect signatures from over 100 people in support, among those, about 1/3 from the town of Ithaca. At the hearing before passage in the City, some people spoke with objections of timing. I believe the argument was this: because the electric grid's energy sources currently include about 40% from gas power plants, the City should not be forcing builders to use electricity from the grid. They argue that only AFTER the grid is close to 100% green, should builders have to reduce their energy emissions. This makes no logical sense to me. First, we cannot work on solutions in a series fashion. We don't have time! The climate changes are coming faster than models predicted. Arizona will have temperatures up to 117 degrees F. this month! We must work simultaneously, as quickly as we can, on all good solutions. Reducing emissions in buildings today is critically important and should not be delayed any longer. Second, the logic doesn't work for other reasons too. If the grid is 60% emissions -free now, isn't that better than burning more gas or oil in furnaces, which is 0% emissions -free? Some emission reduction has to be better than none. Third, heat pumps are more efficient than fossil fuel burning furnaces by multiples of 2 or 3, so any new code that encourages heat pumps to replace kerosene or propane or oil is a big win for lowering emissions, even with electricity from the grid that includes gas plant emissions. Fourth, NYS is committed to greening the grid as quickly as they can, with many large wind farms, industrial scale solar, and off -shore wind. So every month, every year, the NYSEG electricity will have fewer emissions from energy suppliers. Please do not delay or change any of the ECS now. It's been debated and improved over the past 4 years of study, research, and comments. Now it's time to put it in practice. If more changes are needed after a few years, we'll have real experience to show how to make it better. Sara Hess 124 Westfield Drive Ithaca, NY 'All things are bound together, all things connect. - Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper, Seneca Nation Paulette Rosa From: The Ladleys <patricialadley@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 3:29 PM To: Paulette Rosa Subject: ECS As a resident of the Town of Ithaca, I want to register my approval of the Green Building Code. It is time, actually way past time. to put these measures in place. And it is something we can do to make our planet a healthier place. Every little bit helps, like the pieces of a puzzle. Please for the common good, say YES to the ECS now. Thank you, Patricia Ladley 17 Penny Lane Ithaca, NY 14850 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Paulette Rosa From: Bruce Brittain <brucebrittain@verizon.net> Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2021 7:45 PM To: Rod Howe; Bill Goodman; pll7@cornell.edu; TeeAnn Hunter; pamtownithaca@gmail.com; elevinetown@gmail.com; rd@richdepaolo.com Cc: Nick Goldsmith; Susan Ritter; Paulette Rosa Subject: Energy Code Supplement DATE: June 12, 2021 TO: Ithaca Town Board CC: Nick Goldsmith, Sue Ritter, Paulette Rosa FROM: Bruce and Doug Brittain RE: Energy Code Supplement Climate change is a major concern, and we are pleased that the Town is taking action to address the problem. Unfortunately, the ECS, as written, includes provisions that would increase, rather than decrease, the production of greenhouse gases for the next several years. This is both unfortunate and entirely avoidable. However, with a few changes, the ECS should be able to better accomplish its intended purpose. We hope that you will revise it accordingly. Our major concerns relative to the legislation are detailed below. We have largely focused on the Residential section of the ECS, in particular, SUBSECTION 144-R502 PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE PATH/EASY PATH, since that is the part of the legislation that is most likely to impact the majority of residents of the Town. ASSUMES GRID IS GREEN The ECS seems based on the assumption that the grid is already 100% green, with sufficient excess capacity to absorb additional electrical loads. