Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1998-06-11 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING June11 , 1998 5 : 30 p. m . AGENDA 1 . Call to Order. 2 . Pledge of Allegiance . 3 . Review of Correspondence : a . . Form Letters - Regarding Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project. 4 . 5 : 35 p. m . = PUBLIC HEARING : Proposed rezoning of a portion of Tax Parcel No . 19- 1 =5 on East Shore Drive , for the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project, to consider SEQR findings , related to such rezoning , and to consider a proposed Local Law effecting such rezoning . 5 . Consider SEQR related to the rezoning of a portion of Tax Parcel No . 19- 1 -5 on East Shore Dirve , for the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project. 6 . Consider adoption of a Local Law related to the rezoning of a portion of Tax Parcel No . 19- 1 -5 on East Shore Drive , for the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project. 7 . Consider any additional business . 8 . Consider ADJOURNMENT . TOWN OF ITHACA SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING JUNE Ill 1998 5: 30 p.m. At a special meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York held at the Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street, there were present; PRESENT: Catherine Valentino, Supervisor, Carolyn Grigorov, Councilwoman; David Klein, Councilman ; Ellen Harrison, Councilwoman; Edward Conley, Councilman , Mary Russell, Councilwoman ; John Wolff, Councilman, ALSO PRESENT: Joan Lent Noteboom, Town Clerk; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering ; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning ; Andrew Frost, Director of Building and Zoning. OTHERS: Noel Kurtz, 186 Besemer Hill Road; Kathy Thomas, 1093 Warren Road; Michael Stamm, 407 Tenton Center; Jodi Schwan , Ithaca; Tim Peer, Horseheads , NY; Art Pierce, Chair of Tompkins County , Area Development; Mike Oates, Ithaca Post Office; Yuanita Hughes, Newfield NY; Bill Korherr, Falls Creek NY; Richard P . DePaolo, 939 East Shore Drive; George Kennedy, West Shore Cayuga Lake; Hucett Bahar, Lansing NY; Lisa Fernandez, 1018 East Shore Drive; Elmer arhalf; Sylvia Wahl , Town of Ithaca ; Nelson Hairston, Center of Environment; Edmond Richie, 622 est State Street; Le Moyne Farrell 120 Eastwood Terrace; Doria Higgins, 2 Hillcrest Drive; ,of wrence McCann, 309 Hudson Street; Roslyn Lo Pinto, Ithaca; Greg Bell, 113 Perry Lane; Barbara Headrick, 1163 East Shore Drive; Matt Peterson, Ringwood Road; Susan Titus, 250 Culver Road; Bill Witten , MD; Fay Gougakis, PO Box 6764; Barbara Ebert, 206 Lake Ave #1 ; Donald Stephenson, 1014 East Shore Drive; Gayle Kennedy, Ithaca; Mike Brevens, Channel 57; Jas Mina Petrovic, 916 Tioga Street; Ginger Nichols, 41 1 /2 Elm Street Trumansburg; Barbara Kedrick; Neil Kurty; Jeff Price, Trumansburg; Phyllis Hurlbut, Ithaca; Harry Anderson, Tioga County; Rob Metizls, Ithaca; Paul Sharpe, Spencer; Tom Bossack, Ithaca; Bryon V. Allen , Horseheads; Connie Chuang, Ithaca; John Gillis, 701 . West State Street; Robert Stagg, 701 West State Street; K. A. Thomas, 701 West State Street; Jim Eustice, 701 West State Street; Steve Cortright, Danby; Peggy Haine, Trumansburg; Joe Cramer, Freeville; Jim Robertson, Freeville; Steve White, 701 West State Street; Michael Boggs, 316 Turner Place; Jim Clarke, Brooke Road Trumansburg; Lauren Stanforth, Ithaca Journal; Margaret Ann Bowers, West Hill ; Bonnie Dee, Ithaca; Heather Maycumber, Newfield; Michelle Harlan, Ithaca; Randy Hughes, Ithaca; David Hughes, Newfield; Dana Dexter, Freeville; Katherine Praisner, 939 East Shore Drive; Bill King, 110 Hancock Street; Loris Foster, Ithaca; Heidi Best, 913 North Cayuga ; Frank Perry, Ithaca; John Sullivan, Ithaca; Nancy Spera, Ithaca; Joe Francis, Ithaca; Patricia Francis, Ithaca; Nicole Demoote, 432 North Titus Avenue; Susan De Bell, 327 Snyder Hill Road; Carol Terrizzi , 327 Taughannock Boulevard; Bente King, 8 Hillcrest Road; Burke and Starche, 8 Hillcrest Road; Adel Edwards, PO Box 6690; Julie Richie, 622 West State Street; Eli Gouver, 622. West State Street; James Gillette, 150 Burdick Hill Road; Max Pfeffer, 957 East State Street; Mary Steinhardt, 1868 East Shore Drive; Bob Long, 142 South Aurora Street #1 ; 2 ryn Marks, 143 South Aurora Street #2 ; Jennifer Crane, 401 North Albany Street; Jim Vendryes, 22 Honeypot Road Candor; Aleta Weaver, 104 Deerfield Place; Mari Rodriguez, 2462 West Danby TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 2 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED oad Spencer; Jeremy Rounds , 212 Campbell Avenue; Brey Ballantyhe, 212 Campbell Avenue; tarling B . H . Rounds, 212 Campbell Avenue; Thomas Hoebell , 415 South Geneva Street; Chuck urlbut, 175 Williams Glenn Road ; M . Devans, Trumansburg; Carolyn Nagy, 130 Banks Road rooktondale; Paige Krozby 130 Banks Road Brooktondale, Cornell University Staff on Lake Source Cooling: Henry Doney, Director of Utilities ; Lanny Joyce , Lake Source Cooling Project Manager; Shirley Egan , Associate University Counsel ; Dr. Elizabeth Moran , Consultant; Robert Bland, Environmental Compliance; Fred Rogers , Senior Vice President; Elizabeth Vastbinder, Project Coordinator; Peggy Haine, Communications Strategies; Tome LiVigne, Real Estate; John Gutenberger, Community Relations; John Heing , Consultant. Call to Order: The Supervisor called the meeting to order at 5: 32 p. m . , and led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 4 = PUBLIC HEARING = Lake Source Cooling. Supervisor Valentino read the Standards of Conduct of Public Participation. She explained the capacity of the meeting room was for 51 persons. Chairs for the 51 persons were provided. Supervisor Valentino explained all others would have to wait outside and wait their turn to be admitted. Supervisor Valentino asked persons to leave after they had spoken so others outside would have an opportunity to come in and speak. She explained there would not be a time limit on speaking, but asked all to be respectful of those who had not spoken and to those speaking. She tated all would have an opportunity to be heard. She announced that the use of profanity would not e tolerated, and persons using profanity would be asked to leave. upervisor Valentino opened the public hearing at 5.33 p. m. The Town Clerk had proof of posing and publication. Noel Kurtz, 186 Besemer Hill Road - I had reservations regarding the potential environmental impact of this project. My opposition to the project is based solely on the fact that Cornell University has not proven a need for it. Cornell University has not provided information to support the claim that Lake Source Cooling is the most cost effective option . Given that deficiency, how did the project get as far as it has in the approval process? I feel the reason is because it is beyond the expertise of all the various approval agencies, including this board . For example, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation' s mission has been the protection of waters . They did not look at alternatives, and this Town Board's concern has been zoning issues. There has been a flawed approval process in which the review agencies have not questioned the premise of this project. It remains to be proven this is the most cost effective project for Cornell . I propose that the Town Board underline the specific zoning issue. It is a presumption that Cornell University' s claim is true. If it is not, the whole premise of this meeting disappears . It is encumbered upon you to be sure that Cornell University does provide that rationale. We have yet to see the ata . I ask that you to delay zoning approval until Cornell University comes forth with the data that hould have been in the Environmental Impact Statement. SEQRA is the State Environmental ' TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 3 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED A&Qu Review Act that clearly states the detailed analysis of alternatives is required to be in the WS.vironmental Impact Statement. I have reviewed it thoroughly and it is not there. Kurtz provided the Ithaca Journal Editorial regarding Steve Little's letter. (See Attachment A) Kathy Thomas, 1093 Warren Road - 1 represent the Building Trades Unions and Carpenters Local . 603, The Building Trades Union represents over 2500 local construction workers. It endorses the Lake Source Cooling Project for the following reasons. First, is the immediate impact of employment opportunities for our area members. This project will employ 100(+) construction workers in the Ithaca and Tompkins County area. Persons who live, pay taxes, buy cars and groceries; and send their children to local schools. Eighty per cent of our income is returned directly to this community. The use of the IDA as the bonding partner will generate income for that agency. The income will be used to fund work force development projects. These projects make Tompkins County workers more employable and productive, an asset for business and industrial growth . There is an added economic incentive. For each dollar spent on capital construction a local community sees a 15% increase in economic growth. Supervisor Valentino - Do you have a written statement for the record? s. Thomas - "Yes, I do" . ( See Attachment B ) . ichael Stamm , 407 Tenton Center - I am the President of Tompkins County Area Development orporation, the community' s Economic Development Agency. We also administer the Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency, The Tompkins County Area Development Corporation's involvement in this project was a result of our role as administrator and manager of the Industrial Development Agency. A recent change in state and federal legislation allows the Industrial Development Agency to issue tax exempt bonds to assist Cornell University and other educational institutions finance capitol projects. The Industrial Development Agency approached Cornell University and expressed interest in issuing tax exempt bonds that helped to finance the Lake Source Cooling Project. We recognized the enormous positive impact that Cornell University has on this community and the need for the community to do everything it can to help Cornell University as a business entity in our community. We feel that Cornell University has done an excellent job of providing information about the project and providing an opportunity for public input and discussion of the project: We feel the project is environmentally sound, particularly through the reduction in the use of conventional electrical sources. The project itself will have an enormous positive impact on the local economy through the construction phase of the project. One hundred twenty construction workers will be employed during this phase. Dollars will be spent in the community to purchase supplies. Jodi Schwan, Ithaca - Read a prepared statement (See attachment C) TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 4 JUNE 113 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED ,Tim Peer, Horseheads, NY - I would like to thank you for this opportunity to address the Town Board . have lived in this immediate vicinity all my life, and I intend to live here for the rest of my life. I have personal association with Cayuga Lake that goes back to the mid 1960's. I care for this lake, and m as passionate about its welfare as any person here tonight. I absolutely support this project. If this were a polyvalent project or some other industrial process being proposed, I would stand with the opposition. This project represents a significant reduction in power usage . I simply cannot ignore the obvious environmental benefits as others have chosen to do. I have concerns, but feel they are being properly addressed. Mr. Peer showed a small picture showing Co2 concentration in the atmosphere for the last 40 years. This is a graph of scientific measurement taken at the Monoloi, Atmosphere Observatory in Hawaii . The observatory is in Hawaii because scientists believe Hawaii is representative of the overall global Co2 concentration levels due to the proximity of industrial processes. The result if this graph shows humankind is having an impact on the environment. I think we are all aware of what that means. We watch the news and we know the implications. This represents a small piece of what their project is plotting, global warming and climatic change. I am very passionate about the environment that surrounds us and what this picture represents. I feel we have an obligation to our children to leave them a habitable world. I have two children, and I do not like what this picture tells me . Certainly, this project is not the answer, but to me it is a step in the right direction . If a world class institution like Cornell University cannot lead us in that direction, en who can? If we cannot make a difference in our own community, then where are we going to ake a difference? I would like to quote some text that accompanied this picture from a book, Billings and Billings, by the late Carl Sagen ; "between the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of forests that remove Co2 , we ' humans are responsible for putting about 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide in the air every year. If we keep on with business as usual , the earth will be warmed more every year. Floods will be endemic. Many more cities, provinces and whole nations will be submerged beneath the waves unless heroic worldwide engineering counter measures are taken . " I would like to emphasize " engineering counter measures. " I believe . this project fits with what Dr. Sagen is : asking. Considering the obvious environmental benefits, the exhaustive scientific research that Cornell University has demonstrated is a commitment to protecting our resource. I have chosen to embrace this project. Art Pierce , Chair, Tompkins County Area Development - I am a 25 year resident of the area. I think the Lake Source Cooling Project is a creative and intelligent energy intensive cooling system . The University, its advisors, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation have carefully evaluated this proposed project and its impact on the lake. The project is sound . The facility proposed for the site is very much in keeping with neighboring land uses and should not present any conflicts. The Town of Ithaca needs to act positively and promptly so that this project can now move forward on schedule . TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 5 .TUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED ike Oates , Ithaca Post Office - I support Lake Source Cooling . I believe it has the fewest nvironmental impacts of any of the alternatives. I believe there are real benefits for the community, also believe that there will be some well paid union jobs created. 1 work at the Ithaca Post Office and 1 am an expert about what goes on there. This week there was some small construction taking place. The Post Office officials, without any warning , had people come in who disrupted and capsulated asbestos, lead paint, and fiberglass. These substances became airborne. People who work there, as well as postal patrons, were exposed to it. That work is now completed. I think inquiries should be made to the Postal Officials, especially since the Town of Ithaca now owns the building . It is something I believe should be discussed. Yuanita Hughes, Newfield - The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and other organizations have made mistakes in the past. I , and my family loves the lake. I have lived here all my life. I want my grandchildren and their grandchildren to be able to love and spend time walking the lake shore, and benefiting from the sounds of the lake. I feel that we need to start protecting our resources instead of raping them. For purposes of cooling people and office buildings, I think this extreme. Bill Korherr, Falls Creek NY - How many people enjoy their electricity? I know I do, I appreciate the lighting here tonight, and plugging in my appliances at home. Ms. Schwan stated the idea of circulating water in and out of the lake was not very popular and was not in use that much. Milliken ,,,Station , which NYSEG was kind enough to build 40 or 50 years ago, and Lake Source Cooling do F Uvery same thing. There was no public outrage when Milliken Station was built. It has created ntless jobs over the years, and lights that we duly appreciate. 1 am a member of Local 267, Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, obviously I am biased towards it for the reasons previously stated. Much of this project is going to cut through Fall Creek and Fifth Street and go up the hill. The benefits are municipal upgrading for our utilities. The $ 11 million that Cornell University said they would provide is a tremendous boom for the city and the town. I think the chilled water that they are going to provide to the Ithaca High School will greatly upgrade what they are presently trying to accomplish with their renovation project. It will pay for itself. The maintenance costs on their handling units for the high I school will be minimal . We have to understand that Cornell University, being a major employer in the County, has a strong say in what we do. The fact that cooling is a luxury is to an extreme extent. They also need chilled water for their computers. Cornell University has been a major employer for Tompkins County, and 1 believe that they have done exhaustive studies for the environment. I think this is an extremely worthwhile project and everyone will benefit. Richard P . DePaolo, 939 East Shore Drive - Read from a prepared statement. (See attachment D) George Kennedy, West Shore of Cayuga Lake - There are a couple of questions that tie into the previous statement I feel need to be answered. What environmental conditions are going to be monitored? What will be the standards for these conditions? What are the current measures for hese conditions in the lake? What actions will be taken if the conditions exceed the standard after ake Source Cooling is in operation? TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 6 JUNE 111 1998 APPROVED APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED t ff Price, Iradell Road - My wife's family has had a place on the lake for 50 years. 1 am here to eak on behalf of what 1 think is our most precious resource. 1 do not think Lake Source Cooling is ceiving the proper credit for the magnificent opportunity it has in the realm of energy conservation. ave been an energy conservation advocate for 28 years. During the 1980s, I worked on contracts for New York State in all but three counties, and in all five burrows of New York City. 1 identified energy conservation opportunities which included opportunities for an entire municipal utility area. From long experience, this is an unprecedented opportunity to do something for our environment. 1 would like to comment on the process. I have a friend who is a representative of Swiss Wind Generators. They operate in central New York. 1 have studied the application of hydrogen fuel cells. I have been following the difficulties of using both wind farms and hydrogen fuel cells in applications in the United States and areas with similar review requirements. It is pretty formidable, at this point it takes four to five years to successfully site a wind farm. It takes longer than it took in the 1960's to site a nuclear reactor. It costs ten times more than the expected output of a wind generator project because of environmental review processes that are carried to extreme. As far as the use of fuel cells, the State of California became frustrated with endless local reviews that they took out of the hands of localities. Ordinarily, I would object on the grounds of the anti-democratic movement, but I can see their point. The decision not to act on a momentous opportunity like this which is better for the environment is not a safe standing point. It is a step backwards. ugh Bahar, Lansing NY - I am speaking in favor of Lake Source Cooling. I think when history roves, after Lake Source Cooling is running just fine, everyone will realize what a winning situation this is for the . global environment. I think one of the graphic illustrations of the positive benefits is that it only contributes what would be an additional four or five hours of sunshine on the lake all year. It is hard to imagine a year when an additional four or five hours of sunshine on the lake is going to make a difference. Cornell University has gone out of its way to make sure about the sedimentation issues. Cornell has stated that the intake pipe will not be pulling sediments off the bottom. It has been specifically designed not to do that. The outflow pipe has been designed not to put all the heat into one area, so that it does not cause difficulties. I think the other alternative of phasing out chillers and saying that is a federal requirement is not true. CFC's (Chloro Fluoro Carbons) are still legal . They will be legal for quite sometime due to political pressures of people who have no other options. As time goes on , CFC's will be eliminated. They need to be eliminated by federal law. Once they are eliminated, CFC ' s will be replaced by other chillers that are much less efficient because they will be using a chemical that will not harm the ozone. 1 do not think that Cornell University looked at chillers and said that it was the only other possibility. It is just going to get worse in terms of the energy consumption of chillers as time goes on. This roect is a benefit to the economy and environment. We need to move forward on this project. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 7 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED ta Fernandez, 1018 East Shore Drive - Ever since I came to school at Ithaca College, I have come call Ithaca home. I have been living on the lake for two years and have noticed the difficulties the e goes through, seasonally and because of the Cayuga . Heights Sewage , Plant I know it is table, although it is a beautiful lake. As everyone here knows, it is a sensitive topic. All I am asking for you to postpone approval so you can look into this project more fully. Have more meetings before you decide. Carol Terrizzi , 327 Taughannock Boulevard - I live almost directly across from where the plant will be built. The missing piece is an objective assessment of the condition of the lake now. Before we can add anything to the lake, we need to have an accurate idea of what is growing there now. We already know that we have water quality problems especially at Stewart Park. There could be something like huge algae blooms. I do not think we would have a way at this point to know how that happened. What was the cause? It might be Lake Source Cooling , it might be something else, but we cannot really add things to this beautiful lake unless we know exactly where we are right now. Elmer Warhalf, Professional Mechanical in Aerospace Engineering at Comell University - My professional interests are in Feudal Mechanics and Heat Transfer. They are directly related to the issues of Lake Source Cooling, Although I have not been professionally involved in any aspect of the design , I have spoken to the engineers, particularly Lanny Joyce. I recalculated some of their calculations and have been extremely impressed by the degree and thoroughness of the professional work that is going on, f i peak as somebody who sees many different proposals and who is used to technical issues. I see s as professionally and intelligently done. I first became familiar with the project last year when e as Times did a drawing of the project. I was teaching pyrodynamics and used that as an example as a very clever, sensitive environmental way of cooling. It did not mix the waters and uses 80% less fossil fuels. The other point that CFCs are being banned needs to be emphasized. It is true they are, but other refrigerants are less efficient. Therefore, if we were to switch over to these refrigerants we would be using more power. I would like to emphasize, as I do in my teaching, and I teach very environmentally. These issues mean things not only to the world, but to people in Ithaca. The world is composed of small towns and cities. Each of us has to play a role. By doing the Lake Source Cooling, we will be directly responding to the issues of avoiding putting more fossil fuels into the atmosphere. I do sympathize with the people who are against the project. I think Ithaca is a wonderful community because it is so environmentally sensitive. I appreciate that some people are going to suffer. There will be more piping in certain areas with visual impact. I am afraid this always happens, it does not matter what we do. Things have to move on as always, we have to take costs in the least harmful way. I see this as being the least harmful of any proposal I have seen. I do consider myself an environmentalist, and I teach courses on these subjects at Cornell University. My recommendation is to endorse the project. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 8 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Chuck Hurlbut, 175 Williams Glenn Road - I have a number of serious concerns regarding Cornell's. ake Source Cooling Project It is an intrusion on public property. It has potential harmful effects. would like to comment on the role that you play in this matter. It is very obvious from your recent actions that you are highly influenced by Cornell University. I find it most troubling that you have been so easily convinced. Do you really believe that Cornell University's air conditioning problems warrant such compliance and cooperation. There are two sides to every question. In this case, you have decided to only_ listen to one side. There are many credited experts who have compiled considerable facts and evidence that directly disproves and contradicts Cornell University's findings. I do not understand why you have found it unnecessary to contact these people for that information. In fact, you have gained quite a reputation for not acknowledging any opinions that conflict with your own . In my opinion this is too important a matter to be decided by this small group. This is a matter that should be decided democratically by the people in the voting booth. It is their lake, and they should be allowed to determine how it is used . Unfortunately, this board will be asked to make the final decision . I stress how momentous that will be. This community will have to live with your decision for years to come. All we ask is that you give us as much time and consideration as you have given Cornell University. Fair is fair. In this particular instance it is extremely important. I ask you to deliberate wisely, use good judgment, and understand that you are obligated to represent the will of the people. As you deliberate, do not forget to keep checking with your nscience. If you do what is right for the lake, you will be doing what is right for us. Someday in the tuear future I am sure our grandchildren will ask us what happened to our lake. I will try to explain , t I will have to tell them that grandpa and many others tried to convince some people that it was a treasure and it was worth saving. I will have to tell them that they did not listen . Sylvia Wahl , Town of Ithaca - I would like to encourage the board to postpone your decision . It seems there has not been enough discussion about the negative impacts of this proposal on the lake. I think that the Environmental Impact Statement is flawed . It did not consider other possibilities than what is currently proposed . The question of whom the lake belongs to is a very serious question. : It is not the private property of any particular group. I think it is particularly sad when we see the kind of thing demonstrated tonight. The kinds of things that are happening with regard to the environment and people who need jobs. I think that it is important to recognize that even if the Lake Source Cooling project did not go forward, Cornell University would have those people working for them doing other projects that will provide the kinds of jobs and wages that people deserve. Additional information and study on the part of the people who are making the decisions needs to be done. Finally, there was a comment made about the kind of error that occurred in the Post Office this last week. We do not know yet who would be responsible for any damage to the lake, or is there a final answer to that. Would Cornell University be responsible if the lake is severely damaged? TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 9 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED t e lson Harsten , Chair of Technical Advisory Committee - We were asked to serve by the Center of vironment of Cornell University to evaluate the environmental impact research that was carried out Sterns and Wheeler. They collected data for a number of years, and we were present for the tire process . We evaluated the quality of the data they collected and the future data that they were to collect. We advised them on what data we wanted to see so that we could evaluate the potential impacts of Lake Source Cooling . In our statement, we summarize that. I want to mention two things that seem to be important and may not be fully appreciated. One is that Cayuga Lake holds a massive amount of water. I calculated it as 2 , 114 cubic miles of water in Cayuga Lake, that is a huge amount, although 32 , 000 cubic feet per minute sounds like a lot of water. When you calculate, it turns out to be 4/1000 of the total volume of Cayuga Lake that would be circulated within the lake every year. That .is a tiny drop of water relevant to the whole lake. What is being circulated is water from within the lake. It would be moved from one part of the lake to the other. We were concerned about those potential impacts. We explored that in detail . We came to the conclusion that the impact would be extraordinarily difficult to detect. I understand that many people are concerned. Honestly, I cannot imagine that the impact would be detectable visually by anyone . I think it would be very difficult to detect chemicals . My analogy, if you fill a bath tub with water as a model of Cayuga Lake and fill it with 20 gallons of water, Lake Source Cooling would be the equivalent of taking one cup of water from that bath tub slowly trickling back into the lake over the course of a year. It would take a very fine stream of water ,okcaFk to that bath tub to maintain that stream for a whole year. It is a very small amount of water ing circulated within the lake. have read and heard repetitively that Cayuga Lake is a very sensitive ecosystem. I have never heard anyone .tell me what they thought that meant. All ecosystems can be called sensitive. Some ecosystems are more sensitive than others. Lakes, especially large ones, are enormously resilient systems. There are repeated examples in the study of Eutrophication on lakes where they have rebounded very quickly when the impacts of nutrient pollution were corrected . The lake can respond very quickly to a clean up . I would like to emphasize, there will not be any massive new nutrient addition or even a very small new nutrient addition. The phosphorous that will be added to the surface waters of the lake will be in lower concentration that what is already in the surface water. If you had dark blue water at the surface of the lake, and you added light blue water to that. It cannot do anything but make it a lighter blue. If you already have nutrients in the surface water and you add less concentrated nutrients, there will be less algae in the water. The conclusion of my committee is that we do not expect, and have a great deal of confidence, that Lake Source Cooling would not have an impact. Those are the limitations of our conclusions and I feel very strongly about it. Barbara Kedrick, Ithaca - I grew up in Ithaca . I went to Cornell University as an undergraduate and or my masters degree . I am a business person and I have worked for multinational companies . This the first time I have opposed anything against Cornell University. I think very highly of Cornell TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 10 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED University. After living 20 years around the world I have come back to Ithaca because it is by far the . ` ost beautiful place in the world . I want to keep it that way, and I want to help you help us keep it hat way. The Lake Source Cooling Project has some good things going for it. I just want to help you to make it better so we can keep Cayuga Lake beautiful . To address the Professors previous comments, there is a very large lake there, but the outflow pipe is in very shallow water. There is a new group forming along Cayuga Lake called the Cayuga Lake Watershed Network. They are well represented from people involved in the water/sewer district, Cornell University professors , and Soil and Water Conservationist' s. There are many robust experts. They have stated that it takes ten years for Cayuga Lake water to actually cycle. That is a very slow flow rate. When people talk about water in the southern end they are talking about the shallow part of the lake before the shelf. Putting warmer water in the lake during the spring into the fall extends the growing season and affects the ecology of that environment. It takes a long time for the southern end water to get to the north . The Chemung River passes through Horseheads, and the have a Lake Source Cooling Project. The Chemung River is slimey and has a pea green color. I fly over the river and come into Elmira and am absolutely disgusted . The Chemung River has a faster flow rate than Cayuga Lake. It would be what Cayuga Lake is going to look like at the southern end . People do not swim in , or eat fish out of the Chemung River. s that what we want for the south end of Cayuga Lake? Many people live and stay in Ithaca because it is beautiful . If you ruin the lake, even the southern end, you are going to lose a lot of the value of having people coming back here. You are going to lose the talent. I lived in West Philadelphia, Pennsylvania before coming back to Ithaca. When we visited my grandparents in Western Pennsylvania, while driving we wanted to know what the smell was. It was the Scupel River. That is what is going to happen when Lake Source Cooling comes down East Shore Drive. That is not what we want for Ithaca . The lake makes this town very special . We have to keep clean. There should be swimming in the south end of the lake. We need to make every little decision moving towards a cleaner lake, not towards one that puts it at risk. I do not think there is anything that is worth that risk. I would like the board to postpone the zoning decision so that you can negotiate with Cornell University to avoid major problems. 