Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1992-07-21r TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD July 21, 1992 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, July 21, 1992, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7 :30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Virginia Langhans, Robert Kenerson, William Lesser, James Baker, Stephen Smith, Herbert Finch, Candace Cornell, Dan Walker (Town Engineer), John Barney (Town Attorney), Floyd Forman (Town Planner), Chad Eiken (Planner I). ALSO PRESENT: Town Supervisor Shirley Raffensperger, Greg Williams, Larry Fabbroni, Attorney Shirley Egan, John Gutenberger, Eva Hoffmann, Bob Curtis, Ken Gordon, Nancy Goody, Stu Mesinger, L. Roscoe. Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 :30 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.. There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Grigorov closed this segment of the meeting. • AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF COMPLETENESS OF THE DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DGEIS) PREPARED BY CORNELL UNIVERSITY IN ORDER TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE CAMPUS EXPANSION SCENARIOS FOR AN 826 -ACRE TRACT OF LAND BOUNDED BY ROUTE 366 AND SNYDER HILL ROAD, GAME FARM ROAD, AND JUDD FALLS ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; NANCY GOODY, PROJECT MANAGER. Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above -noted matter at 7:35 p.m., and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above. Chairperson Grigorov, referring to a memorandum from Town Planner Floyd Forman, addressed to the Planning Board, and dated July 21, 1992, read aloud the second paragraph of the memo, which is as follows: "The lead agency (in this case the Planning Board) must determine "whether to accept it (the draft EIS) as satisfactory with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review." SEQR Regulations 6 NYCRR Part 617.8 (b) (3)9" Lew Roscoe, Director, Cornell Campus Planning, addressed the Board and stated that Cornell appreciates the chance for a working session with the Board, adding that this project is a very big complicated issue; some people have been working on it for a couple • of years now. Mr. Roscoe noted that he was sure there were areas that were mystifying to some. Mr. Roscoe said that the whole SEQR process is somewhat mystifying and there are those who need a z Planning Board -2- July 21, 1992 • reminder from time to time about just what the process really means. Mr. Roscoe said that, at any rate, Cornell looked forward to this, and the opportunity to work closely with the Town in developing a long -range plan for this area, commenting that Cornell does not have a definite plan to do work in this area right at the moment, but is looking forward to defining a long -term plan with the Town for the 20 -year horizon of this area, and in this process thinks that this could be something useful both to the Town and development of the Comprehensive Plan. Again, Mr. Roscoe mentioned that this is a big long complicated process; it is not open- ended; it is a finite process, and everyone has to work together in defining some ultimate objective so that a clear definition comes out of this of what might be a special zone, a university district, or some such thing. • Mr. Roscoe stated that Cornell sees this particular phase as a completeness examination, whether the University in the development of this document has responded adequately to the scope, and whether this is complete now, or whether certain things need to be done to it to complete it for public scrutiny, then collect the Board's comments. Attorney Shirley Egan of Cornell approached the Board and communicated that, at least in this stage, one should think of completeness in the larger context of the objects of SEQR, the objects of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, and of its function now and in the future. Attorney Egan said that, certainly, this should not be the end -all and be -all GEIS, it certainly has to be specific enough in scope, but it also has to be generic enough to have broad applications and have a long life. Attorney Egan said that it should be thought of as a foundation piece; it may answer, in fact, a lot of questions for everyone for a lot of specific things for a good while to come, it may not answer all of the questions out of something, but that is why the SEQR Regs specifically contemplate that if something has not been addressed adequately or not addressed at all, or if something has changed, that there would be modifications, updates, maybe little tweeks, maybe great big overhauls with future supplemental EIS's and findings as things come along. Attorney Egan stated that this is not the last chance that all of us will have to say something about the environmental impacts in this area; it should be a really good base to start on, but it is also a process that we have to stop someplace, take our breaths and say, okay, we can't do everything with this. Chairperson Grigorov responded that we all have pretty much the same goals in mind; we all stand to gain from this. Town Planner Floyd Forman said that he thought that the comments Mr. Roscoe and Attorney Egan made are quite positive and Cornell should be commended for the work they have done so far, and that the process we will go through will help to make this a better document. Mr. Forman said that if it turns out, as Attorney Egan said, this can't be made a "perfect document ", which it can't, there are supplemental environmental impact statements that when Cornell comes in for certain projects that may add to the process at that time; so, again, the Planning Board is not necessarily tying itself in in total Planning Board -3- July 21, 1992 1 if there are items that are missing that may not be able to be • totally addressed at this time, they can be addressed at some point in the future with supplemental environmental impact statements. Chairperson Grigorov