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we can use green energy that doesn't yet exist! Right now, there is woefully insufficient green capacity, even though new sources are being built and brought on line as quickly as possible, so it will be quite a while before the grid is truly green. According to NYSEG's own reporting, our grid is currently less than 17% green. (You can google "nyseg+environmental+disclosure" yourself to see this.) Even if you count nuclear power as being green (should we?), close to half our electricity still comes comes from burning things that emit CO2. There is simply not enough green energy available to meet current electrical demand, much less any additional demand created by this legislation. Thus, any electrical loads generated by this legislation will have to be met by burning dirty fuels at the power station, because there is no other source available. The unfortunate result is that this legislation, which was intended to require people to use clean energy, will instead require them to use dirty energy. And that will continue to be the case until 2040, or whenever the supply of green energy finally catches up with electrical demand, and the grid becomes completely green. At that point, electrical load can begin to be gradually added (at the same rate that green energy sources are being added) without causing GHG emissions. The ECS should recognize this fact, and postpone any requirements that buildings be fossil -fuel -free until 2040, rather than pretending that 2040's conditions exist today. COMBUSTION Burning fossil fuels at the power plant is far worse than burning them in the home, and here's why: The thermodynamics of power generation are not very encouraging. While burning things can be an efficient way to generate heat, it is a very inefficient way to generate electricity. Natural gas power plants are as good as any, and yet they only convert around 36% of their energy to electricity, the rest being waste heat. As a result, electric resistance heating is very inefficient and will wind up causing more gas to be burned at the power plant than would otherwise be burned in the building. For example, if a home were to switch from natural gas heat at 97% efficiency, to electric resistance heat at 36% efficiency (because that is what the power plant can provide), that home would now be responsible for 2.7 times as much gas being burned. Yet the ECS actually requires that inefficient electrical resistance heating be used as the backup for a heat pump, rather than a far more efficient gas furnace backup. We shouldn't be requiring people to be responsible for 2.7 times as much GHG emissions on their backup heat source before we credit them for having a heat pump! Fossil fuels should be phased out of electricity production first, and then phased out of heating tasks. Doing this in reverse order can have the opposite effect from that which you are seeking. As mentioned above, having a 2040 trigger date for any electric -only requirements would solve this problem with the ECS. ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE HEATING The proposed point system would allow brand new housing to be built with electric resistance heating, either in conjunction with a heat pump, or as the sole source of heat. As explained above, electric resistance heating is very inefficient and will wind up causing more fossil fuels to be burned at the power plant than would otherwise be burned in the building. In fact, resistance heating is the most inefficient heating system known to man, and, until the grid is green, also the one that emits the most GHGs. Do we really want to allow such an inefficient heating system on new construction? We should instead be discouraging resistance electrical heating for the next 20 years, or until the grid is truly green. In addition, electric baseboard heat is very difficult to convert to something more efficient later. Maybe points could be subtracted for electric resistance heat, unless it is accompanied by a heat pump. HEAT PUMPS The main advantage of electrification is the ability to employ heat pumps, which can be very efficient (so efficient that they can make up for the inefficiencies at the power plant). Points should therefore be awarded for heat pumps, even if there is a fossil fuel back-up. (The most efficient heating is accomplished via ground source heat pumps with back-up gas or propane heat.) A new furnace will need to be replaced in 20 +/- years, about the same time that the grid is expected to become green enough to accept new electrical loads. At that point, a heat pump with back-up gas heat could easily be converted to back-up electric. The key point is that the heat pumps need to be installed now, even if they use gas as back-up heat. This could be constrained by a Sunset Clause: back-up gas could be allowed (or even encouraged) now, but any such system would have to be converted to back-up electric beginning when the grid becomes 100% green (in 2040, or whenever). This would produce less CO2 than your current plan. It would also make sense to award some points for heat pumps, even if they don't go down to 0 degrees F, as required by Subsection 144-R502.2.1.3. You could award