1 spoke with a water expert from the Environmental Protection Agency who read the Lake Source Cooling New York State Department of Environmental Conservation permit. He has some helpful advice for the Town of Ithaca. He said in is opinion the town needs to delay approving the rezoning. It is the town' s last strong chance to negotiate with Cornell University and the town needed to negotiate three items . Establish baseline data that is comparable to the monitoring data. Establish thresholds that link algae' s growth and other impacts to the Lake Source Cooling Project. Third , TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 11 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED there needs to be an agreed upon written contract. These are the pre-specified actions that Cornell Rniversity has to take if any of the thresholds are hit. e even suggested three buckets. If you see these three activities, it might be linked to the Lake Source Cooling . Another bucket of thresholds , if you hit these it is probable that it is the Lake Source Cooling Project. The third bucket, if any of these thresholds are hit, it is definitely Lake Source Cooling . Any time those thresholds are hit, have pre-specified written actions of what Cornell University is going to do. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the EPA expert said that if the town does not take these three steps it will take many years to link the algae' s growth with the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling . When I called the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation , they said they expected the algae problem to get worse. There is no easy solution , but it will take 5-10 years to prove that Cornell University is the cause. I asked what some of the solutions are, and they said chemicals are one solution . Who wants to put chemicals in the lake? We need to specify in advance what steps Cornell University is going to take if there is algae growth . I asked Cornell University what happens if there is algae just around the marina. I specified around the marina because it localized it to where the discharge pipe is. Cornell said we needed to prove that it was them. I am hearing that Cornell University is denying any accountability. They are putting it all on us to rove that they are the cause. After we prove they are the cause , they are going to argue about at the solution is. Take the time now and put rigor and discipline into your contract so that you do of end up paying the costs later on . We will end up with a dirty lake , and a town that is not so special . We will have to pay to clean it up . Take a hard stand on this, and ask the EPA for help. Think of Horseheads , it is close to home and a good example . Ed Richie, 622 West State Street - I do not pretend to be an expert on ecology or engineering . I know about this project from what I have read . This project is going to reduce the fossil fuels. Everyone talks about fossil fuels, and others talk about ruining the lake. It looks as if there is. an overwhelming concern for the environmental good . I would have expected the environmental activist community to embrace this because they are doing everything everyone wants. Reduction of ozone depletion , phloral carbons , and all the other things . The studies I have read have been going on for a few years. I believe this is environmentally sound . Everyone should be supporting this project. I am surprised at the opposition . If there was not one job created by this project, it would still be a good project. There are economic benefits for the entire community. Everyone will benefit from jobs created . Matt Peterson , Ringwood Road - l have heard a number of people and I have read a number of . articles. People are saying you have a situation where you have phlora carbons and an impact on the ozone, fossil fuels, and an impact on the greenhouse effect. Therefore, it is alright that you are doing this to the lake. I do not see a logical connection between the two . I see them as two issues. Is this the thing to do, or is there going to be a negative impact on the lake. The other question I ave is a question of responsibility. I do not know that much about Cornell University . I have always TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 12 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED = AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED gotten the impression they are prone to being irresponsible after they have done a project. They do rt follow up later. oved here three years ago and live on Ringwood Road. I drive past the East Hill Plaza, and soon after moving in found out it belonged to Cornell University. The first spring that I lived there I noticed the entrance to the plaza on Ellis Hollow Road was filled with potholes. Vehicles would bang into the potholes or swerve around the potholes. That spring a person showed up with a truck and put asphalt in all the holes and patched them up . A month later all of the asphalt popped out and the holes were there again . That fall they filled the holes again , about a month later they popped out again. The next year the same thing happened in the spring and the fall . A few weeks ago they finally paved the parking lot, but they only filled in the holes again with asphalt without paving over the entrance to Ellis Hollow Road . These people just are not thinking straight. It bothers me that now they are planning to turn the lake into their personal radiator. A couple of days ago on television (CSPAN ), Vice President Al Gore was with many scientists who stated global warming is real . The frequency and impact of " El Nino" are getting closer together as the world becomes warmer. They were even saying that it may be beginning to accelerate rapidly. Last year the world wide records for temperature have been broken in every month of this year. Now they are going to heat the lake. I feel that if you go ahead with this, you need to be sure that you have a good contract and they are going to be responsible if anything happens. You should be really definite . There should not be any litigation , negotiation and fighting . They should be the ones with #eir feet held to the fire if something goes wrong . a Moyne Farrell , 120 Eastwood Terrace - I have come to ask you to postpone your decision and ask for more outside consultation. I can recommend one name, David Gilbert. He has studied Lake Source Cooling and has devised new tests for examining the sediment of lakes. He has asked for a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement which was sent to him. He is at Colorado State University in the Department of Hydrology and Environmental Sciences . During the discussion by the board Monday night, I expressed a concern that the intake pipe does not have a cover on it. Mr. Gilbert said that was because it would be very hard to maintain 250 feet below the surface. The intake pipe will be open . There is life at 250 feet. My concern is that Persian Crustaceans will be taken up in the intake and killed, then recycled back into the lake. The temperature at 55 degrees is far higher than your refrigerator. The deposit of proteins like this into the lower end of the lake would appear as a problem for the development of bacterial and algae growth . This is due to the prevailing winds being north/south and westfeast. The discharge permits given the sewage disposal plant by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation stated that water lower than 90 degrees is possible to put into the lake. I think is extraordinarily poor. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 13 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED In January, the lake dispersal from the sewage plant averages 53.4 degrees. In April 56. 1 degrees, ugust 72. 9 degrees, and December 58. 2 degrees. The temperature of the lake was influenced by e temperature of the water coming into the lake from our use in our homes. 1. asked one of the Professors doing research on this project about the intake of fish . I was very concerned about the bacterial count that will develop as a result of spoiled fish taken in on those pipes and then delivered to the south of Cayuga Lake in 12 feet of water. The Ithaca Journal article stated it would be dispersed in 17 feet of water. I feel that is very alarming . I wrote a letter to the Ithaca Journal which was not published. Perhaps you can understand , why given what I have written. My husbands, a Theoretical Mathematician, first comment upon reading the Ithaca Journal article that indicated the 5% phosphorous annually is not much on an annual basis when the sewage affluent is far higher than that, was that over the course of 10 years statistically that is an enormous amount. The plan , as drawn in the Ithaca Journal diagram , does not allow for filtration of the water taken into the intake. The first thing that Dr. Gilbert' s assistant said was they should have a filtration area and a sump to catch the material so the water put back into the lake is clear of bacteria and protein. Warm water loses oxygen and cultivates anaerobic material . Ms. Farrell read from a prepared statement: I umber 1 . Think. Bacterial and fungus increases exponentially when temperature increases from 0 to 55 degrees . We already chlorinate our water heavily in Ithaca to avoid this sort of ntamination. Number 2. Think. Prevailing wind . will cause this warm spot to drift north/south , east/west, respectively, influencing the temperature of water near each shore. During cold winter weather a wet will forever occur in this place where the lake will be at 55 degrees 15 feet below the surface. Number 3. Think. During winter weather a mist will form forever over this area which will drift to respective shores. Some residents will be engulfed in this and have their views obscured. There is already a scent from the sewage affluent there . Number 4, Think. As this "warm spot" drifts, shore life will be affected. Frogs, eels, and turtles will not be able to hibernate properly with this shifting of the warm spot in Cayuga Lake. " Think, The Tremain Marina has a resting spot for birds as a sanctuary. The northwest comer of the marina has a protected area for field and water birds . I am concerned about bacteria and algae in the water because of this resting area. The Ithaca Journal article states this technology will warm the water 15 feet below the surface significantly. As persons, my husband and 1 , highly allergic to fungus and sensitive to bacteria, we do not want Cornell University to use Cayuga Lake for cooling . Not unless the project clarifies the protein it takes TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 14 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED from the lake water intakes. More research is needed to find another source to satisfy Cornell Iiversity's needs. " san Titus, 250 Culver Road - Presented a diagram to the board. I believe that this old willow at Stewart Park is the favorite tree in Ithaca . Hardly a day goes by that someone does not come into my gallery and tell me a story about the tree, or a wonderful passionate feeling about the tree. Generations of families have climbed on this tree, it is not just the tree, it is where it is. I think the majority of the people who have a passionate feeling about Stewart Park and Cayuga Lake feel that the lake is a sacred place . The Indians felt that Cayuga Lake was a sacred lake. It appears that we have not been paying attention to the lake. Last summer, not very far from this tree, the odor in the water appeared to smell like sewage. This was reported in the newspaper and was appalling to tourists coming to the Tourist Information Center, and to those of us who love to go to Stewart Park. I was reading the science section of the New York Times last winter about our reefs. It stated that if the oceans temperatures rise only four degrees we will lose all our reefs. We are talking about increasing our lake water 15 degrees. I do not understand this, especially with the global warming which most scientists agree is upon us. Last winter was the first winter I can remember not worrying about my pipes freezing. So I am here to ask you to please postpone your decision . Doria Higgins , 2 Hillcrest Drive - With respect to all of you, I thank you for the good job you have F ine over the years. You are not professionally equipped to make a reasonable judgment on this tter. I urge you to get an outside consultant to review it, then perhaps you can look at their nion and act on it as you see fit. This is much too complicated for the board to handle. I mean that respectfully. There are too many unanswered questions from the Environmental Impact Statement. The monitoring specifications, as legally explained in the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( SPDES), are inadequate to ensure the welfare of the community you represent. For instance, as worded in the permit, "the staffing for additional phosphorous in the outfall pipe could be taken as far away as a mile and a half northwesterly of the pipe" . A distance large enough , and in a direction to almost ensure that no additions could be traced to the outfall pipe. There are no specifications in the permit that sampling be taken near the pipe or near Stewart Park, the area most in jeopardy because of its location south of the outfall . The input of the phosphorous and Lake Source Cooling outfall may be a small percentage of phosphorous in the lake compared to the runoff from the hills and parking lots . That small percentage coming through the pipes may be the final trigger, even though it may be less than what is there now. How can you measure such crucial distinctions? Professor Warhahl was here and advised you to go ahead and do this . During his speech at the Bookerv, he pointed out how important small incremental additions can be. Dr. Norman Dundario, speaking of other matters, said the same thing TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 15 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10 , 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED to me on the telephone . Do not underestimate important tiny additions. The 3-7 % additions, the nvironmental Impact Statement admits, that will be added to the lake may be disastrous. have been told by a member of the Cornell Technical Review Committee that a number of Cornell scientists are concerned because under the conditions of the SPDES specifications there would be no way for Cornell to prove it was innocent if damage to the lake is observed . Those scientists would have volunteered more intensive monitoring techniques than set aside in the SPDES techniques. However, it is important for you to recognize this is volunteer monitoring on the part of Cornell . It is not legally required according to the SPDES permit. The board must make sure the monitoring is required by law. No one should be expected to police themselves in any matter. It would be unrealistic. to expect them to do so. What is being monitored now is the effects of phosphorous that are undesirable, algae bloom and loss of water clarity. I understand that in one part of the permit it does speak of transparency tests. I think it should be explained that there is testing for the algae bloom itself and for the water clarity itself, not just testing for the phosphorous . According to a 1968 pamphlet written by seventeen Cornell scientists, they were talking about the Nuclear Water Plant. Clean water transparency dropped from 173 feet in 1928 to 7 . 9 feet in 1965. 1 have been told there has been improvement in this since then because of Zebra Mussels. Such a drop shows you how vulnerable the lake can be to changing conditions. We should not experiment JMth a lake. want to say to the members of the local labor union , there will be other maybe more expensive . alternative projects . Professor Heriston talked about re-circulation figures in terms of the entire 40 mile stretch of lake. We are not talking about the 40 mile stretch . We are protesting about the southern end of the lake. A Cornell University professor involved with the pamphlet, calculated the effect of the outfall from the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project pipe. It was about 10 feet for a square mile. It was much more than the figures Professor Heriston gave you for the entire lake . In 1968 , 17 Cornell University scientists said, " the effects of unification , caused by algae bloom and lack of water clarity is generally irreversible" . Maybe the current thinking says that is not true, but in ten years they might again say it is irreversible. Were the seventeen scientists right, or the one scientist today? Ms. Higgins provided additional information to the board. (See attachment E) Bill Witten , MD - I am sure you have all heard the common sense concerns that people have. Drinking water degradation , raw sewage overflow, farm runoff, bacteria, and disrupted sensitive habitats are just gut feelings people here have . All we can be expected to have is feelings. We are not a $4 million dollar corporation spending money with world renown scientists to prove the nvironmental Impact Statement is wrong . It is not our job to come up with an alternative TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 16 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10 , 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED nvironmental Impact Statement, it is your job to appoint experts to put together an expert panel that n review as outsiders this project. What are the roles of the various participants? What is Cornell University's role? Cornell University' s role is to act as an educational corporation in its own best interest. They do that with everything. I would rather think they have done a terrific job. I think that from a technological and financial point of view this is a great product that Cornell has put before us. It is innovative. It is interesting, but is it safe for the lake? I do not have any idea, and 1 do not think you can rely on them. Their scientists pushed this project through once it is determined by their administrators this is the way to go. Their job is not to do disinterested science. It is not as if they are actually going to run statistics that prove they should not be doing this. These are people made to " ram" this project home, and they have done a terrific job of it. Another example, is the Cornell incinerator in which they proposed spraying PCB's on the students and residents of Forest Home. They are the same scientists that are telling us that this is a safe project. What happened? The people said " no what is going on? There were serious meetings and a stop in the construction permit. That is the same thing that needs to take place with this . Sterns and 9 heeler, what is their job? They are environmental consultants. They were hired as consultants to e if this is a good project? They were hired as consultants to educate us. What does educate us ean? It means to indoctrinate us with their views as to why this is right. All we are, is foolish, stupid children and they have the facts. Once again , they will pull out a graph and say it is a complete view, What about the people? What is our role? What is the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation' s role? They are the " nuts and bolts" of this bureaucratic operation. Who is to make sure the right appendix is with the right chapter, and makes sure this is addressed adequately. Are they independent experts? Did they spend millions of dollars to review what Cornell spent millions of dollars to do? " NO" , it is not their job. They approve many projects in this state that over the years have been disasters. To rely on them is to rely on the wrong people because it is not their job. They do not have the money to do it. They are not funded to do it. They do not have the expertise to do it, and it is not their job. Our job is to have a gut feeling. Our job is to activate our ( profanity used) meters. That is the only thing we can do in a democracy. We cannot do better than that. Then with that, whatever we read from it, our job is to let our public officials know. That is all that we can do. We cannot do more than that. I have been to a number of meetings with other boards. Basically it was an exercise to defuse the 11bellious ,blic. People (board members) who acted as if they were parents, disciplining a wayward, environmental nut. You could see their eyes rolling back. You know they knew what they TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 17 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Ifre going to do before they listened to us. They were not listening because they wanted to hear at we said so that maybe they would act on that, they were listening to us because they had to. It s their duty. I do not think that is how democracy is supposed to work. What I see officials doing is being part of the "greed grab" that Comell University is doing with our lake. So you are going to make some money floating their bond. You are going to get free air conditioning at the high school . It is a disgrace. Your job is not to act like corporate antinomies. Your job is to represent us. It amazes me how many people speak out against this in proportion to the attendance at these meetings. Yet, the vote is maybe one person with common sense. How is that possible in a democracy? Are you doing your job? Your job is to act as "checks and balances" in a democracy. That is how the Constitution says you are supposed to operate. We do not have the power. We cannot stand up to their Environmental Impact Statement, but you can. The way to do that is to hire your own experts. I am sure the people in this county would be willing to spend a $ 1 . 00 or a $1 . 50 each to pay for those experts to get an independent view. Start from the beginning and look at this project theoretically, conceptually, that is what Comell University did behind their doors . That is not in the draft Environmental Impact Statement, they do not talk about that. e south end of the lake is a disaster. It looks more as if a super fund clean up site than the jewel this town , 5% further degradation is absolutely intolerable. The only lake project that we should e backing is one that restores our lake. Lawrence McCann , 309 Hudson Street - I came to Ithaca two years ago to attend Comell University. I am very new with this information, but I have developed a strong sense that Cornell University does not always do right. I am now thinking about living in the Ithaca community and I have spent the last couple of weeks looking at real estate. I went to MIT as an undergraduate. 1 was an ocean engineer and we decided to develop a project to track endangered whales. I brought a group together to do this and we are considered true experts in terms of fluid dynamic, acoustics and fabrication of electronic components. The group had an acoustics expert who has written one of the " Bibles" on acoustics , and was the chairperson of the Ocean Engineering Department at MIT. Professor Mitsubushi is considered the expert on fabrication of nuclear submarines . I started a very small project with a few engineers to develop a small tank that would track some of the vanishing whales. We used a person who developed the strobe. He was one of the developers of radar during World War II . We started by creating a very small device and fired it with a crossbow, then photographed its entry into a piece of meat that would simulate blubber. This project became bigger and bigger. We ended up with a projectile that was 6 inches long and 1 1 /2 inches wide. It was funded by MIT. In a meeting the idea of firing a projectile that large into a whale would oill the whale. It seemed that no one had even considered that. The project ended instantly, but no ne had a response. It was an amazing to see some of the people I respected more than anyone in TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 18 JUNE 119 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED the world sitting around discussing the development of a device to track endangered whales . The oint would be tracked as it sank to the bottom of the ocean . Over the years I consider MIT to be ne of the gems of America . Quite honestly, I have not had that experience at Cornell . I have developed a very strong suspicion of Cornell University and have been struck by their disregard for the Ithaca community. I am really sorry about that, and I have spoken to many people about it. There is a book at the Cornell Bookstore called How To Rely on Statistics, which is used in some of their classes. I think it is a good idea to delay this decision until you have read this book. A statistical number of 4/1000 of 1 % was given . . Generally, a fraction is reduced . The ratio changes to 1 /250, 4/1000 sounds much smaller than 1 /250. Another interesting thing about a number as 4/1000 is 4 out of 1000 is a very hard number to measure. Five to six out of a 1000 could be considered very close. When you get to 6 or 7 out of 1000, you actually go to 2/250, that is 1 /125, So you go from a number , of 4/1000 that is 1 /250, but it could very easily be 1 /125 , 1 find it disconcerting to hear people using a number like 4/1000. It seems to me that number should be 1 /250 or 1 /125 , Faye Gougakis, PO Box 6764 - I am here to try and stop this project, or at least delay it. Even though I consider myself an activist and I speak out, I want you to know that it hurts me when I have to oppose another person or speak in a different way. I think that what I have to say is a real issue, Ite might not be Ph . D . scientists, but we have valid concerns and we have done a lot of homework, ne of the reasons that brought me to the area was Wells College on Cayuga Lake, Cayuga Lake is one of their biggest assets. When I went to Wells College you could see to the bottom of the lake. That was 1981 , 1 moved to Ithaca in 1982 . When I was at the Ithaca Festival on Sunday, I could not believe my eyes. The murkiness of that water looked as if tar was coming into the park. The beautiful willow tree that Ms. Titus so beautifully has drawn, has roots exposed . There is erosion at the end of the lake and I do not know what is happening. The ducks that used to be there in many numbers when I first came to Ithaca are not there. When you start to see the wildlife leaving it is a sign . It is an outside sign . We do not know what is going on inside the lake. I heard this from scientist, from educating myself, from various countless environmental lectures that I have gone to at Cornell . I am grateful for Cornell University and what I have learned from Cornell University. I am someone who will standup for justice and what is right. We are already experiencing the smells from the lake. Tourism is one of our biggest assets . What is going to happen to tourism? What is going happen with the people who live on the lake? People start to move away and do not return. Look what is happening with the crime and the drugs in our community. People are leaving . I know this because I ran for City Council recently. Unfortunately, I was turned away and it is really sad for this community that I was turned away. I know what is going on and I will speak the truth. There are two other people who came tonight who are running for the Fifth Ward Democratic seat. One who works for Cornell University , and the other one who is a pipe fitter here on behalf of the nion . I am here on behalf of saving the lake. I do not have a special interest. Cornell University TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 19 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED has so much power and we know that. I am not saying that to condemn them. I am saying that cause they continuously show our community that they do not care about us. Yes , they employ any people, but with that it is the " Robin Hood" style. This "mega" University is sitting there, tax xempt, and all of the problems that stem in this town are from their tax exemption status. I do not see a line of scientists here. I see a line of people who care about the lake and who have spoken here before you. They are putting their time and effort to understand the situation. I do not see fifty scientists out there backing up Cornell University. This community has been tom apart with the whole environmental solution. There are many environmental solutions. It does not just have to be Lake Source Cooling. The alternatives have not been thoroughly investigated. We have been demanding outside opinions for a long time. It does not seem right to just get Cornell University's opinion. You do not have to have a Ph . D . to realize that. You go to another unbiased source. I spoke to the very people that are in here who are proposing this project. I do not want to disrespect them , but it is only fair to have an outside opinion. If that means we have to pay for it, we should, and I am willing to pay for it. I think many other people are willing to pay for it. I do not see Cornell University willing to pay for the damages. Who will pay for the damages? It will be very difficult to prove that this project will hurt the lake because the zebra mussels are in the lake. The zebra mussels are causing a lot of damage. We do not even know the extent of the damage they will cause within a five or ten year time frame. We have seen what the radiation dump has done. Radiation from their toxic dump has leaked into Me lake. I think that is pretty severe. At that public meeting , I was told by Cornell University that ey put a cap on the toxic dump. How about when the radiation leaks through the rocks and it runs to the lake. It is not going to do it now, but it will do it many years from now. That is a dump that the New York .State Department of Environmental Conservation approved many years ago and they looked to Cornell University scientists for that project. They approved it because of Cornell scientists. Two people died recently, Rick Gray and Richard Lawrence. When you go to the place where they died there is a little sign that says " No Fishing" . The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has yet to put a sign there saying it is dangerous. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation , to honor those people, should put a sign there immediately. Mayor Cohen has sent them a letter telling them to please do something. This is the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation . These are two people that died because the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation did not take the responsibility to place a sign. Cornell University receives money from space agencies, NASA and other government agencies. I spoke -to a scientist about all of that money instead of creating another satellite being used to create alternative energies that are very efficient. The scientist told me that I was right. With all of the money Cornell receives , I have never seen them step forward to do something for Cayuga Lake. . That lake is hurting . They have not addressed the concerns. The end of the lake is very dangerous right now. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 20 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED know many environmentalists in Ithaca. Many of them are torn . This issue of Lake Source Cooling eing the end of, the savior, . is something that has bought the minds and hearts of many people gether in the Ithaca community. This issue of Lake Source Cooling being the only alternative, if we do have this, we are going to have a bad atmosphere. We are going to have ecological problems that we do not want. It is being sold to us and I feel this kind of mentality is very dangerous. It is unfortunate that it is happening at the hands of Cornell University. I do not think or believe everyone on the lake knows what is going on . Many people are not aware of what is going on and to what the extent of damage that might happen . We need to look at the ecosystem that is in danger. All you have to do is visit the park. You cannot swim at Stewart Park, and the water is revolting to look at. Who owns the lake? Is it fair that because Cornell University has money, they can buy the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation? That is what they have done. You have heard from other speakers how there are people in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation stepping forward and saying this is going to hurt the lake. It is going to be difficult to prove. In the end , who will save the lake. Pollution is escalating. I really believe to pass this, is the wrong thing . There is no reason why we cannot wait because the very people who talk about the environment tonight drive cars, and do other things that hurt the tornell vironment. University could be a role model to this community. It has already shown that it is not a role model. It refuses to pay more than $300, 000 a year for this community. I have not seen any kind of generosity coming from the university. I went to New York City to see my father this weekend . I was on the bus and we were talking about Lake Source Cooling and Cornell . The bus driver said he had gone to pick up the students at Cornell . They told him that because of the alumni gathering he could not park the bus where it was supposed to go. He had to call Cornell Police . Cornell Police came and they said it was alumni weekend and they take over. The instructions are the cars can be parked wherever they can. The bus driver said that this was not only bad for the bus, it was also a fire hazard because the fire trucks could not even go there. Do these trustees, the alumni , know what is going on. I hope the board can find it in their hearts to please, at least delay this. Roslyn LoPinto , Ithaca - I have lived on the lake for twenty-five years and can evaluate the lake from living there, not as a scientist. The lake has changed . I can remember when we could swim in Stewart Park. I live two miles from Stewart Park and the lake has changed. I do not believe anyone has the right to use the lake as a resource . It is not a resource. It is a natural wonder. I do not think it is ours to use. I could also air condition my house with the lake water, . if Cornell can. Does veryone then have the right to use the lake for their own purposes? TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 21 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED object to the site of the project. It is in the wrong place. It is much too close to the shallow end of e lake. The lake has been deteriorating over the last twenty-five years. Forty years ago my Wildren swam in the lake at Stewart Park, it was very clean . We did not have to worry about getting t and going into the lake. Now you do , it is dangerous to get a cut and go in the lake. People have gotten staff infections. What about the impact on the water supply that is very close to the project and close to sewer plants? I wonder if as few people as you have a legal right to decide about the zoning and lending money to Cornell for a project that is so important without a public referendum. Barbara Ebert, 206 Lake Avenue #1 - I am Chairperson of the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council's Environmental Review . Committee. My committee was entrusted by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council with reviewing the Cornell Lake Source Cooling Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and the subsequent followings of that document. As many people in the environmental community, we were amazingly enthusiastic about this project at the outset. We found this project to be extremely interesting. The problem was , the more we asked questions, the less we felt we got answers. That is where we remain today. Last night a resolution was passed by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council on behalf of that group. s. Ebert read the resolution and provided it to the board. (See attachment F) upervisor Valentino - How many members are there on the Environmental Council? Ms. Ebert - There are about twenty-two or twenty-one voting members. It depends on who has been appointed by the Tompkins County Board of Representatives. We as an organized body of people concerned with the environment have followed this subject. The resolution was not something that we came to lightly. We had four meetings of the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council addressing this same issue. I know well how many meetings you have had to address this same issue. So you can see that we did not just debate it once and come to a conclusion. We encourage you to think about our findings in making your decisions this evening. As a private citizen, I am here tonight to say a few things. I am really disappointed in the way this public hearing was held because so many of us had to wait outside for such a long time. I know that you are looking for new circumstances to hold your meetings, but this was well anticipated to be a large hearing. Many of the people standing outside can speak with me in saying it was not pleasant being outside for an hour or more waiting to come in. It did not make us feel as if we were part of this political process. So we really encourage you to do something about it in the future. I would like to say just one brief thing as a person interested in the environment, something they teach scientists, "first, do no harm" , 1 think that if we keep that in mind when looking at this project, then we can ask if this project will ultimately make this a better lake. I think that even Cornell dentists, their representatives, cannot say without equivocation that this is going to make Cayuga ake a safer, cleaner, healthier take . TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 22 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED reg Bell , 113 Penny Lane - 1 am a member of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 1 would like to cknowledge for the public, as a member of Planning Board, my appointment is at the mercy of this Woard. It is not a normal process to have Planning Board members to come to this board. I decided 1 , like to come for the first time to express a few comments because the Planning Board has been studying this project for about two years. I have learned an incredible amount. I think Ms. Ebert's comments about people on the EMC starting out very much in favor, then learning more and becoming somewhat less in favor of this project as time went on is accurate. It is the same process that 1 went through; and 1 want everyone to know that. It is not something that I immediately opposed . For about a year and one half, I thought this was a great project. 1 do consider myself an environmentalist. I am very much concerned about global warming. The idea that we could eliminate 80% of the electric use of any large use is amazing. I said that, I liked the project, for once we have a project that is really doing some good. It is a very difficult process to come to any decision when serving on any of these boards. I think that everyone will agree with that. It is not just a black and white, yes or no, sort of issue. There are real issues. Unfortunately for Cornell University, there is a public relations problem that I have not heard anyone mention. Benefits to the environment are not benefits that you can actually see. Their electric bill will go down, use of CFC's will stop, and global warming will not be as bad. Well , those tall good things, but no one can actually perceive that unless you happen to be in the accounting wce of Cornell that pays the electric bill . ever, the negative impacts you can very clearly see. From a public relations point of view, they have a problem because we will all see the lake if it gets worse, but we will not see the benefits. 1 have sat through endless hearings and other meetings, and have done much reading and thinking about this as a Planning Board member. I have come up with many problems with this. I am very concerned about the issue of alternatives. I am very concerned specifically within this Lake Source Cooling Project, if this is the right project. I am very concerned about where the outflow of the water is. I do believe the town has a good chance of being "suckered" by Cornell University. I do not think it is necessarily going to be a terrible thing that you did not think about this, and it just somehow happened. I really think there is a process here at work that is very subtle and is very easy to make the wrong decision . I decided to speak tonight was to urge you not to fall into that trap. There are many community members, non-experts, asking if scientists at Cornell University are really the experts. There is a much bigger number of people who are questioning the project compared to those who are supporting it. Those who are supporting it have the institutional way and academic credentials . I think it is an interesting question . Am I an expert? No, I am not. As a Planning Board member, I can say that it is probably without much question that I do have more environmental background than other Planning Board members. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 23 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED here needs to be outside experts who .do not come from upstate New York, but from someplace far tway so that they are not part of this process. We need some real, true outside experts. Some ople said the population would be happy to pay for it. I am not sure that is the right avenue to ake. I do not see why the population should be asked to pay for it. I think clearly Cornell University should pay for it. The issue of alternative technologies is really what needs serious study. A number of people have said this. A number of Cornell experts have said they have studied the alternatives. You think ground source cooling, gas co-generation is all right, we know that it is not. "We know that it is not, why are you bothering us, " is what I am seeing from Cornell . That is not appropriate because the law does not allow that. The State Environmental Quality Review Act says specifically that all alternatives have to be studied and presented. even if Cornell University is right. They are not meeting the demands of the law. The law does not require them to study and dismiss it. The law requires them to convince this board and the Planning Board based on evidence. We cannot look at it and make our own judgments. The Town Board is the "wall" that will decide. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ( NYSDEC) already has been convinced. The Planning Board is not going to be able to stop this. It is up to the Town Board to stop it. The State Environment Quality Review Act requirement that alternatives be studied is only going to be determined by this board . I urge you to really look at the alternatives. Force a real examination of ground source cooling, gas co-generation f o d other things that were presented. Maybe none of them would work, but if in fact they do not rk, all of us will be more comfortable. We will say the right decision was made as a community. If se things are not aired in a full scientific way, fully in the public, then there is going to be a itical undercurrent, a dissatisfaction for many years. It is not going to happen unless we are convinced as . a community. People have outlined the scenario of proving the damage, and for litigation of who will pay for clean ups if necessary. That will be the result if we do not prove by common consensus that this is the right thing. I would like to respond to a couple of very specific Cornell statements. Professor Hardston said the volume of water involved in this is not a big deal. He was taking the volume of water that goes through the pipe and comparing it with the huge volumes in the lake. That is one way to look at it, but I want to look at it the other way around. Let us compare it with the small volume that we are all used to dealing with. Historically toilets have taken 5 gallons of water. In recent years they have been changed to 1 . 5, 1 . 8 gallons. Two gallons per flush , what Professor Hardston calls a small quantity of water, is exactly 900, 060 toilet flushes per hour. Does any of you think that is a drop in the bucket? There has been a statement that was circulated from Steve Little, a Cornell Engineer. He wrote a letter to the editor of the Ithaca Journal that was repeated in their full page story. He was responding to the request that ground source cooling be examined. Mr. Little went through calculations on how we would need 1200 miles of underground pipe laid back and forth, and we would have to dig up acres of land. He stated this would not be an environmental benefit because it would be an eyesore. t would have the visual environmental appearance of a strip mine. No one feels that is a benefit, ey say they do not want a strip mine, and write off ground source cooling . I think that is a very TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 24 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED fair analogy. All construction sites look like strip mines. Once a construction project is done it no nger looks like a strip mine if you remediate the site. omell University itself gave us the best example. They buried a four story building. The underground library is a master example of fitting a large construction project into an existing historic landscape in a way to make it non-visible. There are Cornell alumni who came back for their reunion and did not know it existed. The place does not look different. If you went there four or five years ago when it was under construction, there was an enormous hole in the ground, it looked like a strip mine. There was a shirt Cornell students designed that had a picture of a roll of Life Savers. They called it " Cornell School with a Hole in the Middle" . I have heard a discussion about this $ 10, 000 a year that Cornell is offering to the town for monitoring. That is something that is for public consumption and political value, not scientific value. The idea of monitoring is not a bad idea, but we need thresholds and triggers that make sure various responses be done. The monitoring, as I understand it, was that Cornell would pay $ 10, 000 for five years to the town to hire somebody to analyze the data. Hiring someone to analyze the data is not monitoring, it is public relations. What monitoring means is that you have an outside expert who designs the survey collection methodology, does the collection, then does the analysis. Cornell has taken those three steps, eliminated the first two, and said that they would take care of the first two, and then the town tn analyze the data they give us. That is not monitoring. uie pervisor Valentino o - The consultant that is to be hired for a maximum of $50, 000 will be hired at Town ,,Boards desecration . It is up to us how we want to have that consultant work, and what we want them to do. Mr. Bell - It definitely has to include the design of the survey of the data collection, and the actual collection. I am not sure if $ 10, 000 is enough each year. Supervisor Valentino - I think that if the Town of Ithaca felt it was serious enough we would take money to do the right thing about the consulting . We would probably find the money. Mr. Bell - Cornell should pay for it. I do not think the tax payers should have to pay for it. Supervisor Valentino - I did not say that we would pay for it. Mr. Bell - My last thought is generated from something that came directly out of the Planning Board hearing about six weeks ago. The chair of the Planning Board is someone whom I have become friendly with and I did not know before he was a Planning Board member. . I certainly respect him, and what I am going to say about one of his comments is by no means disrespect for him . In reality it was a very insightful comment I am very glad he made. When we were discussing the findings statement issue, he made the statement "the Planning Board is not the lead agency on this project" . herefore, we have to make a decision as to whether we trust the NYSDEC on the Environmental pact Issues. The Chair chose to answer "yes" . We should trust the NYSDEC . I choose not to. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 25 JUNE 119 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10 , 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED he question is the right question to ask. 1 am very glad he asked it that way. It clarifies very much e issue. The issue applies equally to this board . Do we trust the NYSDEC to make these cisions? The reason why I choose not to trust the NYSDEC is based on experience. [ have had many times more experience dealing with the NYSDEC than anybody else on the Planning Board . For one reason 1 lived in Albany for many years and I knew many people who worked for the NYSDEC . I read about them in the newspaper daily. 1 was able to have a very different perspective on it. I think all of you have to realize that is the question before you also. There are a few things that I remember about the NYSDEC that I would like to mention. Those things are part of the experience that makes me question the NYSDEC . This is the same NYSDEC that just gave the SPDES permit and all of this to the Cornell project. This is the same NYSDEC dealing with another body of water, the Hudson River. They allowed the General Electric .Corporation to dump PCB' s into the Hudson River for about thirty years. When they finally made them stop dumping PCB' s into the river, about twenty years ago, they have not made them clean it up. It has been discussed constantly in the newspapers there. It has been going on for about fifty years and they have not made them do a single thing. Can anybody make General Electric clean up PCB's? The answer is "yes" , about fifty miles from the Hudson River is Pittsfield, Massachusetts . It is the ome of another General Electric plant that manufactured PCB' s. The Republican Conservative ate Government of the Common Wealth of Massachusetts is now making the same General l tectric Corporation dig up neighborhoods on which they have dumped PCB's. That is even harder clean up than the river because there are people living there. I do not think the NYSDEC has a very impressive performance record. This is the same NYSDEC that allowed Reynolds Aluminum Corporation and General Motors to pollute the St. Lawrence River. They did very little about that. This is the same NYSDEC that allowed the Pyramid Corporation to build a million square foot shopping mall on a fragile ecosystem that housed several endangered species, the Albany Pine Barons. That was at the end of the longest State Environmental Quality Review Statement hearing process ever. It was eighty-six days of hearings , generating 20, 000 pages of transcript, and it was passed. This is the same NYSDEC that allowed Pyramid Corporation to build another shopping mall in Syracuse on a toxic waste dump . That toxic waste dump, formally called Oil City, had all kinds of toxins in the ground. They did nothing to mitigate the basic problem , and they did not do anything to protect the workers who were union laborers digging trenches in white dirt. They did not require respirators. These people were working in toxic soils. This is the same NYSDEC that has done nothing about a problem even older than any of the ones mentioned . Our proceeding societies have known for three hundred years that lead is an environmental hazard to humans. This NYSDEC has done nothing to require the replacement of ead hunting shot with steel shot. Because of that laxity we have lead hunting shot covering the floor f the woods of New York State and the bottoms of our streams . This has caused huge amounts of TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 26 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED t age to the biological systems of birds, fish and other types of wildlife. The NYSDEC has done hing about it, yet it is very easy to fix. Finally, this is the same NYSDEC that has banned certain ardous pesticides from being applied to gulf courses across New York State. Yet, refuses to ban se same pesticides from being applied to the lawns of private individuals. This is the record of the NYSDEC that we are supposed to trust. I think that speaks for itself. I urge you all to think about what all of us have said, and to really make this a good project that we can be proud of. Donald Stephenson, 1014 East Shore Drive - Quite a long time ago the NYSDEC took away your power over Cayuga Lake. It was up to them to decide if the state thought Lake Source Cooling was an acceptable project for our lake. I did find it acceptable even while admitting Lake Source Cooling would cause ascetic impact to our wonderful area. The NYSDEC has a legacy of poor judgment. 1 live on the lake shore. My neighbors and I made separate phone calls to the NYSDEC . We asked them to come and investigate the horrible smell last summer. They said they were in Cortland and were unable to send anyone. Yet, they consider it a Class (A) water body. Which means it is supposed to support all of the things we would like it to. The good news is that our part of the lake shore is entirely under your control . Let me be someone who will say something about the positive side on Lake Source Cooling. It has a ance to reduce fossil fuel emissions , to reduce our reliance on the energy grid, which are years hind its time. It is an important step to take away from our reliance on cool fire energy. At this int it is certainly not the only proven way to reduce energy reliance on the electric grid. It also has some competitors. After repeated conversations with independent experts with credentials in cooling engineering , I can say we cannot go home tonight convinced that Cayuga Lake is Comell's, the Town's, and the planets best choice. We, the residents of the Town of Ithaca, like you to look out for our neighborhood. Lake Source Cooling represents a very significant threat to Cayuga Lake. I graduated from Cornell University with a Bachelor's Degree in Biology and Society with a concentration of Environment and Society. It was the only way to study environmental issues. That was closest major in that area of study Ithaca had to offer at that time. Cornell University had numerous classes on environmental issues. I was sufficiently informed by my sophomore year, and was able to propose and arrange a course on the basic environmental issues. The Cornell University Center of Environment accepted the course I designed and created Natural Resources 101 , the Environment, under the guidance of Ray Oglveign . It has consistently drawn hundreds of students who have not taken another case on the environment since its exception in 1994. 1 studied ecology under Professor Hardston, and I impressed Carl Sagen with my knowledge of science and open minded curiosity to work in his laboratory. I know Mr. Sagen would be tentative with Lake Source Cooling compared to some of the space age chnologies. It is with an open mind and commitment to pursuing the truth that 1 approach Lake ource Cooling. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 27 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED am a town resident on the East Shore of the Lake. That is how I came to know the water conditions C keere with intimacy and disappointment. If in the end, some version of Lake Source Cooling is to place, we can be no more proud of it than we can be of Cayuga Lake. Foul smells, thick eds, dead fish, and dangerously high levels of bacteria are shameful to our area. These problems are a direct result of an accumulation of proposals that shall include Lake Source Cooling if you grant your approval to Cornell University. We cannot have the pristine lake of centuries ago. If we take all of the right steps we are able to avoid the stench , fish pills and bacteria. This takes sincere cooperation on all sides . Cornell University needs to take part with everyone else in the Water Shed by doing two things. To accept liability in writing of the effects Lake Source Cooling may have on Cayuga Lake, and accept the liability it already has along with each municipalities to clean up its share of the nutrients (like phosphorous) currently disturbing our lake. An evaluation of the existing pollution load is eminent. We need it.. We must make ourselves accountable now. Yet, these guidelines should only be necessary after a proper review of the options. The notion that a Cornell University panel of experts constitutes as an independent review of a Cornell idea is (profanity), There are plenty of ways to get rid of tenured professors and to reward them . No offense to the town in your credentials at politics , and all that you do outside of serving us, Rquatic biology and alternative cooling engineering is not your expense. You must listen to omeone other than your applicant when it comes to deciding the town's future. I strongly ecommend to you the National Academy of the Sciences. I would like to rebut a few of the things that were said that have not yet been addressed. I will start with a reply on the definition of sensitive. Cayuga Lake is over its threshold, obviously, otherwise we would not have the present conditions that we have been experiencing and that Cornell University has been acknowledging , if that is not sensitive, then it is only because we are saying that it is trashed and we cannot fix it, or that we cannot have our lake back to how it used to be. The comparison of a bathtub to Cayuga Lake is interesting because there is a "real ring around the tub° . If we scour it with water, we are looking at whether or not dilution is a solution to pollution . If we scour it with water, the dirt goes somewhere. There was a very difficult sentence in the Lake Source Cooling Explains Question and Answer. It read , "the cleaner Lake Source Cooling flow will help move more quickly the other higher phosphorous water to the rest of the lake° . What will happen to the rest of the lake? What is going to happen , not only over the next five years, but over the lifetime of the project? As we make moves to clean up the water shed and the lake, Lake Source Cooling could stick out like a sore thumb . It will be the worst polluter if we do not reach some goals of lowering the phosphorous ncentrations in the lake. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 28 JUNE 119 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED lhe NYSDEC has a guidance value, but it is just a guidance value. I guess rhetorically it is the YSDEC' s guidance value. It is still something that expresses the problem of phosphorous in the ake and how we need to deal with that and other nutrients that have created a terrible mess. Whether or not we notice a difference does not just come down to a visual. Noticing the difference health wise by swimming and drinking the water. This project is supposed to be a hundred year project. That is a long time to really clean up the lake. It is also a lot of time in which Cornell University is going to be putting more buildings into the chilled water system, upping the capacity and the demand on the lake. It will not all happen over night. We may not be able to see it in just the first five years. There has been an overwhelming conflict over the impact of Lake Source Cooling. Lake Source Cooling is not an incinerator where the environmental impact is unilaterally bad and there is no environmental benefit. Despite the PBS show and other occasions where Cornell University has made the claim that there will be no environmental impact, the story is still the same, it is unknown. Like all of the other trends in our quality, it is towards the worse. Let's get the liability for Lake Source Cooling to Cornell University in writing. Let's get everyone's existing liabilities, the municipalities and Cornell' s in writing. We need to do it together. It needs to be everyone's obligation and responsibility. We need to have a real independent review. I do not want to live somewhere that the biggest guy in town says he is the expert despite good FC estions. That is all we received for a long time through the newspapers. I do not want to live ere the biggest guy in town says he is following the rules, and that he is necessarily, ethically, and r ally the best and only thing. Gail Kennedy, 9 Maplewood Point - I have been standing outside since 5: 30 p. m . Three hours listening to all of this. I realized that no one has talked about any of the other communities on this lake. This is not just Ithaca's lake. The town needs to include the other communities on the lake in the decision . I have a friend who is a geologist from Cornell University who graduated about 1950/1952. His first job was with the Federal Government. They decided they wanted to build a harbor in Alaska. The best way to build a harbor, according to the Federal Government, was to drop an atomic bomb. Fortunately, there were small voices in the community that rose up and said it was environmentally unwise. I think you are hearing many small voices tonight and I have a feeling they are right. Mike Brevens, Trumansburg - I would like to thank Ms. Kennedy for mentioning the other communities, and remembering that Ithaca has very little lake frontage compared to rest of the communities. I also noticed that Mary Russell has some clippings from the Ithaca Journal . I do know that Noel Kurtz wrote a very lengthily rebuttal to the argument that ground source would not work. That is a sham. We have not really been able to trust the Journal for information . They have acted more like public relations firm for Cornell University than an active voice for the most enlightened community TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 29 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED the United States. What more can we expect from a newspaper that would rather print Associated ress reports than have investigative reporting . The Editor of the Opinion Page said that all of the questions raised at the forum on Monday night would be presented to the scientists there, and then the answers would be printed . I do not doubt that is going to happen, but it should have happened before tonight. I want to comment regarding the analogy of the lake as a bathtub . Let us remember that we all urinate in that bathtub and we all drink from that bathtub. There were also many union persons here earlier. Ms. Higgins remarked that other alternatives would also need construction workers. I question the union persons coming here. Where were they when the Statler Hotel workers were on strike. Let us remember that Cornell University has one of the largest industrial labor relations colleges in the nation. One of the things that has been obliquely mentioned is that anyone in opposition to this project is a "one issue red neck reactionary" . I think you have seen many " one issue redneck reactionaries tonight. Monday's forum was an excellent way to control information because they still have all our questions, even though they have not printed the answers. Whether or not they have been provided , I am not making that claim . We should be aware that is a very affective way of keeping information from the public. question the impact that will happen on businesses in town . This is something that we should all be ncerned with because this is our tax base. If the lake stinks, what is going to happen to the proposed development of Inlet Island. I do recall that Joe's Restaurant once talked about putting in an outdoor eatery on the tip of Inlet Island . That really is prime real estate, but who is going to eat there when the lake stinks . We also have the Farmers Market on the lake next to the Water Treatment Plant, The Farmers Market is something everyone takes pride in . It is a great community asset with it being an outdoor shop on the lake. There is fresh water and beautiful scenery. Again , I question any aesthetic impact that might result as this project continues . Scientists time and time again have tried to assure us that we understand the way nature and ecosystems work. The one thing that time has proven is that we really do not understand the environment. We really cannot control it. In opposing this , I am not saying we should not do something for the environment. That is a distinction that has been put into our heads by the newspaper, by Cornell University. If you oppose this project you oppose the reduction of greenhouse emissions, the use of CFC refrigerants, that is not true . We would like options examined . Finally, I would like to see more cooperation from Cornell University to the community. I will make a unique offer. I am a rowing instructor at Cascadilla Boat Club and I would ask that we all come gether and take an introductory lesson . You will see that team work is really important. If you do 0 f cooperate , you are not going to go anywhere but in the water. It would also give you an TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 30 JUNE 119 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED nderstanding of my intimate association with the lake. I do get emotional when people propose IF I rojects that might or might not hurt it. Jas Mina Petrovic, 916 Tioga Street - I am not against Cornell. I would like to see a change if it is a necessity for cooling their buildings and equipment, but the lake is not the answer. Of course we want more jobs. I am a retail salesperson . I work very hard for my money. It seems as if money is an issue. An incinerator would make great jobs, but since we recently rejected one in the Town of Ithaca no project is alright environmentally. Other alternatives can definitely be considered. If we had ground source cooling, we would make more jobs. We need more information, facts to justify our concerns. The NYSDEC has a bad record we must recognize that. Just as many jobs would be created for any other kind of system Cornell University would do. The radiation dump needs to be cleaned up as soon as possible. We need four other scientists, just as Cornell University has four scientists. The Town of Ithaca needs other scientists to be involved. Cornell University should clean up around the area of Beebe Lake and Fall Creek with NYSEG becoming involved. I could tell many stories about different things. I live two and a half blocks away from the waterfall and it is already deteriorating. The lake is gross, Fall Creek definitely has a problem and it flows into Cayuga Lake. Maybe instead of having it on Stewart Park, we need to have it past Millikin Station. Let us use other parts of the lake. Why does it have to be on the south end? The whole entire lake tnow going to be changed . We need to clean up the lake and take out the phosphorous. Changes the lake are very preventable. People not living in Ithaca should not be deterred when they drive by the lake by what they see. Do you want you . children and grandchildren to swim in slime and chemicals? They also say they are going to clean out the pipes with acid and chlorine. They say it is not going to go back into the water. I do not believe Cornell University. They have a bad record. I do like them in some ways, and other ways I do not. We should all discuss this and think about it before we go into this harsh, fast track system that we do not know much about. Would you want to confront such a risky experiment? Ginger Nichols, Trumansburg - I would like to present the board with 230 more signatures of people who think it is not a good idea to replace air pollution with water pollution. Barbara Hedrick - I am also opposed to the building because it is a very beautiful road. I do not think we should change the zoning and have another industrial building there. I think we should do everything to make that road beautiful for people who come into Ithaca. Also, set up specified steps for Cornell University if something goes wrong . I do not think fines are sufficient because big organizations pay fines because it is cheaper than changing the problem. I think they should have to improve the water. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 31 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED eil Kurty - I just cannot let the comment on the bath tub go away. I want to focus on the outlet pipe, 2, 000 gallons of water per minute coming out. It comes out into about ten or twelve feet of water in ont of Stewart park. The area is highly contaminated. This outlet is going to empty directly into that, 32 , 000 gallons of water in a minute. Fill your bath tub, turn the two facets on as high as they go. Watch what happens. That is the turbulence and impact that will be created. Where is all of the contamination going to go? The contamination is going to go north . This is only going to make a bad problem worse. It will expand and push the contamination farther north into a greater area of the lake. It becomes very scary when you consider that Bolton Point, our source of drinking water is located not far down the shore. A simple solution is to extend the pipe into a deeper area where the impact will be much less damaging. Supervisor Valentino - I would like to thank everyone . for coming tonight. I apologize for our inadequate facility. We worked very hard so everyone had an opportunity to speak. We did the best we could with what we had. Supervisor Valentino closed the Public Hearing at 9:00 p. m. The Board took a short recess at 9100 p, m. , and reconvened at 9: 15 p. m. Supervisor Valentino - The board members wrote down many questions and concerns during the ublic hearing so they could address them to the Cornell University officials. This board has studied . nd looked at the Lake Source Cooling issue for many years . In the past year we reviewed the uestions more intensely. We are trying very hard to receive the answers that we need. I think we eard many sincere people raise some very sincere concerns that really need to be addressed. Councilman Wolff - I also worked for Professor Carl Sagan for two years when I was a student. I have gained much respect for his methods. If he were here today, he would put passion aside and take a critical look at Lake Source Cooling because there is so much at stake. I would like to turn our attention to the resolution Barbara Ebert presented to the board. I think it does a better job of summarizing the main points. The issue of whether or not a baseline has been looked at, and whether there will be adequate monitoring. Lanny Joyce, Project Manager - The Environmental Impact Statement was reviewed and has data that forms a baseline for Cayuga Lake. It references three years of lake data performed on Cayuga Lake in the areas of the intake and the out fall in the general lake. We also researched all the available information from years of study on Cayuga Lake that precedes the Environmental Impact Statement study time period. That was used as an additional part of the review of the impacts. There is a significant baseline of data. It is part of the monitoring plan that is identified in the SPDES permit by the NYSDEC . We are able to take some proportional data in addition to taking data after the project comes on line. We expect to take at least a full year of additional data before the project comes on line to upplement the three years of data taken to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 32 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED ouncilman Conley - What was the time frame of the data taken, was it historic data? r. Joyce - We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take data on the lake for three years. Councilman Conley - What was the time line? Mr. Joyce - Data was taken in 1994, 1995, and 1996. Councilman Conley - Did you stop taking data? Mr. Joyce - Yes, we did. Councilman Conley - So you do not have any data for 1997 . Mr. Joyce - Right. There is a huge amount of data shown in the Environmental Impact Statement. It is summarized in the tables on lake water quality in Chapter Two. Councilman Wolff - The next issue is monitoring, who will do the monitoring,. and to what effect? What do you anticipate to find? Mr. Joyce - The monitoring is something that is stipulated by law for the SPDES permit. We have ired a consultant to prepare our monitoring plans to present to the NYSDEC. In addition, we will eed to use that consultant or another consultant to actually take the data on the lake. Then mmarize that for reporting to the NYSDEC . There will be monitoring done by an independent consultant because Cornell University does not have that capability. We have to hire those services from a certified, qualified consultant with laboratory services. Upstate Fresh Water Institute is the not for-profit organization that we have hired to prepare the monitoring plan. Councilwoman Russell - More specifically, can you tell us . what will be monitored and if there are thresholds in the permit? What happens if the conditions are exceeded? Where will the samples wi l I be taken? Robert Bland - The SPDES permit specifies the minimum amount of monitoring and the number of areas we have to complete to be in compliance with our permit. From the lake, there are the two issues of water quality and biology, fish and ecology. There is also the monitoring of what the plant puts through and discharges out. There is a concern about phosphorous. That will certainly be monitored, along with temperature flow and dissolved oxygen. There is quite an array of various perimeters and different frequencies that has to be monitored. It is very thorough. We will be out on the lake monitoring at a minimum of two stations every other week. We will be composing more stations than the two minimum required by the NYSDEC to characterize the lake and what is happening. The NYSDEC wants to know is if there is a change in the lake. If so, is it contributed to ake Source Cooling. The monitoring plans are designed to show visually. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 33 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED he lake is currently impaired in the southern basin . It exceeds the twenty microvino per liter ference guide lines . We and the NYSDEC want to track it. The monitoring plans that are set up II be receiving much data . Councilwoman Harrison Cornell University will prepare a plan for monitoring that will include , locations, and then that plan must then be approved by the NYSDEC . Is that correct? Mr. Bland - Upstate Fresh Water Institute is preparing a plan . We will review it and Nelson Harston's committee will review it. When approved , the locations will be fixed . We anticipate eight locations too fully characterize the southern basin . Councilman Conley - There was a comment that the permit allows you to monitor a great distance from the out fall pipe. Mr. Bland - We are actually going to be monitoring what is coming out of the pipe. Then we are going to monitor near the pipe, and a great distance from the pipe. Mr. Joyce - The plan proposes . that the whole southern end of the lake be monitored . . Councilwoman Harrison - I am sure it will be challenging for Cornell University to prove any changes in the lake are not caused by Lake Source Cooling . It would have been ironic if Lake Source Cooling ad been in place a year ago. Last summer there was an incident on the lake where the lake began smell . Surely that would have been attributed to Lake Source Cooling if it had been in place. r. Bland - Upstate Fresh Water Institute is really excited about this project. They love lakes and the science of the . lakes, They have good equipment and I think they will do a great job. Councilwoman Russell - What happens if the conditions of your permit are exceeded? What action steps are there in the permit? Mr. Joyce - The permit states we must monitor these perimeters. If there is a significant change in the southern lake basin of water quality then more data will have to be taken to identify the cause of the problems. It is highly likely with all the stress on the lake now, that if there was a change it could or could not be Lake Source Cooling . It is important to take the data and make a decision based on the data. If the conditions change, the NYSDEC has specifically put in the permit that we would increase the frequency and add types of data to find a solution that was appropriate. Clearly, if Lake Source Cooling was the cause we would have to change the system . There are specific things mentioned in the permit, up to and including the out fall to another location. That is something that still can be done. There were many comments tonight that Lake Source Cooling might cause irreversible change to . the lake, or that once it is built that it could not be changed . The reality is that the NYSDEC permit is very specifically geared around making sure that if there is a change, that it is proved to be attributable to Lake Source Cooling. If that were the case would ' have to modify our plan . TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 34 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED ouncilman Conley - What is considered significant? r. Joyce - The NYSDEC makes the decision if something is significant. Councilman Conley - So there is not an established threshold. Mr. Bland - You might consider the fact that the southern basin is impaired now. We are already monitoring the body of water very closely. The NYSDEC tends to look at the southern basin more It is hard to say what is going to change because it is a dynamic system. Councilwoman Grigorov - Is there a possibility this kind setting might help with other things that are damaging the lake? Mr. Joyce - It is pretty clear what is happening in the southern lake basin with the data that we have collected. Councilwoman Grigorov - What could be done? Mr. Bland - We will not only be finding information, we will be using that information in turn to outreach. t sr. Joyce - It is a very innovative permit. They meant very seriously what they said in the permit. It enforceable by law and we have to follow it. We do plan to do that. ouncilwoman Russell - Could you talk about the alternatives that you studied? What was required in the Environmental Impact Statement? Could you talk about the work you did study? Mr. Joyce - We prepared some additional information for alternatives. We do operate a large chill water system today that has been in operation since the mid 1960s. It is a large and complicated system . It has had many additions and expansions over the last three decades. In the last decade, we have had three major projects that have expanded the capacity of the system. Each time that is done we need to look at the alternatives. During each one of those small increments of change, we did entertain the idea of a Lake Source Cooling Project. There was never a big enough increment of change to be able to justify the extra expense of doing Lake Source Cooling over conventional alternatives. There really is not a " NO ACTION" alternative. SEQR requires you to do that and present that in the Environmental Impact Statement. That is why it is there. It is not a reasonable alternative and we certainly would not entertain doing that. The conventional alternatives we looked at summarized the , technologies that revolve around refrigeration. In order to provide cooling you are moving heat from a building space that you are trying to make cooler than the environment. You need to add energy to move heat from cold too hot. Heat flows naturally from hot to cold. If you have to put energy in, you need to have a refrigeration system to move the heat. There are many different ways to add energy to our refrigeration system but all of them result in energy uses that are many times the needs of Lake ource Cooling. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 35 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED hen we looked at the conventional alternatives, we looked at different ways to provide energy. any of the technologies that have been mentioned are things that we simply have to be current on nd know about alternatives to conventional cooling . What was presented in the Environmental Impact Statement was the appropriate and reasonable alternative to Lake Source Cooling. Basically, a rebuilding of our existing central refrigeration plants using new chiller technologies. That is what the rest of the country and the world are building if they do not have the opportunity to use a deep water resource. We presented the alternative that was the best constant and variable speed electric motor driven alternative. It utilizes the least energy and had the least cost for the University. Since it uses the least energy it also provides the least environmental impact. The other methods of running a refrigeration system, using steam and co-generation , all involve burning fossil fuels directly on campus to provide mechanical work into our refrigeration systems; versus buying electricity from a central electric utility that can be made more efficient when aggregated to a central plant. An air conditioning load is a highly variable load. As a result it is very difficult to make that energy efficient if you are doing it yourself. If you could make electricity you would rather have a load that sits there and does not move around. It gets cool at night and warm during the day. Daily our load varies significantly by 2 to 1 and seasonally by 10 to 1 . It is very difficult to entertain making that mechanical work by burning fuels. The environmental impact of foing those, in addition to the lack of financial or energy benefit was too high. Those alternatives re not presented appropriately in the Environmental Impact Statement. ouncilwoman Russell - You did consider them before the Environmental Impact Statement. Councilman Klein - What about ground source cooling? Mr. Joyce - Ground source cooling has been confusing for people. It sounds as if it is a low impact or no impact solution. It basically involves using the ground as a heat sink. It uses ground water that flows over the hot side of our refrigeration system. You end up with almost the same amount of refrigeration equipment and energy use. You can decrease the energy some because the ground is colder than the air in most climates. In Ithaca where we have many cool night time air temperatures and cool daytime temperatures, we can actually beat the ground water temperature. We can make our refrigeration systems run more efficiently on average. Ground Source Cooling involves almost the same amount of equipment above ground for refrigeration. It uses almost the same amount of energy. It involves an enormous radiator in the ground to get rid of the heat. You cannot do that without an enormous impact on the ground, both to dig the space for the ground heat exchange tubing and to have the ground water get rid of the heat. It really ends up costing almost as much as Lake Source Cooling. It is significantly more expensive than chillers, and uses almost as much electricity as conventional chillers. It really does not make sense. It is a much worse alternative than Lake Source Cooling . TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 36 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED ouncilman Wolff - What is the average temperature of the ground water of a two to three hundred eet well in this area? r. Bland - Probably in the mid 50's . Councilman Wolff - That is the temperature you are discharging. So the temperature differential is between 40 degrees . You are discharging water that is colder than the ground water. So you are not going to get the chilling factor from ground water without mechanical cooling. Mr. Bland - That is because we want to supply chilled water at 45 degrees to the buildings. To reject the heat to make 45 degrees, you need to use 40 degree lake water without the refrigeration cycle. You cannot do that with the ground water. Councilman Klein - On page three of the summary you said that was the second best choice. What was the significant factor? Mr. Joyce - It was second best to Lake Source Cooling. Therefore, it was compared to Lake Source Cooling because it has five times the energy use. Councilman Klein - What was the initial cost versus Lake Source Cooling? 1 r. Joyce - It was a $25 to $35 million , versus the $55 to $60 million expenses for Lake Source ooling. It is summarized in that section of the Environmental Impact Statement. ouncilman Klein - But, the operating and electric would be considerably higher with ground source cooling? Mr. Joyce - Absolutely. The electric costs were significantly higher. Lake Source Cooling is proposed to last seventy-five to one hundred years . Where chillers typically last thirty-five to forty years before they need to be replaced or significantly renewed . If you can avoid rebuilding everything every thirty years , certainly there is less impact and financial cost. Councilwoman Russell - What about the electricity that is used to pump . the water through the pipes? How much is that? Mr. Joyce - When pumping water through closed loop piping you do not need to lift the water up the hill to campus. We are simply circulating it in a circle and moving it through our piping . We need to overcome the friction inside the pipe with the pumps . Pumping water is a very small fraction of the cost of a normal chilled water system . It is the case in our system today. The compressors on the refrigeration machines use the largest amount of energy. Over 80% of the energy is going into the refrigeration machine. In your refrigerator at home, when you hear that compressor kick on , that is the energy we are talking about. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 37 JUNE 119 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED e extra 2 . 5 miles of pipe each way added for the chilled water system does add energy use to the istribution of chilled water around the campus . The nice thing about pumping water is that the o wer quickly decreases by the cube of the flow rate. In this system we vary the flow to meet the e oad as the load changes and energy uses drops significantly off peak. The annual energy use for that extra pumping and the lake water pumping for Lake Source Cooling, versus all of the energy use for the conventional chillers is 20% . There is an 80% reduction in energy. That is a great benefit, and is why we wanted to propose Lake Source Cooling . Councilwoman Harrison - I found the closed loop system confusing. I understand the energy received from the water traveling down the hill pushes the water up the hill . Mr. Joyce - Pumping the lake water is a very small energy requirement. We have to have a very large pipe to keep the pressure drop small on the intake line. We are only lifting it slightly out of the lake, running it out through our heat exchange, then it falls back by gravity in the lake. There is a very small amount of energy required. It might sound like a lot of pipe and a long distance. When you think about the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission ( Bolton Point Plant) providing the millions of gallons of water a day to the community, it does not seem to be that much. Pumping water is a normal thing. It is very easy to calculate what the energy requirements are. ounciiwoman Harrison - One of the thing brought up was the potential that there would be more ter pumped at some future date. The permit is specific about how much water is pumped . Would e physical construction be able to pump more water? Mr. Joyce - ° No" . The Environmental Impact Statement asked what was the ultimate capacity of this project and what would be the limiting factor. The piping is the limiting factor. We have designed the plant based on its absolute flow rate of water and use of water. It is two to three times what it will be when we start in the year 2000. We felt it was important to analyze this project in the most conservative way possible . In a way, that represented the highest potential impact at any point in the future. We ran it at very high amounts of flow and the highest amount of water through the piping for a much higher number of hours per year than we could ever imagine. Councilwoman Russell - Someone mentioned that the recycling of the water in the lake is a very long period of time. Could you speak to that issue and whether that was taken into account? Mr. Joyce - It actually is not a long period . There are many facts it the Environmental Impact Statement which address that. The lake is completely flushed through every ten years. The flow through on Cayuga Lake is actually significant. There is a huge amount of water that comes through the lake, and 40% of it comes through the tributaries at the south end of the lake. A significant part of the water that is going through the whole lake comes in at the southern end. There is actually a very short residence time in the southern lake basin. In addition , there is also wave and current action all the time that causes current and water exchange with the rest of the lake. The modeling in e Environmental Impact Statement showed that. The wave action of the lake actually slops water TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 38 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED om one end of the lake to the other on a twenty-four hour cycle. Those waves cause currents . As result, we have water continually going in and out of the southern basin . Councilwoman Russell - Where does the ten years come in? Mr. Joyce - Ten years is actually the total volume into the lake from the tributary streams, versus the volume of the lake. The tributary streams replace the volume of the lake once every ten years. That is quite fast when compared to the volume of Cayuga Lake, Councilwoman Russell - What about the issue of depositing protein in the shallow water through your discharge pipe? Doctor Elizabeth Moran - We looked carefully at what the biological community was in the area of the out pipe. We supplemented the historical data on Cayuga Lake with monitoring that was conducted over the three year period from 1994-1996. We came to the conclusion that during the summer time, very few fish are at the depth of the proposed intake . The 250 feet is beyond the depth and thermal tolerance of the Cayuga Lake fish. Lake trout in the summertime are found at 80 to 100 feet deep. There are very few fish that use cold resources . The one organism that does live in the hypolimnion is mysis relecta (fresh water shrimp) They spend part of their life cycle in the lower waters , and then they travel up and down the water column over e course of a day. We were concerned about the potential for mysis relecta during the ummertime and recognized light was going to be an effective deterrent for that. We did some field xperimentation in the lake by testing lights of different sizes and wattage. We tried to find an effective mitigating measure that would keep mysis relecta from the intake. Mysis relecta are very small so there. is not a screening device for them . When the lake is one temperature from top to bottom there is a possibly that some fish would be present at the depth of the intake . We looked at the historical data for winter fish distribution and it is fairly limited . It is difficult to collect winter data on Cayuga Lake. We did have some historical data. We supplemented it with some data from 1996 and there were a few organisms present at the intake depth during the winter time . Winter is when the use of the resources is at a minimum . It is the period when there will be very little water drawn into the system . The uncertainty of the data points, and data from Lake Ontario suggested Rainbow Trout may be present at the depth of the intake during the winter time. Because of that fact, we added another mitigating measure to the intake. A high frequency sound . That . has been proven to be very effective at some of the power plants on Lake Ontario for keeping Rainbow Trout away from the intake . With the mitigating measures you really sense that there will be a very low amount of biological entertainment. The permit also requires biomonitoring . We have to measure whether or not we are getting organisms in that stream . Mr. Joyce - In addition , the SPDES permit had requirements . If we were to find that we were ntraining anything in the water that we did not expect we would add additional mitigating measures. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 39 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED t hcluding , retrofitting a screen on the deep intake and retrofitting a shallow water intake for the winter e that would have a screen . e ultimate solutions are available to the NYSDEC , but those are not proposed as part of the project because of their significant extra costs. There are significant maintenance problems associated with a screen in 250 feet of water that cannot be retrieved easily. Those options are available to the NYSDEC to retrofit on the project if necessary. It was appropriate in their view to build the project with the mitigation measures as designed , retrieve data and make sure the project is operating as planned . Councilman Klein - If you do draw some fish into the plant, will you screen them in the plant or replace dead fish into the lake? Mr. Joyce - There would be strainers in the plant in the event there was anything coming in . We need to protect the equipment in the plant. Strainers are a preventive measure, but we do not expect that they will be doing anything. All of the data and indicators say that water will be the cleanest that you can find in the lake. That is not part of the lake where you are going to have any significant biological life. The two forms present will be deterred through light and sound. Supervisor Valentino - What is the temperature at the intake? f rr. Joyce - The water is 39-40 degrees Fahrenheit. ouncilwoman Russell - Someone mentioned that the lake temperature increase caused by the oject would be fifteen degrees. 1 read in the Environmental Impact Statement that it was in the approximate area of 325ths of a Fahrenheit degree. Mr. Joyce - The water temperature rise coming out of the lake going back into the lake could be as high as 15 degrees from the intake to the out fall . It comes in at 41 degrees as a high, and it will go out at the highest of 56 degrees, that is what the design is based on. By no means is the lake temperature going to go up 15 degrees anywhere in the area of the out fall . The out fall is designed with a diffuser on the end of it that is seventy-five feet long with a smaller diameter port to distribute the water and mix it quickly with the surrounding water. In the summertime when the flow is the highest and our temperature rise is the highest, the 56 degree water will be going into a part of the lake that is anywhere from 70-73 degrees at its highest point. So it is actually cooler than the water there in the summertime. In the spring and fall temperature water leaving the plant will be close to the water that is in the area of the lake. The winter time is when what we put through would actually be warmer than the water in the southern end of the lake. When the lake is between 32-39 degrees, our water would be going out at 45-50 degrees. There was a comment made that there would be a fog cloud, mist and melted ice. That is not going Jbe the case. The sewer treatment plants do not do that, and our flow would not either. Our flow is Eery comparable to the sewer treatment plant flow rates and temperatures in the winter time. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 40 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED ouncilwoman Harrison - What about phosphorous concentrations in the water that you will be scharging compared to the amnion. The Environmental Impact Statement and ' the discussion night suggested that we will be adding phosphorous. Obviously, this is a closed circuit system . My understanding was that 4-6% phosphorous was being added to the southern portion of the lake. It was not a net addition to the lake, but a redistribution. Dr. Moran - We did look at it both ways. Assuming that in the summertime the bottom waters of the lake do not naturally mix with the upper waters, concentration was looked at during the period of stratification, (when the lake is divided up into those two layers, what the net additional phosphorous would be in the southern lake from this re-circulation). Lake Source Cooling is not adding phosphorous. The number seen in the Environmental Impact Statement says , "depending upon what kind of year and month it is, it is 4-6%" . The southern lake basin is not its own individual compartment of the lake. We know that the lake does not behave that way, the southern lake basin is completely connected with the rest of the lake. It can also be looked at it in terms of concentrations and dilution. The water that is being returned to the lake after passing through the heat exchangers originates in the deep water. So the phosphorous concentration in the deep water is somewhat variable over the year. From the historical data and our data, we can characterize it from 14-18 micrograms per liter. So that is the concentration of the return flow: The water that is being returned has a concentration in the summertime between 20-25 , or sometimes close to 30 micrograms per liter. This is where the net tlution concept comes in . They were actually adding colder water with a lower phosphorous ncentration to the southern lake basin . he reason the southern lake basin has a high phosphorous concentration is because it is a result of what else goes into the lake. We have the two tributaries going into the lake along with the two sewer treatment plants. The flows from those sources are going to be higher than the Lake Source Cooling return flow. In the case of the sewer treatment plants, it is between 700-1000 micrograms per liter as opposed to 18. The Lake Source Cooling flow is really going to provide this dilution effect to the southern lake basin . . The tributaries are somewhat lower than the treatment plants. They are between 20 and 30 micrograms. That is highly variable. It depends upon storms, and other activities. Councilwoman Harrison - Everyone here is uniformly concerned about the lake. From the studies that you have done to date , do you have indications of particular areas of concern ? What things that we as a community need to be focusing on? Mr. Joyce - The percentages of the load in the southern basin. Clearly the sewage treatment plants are the big contributors of phosphorous . They make up over 80% of the total phosphorous coming into the southern basin . Mr. Bland - Phosphorous is an indicator of clay water clarity. Who is saying it is impaired for public ,health? 