fewer points for less efficient heat pump units, but at least you would be encouraging people to use heat -pump technology, even if they can't afford the more expensive units. Subsection 144-R504.7 Changes in 2026 (p. 75/84) states that "Effective January 1, 2026, all buildings shall be built to have net -zero GHG emissions and shall not use fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or clothes drying." But NYS's goal is to have the grid 70% green by 2030, not 100% by 2026. Electricity production will still burn fossil fuels and create CO2. Therefore, new houses that are connected to the power grid will still be creating greenhouse gases. This problem seems to be wished -away by the definition of Energy Use (p. 9/84), which states that "All references to energy use in this chapter refer to site energy use, which is the heat and electricity consumed by a building as reflected at the meter and/or in the utility bills." But this just shifts the pollution to the power plant, which can be far more polluting and less energy efficient, particularly for heating. Just because pollution is not created on -site doesn't mean that it isn't being created. Again, this well- intentioned provision will backfire if implemented before 2040, or whenever the grid finally becomes green. I ►RGO Subsection 144-R502.3.4 AI5 Modest Window -to -Wall Ratio (p. 52/84) considers the costs of windows, but not their potential benefits, and concludes, incorrectly, that windows are bad. For example, there is no consideration of the insulating values of windows, which can vary widely depending on the type of glazing selected. If the purpose is to limit thermal energy loss through glass, then the transmissivity of the glazing should be taken into account. In addition, skylights, spandrel glass and opaque glass doors should all be included in the glazed -area calculation. As written, they are not. For example, Subsection 144-C402.3.5.1 (p. 20/84) and Subsection 144- R502.3.4.1 (p. 52/84) state "The vertical fenestration area, not including opaque doors and opaque spandrel panels, shall be not greater than 20 percent of the gross above -grade wall area." In addition, there is no consideration of passive solar heating (large windows facing south with a shading overhang of 40-45 degrees from vertical). We know from experience that this works very well: free heat in the winter, and shade in the summer. (As you will recall, the "greenhouse effect" is named after the type of passive solar heating that occurs in uninsulated glass greenhouses.) The free energy that passive solar can provide should be encouraged, rather than discouraged as currently written. This could be accomplished by the simple measure of not counting windows that face southward when calculating the 20% window -to -wall ratio. And just as importantly, it has been widely reported that productivity and a sense of well-being increase with natural daylight. Also, glass walls can make even a small, easy -to -heat house seem roomy (rather than claustrophobic) because of the long views provided. But the ECS legislation sets a maximum window area of 20%, the same as the minimum that "Multiple green building standards" recommend. The result will be that Ithaca's new building stock will include many houses that have inadequate fenestration, according to your own reference standard. BIOMASS SPACE HEATING Subsection 144-R502.4.2 RE2 Biomass Space Heating (p. 56/84) states that five points may be earned with the combustion of biomass for space heating. This is almost as many points as the total of six points that are needed! Burning wood releases almost twice as much CO2 as burning natural gas. So why give it twice as many points as you give a heat pump? And wood pellets are even worse than cordwood, due to all the energy that is consumed in manufacturing them. It can be argued that biomass is "renewable" and the trees are being replanted, or that the carbon released by burning wood is balanced by the carbon that the tree had previously sequestered. However, keeping the tree alive and sequestering is by far the best approach. (In fact, there would be lower CO2 emissions if you were to keep the tree alive and heat with natural gas!) You could justify awarding points for planting trees, but not for cutting them down and releasing their carbon. Thus, the number of points awarded for biomass heating should be eliminated, or at least reduced to a single point. 