1 TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 41 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED is impaired for water clarity. The potential for growth is what affects water clarity. That is also ected by sediment alone. Some of the tributaries are responsible for a large portion just because sediment. Councilwoman Harrison - People would love to be swimming at Stewart Park, it was my understanding sediment problems were the primary reason that is not possible. It was interesting to see how that has changed over time. Why did it become worse? Was is developmental issues? Mr. Bland - Swimming was banned thirty-seven years ago at Stewart Park because the swimmers could not be seen. Supervisor Valentino - The reason was not unsafe water. Children could not be seen from the shore when they were swimming . Elizabeth Vastbinder - The NYSDEC has a listing of priority water bodies. It is their assessment on a county by county basis of where there are impaired water bodies. Southern Cayuga Lake is on that list. The documentation and reference to the reason Southern Cayuga Lake is listed is related to silt and sediment. This sediment loading into the tributaries is creating many of the problems we see. Phosphorous is a related issue because phosphorous travels by attachment to sediment particles from the sewage treatment plants. It then grows algae. he silt in the water shed is a water quality issue. The USGS has done an analysis of the dimentation rate of southern Cayuga Lake and has seen that is has accelerated quite a bit over e past few decades. Mr. Bland - Over sixty thousand yards of silt was removed from the inlet between State Street and the Fish Liner last year. On Five Mile Drive to Treman Park we raised the level of the land over five acres, about six to eight feet. That was over a twenty year life span of that flood control channel . It is a big part of the southern water shed. If you look at Six Mile Creek, the lower reservoir in the city is filled with silt. The upper reservoir is half filled. They removed at least three or four thousand yards of top soil out of the sediment basin every year. Councilman Klein - To me the most negative and predictable aesthetic effect is the algae blooms in the summer. I think that everyone might find that disturbing . Is there any mitigation measures for that? Ms. Vastbinder - Based on the analysis just discussed, Lake Source Cooling is not going to cause or contribute to algae blooms . Councilman Klein - The NYSDEC in their permit actually anticipates it. Ms. Vastbinder - The NYSDEC referenced the possibility. The uncertainty is associated with whether it is looked at as a mass load , a concentration, or because Southern Cayuga Lake is already lhosphorous impaired . That is one of the reasons why the permit has resource and phosphorous onitoring . To try to document the existing conditions and try to track changes over time . TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 42 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED ouncilwo man Harrison - What would the remedy be if it were discovered that there was an increase algae? r. Bland - The out fall could possibly be extended to where it drops off into deeper water. There are no indications, at this time, that will be necessary. Councilwoman Harrison - It may be easier to think about mitigation for more efficient removal of phosphorous from the sewage treatment plants . If it was determined that Lake Source Cooling was the cause, then find a more efficient way to cope with that. Ms. Vastbinder - The existing system has a diffuser on the out fall that not only mixes the temperature water quickly, but also mixes the phosphorous that is returned quickly. Councilwoman Harrison - The out fall will actually dilute phosphorous in the southern lake basin, but the quantity of water will also move the mass of impaired water farther north. Is that likely to occur? Are we likely to see impaired water farther north into the lake where the wafer intake for Bolton Point is located? Mr. Joyce - The -water is going to end up in the middle of the lake at some point. In the summertime, weather and tributary stream temperatures are the warmest, that water is not going to sink in the lake. The water coming in the southern end of the lake is going to end up as surface waters and be tuistributed in the lake. It is simply being diluted faster than it would have naturally by wave action or rrents. The numbers might sound large for Lake Source Cooling , but the reality, is there is water ving around the southern basin now. The extra phosphorous that does not end up in the surface ters is not going to be discernible. Based on the data and the science put together, it will not be different from what it is now. Supervisor Valentino - How deep is surface water? Mr. Joyce - Depending on the zebra mussels, twenty feet to thirty feet at the most. Councilwoman Harrison - I am not sure what Supervisor Valentino is asking about. Mr. Joyce - Surface water is where the algae would be growing . Ms. Vastbinder - The return flow is being mixed with the volume. That is about twelve feet deep. Do not think of this as a discreet parcel of water that is going to travel north in the lake . The lake is really a dynamic system. The wind driven currents and internal waves are going to immediately disperse the return flow. The diffuser will help mix it quickly, but the lake's natural processes are really going to disperse the Lake Source Cooling return flow with the rest of the surface water in the southern lake. It is not going to be a section of water that is traveling north in the lake. Director of Engineering Walker - What is the Fall Creek movable flow? r. Joyce - The average of 183 cubic feet per second , annually. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 43 JUNE 119 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED irector of Engineering Walker - In the high flows it is running 500-600 cubic feet per second . The low coming out of this pipe is what is seen at Fall Creek behind the High School during the summer onths. Councilman Klein - How does it compare to Millikin Station? Mr. Joyce - It is less than a tenth , on an annual base of water flow rate. At its peak of 32 , 000 gallons per minute, it compares to their number of 170, 000 gallons per minute. That is five times bigger at the peak time, because our flow varies and theirs does not. Councilman Klein - What is their discharge temperature? Mr. Joyce - It is up to seventy degrees. They are condensing steam with their process so they have a much hotter temperature. They also have a surface discharge. Councilwoman Russell - What margin of safety do we have in terms *of lake *temperature? Ms. Vastbinder - The margin is great, but we did not perform the analysis that way. We , did not try to figure out the carrying capacity of Cayuga Lake. We did try to compare the Lake Source Cooling heat to other things. In the Environmental Impact Statement, it says the amount of heat that is being added is equivalent to four to five additional hours of sunlight per year on the lake surface. So it is tr.thin the natural variability of the system . The system adds heat, but if you look at the annual heat ntent of the lake it is. 032% of that heat budget being added by Lake Source Cooling . Bland - The heat is lost every winter to the natural cold air when the lake mixes completely. Ms. Vastbinder - That is why the system works so well . The heat is lost to the atmosphere. Mr. Bland - We will be monitoring temperature continuously at one location in the lake. Mr. Joyce - On an annual basis compared to Millikin Station, it is below what they put in the lake for heat. Councilwoman Russell - Is there anything about Lake Source Cooling that would cause physteria to develop? Ms. Vastbinder - The simple answer is no. Physteria is a new environmental problem . It does seem to be related to high nutrient loading , particularly nitrogen . Lake Source Cooling is not a neW load. It is not going to be adding nutrients to this system in which that does not naturally occur. Physteria also seems to be associated with warm water conditions. During the summertime, even though Lake Source Cooling is adding heat, the return flow is going to be a cooler more diluted nutrient ploomb. We do not anticipate growth of any micro biological organisms. ouncilwoman Harrison - Will that be monitored in any way? TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 44 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED s. Vastbinder - The temperature will be monitored . ouncilwoman Harrison - Will micro biological organism populations be monitored in any way? Mr. Bland - At this point we do not plan to monitor physteria or other organisms . No one has actually identified it as a realistic stress to the situation. Councilman Klein - Have there been any changes in the heat facility buildings since the Site Plan shown in December? Mr. Joyce - Those are the changes that were incorporated as a result of direct input from the Town Board. The changes were presented to the Planning Board and received favorably. They felt it was an improvement and really liked the landscaping plan. Councilman Klein The very first thing that became obvious was whether people were aware of the changes we asked for and that you made. Mr. Joyce - It was presented at the public hearing. We discussed it and showed the rendering of the drawing for the heat exchange facility, and highlighted the features that had been added . . The general public does not realize what the building now looks like, but we are certainly proud of it. It will not be obvious that it is any kind of an industrial facility, irector of Planning Kanter - Do you have a rendering of the building that we could show the udience? Mr. Joyce presented and explained the view of the heat exchange building to the public. Agenda Item No. 5 - Consider SEAR Related to the Rezoning of Tax Parcel No. 19-14 on East Shore Drive for Lake Source Coolina, Councilwoman Harrison - In terms of SEAR, we are adopting a Findings Statement? Supervisor Valentino - We are adopting a Findings Statement with the SEAR. Councilwoman Harrison - This Findings Statement is based on all of the information that we have received to date. Director of Planning Kanter - Yes, it is based on all the information. Councilwoman Russell - Based on this findings statement, what is the action we would be taking with the resolution? Supervisor Valentino - This resolution , if passed , would adopt those findings. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 45 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Iftesoludon No. 101 - SE R Findin s Statement Proposed Rezoning for Cor ell University Lake ource Cooling Pro ect. WHEREAS, this action is the Consideration of Approval of a Statement of Findings regarding the proposed rezoning of the site of Cornell University's proposed chilled water plant in conjunction with the Lake Source Cooling Project from Business District "E" to Special. Land Use District (SLUD), located at 983 East Shore Drive on a 3. 12 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 194-5. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant, and WHEREAS, this is a Type I Action for which the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has designated to act as Lead Agency in environmental review, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Town Board is an Involved Agency with regard to the proposed rezoning, and WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review for said Lake Source Cooling Project and pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6NYCRR Part 617 has: 1) made a positive determination of environmental significance; and 2) overseen the preparation, completion and acceptance of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and a Final Environmental Impact Statement; and 3) issued its own Findings Statement with regard to said Project, and lWHEREAS, pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6NYCRR Part 617, e Town Board is required to issue its own Findings Statement with regard to the rezoning for said roject, and WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a Public Hearing on June 11, 1998, has reviewed a draft Findings Statement prepared by the Town Planning Department, comments received from members of the public regarding the proposed Lake Source Cooling facility and its potential impacts on the environment, and other information and materials related to the proposed facility, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board does hereby adopt the Findings Statement, dated June 11, 1998, for the proposed rezoning relating to Cornell University's Lake Source Cooling Project. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino, SECONDED: Councilwoman Grigorov. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilwoman Harrison, aye; Councilman Conley, aye, Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilman Wolff, aye. Carried unanimously. Agenda Item No. 6 - Consider Adoation of a Local Law Rezoning of Tax Parcel No. 1944 on East Shore Drive for Lake Source Cooling. ouncilwoman Harrison - How does the local law refer to the agreements that have been discussed. bout the additional information? TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 46 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED upervisor Valentino - The local law does not refer to the agreements. Do you want to talk about the greements before considering the local law? The Town Board members indicated they would like to. Supervisor Valentino - The first agreement was the June 10, 1998 letter signed by Henry Doney. It is Cornell University' s commitment to the consultant. We have reviewed the letter with Mr. Doney and I think everything is included. It talks about our participation in the committee that involves the county and Cornell . We have been accepted to have a representative whom I would designate. It includes the $50, 000 towards the cost of hiring a scientist/consultant chosen by the town . It outlines using $ 10, 000 a year, and that $20, 000 will be deposited in an escrow account up front. The consultant will be our consultant of choice, and the work the consultant does do is our decision . Attorney Barney - It is not $ 10 , 000 a year. It is $50, 000 to be used over a five year period. Councilman Conley - The funds are deposited with us and we have full use� of them. Supervisor Valentino - The other statement is our license and right of first offering on the parcel that would be the park. . Attorney Barney - There were two minor changes. One was in the section where there was a iscussion of submitting within seven days of the offer to the town, the words " submission of should e included. I did not quite understand schedule B . The one I see still shows the ties going into the onrail property. Shirley Eagan, Cornell Counsel - If you look on Exhibit A, definition of the licensed premise, the line pointing to the railroad ties states they are to be placed at the town's discretion . At Exhibit B , we had two different landscape plans that we had submitted to the Planning Board . One had a little more detail and was less readable than the other. Those are the two that have been submitted. I gave you both so that you could choose. Attorney Barney - The time is tied to the occupancy issue. The outside time limit of five years, we might receive it earlier. Supervisor Valentino - It is the whole parcel that we outlined originally. Attorney Barney - I think it would be a good idea to have a resolution authorizing you to execute the license and the right of the first offering . Supervisor Valentino - Are we just accepting this as part of our record? Attorney Barney - I think it would be a good idea to have a resolution accepting Cornell University's offer to supply a consultant. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 47 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED U0 e ol ution No. 902 - A roval of License & Ri ht of First Offerin Cornell Universit and Noah 's t Club Inc. WHEREAS, Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca have made arrangements for the provision of certain park uses on a portion of lands owned by Noah 's Boat Club, Inc. on East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca, New York as part of the overall Cornell University Lake Source Cooling . Project; and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor with the assistance of Town Councilwoman Mary Russell, , the Town Planner and the Attorney for the Town, has negotiated a proposed agreement between Cornell University, Noah 's Boat Club, Inc. and the Town of Ithaca relating to the provision of such park land on the west side of East Shore Drive just north of the marina, as well as providing for a right of first offering should Cornell University or Noah 's Boat Club, Inc. decide to sell the marina property and the property on which the park would be located; and WHEREAS, the park arrangements are pursuant to a license for a period of ninety-nine years subject to earlier termination under certain circumstances; and WHEREAS, a draft of such agreement was presented to the Town Board at its meeting on June 8, 1998, NOW THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor be, and she hereby is, authorized to execute such cense and First Offering Agreement with Cornell University and Noah 's Boat Club, Inc. in substantially the form submitted to this meeting, with such changes therein as the Town Supervisor " may, in her discretion, approve as being necessary, appropriate, or advisable, her execution of such agreement to be due evidence of such approval. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino, SECONDED: Councilwoman Grigorov. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Supervisor Valentino, aye, Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye, Councilwoman Harrison, aye; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilman Wolff, aye. Carried unanimously. Resolution No. 903 - Acceptance of Offer by Cornell University to Contribute Funds for Consulting Services for Lake Source Cooling Project. WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca has been asked to re-zone certain land along East Shore Drive from Business District "E" to a Special Land Use District to permit Cornell University ' to construct a Chilled Water Plant on such parcel; and WHEREAS, the Chilled Water Plant is a part of an overall project denominated the "Lake Source Cooling Project" (the "Project'); and TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 48 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED t toWHEREAS, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has issued a ate Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge Permit ("SPDES Permit") for the discharge the lake of waters removed from the lake as part of the Lake Source Cooling design; and WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is the principal agency responsible for the impact of any Cornell activities on the lake; and WHEREAS, not withstanding the issuance of the SPDES Permit by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, numerous concems regarding environmental impacts of the Project on Cayuga Lake were raised at several public hearings during the course of the Town's review of the Project and proposed re-zoning; and WHEREAS, Cornell University has offered to subsidize the cost of a consultant for the Town to review Cornell's procedures, monitoring, and impact of the proposed heat exchange facility on the lake, NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board accepts the offer of Cornell University, expressed in a letter of Henry Doney to the Town Supervisor dated June 10, 1998, pursuant to which Cornell University offers to contribute up to $50, 000 over the next five years to the cost of consulting services for the 9wn to assist the Town in evaluating the impacts of the operation of the Project on Cayuga Lake, 0, 000 of said funds to be placed in escrow and maintained until $30, 000 of said funds have been pended and thereafter the remaining $20, 000 to be drawn down as necessary, with any balance of said funds not used by the Town in the five year period to be returned to Cornell University; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor, Director of Planning, and other officers and agents of the Town be and each hereby is authorized to take any steps, including establishment of the escrow account, as may be necessary or appropriate in order to implement the offer from Come# and to carry out the intention of this resolution. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino, SECONDED: Councilwoman Harrison. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilwoman Harrison, aye; Councilman Conley, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilman Wolff, aye. Carried unanimously. Councilwoman Harrison - I think that everyone, has in good faith , the interest of the lake and the larger environmental issues. I can appreciate having been on the other side of the ' table looking at an Environmental Impact Statement and feeling it is inadequate. I think it can be founded to have distrust in the regulatory process . I convinced . through documentation and discussions with knowledgeable persons, this is a sound project and will not have a detrimental impact on the lake. If there were an oversight, and we came to the wrong conclusion we would be in a position to mediate. I think it is always hard for environmentalists to decide between thinking globally and cting locally. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 49 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED was on a Hydropower Commission in the city that was looking at the question of using Ithaca Falls r generating hydropower. It was a good idea in some ways, however it had potential significant cal impacts. In that case my sense was that the total amount of energy . produced , versus the local impact, was not worth it. In this case, I do not believe that is right. I believe that the balance of this project is significantly beneficial and I do not believe the risks are serious. People who feel Cornell University is tainted , are people who have been in situations where their job was at risk if they did not agree with the employer. An advantage of being employed at Cornell University is that does not happen. I do not know anyone who has been fired for their opinions. It is wrong and ignorant of those people, their qualifications, and their integrity to imply the review committee was protecting Cornell University. Who the lake belongs to is a really important question, I ask that myself when looking at rezoning. There is a residential lake shore development zone. People are allowed to build docks in the lake. I think that is public property. Why is a private citizen allowed to do that? It is allowed under our law. Similarly, we draw drinking water out of, and dump our sewage into the lake. Boats create noise pollution. We create waves and do many things in the lake. It is an important question in society that we need to talk about. Who has the right to use public resources? Who has the right to dump air pollutants into the air? The questions are much larger than if Cornell University has a right to a discharge pump . It is the way the system and permits rk. If we question that, then let us raise those issues and figure that out. This is not unique to this articular proposal . I really believe there is an opportunity, and a need to try to improve the water quality in the southern end of the lake . We have been very active in the Town of Ithaca trying to adopt many environmental and conservation oriented programs, policies , and laws as development proceeds. We are in the process of trying to develop a water resource ordinance for the town that would be looking at innovative measures to try to improve water quality. I would urge you all to stay active. Find out why there are tremendous amounts of sediments coming I nto the southern end of the lake from tributary streams. What is the cause and what can we do to prevent it? Do we need to be doing something different in regards to how we manage our roadways? I think there is a tremendous amount of work to be done and we need to work together. Councilman Klein - This project seemed to be a great idea when it started. There were many issues raised . I tried to educate myself. I think we have questioned things and have received reasonable answers. I have read the SPDES permit and there may be a certain amount of distrust of the NYSDEC which is a state agency that suffers periodically through budget cuts. Deliberations we have had over the last few months were to come up with ideas to assure town residents there would be some additional independent monitoring. This was not something that was offered to us by Cornell University. It was something that this Town Board proposed and has egotiated with Cornell University. TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 50 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10 , 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED e adopted an agreement tonight that will provide us with the funds and the ability to search the ountry to find qualified lake specialists . The consultant will help us evaluate the data the NYSDEC requiring to be monitored . We certainly have the public awareness , and the ability that if something were not being properly addressed we could question things later. I think the energy that is being saved is significant. This project is worthy of the work that has gone on before us. Supervisor Valentino - I would like to thank our Planning Department, Engineering Department and all our staff for their hard work on this project. Through this very difficult process they have spent a great deal of time doing research , looking at questions and answers. Every time we have asked for more information , our staff has diligently provided that to us. Resolution No. 104 - THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT FOR THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY CHILLED WATER PLANT ON EAST SHORE DRIVE OWNED BY NOAH 'S BOAT CLUB, INC. WHEREAS, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town on June 11, 1998 at 5:25 p. m, to hear all interested parties on a proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT FOR THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY CHILLED WATER PLANT ON AST SHORE DRIVE OWNED BY NOAH 'S BOARD CLUB, INC. ', and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised. in the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof; and WHEREAS, pursuant to part 16 of the Implementing Regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC') was determined to be lead agency in considering the environmental significance of the proposed Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project ("Project); and WHEREAS, DEC, after consideration of the various application materials made a determination of positive environmental significance of the proposed project and directed the preparation of an environmental impact statement ("EIS'); and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has issued findings based upon the EIS and the comments received at the public hearings on the Project; and WHEREAS, for the reasons set forth in such findings the Town Board believes it is in the best interest of the Town and its citizens to effect the requested rezoning; NOW THEREFORE, be it TOWN BOARD MINUTES PAGE 51 JUNE 11 , 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 10, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law entitled "A OCAL LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL LAND USE /STRICT FOR THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY CHILLED WATER PLANT ON EAST SHORE DRIVE OWNED BY NOAH 'S BOAT CLUB, INC. " a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed to enter said local law in the minutes of this meeting and in the Local Law book of the Town of Ithaca, and to give due notice of the adoption of said local law by publication of such local law or an abstract or summary thereof in the Ithaca Journal and by filing a copy of said local law with the Secretary of State of the State of New York, MOVED: Councilman Conley, SECONDED: Councilwoman Russell. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Roll Call Vote: Catherine Valentino, Aye; Carolyn Ghgorov, Aye; David L. Klein, Aye; John P. Wolff, Aye; Edward Conley, Aye., Ellen Harrison, Aye; Mary Russell, Aye. Agenda Item No. 7 - Additional Business, There was no additional business to be considered. Agenda Item No. 8 - Consider ADJOURNMENT s there was no further business to come before the Town Board a motion was made by Supervisor alentino, seconded by Councilwoman Grigorov to adjourn . Motion carried unanimously. upervisor Valentino adjourned the meeting at 10: 40 p. m. Respectfully submitted, Joan Lent Noteboom Town Clerk *NEXT REGULAR MEETING - July 13, 1998 at 5 : 30 p. m. **Minutes Transcribed by Carrie L. Coates. JUN . y ' Ja 03 : 4y Nr7 NULL KURTZ 607 273 3673 P, 04 =nda 3� June 9, 1998 Opinion Page Ile Ithaca Journal 123 W . State St, Ithaca, NY 14850 To the Editors, Steve Little's recent letter - which was clearly written in response to my guest column - warrants a rebuttal as it contains several factual errors and somc cgrcgiously duplicitous logic that can only add to the confusion regarding Lake Source Cooling (LSC) and alternatives. First of all, I have not been advocating "ground-source heat pumps" as an alternative to LSC - as Little, and others, have implied. Those . systems, which are also often referred to as "geothermal heat pumps," are a very specific form of geothermal technology which are not suitable for Cornell for a number of reasons - cost being primary, as they would require =cnsive internal renovation, as well as extensive site work. The type of ground-source system I believe warrants investigation . would simply replace Comell's cooling towers with buried ground loops or with well-water loops. This form of ground-source is, in fact, very similar to LSC. Like LSC, it would continue to rely on chillers (Cornell really should stop making the false claim that LSC would "eliminate " the need for "mechanical refrigeration' Cornell's proposal includes the retention of two of its large electric chillers) . And both systems reprcsent forms of "g=the:rmal cooling" because they both use the earth as a thermal sink. In Corneirs case, the big differences between the two is the extent of reliance on chillers - where LSC has the advantage due to the lower tenipemzure of deep Cayuga Lake wale - and pump energy - where ground-source has the advantage due to Cornell's better proximity to ground than the lake. Cornell has conceded that ground-source cooling would be less expensive than LSC to install, but they maintain that the alleged efficiency advuntage of LSC would offset that benefit in the long-term. That conclusion, however, is not based un hard data. Lanny Joyce, the LSC Project Leader, told me that Cornell's Facilities Department perfrormcd no energy calculations whatsoever For airy ground-source alternatives . So Uttle's assertion that ground-source cooling systems• "are certainly not more cf iicicnt than LSC" is opinion, not fact. What is more surprising, given Little's credentials, is his claim that LSC would require less pumping power than a ground-source system "because LSC uses about 7 miles of large pipe, . . vs. 1200 miles of small tube." That is an absurd "apples and oranges" comparison. Ground-source tubing would be piped in parallel - not in one long loop, as Litzle seems to imply. The total flow for ground-source - which would be comparable LSC - would therefore be divided among thousands of pipes, with the total friction being equivalent to one large, but relatively short pipe. The pump energy for ground- source would therefore be substantially less, not more. To get a bsllpark measure of how much so, let's assume that the furthest distance a groeind- source loop could practically be located from one of Cornell's existing chiller plants is a mile away. The total developed length of that loop would be two milts (out and back), plus the length of the buried loop --lea's conservatively call that 1 ,000 fe:. Givcm that, the total length of travel for water through the ground-source pipe would be I= than 1/3 of the total length for LSC - with pump energy being proportional . Tbere is, of course, more to it than that - for example, the hest exchangers required by LSC to keep lake water separate from campus water would have considerable resistance, which must Attachment A JUN . 9 ' 9B 03 : 50 PM NOEL KURTZ 60? 