1111 4 [as 1.119I 9 1111R There does not appear to be any consideration given to historic buildings or to the adaptive reuse of historic buildings. This legislation should include a mechanism to ensure that it is more economically viable to renovate rather than raze, in order to help encourage the preservation of Ithaca's historic past. WATER HEATERS Points should be awarded for tankless on -demand hot water heaters. These are far more efficient than tank -style water heaters (even heat pump powered ones), and we shouldn't let an aversion to on -site natural gas cause us to inadvertently waste energy and create unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. CARROT vs STICK Changing the way that we build and remodel houses will be difficult, and will likely require a Carrot and Stick approach. This legislation seems to prioritize the Stick, and to essentially exclude the Carrot. Adding some incentives could go a long way toward gaining support for this legislation, and for speeding its smooth implementation. Thank you for your efforts relative to the Energy Code Supplement. It has been in the works for a long time now, and we can understand that you might be tired of dealing with it, and just want to put it behind you. But of course, once an ordinance is passed it is not put behind you, but rather becomes your constant companion. Therefore, fixing the problems now, before it is passed, becomes rather important. We can also understand that you might want to keep this legislation similar to that which was recently passed by the City. But why be afraid of making improvements? The major problem remains that the ECS is based on the assumption that the grid is currently green, with excess capacity. And all of the specific actions included in the legislation follow from this fallacy. Until that problem is correctly understood -- and addressed -- the ECS will continue to be responsible for completely unnecessary GHG emissions. However, with some relatively minor modifications, you could have an ECS that would perform significantly better than the one that is before you now. We hope you will take this opportunity to make the necessary improvements. Thank you. And, as always, we would be happy to meet with you to discuss any of these topics further, if you like. Attachment 2 Short Environmental Assessment For"s "rrt I - Project , nj+vniation Ifgstfr aorta for Corn dieting Part t -_ Pl�af ect Information. The applicant err project sponsor is responsible for the compitinoo rt1"Part 1, Responses become part ofthe application for approval or hauling, are sa bJect to public review, and may be subJect to further- verification, t "ornplete Pail I based sari inf"inmaation currently aavrailraWe, It'additlonal research or investigation would be needed to fbily respond to any Ittrn, please ansva r aas thoroughly as possible based on current inforinaation" Complete all ilerns in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or, use.frrl to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part t _. Project and Sponsor lefnrnaat oaa Name of etion or Ilrcr,ieMc,t� Adoption of Five Local Laws- (1) Adding Chapter 144. Energy Code Supplement- to Town of Ithaca Code„ () Amending Chapter 1 d•Euilding Construction and Fire Prevention- to add references to Energy Coda Supplement; () Amending Chapter 07-Rental Property -to add references to Energy Code Supplement„ (4) Amending Chapter 270,. oning- to add references to Energy Cade Supplement; (5) Amending Chapter 72-Now Neighborhood Code- to add references to Enorgy Coder Supplement. ..w_w ... ., "_,.."..__..... ...... .......w . _ _.w_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,, ..... n _..__ _._.......... ._ ._............ _.,,,.,.,,_.w_..www................._............ Isrral+ t I.poc,ation (describe, and attach at location m„tp)t Town of Ithaca - Town wide W �. IT6—n T"o"' � aaa.....__.._._..._.— ----------------------------- - ................. _,m....._ .................... flrrel p')esr,riptiort eat f'rottarsed a1:r,attctrr. The proposed local ism estabfth and reference a local energy code supplement (ECS) that provides regtrtrements that are rn addition to the requirements of the NYS Energy Conservation Construction Code (N YSE("CC), r bjeaalives of the ECS lncludc (1) to deliver measurable„ lrnnaediate, and Nor gwlasting ueductions In GHG emissions from all new construction, certain additions, and major renovations O advance best practices ire the design of affordable housing that deliver reduced GHG emissions, and (d),to pr o0de a rapld but orderly transition to buildings that do not use fossil tuets an -sate for major building energy needs, such as spaarm heafing and hot wwattar t ealing, by 2026, The requirements set forth give priority to electrification, renewable energy, and aafford abUrly„ Requirements for reductions in ("iilty,s go into effect rn three steps; gtl t,r 2023, and 2026. rite requirements of the ECS shall apply, with timited etrceptlons, to; (1) all rtaawa construction, excluding additions and renovations that are not Specified in the lawn,, O Ml additions 90 sojare feet or, larger to single-family or two -tasnily dweRingsi, O all additions 1,000 square feet or larger to buntings other titan singe family or two-farnity, dwellings, and (4) all major renovations„ as defined hi Vie ECS: Name of Applicant or Sponsor- I Felephonc: 0 - d-1721 "Gogh of Ithaca 1—Mailf-Maik rho ire r@town tthec ny u address: ................ _, _...�_� ..�._........... ..... ......... .............._ _. ......... ,__.......... _ 1North Tio e Street ........_......... ...m._....____..__....mm------ _. C ityfl't.t "vtate r(t t ercle Ithaca NY 14,850 —- wwwww--__�.._ ..... ...... _._... �.�._ www_ 1" Does the proposed action only involve the lepaskitive adoption ref a plan, local laww, ordin,anc�e administrative" NO YES rule, crr°regulation? Please sere part 3 for description of potea°ilrrail envirotarratntal itripatets- - wwwww �. It" Yes, attach a narrative description ref"the intent ref the proposed action a'md the environmental resources that may be affected in tlre municipality and proceed to Part 2 It'net, continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action regiiire as permit, approval or, amdingr From any other governmentAgency? NO Y'f If Yes, list agrency(si runne and permit or aapprovaal 1:1El p the si to �. e �)ar_._ c>Iwcrsa�d,_, ,aetictn-'f -_.....-_._..��.. .__._ .......... ....w.........w_. �............_......... �a, 1`catatl acre�a aw e�af' ... rtl fle..... .. .......... acres b. 'Fotaal acreage to be physically disturbed? acres c., 'I"coal acreage (project site and art), catntigfuous properties') owned or controlled by the applicant or pr(rIect sponsor? acres Check all land rises that occur on, are aatlJoiningfi or new the proposed aactiow. E Urban [3 Rural (racrn-agriculture) n Industrial E3 C oninierciaal El Rcsirfentiaal (suburban) 0 Forest E3 Agriculture [1 Aquatic E3 Other(Speci(y)e -----5Is------------the pr---........ ..... weal action, .. . ............. ...................... ... - ......... ................ . .. . . , opoNO YES N /A ... a, A permitted use under the zoning regulations? . ................... . b. Consistent with the adopted ecmiprehensive plan? . . . .................. ... . ....................... .... - ------------- . . ........... . . ........... .......... El ---------- 1-11111111-111111 0 6, Is the proposed actk�)n consistent with dw pre(tonrinant cluiracter ofthe existing bnilt or natural landscape? NO ................... YES 1:1 F1 . . .. ......... . .. ------- ........ Is the site ofthe proposed action located in, or does, it ad.join, a state listed ('rkical Unviromneirml A,rea'.,' ... I ... I NO YES Id "des, � es, identily . . ........ .......... ------- . . . ......... ....... . .......... ---- ....... . ............ . — El �.,... . . . . . . . . ............... . 8, a. Will the proposed action result inasubstantial increase it) ent levels? . ................. No Y L'S -Q— El b. Are public tra us port ation services available at or *war the F] ......... . ...... 1:1 c. Are any pedesirian accommodalions or bicycle rou r the site of the proposed action? -4� —Does�fie —Propo"��J-,,"t . ... . . ..... El NO ........ .. ............. c ti'o-W "in-e-et o' —rex'"c' ... c",e' erlergy C YES If the proposed actiort will exceed requiremwrits, de, esign f as raised t 010gies: ................ . .iu„ ...... - ------ - - --------- ...... -- - - -------- ------- .......... ... - "I'll El El I . . ..................... . . -- . . . ..... . .. . ............... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... 10. Will the proposed aLtion corm water supply? . NO .............. .......... .. . ............. . � YF S ll'No, describe metho( or Provi it kale* watm ............. El El ................... . . . ........................ . . . . . . . . . .................................... ....... ........ . . . . ............... . ........... 11, Will the proposed actioncontreel toexistiiigNA,aste",aterittilities'! NO Y [`. S I f'No, describe method for providing wastewater treat nwnt- El EJ . . . . ............ - .................. ........ . ..... a, Does the pro ' ject site contain, or is it substantially C011tigLIOUS to, a building, archaeo logical sil�e, or district which is listed ort the National or State Register of I fistoric Places, m that has been determined by, the Commissioner cad the NN'S Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State R egi ster off I istoric Maces? NO ..