2?3 3673 P, 05 be overcome by additional pump energy. But, given the conservative nature of the above calculation, it is safe to assume that a closed-loop ground-sourer: system would consume less than 1/3 of the pump energy of LSC . Little's point regarding the vast acreage required for a horizontal, closed-loop, ground-sourw cooling system (in which water would circulate in extensive fields of small horizontal pipe buried about 5 feet deep) is well taken - I agree that such a system can be dismissed as "non. feasible" offl=d. But his rationales for rejecting the other ground-source options lack credibility. For example, Little dismisses open-loop ground-source cooling (in which well-water is used as a beat sink) based solely on the claim that an aquifer of sufficient capacity is "not available on Fast Hill. " Once again, his assertion must be considered opinion, not fact, as Cornell did not investigate: whether that is the case. Indeed, it would appear that Cornell avoided doing so; Ed BugHosi of the U. S. Geological Survey District Office informed me that the USGS offered to assist Cornell in developing the necessary data-base to enable such a &Urmination, but Cornell never acted on it Given that open-loop would be the least expetnsivc ground-source option - and far less expensive than LSC - the decision to dismiss it as "non-feasible," without doing any feasibility studies, is simply irresponsible. As for vertical, ground-source cooling (in which water would circulate in numerous pipe: loops installed in vertical bores), Little resorts to the deceptive use of big numbers to "prove" it to be "non-feasible. " Yes, the roughly 7,000 holes such a system would require is a lot, and, yes, so is 1,200 miles of plastic pipe. But what Little doesn't ram ion is that only a single loop of I " or I 1 14" plastic pipe is inserted in cash bore, that the pipe costs less than $0.25 per foot, that each hole would be only 4 to 6 inches in diameter, and that such a system would cost considerably less than LSC . Regarding area, Little claims that 300 acres would be nxluired for sufficiently spaced bore holes - but I calculate I00 . Keeping within one mile of Cornell's three chiller plants would mcau fording 33 to 100 suitable acres for locating the bores out of 2,010 - which seems eminently feasible to me. Litthc's state rnent that "groun&sourced systems were discussed in the final environmental impact statcrnme is both misleading and beside the point. The paltry few paragraphs he refers to - which wcre included only as a responsc to a public comment - do not contain detail "sufficient to permit a comparative assessment, " as is required by New York State law. All in all, if Cornell's Facilities Department considered other "non-feasible options" with the same bias and lack of diligence with which it approached ground-source, then skepticism regarding their assertion that LSC is the most cost-effective solution is certainly warranted. Tlx public - and, indeed, Cornell - deserves better. It is high time this project was put on hold pending the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement via a serious feasibility study of the alternatives to LSC. Sincerely, Noel Kurtz, PE 186 Besemer Hill Road Ithaca, NY 14850 day/night phone: 607-273-3673 l�Ei�iQESEitli / u �tv� s UDC Cd 3 TitE Jr vN10n/.5 , o/?fS4f1t IA14 DUER Gov Lac'.4c &.115 rl ae rl d ,✓ ryo "4045 ENJ D /f aE T/✓E 4.41e4r ,511JI w ed d L I M: /f er AYI� TAE 111L40 I'Y/M:1 0 JQf/-�San/S r jyD /&"..s , l/✓ /S A�OJfei wll. L F/IuAi o y /DD �- _ . AtEn/ .4N,0 Jwuz�l✓ h��,clD �A�s � G/�ocF �i�s A�1/i MY r4Y.6: LS , gO °Ie' D� DU/i /i✓CD,I,/E /,S iP,F%U/rNED d// 7L y TD L'd A4 zU U/N/ Ty_ � �fE . USE 4� i7,!E /0%! .4.5 Ti,1c ,BatJD /itI a.P /'lidA Y1 d lo�i L'F JEVFLO /�M �Nr _ f/,I ESE "d ✓,Fer,5 - Wel /i/ r6 jocl4/ AC AND �RD O UC T / Yom' 4,55ET areR .. /s A/v Ad40EO eWAJOru1d lIV64FAIFI vE � D/r y'eAE y S,oEAl r exl COAA) VAJ! 1`y SEEDS /-� / Ia 11V&46 5E' Attachment B 4dE tlbLa)O .l EA17 *t5/01)RW1b AN 1AIdo 'E4SE i 11 / /j � . JEvELDOtiIEN% ® 4 JICr/1/ D � Oe61 r1 VE Ee4A)W •C 6) dWF/4 i AN Of !S A i i i How can Cornell claim to have had disinterested parties review its' Environmental Impact Statement? The disinterested, private firm you hired turned around and hired 4 Cornell research associates who were already members of Cornell's technical review party. Your own members were the disinterested party reviewing its' own statement. You also claim that this type of technology is used everywhere across the US . Yet out of 270 million Americans, the only people you could find to review the statement were from Cornell. I thought tt was a law to have disinterested parties review your statement. I asked this question Monday night and the board admitted that it was a conflict of interest. p . s . There's a difference between expert and unbiased. IU CS CG SSITIr � a ( 61 I � U Attachment c What kind of research has been done regarding the possible growth of nitrates and the changing of an Eco-system which is attempting to keep nitrates in tact? Aquatic systems expert John Ferrante says "bacteria counts in Stewart Park are astronomical. " Why is Stewart Park only monitored by a Syracuse group and not by us? We already know that our stressed lake has outrageous fecal and nitrate counts . It seems we are the prime candidate for future physteria outbreaks, which kill aquatic life, as well as causing mental diseases and open skin sores in humans . Scientists now believe that physteria naturally exists in all fresh water, but when fecal counts are too high this microbe literally takes over the water. Right now, the entire Chesapeake Bay into North Carolina as well as random water in the West is infected with this killer. How do we know that LSC won't change the Eco-system in favor of the growth of physteria. Won't it be affecting the same microbes that would keep it in check? Do we even know? 40% of our fresh water is undrinkable and polluted. Has anyone at Cornell even studied this problem? As we continue to pollute and abuse our waterways, physteria will continue to grow, and surely we will not be unaffected. 1 � ' Cornell states that it does not need a back up program for the LSC project because it would never go through with a project of this magnitude if they weren't certain that no problems would arise . At the same time Cornell states that the lake is a very complex system and they couldn't possibly predict all of the factors or problems that might arise . Which one is it? Are you sure or not? And most importantly, who will pay for the damages when they arise? i Z� '�� 25 years after The Clean Water act was passed in the US , 40% of our fresh water is still undrinkable, unswimmable, and unfishable . If we consider ourselves an enlightened community at all, then we have a responsibility to other communities who look to us as a role model . How can we drive blindly ahead, possible causing substantial damage to an already stressed Eco-system, in order to supply air conditioning for just a few privileged people. Simply put, air conditioning is a luxury, while clean water is a necessity. How can Cornell justify sacrificing a necessity for all, in order to have a luxury for its' few privileged, and soon gone clientele? With so many recent fresh water disasters in this area, contamination of Six Mile Creek, Fall Creek, and Cornell's own drinking water, don't we need to work on . reducing the stress factors of our lake, not increasing them? This year, the NYS EPA Water Division is specifically focusing on the pesticide problem in the Finger Lakes because of recent evidence that these local pesticides and pollutants cause cancer and reproductive problems in both man and Eco-systems . Tompkins County just received a $ 124,000 grant from the State Environmental Bond Act, with pesticide run off specifically targeted. Yet, why is Cornell willing to stir up these pesticides from the bottom of the lake, not only causing the toxins to circulate more in the water, but at the same time pulling up toxic sludge and dumping it on the land where it will soon seep back into the ground water. Isn't the Lake Source Cooling plan a huge contradiction to what environmental steps need to be taken to heal a stressed Eco-system? i ._R� ' How can Cornell claim to have had disinterested parties review its' Environmental Impact Statement? The disinterested, private firm you hired turned around and hired 4 Cornell research associates who were already members of Cornell's technical review party. Your oven members were the disinterested party reviewing its' own statement. You also claim that this type of technology is used everywhere across the US . Yet out of 270 million Americans,. the only qualified people you could find to review the statement were from Cornell. I thought it was. a law to have disinterested parties review your statement. If this is the case then Cornell has not fulfilled its' legal obligations about this matter. I asked this question Monday night and the board admitted that it was a conflict of interest, but gave no suitable answer. p . s . There's a difference between expert and unbiased. The track record of both Cornell and the EPA in consideration of local environmental issues is not too impressive . The EPA allowed an unlined radioactive dump site to be built in Tompkins County, and although Cornell knows this dump site has been leaking cancer causing chemicals into the ground water for close to 5 years, they have done little, if anything, to stop the leak. I do not consider a cap and a larger fence to be alternatives to actually cleaning ground water and stopping the radioactive leak. Though the fact that Cornell did manage to get its' name taken of the EPA's radioactive Superf uid site list without actually fixing the problem is impressive . With these considerations, how do we know that Cornell will do anything to fix future lake problems in a speedy manner? What assurances do we have that they won't be too embarrassed, like they were with the Superf ind site, and keep information from the population that deserves to know what is going on? My name is Rich DePaolo. My wife and I live on East Shore Drive in the Town of Ithaca. As we speak, the pipeline route for Lake Source Cooling is staked out at the edge of my backyard. So, forgive me in advance if I seem a little emotional. But considering what would happen if I showed up on Central Campus with » million dollars and a bulldozer, maybe you can understand. What the Ithaca community has witnessed over the past few years is an exercise in selective marketing at its manipulative best. It' s been a clinic to exploiting the positive aspects of a proposal while minimizing or ignoring its negative aspects. I've spent the better part of the last six months trying to get enough information to formulate my own conclusions. That's not easy, as you probably know . My first conclusion is this: Cornell presented Lake Source Cooling to the public and to the DEC as the preferred choice, pitted comparatively against an option that doesn't exist. Seemingly, the intention was to make the proposal as palatable as possible. So, Cornell has largely compared Lake Source Cooling to a bunch of antiquated' ozone-depleting chillers. That strategy seems to have convinced some people, at least for a while. But, when you realize that the current chiller system must be phased-out or modified to comply with Federal law , you realize it should never have been allowed to provide the comparative basis for Lake Source Cooling to begin with, Under the intent of SEQRA law , conventional chillers certainly shouldn't have survived in the Impact Statement as the only " reasonable " alternative to Lake Source Cooling. Not without detailed supporting data about excluded technologies , anyway . But, that's the DEC for va. And that's another story . Chapter 4 of the Impact Statement ( the Chapter entitled "Alternatives " ) contains NO reference to cooling technologies outside of Lake Source Cooling, the existing chiller system on campus ( which is curiously referred to by Cornell as the " no-action alternative"), or a conventional chiller upgrade. Yet SEQRA law requires that, " a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed. " For starters, there is no such thin? as the " no-action alternative . " unless Cornell plans to be the only major institution in the country to stockpile and use CFC refrigerants m violation of Federal Law . So when you take that one away, you're left with the illusion that vour only two choices are modern conventional chillers and Lake Source Cooling. But after you're confronted with the dissuasive litany of similarities between modern chillers and their antiquated cousins , you're pretty much asked to throw them out, too (even though Cornell would continue to operate two of them in addition to Lake Source Cooling) . So , what are you left with? The eco-wonder of the Twenty-first Century . Well , unless you live near or in Cavuga Lake. Which brings us to the technical loophole . . . Cornell was able to privately determine which alternatives it would put forward as " reasonable" and deserving of discussion in its Impact Statement. As a reaction to public comments over the conspicuous lack of alternatives to Lake Source Cooling in the EIS , Cornell provided minimal and only dismissive data about a short list of alternatives. clearly in an attempt to quell protest. Lake Source Cooling was the only viable path. That's what we were to believe. But, is that really the case? Don 't we have a right to know about the research behind the research? After all , we're not talking about Beebe Lake. here. This is Cayuga, our most valuable resource . Shouldn't every possibility have been thorough1v evaluated before further taxing our fragile lake as an air-conditioning component�o that end. I asked project manager Lanny Joyce directiv about the background data that could justify omission of legitimate alternatives in EIS Chapter 4. Attachment D The answer that I got was unspecific at best. Mr. Joyce mentioned modifications that had been made to the existing system over the last ten years and those that could be made. He talked about winning energy awards. He talked about experts : " We DO have experts. We have been doing this business of cooling the campus essentially for thirty years . . . We are quite skilled in the alternatives. " He went on to say that, " What we did was summarize in the Environmental Impact Statement a combination of chiller technologies that was the best candidate to compete with Lake Source Cooling. " In a nutshell, there's your " either, or" scenario. True, the University does have an answer for everything. It might not be the answer to the question you actually asked, but it's an answer. I pressed further for a specific response about the actual form and whereabouts of the background data on alternatives. I was not told whether or not feasibility studies exist somewhere for potential review by the public or independent energy experts. I was again referred to superficial dismissive summaries in the Public Comments section of the EIS . Still dis-satisfied, I asked for specific ground water data behind Cornell's categorical dismissal of ground-source cooling and was told. "You don't actually even need to have ground water information to dismiss it. " That really blew me away . What that translates to in my mind is , " we don't have that information. We didn't pursue that avenue. " Ground water availability is obviously of huge importance to certain types of ground-source cooling systems , particularly open- loop designs. It seems to me that ground water availability is something that serious, engineers research during comparative feasibility analyses between systems. But, the public , the DEC and local legislators have been given no indication that this vital work was done. We're merely supposed to write it off because the institution that would rather stir up our lake than seriously investigate alternatives tells us that it's " unfeasible . " The US Geological Survey is the area's pre-eminent authority on ground water. A couple of months ago, I called the District Office to inquire about specific ground water maps for the Ithaca area. I learned through a conversation with Ed Buadosi that, to the best of his knowledge, his office was not approached by Cornell about any ground water issues . Not even during the time when the Cornell claims it was determining its future cooling options from among a wide range of alternatives. Maybe, Cornell scientists have their own ground water information. But that certainly isn't supported by their inclusion of an undetailed aquifer stripmap in the EIS . According to Mr. Bugliosi, the amount of ground water data in the EIS "didn't seem very robust. " He also informed me that detailed information is not currently available in a centralized form, but that the raw data necessary to create a detailed ground water map of Tompkins County does exist as part of a discontinued joint venture between the County and USGS during which every well in the Countv was surveyed, including Cornell property . For ten-thousand dollars or less , that valuable information could be centralized. That's not a lot of money for an institution that boasts of having spent 3 million dollars on research in pursuit of Lake Source Cooling and now seems to be willing to buy the approval of the Town Board for ten-thousand dollars a year over five years . In addition to consolidating existing ground water information, a gorge was recently discovered right under Central Campus . Maybe that warrants a little research. And, therein lies the biggest potential illusion associated with the marketing of Lake Source Cooling: The illusion that the proposal was the end result of comprehensive feasibility studies of many alternatives, born out of over- riding concern for the environment. More and more it appears that this project was conceptualized first, the long-term cost projections were made second, and the requisite data was assembled to promote its rapid development and dismiss its competition. Afterall, Lake Source Cooling would be the grand achievement of Cornell Engineering. Conventional and ;round water systems occur all over the world , as do systems that incorporate a number of alternative technologies . But Lake Source Cooling . That would be a real flag to wave . So, let's be honest about one thing: Despite the University's attempt in recent months to equate Lake Source Cooling with other more common water source cooling technologies , the system designers themselves understand the proprietary and experimental nature of this particular project. A 1995 paper about Lake Source Cooling co - authored by Lanny Joyce and Robert McCabe of Cornell and presented at an energy conference in Miami states , "Cornell would be the first to tap the deep water source cooling resource of a freshwater lake. " ° If that doesn't turn a scientist on, what does? But, Cornell has an answer for everything , telling us that this . technology is not patentable and, as a result, the University will not be selling the technology or profiting by the project's development. What doesn't get mentioned is that, while the University as an entity might not directly profit, the individuals associated with the project's design become instantly more marketable as Lake Source Cooling consultants. Is that so hard to believe? In addition to giving the City and School District the cheap air-conditioning offer it couldn't refuse, the primary marketina strategy of Lake Source advocates has been to point to the potential reduction of fossil fuels use over the current system- the implication being, " if you don't like Lake Source Cooling, you're in favor of ozone-depletion and Global Warming. " Well. we're not in favor of those thins , so you better go ahead and build it? Well , hold on a minute . Foraettina for a moment that CFC refriaerants are against the law and not a future option. and that the actual energy savings associated with the project are under professional dispute, think about this: How much energy does it take to construct Lake Source Cooling? You're looking at two years of bulldozing, tree-cutting, trench-digging, lake-dredging, pipe- fittina, street tearing , slab-laving and all the enerav and resources that go into the manufacture and delivery of construction materials , not to mention the daily commute of over a hundred cars and the probable detours and traffic delays on the pipeline route. Doesn't that energy need to be figured against the supposed savings ? y Which brings us to our next contradiction. , Cornell has simultaneously marketed Lake Source Cooling as a "low impact" project to placate environmentalists, but, at the same time, garnered the support of local developers, planners and bean counters by boasting of the " public works" ma2mtude of its construction. The University has tried to have it both ways. So, which is it? Is it a low-impact eco-wonder. or is it a massive public-works project? It's Lake Source Coolina, the project that's all things to all people brought to you by the University that has an answer for ever,thing, the same University that pioneered the " no-acrion alternative. " Corneal has continually tried to oversimplify this project and soften its impacts. This oversimplification has periodically been misleading. This was never more evident than at the so-called " public forum " this past Monday . With particular respect to the project' s impacts on the lake's fish population, Ned Hairston. respected scientist and Chair of the project's Technical Review Committee offered this : " People who fish in the lake know that Milliken's a great place to go collect fish because the waters warmer there , so I don' t think it would impact fishing negatively in any way . " This oversimplification is dangerous because it draws many inferences. First, it creates the impression that fish magically appeared near the warmer waters off Milliken Station, when actually , the increased fish presence indicates severe ecological impact. Second, it creates the impression that l. filliken Station and Lake Source Cooling operate the same way . While they both draw lake water to cool with, Milliken Station returns the water it uses to the same upper strata of the take that it draws from and in a much less sensitive and environmentally taxed part of the lake than Cornell's plan proposes to. Lake Source Cooling would draw water from the deepest part of the lake, where aquatic life is different. Environmental side-effects can not be estimated by comparing the two systems. Because Lake Source Cooling draws from the bottom of the lake it will suck thousands of freshwater shrimp from their preferred daytime habitat to certain death. These shrimp are the primary food source for young lake trout. But, Cornell has an answer for everything. So when outlining the mitigative measures designed to deter fish and Mysids from the intake pipe, a Cornell scientist was quick to explain the light array designed to deter mysids and the hydroacoustic system to deter fish. He also said that designers didn't expect to find many fish at that depth. What he didn't say was that, according to the EIS . a sounding of the intake site did detect fish. He also didn't mention that the light system designed to repel the Mysids actually attracts some fish to the intake zone . Nor did he mention that sonic deterrents will not deter lake trout and many other fish species. In addition, even with lignt mitigation in place, a minimum of 5% of Mvsids in the intake area will make it inside the lighted zone and probably into the pipe. Which doesn't seem like a lot if you're sitting in an air-conditioned office in Carpenter Hall , but it's no bargain if you live below the water line. Should we really exercise that kind of dominion over the lake ? To finish up, I'd like to make a few quick points: Myth # l : Cornell can accurately predict the side-effects of Lake Source Cooling. Fact Cornell is relying heavily on computer modeling. In a reference to phosphorous loading models used be Cornell in the EIS , Dr. Liz ✓loran, lead aquatic scientist on the project offered this : "Anytime you do a modeling analysis of a system that's not built, you have to make a series of assumptions. " In addition a quote from the 1995 paper cited earlier states that, " temperature changes can have unpredictable impacts. " These are the project designers pretty much telling you in their own words that, with or without computer modeling there's really no way to know what would happen. Myth; #2: Lake Source Cooling does not pollute. Fact: The SPDES permit issued by DEC to Cornell is an acronym. It stands for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. It's the same permit issued to sewage treatment plants. Cornell has pursued and received the permission of a state agency to pollute Cayuga Lake. Most of the pollution is not added, but it is, nonetheless , reintroduced into the lake's more active ecosystem. Also, fossil fuels will continue to drive pumps to move all that lake water. Mvth #3 : Cornell science is objective. Fact: The incestuous relationship between Cornell and the so-called "independent" consulting firm of Steams & Wheler is well-documented and calls the objectivity of the Impact Statement into question. Furthermore , the affiliation of these scientists to their employer, in light of the fact that their employer is pursuing an end result, cuts at the foundation of scientific process . Justus it's not difficult to imagine that it would be unlikely that an active Cornell staffer on the Town Board could consider a vote on this project without also considering their affiliation to Cornell. Myth #4: Cornell science is infallible . Fact: As we now know , taxpayers will be financing the massive clean up of Cornell's leaky waste dump as deadly paradioxane makes its way through around water to the lake level . That facility, too, was designed by Cornell experts , and approved by a state environmental agency. Myth #5: The DEC can be trusted to keen an eye on Cornell . Fact: The DEC is a historically flawed and eminently bureaucratic agency with a track-record of lax-permitting, minimal oversight and political in-fiahtin;. DEC's involvement, and subsequent lack thereof, in environmental disasters is well-chronicled. Furthermore, we who live here, we who understand the immeasurable value of Cayuga Lake to the psyche of our Ithaca experience, have the right to demand standards higher than those set forth by a soul-less state agency. Myth #6: Cornell has plans to rectify any future problems. Fact: Even though the permits technically allow for future mitigative measures to be demanded, with no baseline, and without an independent, comprehensive study of lake systems, it will be nearly impossible to ascribe deteriorated conditions to Lake Source Cooling. The Cornell offer to fund a Town-selected consultant is meaningless without these critical studies. Let's be clear. Cayuga Lake might be a heatsink, but it is also a fragile eco-system on the brink of unpredictable influence. The 55 million dollar price tag is a drop in the bucket for an institution that raised one and a quarter billion dollars in a recent capital campaign. Wouldn't it be a shame if the reputation of Cornell drowned in a primordial soup off Stewart Park for a few million dollars worth of cut comers or an avoidable margin of error? Thousands of area residents do not want this current proposal to go forward. At some point, debate aside, don't the sheer numbers add up to anything? Please do the right thing. Be skeptical. ZV There is no hurry . Solicit truly independent opinions. State permits or not, your zoning decisions will decide the future of this project. You shouldn't feel pressured to compromise your long-term vision simply because the University is under pressure to phase out CFCs. And you wouldn't want to be legally complicit in the adoption . of a deficient Impact Statement. Demand to see thorough, analyses of alternatives to conventional chillers and alternatives to Lake Source Cooling. More than simply dismissive data must be produced for a range of cooling options outside the two presented in Cornell 's current either-or scenario. Finally , if nothing I've said has made sense, here is a simple image that might help you formulate your own definition of acceptable risk: A 130 foot long eyesore on East Shore Drive pumping 32,000 gallons a minute at peak capacity . That's 533 gallons per second At that rate, if this very room was empty, it would take 86 seconds to fill it from tloor to ceiling. If you can honestly say to your constituents and to your conscience that you're convinced there are no serious risks associated with that level of perpetual disruption, then, by all means, approve this project. � y Statement at Town of Ithaca Public Hearing June 11 , 1998 on the Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project (LSC) by Doria Higgins (273=6450) I am sure you realize , at this point in time , before you have granted approval for the rezoning (if such you decide to do) , you have the most power you will ever have in the matter of the Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project (LSC) . Once you have voted that approval you will no longer have that power. At this time there are still many unanswered questions , which should be answered before you vote — questions about who gets sued, or who pays for damages if LSC turns out to be harmful to the lake . Does the Town get sued if things go wrong? And the monitoring specifications for the Cornell LSC as legally spelled out in the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit No . NY 024 4741 , are inadequate to ensure the welfare of the community which you represent. For instance , as worded in the permit, the sampling for addition of phosphorus from the outfall pipe could be taken as far away as a mile and a half northwesterly of the pipe — a distance large enough and in a direction to almost ensure that no additions could be traced to the outfall pipe . There are no specifications in the permit that sampling be taken near the pipe or near Stewart Park, the area most in jeopardy because of its location south of the outfall . And there ' s another quandary about the permit specifications. While the input of phosphorus from the LSC outfall may be a small percentage compared to the runoff from the hills and parking lots , etc . , that small percentage may be the final trigger without which the undesirable results may not be so grossly undesirable. How can such crucial distinction be measured? I have been told by a member of the Cornell Technical Review Committee that a number of Cornell scientists (concerned because under the conditions of SPDES specs there would be no way to prove Cornell innocent if indeed damage to the lake is observed) have volunteered much more intensive monitoring techniques than needed to satisfy SPDES requirements . However, it is important for you to recognize that the intensive techniques that I have been told Cornell has offered to set up are not legally demanded by the Department of Environmental Conservation permit and therefore could be stopped by Cornell if Cornell should so decide . It is also important for you to realize that to expect Cornell to police itself in this matter would be unrealistic. You should insist, before approving rezoning the area needed by Cornell for the project, that whatever conditions are necessary for the welfare of your community are spelled out in writing as conditions that can be legally enforced . As I understand it, among the undesirable effects of phosphorus and the reason its possible addition to the lake by LSC is being monitored , is increase of algae bloom and loss of water clarity. Monitoring for these effects and the way it is to be done should be clearly spelled out in the permit. According to a 1968 pamphlet written by 17 Cornell scientists , mean water transparency dropped from 17.3 feet in 1928 to 7. 9 feet in 1965 . I have been told that there has been some improvement since then because of zebra mussels , but such a drop shows how vulnerable the lake can be to changing conditions . We should not experiment with the lake . Attachment E : ._ ..�U�1.► 151998 Tompkins County ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ` t� Ox ITT � r 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New. York. 14850 Telephone (607) 2744560 . FAX ,.,(607) 2744378 TO: Ithaca Town Board FRCM: Joan Jurkowich AICP , Deputy Commissioner of Planning DATE. June 11 , 1998 RE: EMC Resolution Last night , the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council adopted the enclosed resolution on the Lake Source Cooling project . Since your Board has not yet taken final action on the application , the EMC asked me to forward a copy of this resolution for your information . If you have any questions , please contact me at 274-5560 . Thank you . Attachment F t ,,* RecY0eJ �a.Der ✓ J rte-^--_. .. .. TOMPKINS COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL LAKE SOURCE COOLING REVIEW May, 1998 At its May 13 regular meeting, the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council charged its Environmental Review Comrimittee to consider a resolution to be presented to the full Council advising the Tompkins County Board of Representatives whether to adopt a findin statement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) concerning the Lake s Source Cooling Project. A review of the record shows that the EMC has produced a great deal of information on the Lake Source Cooling Project. Despite that work, the SEQR process, and the extensive press coverage given the project, a study reported in May, 1998 indicates that the general public does not fully . understand the undertaking, with a majority neither supporting (35. 6%) nor. oppos* (20. 8%) the Lake Source Cooling Project. The indecision is understandable, because the Lake Source Cooling project is both complicated and novel. The ambivalence extends to the environmental community, which is split on whether Lake Source Cooling will ultimately benefit or hurt the environment. Everyone seems to agree on at least two points: the positive potential of the project to reduce the use of fossil fuels to produce energy, and the importance of Cayuga Lake as an economic and natural resource. The latter point is discussed in tine Tompkins County Water Quality Strategy Plan (3/ 19/97) which lists as a `watershed specific concern: " Cayuga Lake (high levels of turbidity from storm events and algal blooms due to nutrient input, aquatic weed growth, possible threats to public water supply and filtration concerns, and limitations to recreational uses). This concern is shared by the EIMC and causes us to remain skeptical about Lake irce Cooling. The uneasiness about Lake Source Cooling was not ameliorated by the project sponsor's responses to the EMC public continents ( Draft Environmental Impact Statement, pp 42-36). Neither were concerns allaved by the subsequent Stream Protection and State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES ) permit. Therefore, the enclosed resolution if offered to the full EMC by the Environmental Review CosL*nittee. Please read carefully the enclosed DEIS responses to the EMC's original concerns, it is difficult to understand the Committee' s recommendations without reading this material. ( 0'e') Tompkins County ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Telephone (607) 2744560 RESOLUTION Fax (607) 2744578 EMC No . 1 -98 Resolution Recommending Board of Representatives Not To Concur with the Lake Source Cooling Environmental Impact Statement WHEREAS , the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council has carefully reviewed all available information relative to the Lake Source Cooling project and, although some progress has been mad ' since the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's acceptance of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in discussions with Cornell, HOWEVER, serious reservations remain concerning the adequacy of the EIS and the potential effects of Lake Source Cooling - the first project of its kind ever attempted - especially: 1 . Lack of a thorough study to gather data to establish baseline conditions -of Cavuga Lake prior to the start of this experimental project; 2. Lack of independent monitoring of Cayuga Lake to detect changes during the project operations ; � • Absence of established guidelines to determine if there has been a negative effect on the lake and at what point the project should be shut down and remediation begun; 4. Lack of a set-aside fund to pay for prompt remediation; 5 . Absence of any consideration by the sponsor or regulatory agencies of the cumulative effects resulting from the proliferation of this technology throughout the Finger Lakes; 6 . Failure of the sponsor to consider in depth, either singly or conjointly, possible alternatives, such as a closed loop system, geothermal cooling, passive options and energy conservation measures; 7. Lack of analysis of the potential effects on the tourist industry, as well as residents' enjoyment of the lake, of the "aesthetics " effect of the project, caused by anticipated algae blooms, and predicted by the Department of Environmental Conservation to occur in July, August and September of each year, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council recommends that the Tompkins County Board of Representatives NOT issue a findings statement concurring with the facts and conclusions contained in the Lake Source Cooling. Environmental Impact Statement, and tJ Rec clecl paper• RESOLVED, further, That the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council recommends that the Tompkins County Board of Representatives NOT find that concerns over water quality and biological monitoring have been adequately addressed through the terms of the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit. Date: June 10, 1998 Voting in favor: 13 Voting against: 0 Abstentions: 1 4 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Local Law Filing 162 WASHINGTON AVENUE , ALBANY , NY 12231 (Use this form to file a local law with the Secretary of State.) ext of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not e italics or underlining to indicate new matter. �( ...» Ithaca Townof »........... ....»....».... ....» ............» »»»..».....»...»»...... No 7 ........._ of the year 19 98 Local Law . »...»....»......_..�.............. »....» TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINACE TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT •FOR THE A local law �o�`LPL+.**1M10VzRSITX.»CNT>�T .FT�WATER.eaELAIrr ON FACT ..SHORE..DRLVE.ALINF.D_S ..NOAH • S (pert Title) BOAT CLUB, INC . Be it enacted by the „Town.. Board _ . ...»_.of the •---.........» (Name of Legisls�ire Body) »......» ..»....»».................»......... of Ithaca..........».»..»............. »..»....».....» .»»...»»».»..».»......_. as follows: Town ._..........».»...... . ( SEE ATTACHED ) (If additional space is needed , attach pages the same size as this sheet, and number each . ) ( 1 ) TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO. 7 OF THE YEAR 1998 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT FOR THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY CHILLED WATER PLANT ON EAST SHORE DRIVE OWNED BY NOAH' S BOAT CLUB, INC. Be it Enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows: WHEREAS , Cornell University has plans to replace the outdated, energy4ntensive, electric-powered chillers that now provide central cooling for Cornell University through a project known as Lake Source Cooling; and WHEREAS , Cornell University is proposing to pump the naturally cold Cayuga Lake water from a depth of approximately 250 feet, transferring some, of its chill to campus water piped from the campus to heat exchangers to be located in with a Chilled Water Plant at 983 East Shore Drive in the Town of Ithaca, which Chilled Water Plant will utilize water from Cayuga Lake to chilled water that is piped to the campus to cool University laboratories and other buildings; and WHEREAS , Cornell University has represented that the Lake Source Cooling Project will provide significant environmental benefits by reducing energy use needed for central cooling by 80% ; and WHEREAS , the plans for Lake Source Cooling are solely for educational purposes and to further the education mission of the University; and WHEREAS , in order to assess the short and long term environmental and other effects of the Lake Source Cooling Project, the University prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, from which the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in accordance with applicable law and regulation prepared and issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) taking into account the concerns and comments expressed by the public ; and WHEREAS , the Town, Cornell University, and many residents of the Town have participated in the analysis of the proposed project and the drafting of the FEIS ; and WHEREAS , the Town ' s Planning Board and Town Board have issued findings relating to the proposed project and the FEIS which, among other matters, set forth steps to mitigate , in part. some of the potential effects of the proposed project; and WHEREAS , the Lake Source Cooling Project' s Chilled Water Plant is proposed to be constructed at 983 East Shore Drive to house the heat exchangers , pumps, an d other equipment necessary to transfer heat from the campus chilled water system to the lake water; and Cor-ch&wa4 wgNthVocallaw May 28. 1998 2:04pm WHEREAS , it has been concluded that a rezoning of the site of the Chilled Water Plant from Business E to a Special Land Use District would provide the most flexibility for the University to implement the Lake Source Cooling Project, while preserving to the Town the ability to continue to regulate the proposed development of the Chilled Water Plant site to assure compliance with the town ' s overall comprehensive plan and environmental requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the recitals set forth above, the information and materials contained in the FEIS , and related findings in furtherance of the Town' s Comprehensive Plan,. and upon the request of Cornell University , the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted, amended and revised effective February 26 , 1968 , and subsequently amended, be further amended as follows : 10 Ordinance Amended. Article II, Section 1 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance be and hereby is amended by adding to the permissible districts itemized in said section a district designated as " Special Land Use District No. 11 , " which Special Land Use District is shown on a map entitled "Noah' s Boat Club, East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights , Tompkins Co . , N. Y. dated Julv 25 , 1965 , last revised November 6 , 1997 , " by Allen T. Fulkerson, L. S . , a copy of which map was filed with the Town of Ithaca Planning Department and which district consists of the lands described in Schedule " A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. Uses permitted. The uses permitted in this Special Land Use District are set forth below, all of which uses shall be conducted by an educational institution or an agency or third-party . affiliated with or under contract with an educational institution for educational purposes. The permitted uses are : ( a) One chilled water plan consisting of not more than 15 ,000 square feet in building footprint, containing heat exchangers , pumps , pipes , and other equipment and fixtures , together with control rooms, offices, reception, and other related spaces . (b) Upon receipt of a special approval and site plan approval by the Planning Board: (i) Greenhouse , aquaculture facility , or laboratory, together with associated office and seminar room, for or associated with educational purposes and associated with, or a by-product of, the process of the chilled water plant. (ii) Maintenance , repair, servicing , utility , communications , supply and storage facilities provided the same are owned by , or are provided solely 2 1 Cor-chiLwa4 wp5NAVocallaw May 28, 1998 2:04pm to service , an educational institution in connection with a permitted use, and are not provided for the general public ' s use. 39 Accessory Uses. Permitted accessory uses shall include the following : (a) Off-street parking spaces for the employees, occupants, and users working at, and visitors to , the permitted facilities. (b) Accessory buildings such as storage sheds, garages, pavilions , gazebos, bus shelters , and other similar small buildings, provided that no single building exceeds more than 2,000 feet in size. (c) Antennae, ray domes, satellite dishes , and similar technical or scientific structures. (d) Outdoor recreational areas including walkways,parks, trails, picnic tables, and other similar recreational facilities. (e) Any municipal, public , or privately owned utility facility, 2,000 square feet or less in size , necessary to the development or maintenance of utility services for a principal use permitted above. (f) Upon receipt of special approval from the Planning Board, any municipal, public , or privately owned utility facility, greater than 2,000 square feet in size, necessary to the development or maintenance of utility services for a principal use permitted above . (g) Signs associated with the above uses but only in accordance with the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance or similar law as then in effect. 4. Applicable Requirements. Except as expressly otherwise set forth in the local law creating this Special Land Use District, the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance governing Light Industrial Districts shall be applicable to the Special Land Use District. If there is a conflict between the Special Land Use District provisions and those governing the Light Industrial District, the provisions of this Special Land Use District shall prevail. 5. Performance Standards. Notwithstanding the foregoing , any use permitted in this Special Land Use District shall be in conformity with the following additional standards : (a) Height: The maximum height of buildings and structures shall be as follows Cor-chiLwat. wp51\ith\1oca11aw May 28, 1998 2:04pm (i} No building shall be erected, altered, or extended to exceed 38 feet in height from the lowest interior grade nor thirty-six (36) feet in height from the lowest exterior grade measured from the lowest point of grade at the exterior building wall to the highest point of the roof of the building, but excluding rooftop appurtenances such as mechanical equipment, exhaust pipes, radio antenna provided such appurtenances do not themselves exceed an additional 12 feet in height. No structure , other than a building, shall be erected, altered, or extended to exceed thirty (30) feet in height. (b) Ground Coverage : Total coverage of ground by structures, road pavement, parking lots and pedestrian area pavements shall not exceed 30% of the Special Land Use District. Total maximum ground coverage by buildings alone shall not exceed 20610 of the Special Land Use District. (c) Yards : Unless a deviation is authorized by the Planning Board, for good cause shown, the yard requirements shall be as follows: (i} Front yard shall be not less than 50 feet. (ii) Side yards shall be not less than 60 feet. (iii) Rear yard shall be not less than 50 feet. The foregoing yard requirements may include any required buffer areas and shall not be in addition to any required buffer areas. (d) Noise : No use shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound in such a manner as to create a sound level which exceeds the limits set forth for the Iand use category stated below when measured at the boundary of the Special Land Use District nearest the receiving land use . Receiving Sound Land Use Category Time Level Limit Residential Use 7 a. m. - 7 p .m. 65 dBa 7 p . m. - 7 am. 55 dBa All Other 7 a. m. - 7 p . m. 68 dBa 7 p . m . - 7 a.m. 58 dBa 4 i Cor-chlwat, wp514th\Iocallaw May 33, 1998 2:04pm For any source of sound which emits a pure tone, a discrete tone or impulsive sound, the maximum sound limits set forth above shall be reduced by 5 dBa. (e) Vibration : No activity shall cause or create a discernible steady state or impact vibration at or beyond the boundary of the Special Land Use District. (f) Atmospheric Emissions : There shall be no emission of dust, dirt, smoke, fly ash, or noxious gases or other noxious substances which could cause damage to the health of persons, animals , or plant life . (g) Odor: There shall be no emission of any offensive odor discernible at the boundary of the Special Land Use District. (h) Glare and Heat: No glare or heat shall be produced that is perceptible beyond the boundaries of the Special Land Use District. Exterior illumination shall be shaded and directed to prevent glare or traffic hazard on surrounding properties and streets . (i) Radioactivity and Electromagnetic Interference : No activities shall be permitted which emit dangerous radioactivity . No activities shall be permitted which produce any electromagnetic disturbance adversely affectin2 the operation of any equipment outside the boundary of the Special Land Use District, 0) Fire and Explosion Hazards : All activities involving, and all storage of inflammable and explosive materials , shall be provided with adequate safety devices against the hazard of fire and explosion and with adequate firefighting and fire suppression equipment and devices standard in the industry and as may be required by any applicable codes , laws . or regulations. All burning. of such waste materials in open fires is prohibited. (k) Vermin : There shall be no storage of material, either indoors or out. in such a manner that it attracts or facilitates the breeding of vermin or endangers public health or the environment in any way . (1) Parking: Off-street parking for vehicles and bicycles shall be provided to serve the facility constructed within this Special Land Use District. Unless the Planning Board reduces the required number of parking spaces, for good cause shown, in the process of reviewing a site plan for a special approval, the minimum parking spaces will be one parkin .cr space for each 1 , 200 square feet or fraction thereof of enclosed building space. ( m ) Buffer Zone : No structure shall be placed nearer than 60 feet from any residence district. A strip of at least 10 feet wide within such buffer area shall be planted or 5 Cor-chiLwat, wp5l4tffilocallaw May 28, 1998 2:04pm suitable fenced so as to screen the Special Land Use District from present or future residences . (n) Additional Requirement: In addition to the performance standards set forth above , the buildings and structures in the Special Land Use District shall comply with the other requirements of the Light Industrial Zone including, without limitation, the provisions relating to off- street loading , access and sidewalks, and additional screening. (o) Waiver of Requirements : Notwithstanding any other provisions of these performance standards , no screening shall be required along the portion of the east side of the Special Land Use District that is adjacent to the New York State Route 13 right-of- way. 6. Prohibition of Subdivision. There shall be no subdivision of the land in the Special Land Use District. 79 Site Plan Approval. The exterior design, specifications , and plans for all buildings and other improvements , including any accessory buildings, to be constructed in the Special Land Use District. and the development of the grounds and construction of all outside facilities shall have been shown on a final site plan and design drawings approved by the Planning Board before a building permit will be issued, Any construction shall be in accordance with a final site plan and drawings as finally approved by the Planning Board. Any modification to a final site plan shall be approved by the Planning Board. except that the Planning Board shall not be required to approve any de minimus modifications described in subdivision 4 of Section 46-b of the Zoning Ordinance . 80 Procedures Related to Site Plans. In considering whether or not to grant site plan approval, the Planning Board (a) Shall, to the extent appropriate , utilize the considerations set forth in Section 46-d and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance , or any successor statute , and, in addition, consider whether the proposed project meets the requirements of this Special Land Use District and the Zoning Ordinances and the requirements of any other statute . rule, or regulation; and (b) Shall , to the extent appropriate , impose upon the applicant such reasonable conditions as it deems necessary to protect the general welfare of the community, to assure adequate compliance with all applicable provisions of this Local Law or the Zoning Ordinance , or to minimize or eliminate anv significant adverse environmental effects (including traffic impacts referred to above ) that may occur as a result of the approval of the site plan. 6 Cor-ehiLwat, wp5IVthVoeallaw May 28, 1998 2:04pm (c) May authorize the required minimum number of parking spaces to be reduced to a number determined by the Planning Board if the following circumstances exist: (i) The occupancy of the building or buildings is such that fewer than the number of spaces required by this local law would be needed to accommodate the reasonably anticipated number of cars that will be traveling to, and/or parking at, the buildings ; or (ii) Adequate traffic demand management control plans are or will be in place to assure fewer parking spaces than otherwise required by this local law will be needed at the project; and in either event (iii) The reduction in the number of parking spaces will not adversely affect traffic flow on the project site or elsewhere, will leave adequate parking for all of the reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies in the project, and will not otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of the community. If the Planning Board permits a reduction in the required number of parking spaces , the Planning Board may impose such reasonable conditions as may , in the judgment of the Planning Board, be necessary to assure that such reduction will meet the criteria set forth above . In any event, unless expressly waived by the Planning Board, such reduction shall be subject to the same conditions that would be imposed in the event of a reduction in parking spaces in a business zone pursuant to Section 38 of the Zoning Ordinance , or any successor similar provision. (d) May, notwithstanding the provisions of this local law and Sections 45 and 69 of the Zoning Ordinance (or any successor similar provisions) , authorize the placement of parking spaces in the front yard of any building or in a buffer area (except for any buffer area adjacent to a residence district) when the Planning Board finds that such location will be preferable to locations outside of the front yard or buffer area. 90 Special Approval. In granting Special Approval in any instance specified above, and in addition to the criteria for site plan approval, the Planning Board shall, to the extent appropriate , determine that: (a) The health, safety , morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose of this ordinance shall be promoted. (b) The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use . 7 I Co►-ckiLwa4 wp51\itk\1oca11aw Mav 28, 1998 2:04pm (c) The proposed use and the location and design of any structure shall be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located. (d) Consideration has been given to minimizing adverse impacts of the proposed use upon any adjoining residential area or Cayuga Lake Shore frontage. (e) The proposed use shall not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants. (f) The proposed access and egress for all structures and uses shall be safely designed. (g) The general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole , including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewerage systems is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The Planning Board may impose upon the applicant such reasonable conditions as it deems necessary to protect the general welfare of the community. 100 Definitions. For the purposes of this Special Land Use District, the following term shall have the following meaning: (a) Educational Institution. An " educational institution " is a corporation, foundation, or other generally recognized entity organized and operated principally for the purpose of educating persons with essentially three components: ( 1 ) a curriculum ; (2) a plant consisting of adequate physical facilities ; and (3 ) a properly qualified and accredited staff to carry out its educational objectives. The following are included as educational institutions : (i) A college or university chartered by the State of New York. (ii) A college or university or post-graduate institution providing a recognized course of study and accredited by a recognized accrediting organization. (iii) A public school operated by a state -recognized Board of Education. (iv) A private school having received appropriate approval from the Board of Regents or Department of Education of the State of New York to operate as a school. (b ) Owned. Property is " owned" by the person(s ) or entity(ies) holding the fee title to at least a 51 % interest in the property , except that if the property is leased under a 8 Cor-chilwa; wp514th\1oca11aw May 28, 1998 2:04pm written, bona fide , recorded lease for a term of more than 35 years , the property shall be deemed " owned" by the person(s) or entity(ies) holding at least a 51 % interest as tenant in such lease. Property is also " owned" by an entity which holds 100% of the issued and outstanding shares of a corporation which is the fee title holder to at least a 51 % interest in the property. 11. Amendment of Zoning Map. The official zoning map of the Town of Ithaca is hereby amended by adding this Special Land Use District in the area described above. 12. Invalidity of Portion of Local Law. In the event that any portion of this local law is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of invalidity. 13. Effective Date. This law shall take effect 20 days after its adoption or the date it is filed in the Office of the Secretary of State, whichever is later. 9 Cor-chiLwac wp51Vzh\1oca11aw May 38. 1998 3:05pm Schedule " A" Description of SLUR for Cornell University Chilled Water Plant Town of Ithaca ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND , situate in the Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins and State of New York, more particularly bounded and described as follows : BEGINtiM1G at a point in the easterly highway line of East Shore Drive (see Highway Appropriation C.H. No, 1330 Map , No . 13 ) , at a point located North 25 degrees 57 minutes 42 seconds West, a distance of 357 . 47 feet from a pin with cap set at the northwesterly comer of premises now or formerly of Lowery (Liber 512 at page 771 ) ; and RUNINLNG THENCE along said easterly highway line North 25 degrees 57 minutes 42 seconds West, a distance of 270.00 feet to a concrete highway monument; and RUN,N, ING THENCE North 01 degrees 52 minutes 26 seconds East, a distance of 51 .00 feet to a concrete highway monument; and RUNT NZ I G THENCE North 43 degrees 22 minutes 38 seconds West, a distance of 78 . 50 feet to a pin with cap set in the easterly line or said highway at the northern extreme of a triangular Highway Appropriation (see C .H. No . 1330 Map, No . 1 . 2) bounded by this and the previous course ; and RUNT N, D G THENCE North 26 degrees 02 minutes 59 seconds West, a distance of 152 .44 feet to a point in the easterly line of said highway; and RtJNi 'NDiG THENCE North 85 degrees 49 minutes 58 seconds East, a distance of 345 . 95 feet to a point in the easterly line of the Town of Ithaca and westerly line of the Village of Cayuga Heights ; and RUNNLti'G THENCE South 23 degrees 04 minutes 18 seconds East, a distance of 264.78 feet along the said corporation line of the Village of Cayuga Heights and the line of the Town of Ithaca, to a point; and RUNT TNi D G THENCE South 32 degrees 45 minutes 11 seconds West, a distance of 112 . 96 feet to a point with a monument found 6 . 6 feet southwesterly thereof; and RUNNING THENCE South 11 degrees 03 minutes 04 seconds East, a distance of 104. 00 feet to a point with a monument found 1 . 0 feet southerly thereof; and 10 Cor-chiLwa4 wpMthVoca[taw May 28. 1998 2:04pm RUNNING THENCE South 73 degrees 14 minutes 16 seconds West, a distance of 97 . 86 feet to a point; and RUNNING THENCE South 60 degrees 05 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 88 .27 feet, to the point or place of beginning. Containing 3. 12 acres, be the same more or less. Being a portion of the lands of Noah ' s Boat Club, Inc., described in a deed to it recorded in Book 555 of Deeds at page 126. 11 (Complete the certification in the paragraph that applies to the filing of this local law and strike out that which is not applicable .). 1 . Final adoption by local legislative body only.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto , designated as local law No . 7 of 1998 of the . (@ MMKIRC WTown)( N) of Ithaca was duly passed by the Town Board on June 11 1998 , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law: (Name of Legislative Body) 2 . (Passage by local legislative body with approval , no disapproval or repassage after disapproval by the Elective Chief Executive Officer' .) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto , designated as local law No . of 19 of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 19_, and was (approved)(not disapproved)(repassed after (Name of Legislative Body) disapproval) by the and was deemed duly adopted on I9_, (Elective Chief Executive Officer' in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. Final adoption by referendum .) reby certify that the local law annexed hereto , designated as local law No . of 19 e (County)(Ci y)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 19_, and was (approved)(not disapproved)(repassed after Name of Legislative Body disapproval) by the on 19_. Such local law was Elective Chief Executive Officer' ) submitted to the people by reason of a (mandatory)(permissive) referendum, and received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon at the (general)(special)(annual) election held on 19 , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 4 . (Subject to permissive referendum and final adoption because no valid petition was filed requesting referndum .) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto , designated as local law No . of 19 of the (County)(City)(Town)(Village) of was duly passed by the on 19 , and was (approved)(not disapproved)(repassed after Name of Legislative Body disapproval) by the on 19_ Such local law was subject to Elective Chief Executive Officer' permissive referendum and no valid petition requesting such referendum was filed as of 19_. in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. l o ectiye Chief Executive Officer means or includes the chief executive officer of a county elected on a unty- wide basis or, if there be none , the chairman of the county legislative body , the mayor of a city or village , or the supervisor of a town where such officer is vested with the power to approve or veto local laws or ordinances . (2 ) ) . (City local law concerning Charter revision proposed by petition.) I he by certify that the local law annexed hereto , designated as local law No . of 19 ) f ity of having been submitted to referendum pursuant to :he visions of section (36)(37) of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote 3f jority of the qualified electors of such city voting thereon at the (special)(geaeral) election held on 19_, became operative. S . (County local law concerning adoption of Charter.) I .hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto , designated as local law No . of 19 3f the County of , State of New York, having been submitted to the electors at the General Election of November I9 , pursuant, to subdivisions 5 and 7 of ;ectioa 33 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the ffir amative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of the cities of said county as a unit and of a majority of the qualified electors of the towns of said county considered as a unit voting at said general election, became operative. (If any other authorized form of final adoption has been followed, please provide an appropritate certification.) I further certify that I have compared the preceding local . law with :he original on file in this office and that Sze same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such anginal local law, and was finally adopted in the manner indicated in paragraph 1 , above . Clerk of a Coun:r !ersiacive body, City, Town or Village Cleric or oLrice.• deaip..ated by local legilsative body (Seal) Date: ( Certification to be executed by County Attorney , Corporation Counsel . Town Attorney, Village attorney or other authorized Attorney of locality.) STATE OF NEW YORK :OUNTY OF Tompkins I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing local law contains t`:e correct text and that all proper proceedings have been had or taken for the enactment of the oc I law annexed hereto. Sigsat /ur Aq . ornev _ or the Town Title / CiXzX I _haca : Town or K Date: c � � JOAN LENT NOTEBOOM Mary J . Saxton , Deputy Town Clerk Otohcica,wn Clerk/Receiver of Taxes *Jr Deborah A. Kelley, Deputy Town Clerk wn of Ithaca 6 E . Seneca Street NY 14850 (607) 273- 1721 , Fax (607) 273-5854 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Joan Lent Noteboom, being duly sworn , say that I am the 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) : NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING : To consider the SEAR findings, and a local law rezoning a ' portion of Tax Parcel No. 19=1 =5 on East Shore Drive to a Special Land Use District for the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project. Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Town Clerk' s Office 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT Date of Posting : Friday, May 15 , 1998 . Date of Publication : g fiGt ei� GQ � yl /� ! q 6 CL40 Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this c261L day of n1am , 1g . Not Notqffy Publ c Mary J. Saxton Notary Public, State of New York - Registration #01SA5044003 Qualified In Tioga Cou t My Commission Expires JOAN LENT NOTEBOOM Mary J . Saxton , Deputy Town Clerk Town Clerk/Receiver of Taxes o�� °F 1r Deborah A. Kelley, Deputy Town Clerk F Sy own of Ithaca �' 44 26 E. Seneca Street �� 10 Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273- 1721 , Fax (607) 273-5854 - TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Joan Lent Noteboom , being duly sworn , say that 'l am the 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) : NOTICE OF SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING : To conduct a public hearing on the proposed rezoning of a portion of Tax Parcel No. 19=1 =5 on East Shore Drive, for the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project, to consider SEOR findings, related to such rezoning, and to consider a proposed Local Law effecting such rezoning. Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Clerk' s Office 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT Date of Posting : Friday, May 15 , 1998 Date of Publication : , 98 Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK . ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : ' TOWN OF ITHACA ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this& day of Aam 19Y6.8 jai No ublic .: ary J. Saxton c. State_ of New York 401SA5044003 ;n 7ioga Coun F61 P, ,. : hires S- JOAN LENT NOTEBOOM Mary J . Saxton , Deputy Town Clerk 1Town Clerk/Receiver of Taxes o�� oFIT'� Deborah A. Kelley, Deputy Town Clerk own of Ithaca 26 E. Seneca Street �► Y°4 Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273- 1721 , Fax (607) 273-5854 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Joan Lent Noteboom, being duly sworn , say that I am the 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) : NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT FOR THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY CHILLED WATER PLANT ON EAST SHORE DRIVE OWNED BY NOAH' S BOAT CLUB, INC. Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Clerk's Office 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 . ....... LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT Date of Posting : Friday, June 19, 1998 Date of Publication : Tuesday, June 23, 1998 L+ own Clerk, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS. ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of TIAOro _ 19. t1. N a Public Mary J. Saxton Notary Public, State of New York Registration #01SA5044003 Qualified In Tloga Count My Commission Expires State Environmental Quality Review FINDINGS STATEMENT Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project Town of Ithaca Town Board June 11, 1998 Pursuant to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act- SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6NYCRR Part 617, the Town of Ithaca Town Board makes the following findings. Name of Action: Approval of Request for Rezoning from Business "E" to Special land Use District for Cornell University 's proposed Lake Source Cooling Project Description of Action: Rezoning of the site of Cornell University's proposed chilled water plant in conjunction with the Lake Source Cooling Project from Business District "E" to Special Land Use District (SLUR), located at 983 East Shore Drive on a 3. 