- . F] Y ]'� 'S . ............. El b. Is (he pro ' ject site, ear any portion of it., located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic f'reservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory? El 1:1 .TT . ......... ..... ....................... . .. . ....................... a. Doei any portion of'the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining (fie proposed action, contain wetlands or calm waterbodics regulated by a federal, state or local agency? NO .. . ....... ...... Y 1" S ..... .. [........�,� b, Would the proposedaction physically altm or encroach jino, any existing wetland or warerbody?"D . ........... H"i"es, identify the wedand or waterbody and extent ofafterations in square fiect or acres: ........ . . .. . . . ........ . . . ...... . . . ............ .............. ...... ......... . .................... .. . ................ Page .11 of 3 El (-) .. . . ........ — -- - ------- ------ ........ * -- — ------------- ----- . . . .......................... . ltltrntrty urea , picid habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be (bond on the project site, Clieck all that apply: . ...... . . .. OShorefine C] forest E] Agri c ri I tural/grasslai ids 0 Larly inid-successional 0 Welland 0 1, Irban Subutfian ai'i-i-a` a-nln-i'a' I o-r-as—so' c" 'iat" -c-d—) i a"b"'i t"a"t T, c d b' y t —hc State "''... of — - - ------ N ... 01 )ES"— Federal government ass threatened or endangered?El .�w._ . . ....... . . . .. . . ........... . . .................. . . . . . ............ . .... . ................. I .................................. ....... ............ . .. . . ............ . . Is the project site 1cwitted in the I 00-year flood plan? NO ......... . ...... ......... ............. . ............ .......................... . ......... - ... 17. Will flie proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non -point sources? If Yes, YES 1:1 El a. dill storm water disefiarges flow to a(tiacent pre pertic El ti. Will storm vyater discharges be directed to c ished od storm drains)? 1:1 If 'ens, briefly dcscribe� ............... . ......... . .......... .. . . . . . .............. 1.. ............. . . .............. . .... 8, Does the prciposed action include "mrsaniction or ctiv"', salt in the imIxmindment of Nvater NO YES or other liquids (e.g., retention n, day lf'Yes, explain the purpose and s . ........... El E] ............... . .. .. ... ... ... . - . ....... - ----- 7IT'Ji"a'—s time site of the proposed b ing property been the location of an active or closed solid waste NO YES snarragentent facifity? IfYes, describe: .............. . ..... .... El ............................. . ....... . ........... "'HilTa's' il-e s--iie' �o�fthe proposed action or an adjoining property been (fie sari iect ol"rernediation, (origoing or NO YES completed) tbr huardous waite"? lf'Yes, describe: . . . ....... .. .... ............ .................. _ --------- El EJ ............. . . - - ------------ I CERTITY"J"HATTHE INFORMATION PROVIDEM A1K)VF IRUE AND A(,'.V1J'RATE 7`0 THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGV AI)plicaiti�.,�sp,o,tis,o)r,/nia,riie: Rod H,owe Pate: Title: SignMire: Town Supervisor .......... ---- -- Paj;e . Agency Use Only [If applicable] Project: I Local Laws - ECS & 4others Date: June 14, 2021 Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 - Impact Assessment Part 2 is to be completed by the Lead Agency. Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part I and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept "Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?" No, or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur I Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning ✓ regulations? 2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? 3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? El 4. Will the proposed action have'an'impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the F] establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)? S. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or E] affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? 6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate 'available ❑ reasonably energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? 7. Will the proposed action impact existing - El a. public / private water supplies? El b. public / private wastewater treatment utilities? 8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, El architectural or aesthetic resources? 9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands, flora ❑ waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, and fauna)? 10. Will the proposed action result in an increase I in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage ❑ problems? 