12 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 1-5, Comell University, Owner/Applicant, in order to allow the construction and operation of a Heat Exchange Facility in conjunction with a cooling system for the Cornell University campus. The system will draw a maximum of 46 mgd per day (32,000 gpm) of cold water from Cayuga Lake at a depth of approximately 250 feet through a 634nch pipeline extending two miles from the shoreline Heat Exchange Facility (HEF), proposed to consist of a +/- 149400 sq. ft. structure at 983 East Shore Drive. Within the HEF the cold water will circulate through heat exchangers where it will absorb heat from water in the 42-inch closed-loop pipeline extending 2.4 miles from Cornell ' s central cooing system to the HEF. The chilled water will be circulated back to the university through the closed-loop pipeline. The warmed lake water will be returned to the lake through a 48-inch diameter 500 foot long outfall pipe that terminates with a 75 foot long diffuser. The system is designed so that the Cayuga Lake water will never mix with the campus chilled water in the 42-inch closed- loop pipeline. Location: The HEF building and pumping facilities will be located at 983 East Shore Drive, Ithaca, New York on a parcel totalling approximately 13 acres. The overall Lake Source Cooling Project is located in both the Town and City of Ithaca, and the Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County. The project will also be located in Cayuga Lake as described in the "Description of Action" above. The Town of Ithaca Town Board is considering rezoning a 3 . 12 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 1 -5 located within the Town of Ithaca in order to permit the proposed Heat Exchange Facility. Agency Jurisdiction: The Town Board has jurisdiction regarding the request for rezoning of the above-referenced property from Business "E" to Special Land Use District (SLUD). Date Final EIS Filed: December 3 , 1997 r Facts and Conclusions in the EIS Relied Upon to Support the Decision: General The record regarding the above referenced proposal, including a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) , a Findings Statement by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, a public hearing held by the Town of Ithaca Town Board on June 11 , 1998 , and other materials submitted as part of the applicant's submission, provide an adequate basis to make the findings required by SEQRA. Discussion With regard to impact on aesthetic resources, specifically the east shore of Cayuga Lake and the view toward said shore from the lake itself: 1 . a redesign of the exterior of the proposed Heat Exchange Facility (HEF) structure addresses the concerns which had been raised regarding the aesthetic qualities of the proposed structures, and its potential visual impact; 2e a landscape planting plan prepared by Gryphon International Engineering Services, Inc. for the applicant (drawing #1142SP02-PC, dated 11/97) further mitigates potential adverse aesthetic impacts of the project through the use of native trees, shrubs and wildflowers to partially screen the proposed HEF structure and restore disturbed areas of the site; 3 * the proposed 50 ft. wide buffer comprised of existing trees and other vegetation between the proposed spoil site and East Shore Drive/NYS Rte. 34, and between the proposed spoil site and Renwick Brook to the north, are adequate to mitigate the visual impact of said spoil site. With regard to impact on Cayuga Lake, the record, summarized in part in the Findings Statement of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation dated January 7, 1998 , shows that: 10 the direct impacts to aquatic resources such as Mysis relicta, alewife, rainbow smelt, lake trout and other fish species have been addressed, have been mitigated to the extent practicable; and are not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to said resources; 2* the cold water drawn from the bottom of Cayuga Lake will be returned to the lake at temperatures which will on average be 10 degrees to 15 degrees warmer than its original temperature of 41 degrees. The use of a diffuser designed to expedite the mixing of the returned water with the water surrounding the outfall is expected to significantly minimize the impact of warmer water in the area in the vicinity of the proposed outfall. Given this and documentation provided in the Draft (DEIS) and Final EIS (FEIS), and DEC Findings Statement, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed discharge of warmer water from the proposed outfall; 3 , due to the relatively small scale of and the time of year during which the maximum discharge from the proposed HEF outfall pipe of phosphorus will occur, the total increase in the phosphorus inputs into southern Cayuga Lake as a result of operation of the proposed facility is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts to water quality. With regard to impacts from noise generated by the proposed Heat Exchange Facility (HEF), the record shows that the projected increase in noise anticipated as a result of the proposed HEF facility will not create any significant adverse impacts, including impacts to nearby residences and their occupants. The primary sources of noise from the proposed facility have been identified as a set of exhaust fans which will be located along the rear wall of the structure. The noise which is expected to emanate from their location will be directed at the hillside to the east of the structure, where much of it is expected to be absorbed by the vegetated slope. With regard to impact on public access to Cayuga Lake, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed action, as Cornell University does not plan as part of the proposed project to terminate or curtail the operations of the existing commercial marina on the site. Furthermore, Cornell University has agreed in principle to granting the Town of Ithaca a license for a Town park on a portion of the lakefront, to allow public recreational access and a scenic overlook, as well as a right of first offering, should in the future the University decide to sell all or part of the site fronting on Cayuga Lake. With regard to traffic impacts, such impacts are expected to be limited to temporary, localized traffic diversions or stoppages commonly associated with construction activity within highway and street alignments, and construction related traffic. No significant adverse impacts to existing traffic patterns, either long term or short term, are anticipated due to the proposed project. With regard to the use of the clearing and grading of +/- 2 acres off East Shore Drive to the north of the proposed HEF for use as a temporary staging area, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated either in the short term during construction, or the long term . The area in question has already undergone considerable disturbance, and consists primarily of old field, brush and small trees. In accordance with project plans, it will be re-vegetated at the close of construction. With regard to drainage impacts, no significant adverse impacts with regard to potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems are expected as a result of the proposed action. The project as designed incorporates facilities adequate to control the expected increase in stormwater runoff off after completion of the project in a manner that mitigates any potential adverse impacts from such runoff. The proposed measures for preventing erosion and sedimentation during the construction phase of the project are expected to minimize the potential adverse impacts commonly associated with erosion and sedimentation. Dredging associated with the construction of the proposed intake and outfall pipes is expected to produce suspended sediments in the lake. The mitigating measures proposed by the University however are expected to prevent these suspended sediments from creating any significant adverse impacts to water quality. Merits and Drawbacks of Alternatives to the Proposed Lake Source Cooling System The "no action" alternative, or decision not to proceed with the proposed project, would entail continued reliance by Cornell University on its existing chilling system which is dependent on CFC refrigerants. Due to regulatory constraints on the availability of such refrigerants over the long term, continued operation of the existing chilling technology using CFCs is not a viable long-term alternative. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has considered the use of newer chilling equipment that would utilize refrigerants with low or no ozone depletion potential. Although this approach may be practicable, it would require the replacement of six of seven existing chilling units currently operated by the University, and result in the consumption of approximately five times more electrical energy than the proposed Lake Source Cooling project. The FEIS has also considered other alternative technologies, such as geothermal cooling (e.g., pp. 2849 of FEIS). Use of Cayuga Lake as proposed by the University, for its chilled water needs, is expected to benefit the environment by reducing the demand for electrical energy, and attendant combustion of fossil fuels. The Lake Source Cooling project will also provide benefits to local communities, including road, sidewalk and utility improvements for the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca, not possible under the alternatives considered. CERTIFICATION OF FINDINGS TO APPROVE Having considered the DEIS and FEIS , and the Hearing Record, and having considered the preceding written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet the requirements of 6NYCRR 617.9, this Statement of Findings certifies that: 1 . The requirements of 6NYCRR Part 617 have been met; 2. Consistent with the social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable; including the effects disclosed in the environmental impact statement, and 3 . Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process with be minimized or avoided by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures which were identified as practicable. Town of Ithaca Town Board Agency C-� Catherine Valentino Signature of Responsible Official Name of Responsible Official Town Supervisor June 11 , 1998 Title Date LICENSE & RIGHT OF FIRST OFFERING THIS AGREEMENT made this 11th day of June, 1998 , by and between Cornell University and Noah's Boat Club , Inc. , a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cornell University, c/o Real Estate Department, Box DH, Ithaca, New York 14853 , hereinafter sometimes collectively called "Cornell", and the Town of Ithaca, c/o Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York 14850, hereinafter called the "Town". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS , Cornell University desires to construct its Lake Source Cooling (LSC) project, including a Heat Exchange facility to be built on Town of Ithaca Tag Parcel No. 19- 1-5 at Cayuga Lake; and . WHEREAS, the site of the Heat Exchange facility requires the creation of a Special Land Use District (SLUD) and Site Plan Approval from the Town and the Town Planning Board respectively; and WHEREAS ; Noah's Boat Club , Inc. , is the owner of certain real estate known as the point north of the marina on East Shore Drive in the Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, and State of New York, hereinafter called the "park" or the " premises , " and more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS , Cornell and the Town would like to make provision for public use of the premises and a possible future offer of related premises to the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, I. LICENSE 1 , Grant : Cornell hereby grants to the Town the right to use, occupy, and maintain the premises described herein for the purposes and on the terms and conditions described within, in consideration of which the Town undertakes and agrees to said terms and conditions . 2 . Premises: Cornell grants a license to the Town in and to the said premises for a Town park, public recreational access to Cayuga Lake, and scenic overlook purposes, only. Cornell also grants to the Town the right to use the driveway shown on said "Exhibit A, " in common with Cornell and its successors and assigns , for ingress and egress only. If in the course of developing the balance of the Property any Town agency requires Cornell, its assigns or successors , to have a wider driveway for access , the Town will by license , easement, or other legal device mutually satisfactory to the parties , make available to Cornell such additional portion of the premises as any Town agency requires of such development for driveway width. In the event of such easement or other transfer of use, Cornell or its assigns or successors shall then become fully responsible for the maintenance and legal liability for such parcel . 3 . Term and Commencement: The term of this license shall be ninety-nine (99) years , unless sooner terminated as hereinafter provided, commencing upon the completion of Cornell's Lake Source Cooling project (hereinafter the "project"), as completion is defined in Cornell's reasonable discretion, or upon completion of so much of it as Cornell, in its sole judgment, deems adequate to enable Cornell to turn the park over to the Town without interfering with the completion of the project by Cornell . In any event, the park shall be turned over to the Town within three ( 3 ) years after the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the Heat Exchange Facility. 4*1 Condition: The park shall be turned over to the Town with trees and shrubs planted, the site graded and seeded, railroad ties placed as demarcation of the parking area substantially as shown on Exhibit "B , " and gravel parking area created as shown on "Exhibit B . " 5 , Reservation : Cornell reserves the right to place , whether prior to commencement of, or during the term of this license, and thereafter maintain, underground lake water intake and outfall pipes and any associated underground boxes , structures , improvements , monitors , controls , valves and other equipment or services , whether now or hereafter reasonably necessary or required for the project, in the area shown on said Exhibit "A" as "piping easement, " together with at-grade, covered, secure access thereto. Cornell further reserves the right to access the piping easement at any time during the term for purposes of inspection, maintenance, repair, replacement, modification , or additions . In the event it is required for safety or otherwise reasonably necessary, Cornell may, upon a minimum of fifteen ( 15 ) days advance notice to the Town, close public access to the park or so much of the park as necessary, for such reasonable periods of time as may be - 2 - reasonably necessary to perform such inspection , maintenance, repair, replacement, modification, or additions . However, no advance notice shall be required in the case of an emergency. The Town shall not dig holes or trenches , or plant any trees, or construct any permanent structures in the piping easement without Cornell's advance approval . 6 . Improvements : The Town shall be free to place or construct any removable improvements for passive use of said area including, without limitation, picnic tables , park benches , trash receptacles , or other similar structures and equipment. Any such improvements installed by the Town shall be maintained in a good working order at the Town's expense. The Town shall not dispose of any debris on the Property, and if any is disposed of on the premises by any person, the Town shall be responsible for the policing of the Property and keeping the area reasonably clean. 7. No Transfer: This license may not be transferred or assigned. 8. Taxes: The Town agrees to pay any and all taxes , assessments, or similar charges , that may be imposed against the premises by reason of the license, or the Town's use of said premises , such as increased taxes due to Town improvements or use. Cornell will pay all other taxes , assessments , or similar charges, if any. 9 . Indemnification : (a) The Town will indemnify Cornell against, and will hold it harmless from, any claim, demand, action, suit, liability, or judgment, including the investigatory and legal costs that may be connected to, arise out of, or result in whole or in part (unless due in whole or in part to the fault of Cornell, its employees , or agents) from the use or occupancy of said premises (including the gravel parking area to be maintained by Cornell) by the Town, its agents , employees , contractors, invitees and guests, including the public. (b) Cornell will indemnify the Town against, and will hold it harmless from, any claim, demand, action, suit, liability, or judgment, including the investigatory and legal costs that may be connected to, arise out of, or result in whole or in part (unless due in whole or in part to the fault of the Town, its employees , or agents) related to the use or occupancy of said premises ( and the maintenance of the gravel parking area by Cornell) resulting from the negligence or willful act of Cornell, its agents , employees , contractors, invitees and guests . - 3 - 100 Maintenance : The Town agrees , at its expense, to maintain the premises, exclusive of those portions of the driveway not within the boundary of the premises , in good order and repair, similar to that of other public parks or overlooks . Notwithstanding the above, Cornell agrees to maintain the gravel parking area and that portion of the driveway located within the boundary of the premises, by replacing gravel as necessary, but shall not be responsible for snowplowing, for replacement or repositioning railroad ties at the edge of the gravel parking, or for trash removal. If any winter , access to the premises over the driveway is desired, then snowplowing of the driveway shall be the Town's responsibility. The driveway shall be maintained at its present level or condition by Cornell , or its successors and assigns (including Tenants), that is, as a seasonal road only. Nothing herein shall be construed to require Cornell or any other party to improve, pave, or plow the driveway for year-round use by the Town. 11 . De ault : In addition to any other remedies at law, in the event of the refusal or failure of the Town to comply with any of the foregoing undertakings, Cornell may upon thirty ( 30 ) days notice specifying the default and providing opportunity to cure , and thereafter if not cured, terminate this license, remove the Town and the Town agrees that in such event and upon demand it will immediately remove from and cease to use or occupy the said premises. 12. Early Termination : ( a) The Town may, at its option, at any time terminate this License upon thirty (30) days written notice to Cornell. In the event the Town so elects to terminate, the town shall remove any improvements or facilities the Town has placed on the Property (exclusive of the railroad ties ), and leave the premises in substantially the same condition as when they were delivered to the Town . Upon completion of such removal, neither party shall have any further obligations or responsibilities under this License, except with respect to obligations or responsibilities accrued as of the date of termination. (b) If Cornell ' s right to operate the project is revoked or substantially curtailed and Cornell is unable or unwilling to correct or remove the impediments to continued operation for a period of 18 months, Cornell may, at its option, subject only to the following limitations, terminate this License upon twelve ( 12) months written notice to the Town. Provided, however, that such right of early termination may not be exercised by Cornell within the first ten ( 10) years after the commencement date of this License, nor after the expiration of the 25th year after the commencement date of this License . - 4 - In the event Cornell so elects to terminate, the Town may remove any improvements or facilities the Town has placed on the Property, and shall leave the premises in a neat and orderly condition with any areas from which improvements or facilities were removed, regraded, seeded, or otherwise restored. Upon completion of such removal, any remaining improvements or facilities shall be the Property of Cornell and neither party shall have any further obligations or responsibilities under this License, except with respect to obligations or responsibilities accrued as of the date of termination. II. RIGHT OF FIRST OFFERING 13 . Right of YIrst O erina: Cornell agrees that in the event it plans to offer the Property located on the west side of East Shore Drive, or any part of it (the "Property") , or in combination of it with any other property for sale, then it shall first, before offering the Property for sale to anyone else or to the public, offer it to the Town. There shall be excepted any sale or transfer between Noah's and Cornell, or any other wholly-owned subsidiary of Cornell , however, in the event of such excepted transfer, Cornell or such subsidiary shall continue to be bound by this Section II and to the extent applicable , the other provisions of this agreement. Cornell shall state the offering price for the Property and any other terms in a written letter, sent in the same manner as notices hereunder. The Town shall have forty-five (45 ) days in which to consider Comell's offering price and any other terms , and elect to meet them or make a written offer. If at the end of such forty-five (45 ) days the parties have not entered into any contract for the sale of the Property to the Town, then Cornell shall be free to offer the Property to a third party, and accept any offer so long as the purchase price in such offer is not less than ninety percent (90%) of the price at which the Property was offered to the Town, and all the Town's rights under this Section II shall terminate forever upon such sale to the said third-party, so long as concluded within eighteen ( 18) months and forty-five (45 ) days of the said offer to the Town, with an extension of eighteen ( 18 ) additional months available to Cornell and said third-party, provided Cornell and said third- party can demonstrate they are diligently pursuing development approvals and permits . If Cornell does accept an offer for less than ninety percent (90%) of the price at which the Property was offered to the Town, it shall be subject to the Town's right herein and Cornell shall notify the Town of the proposed price and supply the Town with a true copy of such offer and the Town shall have seven ( 7) calendar days in which to meet such offer in writing. But if the Town shall not meet such offer, then all the Town's rights under this Section II shall terminate forever upon such sale to the said third-party, so long as concluded within eighteen ( 18 ) months and seven ( 7 ) days of - 5 - submission of the said offer to the Town , with an extension of eighteen ( 18) additional months available to Cornell and said third-party, provided Cornell and said third-party can demonstrate they are diligently pursuing development approvals and permits . 14. Term of Right of First Offering. The term of this right of first offering shall be ninety-nine (99 ) years from the commencement of the License herein described, unless the Property has been sooner sold as provided above. The Town's right of first offering shall survive Cornell's early termination of the License, if any, unless the Property has been sooner sold as provided above, but shall not survive the Town's early termination of the License, if any. III. TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO BOTH LICENSE AND RIGHT OF FIRST OFFERING 15 . Notices : Any notice hereunder shall be sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by commercial express delivery service such as Federal Express , if to Cornell to: Cornell University c/o Real Estate Department Box DH Ithaca, New York 14853 and if to the Town: Town of Ithaca Town Supervisor Town Hall 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 or to such other address as either party may designate (in the same manner as any notice) from time to time. Notices shall be deemed received two (2) business days after being sent. 16. Condition of Grants : The grant of this License and this Right of First Offering by Cornell to the Town is conditional upon Cornell receiving all necessary approvals for the project, including, but not limited to approvals from any of the Town of Ithaca governing bodies , including the Town Board and the Town Planning Board, to permit re-zoning of the project property to permit construction of the heat exchange and related facilities for the project. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this agreement, the commencement of the term of the License granted hereunder shall not occur until all such approvals have been obtained and a building permit has been issued to Cornell for the - 6 - construction of those portions of the project located within the Town's boundaries. In any event, if all such approvals are not obtained or said building permit not issued within five (5) years from the date of this agreement, plus any additional time during the pendancy of any legal action challenging any permits or approvals granted for the project, or seeking to stop construction of the project this agreement shall become void and of no force and effect. 179 Binding Mot This agreement shall be binding up the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this License and Right of First Offering as of the date first above written. TOWN OF ITHACA By: � - CORNELL UNIVERSITY By: Ld 4 4a Frederick A. Rogers Senior Vice President & CFO NOAH'S BOAT CLUB, INC . By: FPatricia Johnson t STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss. . COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) On this 17th day of June , 1998 , before me personally came CaM erioe. Ua.1 h0: nn tome known, who , being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that ..be/ she is the _S ogerus ► s o r of the Town of Ithaca, the municipality described in and which executed the above instrument; and , that b&4'/ she signed JAe/her name thereto . 0", Noyary Public J0M LENT NOTMOOM IMMIUMMMNSCOUM . 7 - . lei. N0. 49M7 MY SON EXPIRES MAHCN 30��C�0 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss. . COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) On this 11th day of June, 1998 , before me personally came FREDERICK A. ROGERS to me Down, who , being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he is the Sr. Vice President and CFO of Cornell University, the corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; and that he signed his name thereto by authority of the Board of Trustees of said corporation. ,z, - Notary Pub ' DEBORAH G. OSTRANDER Notary Public, State of New York No. 4936629 auaiified in Tompkins county 9 STATE OF NEW YORK ) commission Expires July 6, M ) ss. . COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) On this 11th day of June , 1998 , before me personally came PATRICIA JOHNSON to me known, who , being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that she is the President of Noah' s Boat Club , Inc . , the corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; and that she signed her name thereto by authority of the Board of Directors of said corporation. CS /LAX 7 < 62 Notary Public SHIRLEY K. EGAN Notary Public, State of New York No. 4604336 Oualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires February 28, - 8 - I I I 1 I I I ` • � I I ICI I I I I I ; I III 1 : 1 EAST SHORE ' DRIVE 1 . 1 lil lil I ' I I !1 III ul� In i ICI ` ll i till, � I I I I I 1 l 'RAILROAD EXHIBIT A CONSOLIDATED RAT CORPORATION EXISTING EXTENT OF GRAVEL OR BARE -1►r - - - - - - - _ - �` IXTRACLE GROUND - - CIRCLE J SHOREUNE� PROPOSED R.R. TIES \ 1 (LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED WITH TOWN) HATCHED AREA REPRESENTS PROPOSED LAND TO BE LICENSED TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA FOR A TOWN PARK, PUBLIC EXISTING ` RECREATIONAL ACCESS TO CAYUGA LAKE, ED BUILDINGS AND SCENIC OVERLOOK PURPOSES, Q 80' WIDE LAKE WATER PIPELINE EASEMENT TO BE CENTERED ON PIPE ' \ AS CONSTRUCTED �` - - - ---------- - --- lil III I . ul I ! I rl ul PROPOSED LAKE SOURCE� \ DATA GRAPHIC SCALE INTAKE & OUTFALL CAYU GA LAKE SHORELINE�� . 0 40 80 120 \ Mfr=uNS / \ EXHIBIT B PLANT KEY TREES PO 3 Platanus occidentaris 3' B&B American Sycamore PO 5 Platanus000identalis 2' B&B A yw0.0 '\ `� American Sycamore sC 0• �' / VP 5 Viburnum prundolium 60-80 B&B Q / Blackhaw Viburnum -. \ E)i RAIL�tvtp SHRUBS \ GROS.5aN CY 12 Comus albs Bud's Yellow' 30' #5C Bud's Yellow Dogwood / \ / _6qc• 4f �WGLAGGGSS / Cl 12 Comus sericea 'lsanfP 300950 \ QSjGH KePc Isanti Dogwood c t3 CS 8 Comus sericea WelseyP 18' #3 44^j ohm-p/ Kelsey Dogwood / y�6c LB 6 Lindera benzoin 30' B&B \ \ Spicebush RA 8 Gm-Low #2C Fragrant Sumac ro ; '1 �Xf5I'1NG t 4 77r. G scale 0 10 20 40 60 80ft L �OVMPA�NS.� RIP�ICAPD =� � •: _ _ j1!� .- . LAKE SOURCE COOLING at CORNELL <� PRELIIyIINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN TsYTPA�BII. iZA-76N Pl�N1"fNy, -[�^ IuGLUMs bas, IZcY, ' ' T 12 C1, G LB, e `�1 ! Landscape Plan at Lakeshore Picnic Area (Overlay for Sheet 11) Revised June 11, 1995 Scale: 1" = 20' November 10, 1997 Prepared by: Eleuo"W Lmxtscq ss • Amy NetdctoA LA. 198 Blab Road Broolaondale, NY 14817 i PMrc and Fax: 607-539.7601 z 1 f 4 OF 1 T� �° _ 9 TOWN OF ITHACA A- 21 O4� 126 EAST SEN LE.CA STREET , ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 N CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273- 1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 TOWN BOARD MEETING July 13 , 1998 5 : 30 p.m. to 9 : 00 p.m. . AGENDA 1 . Call to Order. 2 . Pledge of Allegiance . 3 . Report of Tompkins County Board of Representatives . 4. Report of Fire Commissioners . 5 . Review of Correspondence : 6 . 5 :45 p. m . as PERSON S TO BE HEARD : a . Mr. and Mrs . Leland Carmichael - Water/Sewer Benefit Assessment. 7 . 6 : 00 p. m. - PUBLIC HEARING : To consider a "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF LOCAL LAW NO . 1 OF THE YEAR 1998 TO EXTEND AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAYS THE MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES" . 80 Consider adoption of a "LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF LOCAL LAW NO , 1 OF THE YEAR 1998 TO EXTEND AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAYS THE MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES" . 9 . Consider speed limit reduction requests to the NYS Department of Transportation for Game Farm Road , Mecklenburg Road , Stone Quarry Road , and Trumansburg Road , 10 . Discuss methods of possible support to the New York State Troopers for increased coverage in our area . 114 Set public hearing date to consider adopting a , "LOCAL LAW AUTHORIZING THE CONDUCT OF BELL JAR GAMES BY AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE TOWN OF ITHACA" . TB Mtg , 7/13/98 Page 2 . 12 . Set public hearing date to consider a , "LOCAL LAW AMENDING LOCAL LAW NO . 2 OF THE YEAR 1983 PROVIDING FOR THE LEGAL DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION OF TOWN OF ITHACA OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES". 13 . Consider establishment of the Complete Count Committee related to the Census in the Year 2000 , 14 . Consider approval of plans and specifications, and authorization to solicit bids for the construction of the Mecklenburg water main . 15 . Consider approval of plans and specifications , and authorization to solicit bids for the construction of a Cold Storage Shed at the Highway facility. 16 . Discussion regarding bridge on West King Road near upper Buttermilk Falls State Park. 17 . Consider acceptance of 1998 Annual Report from the Receiver of Taxes . . 18 . Consider acceptance and approval for filing of the 1997 Independent Auditor's Financial Report, 19 . Discussion by Town Board to consider agreement with City of Ithaca relating to Code Enforcement of Buildings lying in both the City and the Town . 200 Consider approval of 1999 wage scale . 21 . Consider authorization for Town Board to remove a contingencies from the Post Office Building Purchase Offer, 22 . Consider resolution for support for Joint Sewer State Grant, 23 . Consider items for Fall Newsletter . I TB Mtg , 7/13/98 Page 3 . 246 (Consent Items : Consider resolution approving and/or authorizing the following . PP 9 9 9 a . Town Board Minutes on 6/8/98 . b . TOWN OF ITHACA WARRANTS . c . BOLTON POINT WARRANTS . d . 1998 Budget Transfers and Amendments . e . Date for Fall Brush & Leaf Pickup . f. Water and Sewer Billing Refund . g . West Haven Road Lighting District Refund. h . Sale of Equipment at Tompkins County Auction . i . Highway Equipment Sale and Replacement Purchase . j . Provisional Appointment Assistant Building Officer. k. Summer Employment - Youth Intern . 252 ,Report of Town Committees . 260 Report of Town Officials : j a . Town Clerk/Receiver of Taxes . b . Highway Superintendent. c . Director of Engineering . d . Director of Planning . e . Director of Building/Zoning . f. Human Resources Specialist. g . Budget Officer, (as submitted) . 27 . Consider EXECUTIVE SESSION . 28 . Consider ADJOURNMENT . Lo