11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? Cl Paget of2 11 Agen Us e Only [If applicable'l 'J " Proje&a, ocal Laws-ECS & 4 othrse I D`00: tame 14, 2021 Part 3 4'etertitingwott-g-"L ""W'Cogince For veer question in Part 2 thitt was answered "moderate to largS, impact may occut", or if there isawd to explain why a particular ciesnent offlic proposed action may or Nvill not result in as significant adverse envirotirnental impact, please complete Part 3Parl 3 should, in sufficient detail, identify the irnpact, includingany rneasures ordesign elements that have been included by the project sixinsor to avoid or reduce inipacts, fart 3 should also explain how the load agency detenrnined that the impaLl may or will riot bL significant, Each powntial irnpact should lie wssessed consideringsaving. probability ofoccurring, duration, irrey, ersibi lily, geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential ft.wr short.- tenn, long-term and cumulative impacts, The proposed local laws establish and reference a lout energy code supplement (CC S) that provides requirementstriat give priority to electrification, renewable eneftjy, and affordability in new construction and certain additions and major renovations, The requirements of the ECS apply, with firnitwi exceptions, W (1) all new construction, excluding addifions and renovations that are not specified in the law, (2) all additions 500 square feet or iarger to single-farnify or two-family dwellings, (3) aH additions 1,000 square feet or larger to buOdings other than single-family or two-family dwelfings, and (4) all major renovations, as defined in the EC a,, The ECS was, envisiorred in the adopted 2014 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, Section EC-1 of the Plan includes hoorporating sustainaWfity and dirnate protection into long-term planning, and begins with the statement "The Town Board has endorsed sustainabi0ty and climate protection as overarching prindpWs, to guide long-term decision-rnaking, elements of these principles are infused throughout this Compreherisive Plan," One specific goal within the section includes adopting a building code to require 0 new construction projects and major renovations to incorporate green building techniques and achieve specific energy efficiency standards 'The PC S as the buRding code that was referenced in the Comprehensive Plan, There will be no anticipated change in the intensity of the use of Wrd, no negative, environmental effect on traffic, environmental resources (natural areas,, w,etiands, streams, plant or wildlife haNtat, etc), historic or aesthetic resources, and no, negative irnpacts on drainage, flooding, erosion, or public health as a result of enacting the proposed local laws. The ECS, establishes a point and performarim-based systern lot, the new construction, additions, and major rViovations to which it applies. ReqWring compliance with the ECS may include electrification of new and renovated spaces within a structure where the remaining structure night utilize naturall gas or other energy source (this might have an economic impact, although the ECS gives priority to affordatsOity),. However, foOmving the point and performance -based system w0l not create the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts and will lead to positive community impacts throtigh the reduction of greenhouse gas einissions and incteased waikability/reduced reliance on vehicles for transportation, The rules reqWre that alp new buildings be constructed to produce 40% fewer greenhouse gas (GIHG) ermssrons than those built to NYS code, The ECS will become more stringent in 2023, requiring an 80% reduction in emissions, $tafting in 2026, net -zero buildings that do riot use fossil Neis wfll be required (with exceptions for cooking and process energy), Compliance with #ie ECS could lead to changes in the, built ei*ronment, e,g,, inereased density, increased walkabOity, and reduction on the reliance of gas -powered vehicles as the main source of transportation in new developments C'.heck this box if you have determined, based on the intbrination and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the prortosed action may result in oric or inore potentially large or sigrifflemit adverse impacts and an envimninernal impact statement is required, Check this hox ifyou have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed aidion will not wsult in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Town of Ithacal Town Board Narne of"Lead Ag ,ency Rod Howe .......... . . - Date Town Supervisor title of Responsible Officer Agency Signature of"Preparer Ofdifferent front Resporisible Officer) Page 2 rat"2