inquired about the time plan. Mr. Forman responded that tonight's meeting is a working session by mutual agreement between Cornell and the Town; there will be no vote this evening. Mr. Forman said that, hopefully, the August 4, 1992 Planning Board meeting the list of comments and questions will be able to be finalized and come to a decision, adding, if that is not the case it will most assuredly be done by the meeting two weeks later on the 18th of August. Mr. Forman said that one week after the meeting on the 4th the finalized list will be forwarded to Cornell, or if it turns out to be the meeting on the 18th one week after that the finalized list of incomplete items or items that will make the document adequate for public review will be forwarded to Cornell. Mr. Forman stated that the vote is likely to take place on the 4th, but if anyone feels uncomfortable then it may take place on the 18th. Chairperson Grigorov said that her plan was to have the Planning Board bring forward any comments that they have wanted to deal with right away, then go through Larsen's comments, and Cornell's. Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone from the Planning Board wished to make any comments. • William Lesser, referring his comment to Mr. Forman, wondered what was meant by supplemental when the Planning Board votes on the adequacy of the document. Mr. Forman responded that it is what the Planning Board feels makes the document adequate for public review or comment. Mr. Forman noted that the Planning Board has to make a determination in terms of adequacy, and also state that a supplemental EIS may be required in the future, should circumstances change. Mr. Forman said that he hopes more information could be forthcoming from Cornell as he feels the area of traffic and transportation is the weakest; a lot of work was done by the Traffic Engineer, Mr. David Stroud of Travers Associates, and a lot of information was given to the Town on intersections and intersection improvements that need to be done when certain thresholds are reached. Mr. Forman offered that other areas may not have been looked at as thoroughly; there may be a need to look at other alternatives. Mr. Forman again mentioned that it is what the Planning Board feels comfortable with in the document, and what the Planning Board feels is adequate being the Lead Agency for bringing the document to the public. Stu Mesinger of the LA Group communicated that he wants to make sure the Planning Board understands the distinction between saying the document is complete and going through the SEQR process, then subsequent environmental reviews for projects. Mr. Mesinger said • that there are two levels that are going to happen for this document followed by the reviews for the individual projects that Cornell might propose -- this is the first level of review and is called Planning Board -4- July 21, 1992 ,t • completeness. Mr. Mesinger said that the goal of completeness is for the Planning Board and its consultants to determine whether or not Cornell addressed each of the issues in the Scope adequately enough for the public to have some information to draw judgements and make comments on -- not, do you agree with everything, and not, is it all necessarily right. Mr. Mesinger stated that one of the things he hopes the Town and Cornell get into later is a request for additional mitigation measures, which are perfectly legitimate comments, but, to his mind, first of all is the completeness review -- the document is proposed, the mitigation set appears to be adequate and requests for additional migitations come in the next review which is the technical review. Mr. Mesinger said that after this document is complete it goes out for a public comment period where the public makes comments on it, then the Planning Board members make technical review comments such as -- we think there should be additional mitigations here, or, we think that before anything is built in this area x, y, and z have to be done, or the setback of 100 feet is not enough, it should be 150 feet -- those are technical comments not completeness comments -- completeness is: we said there should be a setback and here is what we propose it is -- the technical comment is: that's not enough it should be more. Continuing, Mr. Mesinger said that at the conclusion of the comment period on the document, Cornell, along with the Town, write a final EIS that responds to all of the technical review comments and says -- okay, this is what those buffers should be and this is what those mitigations should be it reaches some conclusions and decisions and sets out the conditions under which development can occur, then a finding statement is written which is nothing more than a document that memorializes and embosses and makes those a matter of "now they are conditions for whatever happens in the future." Mr. Mesinger offered that the findings are written broadly enough and comprehensively enough to cover all of the different areas, then subsequent proposals by Cornell should not need further environmental review if all the potential impacts of a future project fall within the review that was made and it meets the conditions. Mr. Mesinger said that whatever changes do not meet the conditions the Planning Board sets forth in the findings are three or four steps down the road. Mr. Mesinger said that what is trying to be determined now is whether the document is complete enough to commence that technical review period in which the document can be milled to see what people say about it. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if all the possible mitigations had to be mentioned tonight. Mr. Mesinger responded that he thought it was something that should be discussed, adding that his opinion would be, for example, if, in a given subject area such as Soil Erosion the document proposes seven or eight measures for Soil Erosion, and the feeling is that some other ones should be considered as well -- that is technical review. • Mr. Ken Gordon of Larsen Engineers stated that he agreed in most part with what Mr. Mesinger said, but would like to suggest a couple of other things to add to the perspective. Mr. Gordon stated that Planning Board -5- July 21, 1992 this is the foundation of a planning process. for Cornell which happens to also interface with the Town's planning for that area. Mr. Gordon stated that his function as a Consultant was to try to produce a document that establishes that firm foundation for making future planning decisions. Mr. Gordon offered that one of his functions in how he defines completeness is whether there is sufficient information for one to understand what is likely to happen in whatever general terms that can be painted. Mr. Gordon noted that some of the things can be dealt with in a very specific mitigation; a certain type of landscaping treatment; a certain type of improvment to the area, but other things need to be defined in terms of process -- what kinds of decisions are going to need to be made or what kind of information has to be obtained before that decision can be made. Mr. Gordon said that the Planning Board has to try to obtain enough information to understand the project and understand the potential effects of that project, as well as to have a foundation for future decision - making. Mr. Gordon said that when he looks for completeness it is true that he wants to look to see whether there is enough information provided so that the public can understand, so that other agencies can understand, and the Planning Board can understand, so that the substantive suggestions can be made for dealing with things in the future. Mr. Gordon said that this is a 20 -year plan, and one does not know when specific projects may be initiated, but he thinks that the kinds of information that should be obtained can be looked at now for when that project comes in. 19 Mr. Gordon Planning Board stated that in summary, the thinks they will need completeness is what the and what they would want the public to benefit know, from and other agencies to know, the collective review to so that the Board can make the best and informed decisions for the future. there are ways to do that Board Member Kenerson noted that Completeness is two steps -- the first one is to be sure that the items in the Scope are addressed, and the second is to see if they are addressed completely enough to be of some guide to the Board. Mr. Gordon stated that with respect to mitigation, again, that is principally a Technical issue. If something is not addressed in a broad content that is a Completeness issue. Mr. Gordon offered that the findings is the end product. Mr. Kenerson wondered if there were any way that this document could be put in some kind of simple form so that the public can understand it. Mr. Gordon responded that there are ways to do that -- there are techniques to allow certain issues to really float to the surface, and there are guidelines that can be provided that are more specific and provide a little bit better understanding of the future. Mr. Gordon offered that he uses a checklist as the basis for reviewing any impact statement. Mr. Mesinger said that Cornell had met with Larsen Engineers on July 8, 1992, and at that time Cornell had the benefit of their broad outline review that is at the beginning of the review document and • makes about 16 general points. Mr. Mesinger said that Cornell received the 38 page line by line document on July 20, 1992 and he 1 Planning Board -6- July 21, 1992 't • did not see it until about 4:00 p.m. today. Mr. Mesinger thought it was asking a lot of him to go through the document and react to it line by line at this time. Mr. Mesinger would like to take the opportunity to review it and make response to it. At this time, Mr. Mesinger referred to the Review for Completeness. B. PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF DGEIS DEFICIENCIES 1. The Action Is Not Adequately Described Mr. Mesinger stated that he thought this one gets to the heart of what Mr. Gordon said earlier about whether there is a plan or what is the plan in Precinct 7. Mr. Mesinger stated that he thought Mr. Gordon went into reviewing the document expecting to see perhaps site plans or more detail than exists. Town Planner Floyd Forman interjected -- a generalized kind of plan, not a specific site plan. Mr. Mesinger noted that the point he made at the July 8th meeting and will have to make again is that Cornell does not have plans for that area at this time, so it is a little bit different from other D /GEIS's or any other EIS. Mr. Mesinger stated that this EIS tried to look very hard at the existing environment and figure out where there were constraints to development -- when development occurs, what one should stay away from, -it should be buffered from, then furthermore beyond that for certain kinds of impacts -- traffic being • the most notable one -- set up thresholds so that when development exceeded a certain level a threshold and mitigations could occur. Mr. Mesinger said that there is not a site plan for Cornell to adequately describe. Mr. Roscoe stated that in the absence of plans to build buildings, and so many square feet a year, or knowing what the programs for those buildings would be, Cornell tried to define density, and look at various parts of the existing Cornell Campus and say through the Flood Area Ratio (FAR) process dwasse we imagine that development might be something like this and the openness might be so much. Mr. Roscoe stated that Cornell does have a fully, developed utilities plan and sort of a hypothetical road plan in the GEIS, which is there to measure how the sewer system might work, and how to deal with runoff. Mr. Roscoe stated that Cornell tried to cover all the environmental concerns from runoff to sewerage to air, land and water quality, aesthetic qualities, natural preservation, etc. Mr. Roscoe stated that Cornell is very conservative about the amount of land they would use. Mr. Roscoe said that Cornell set limits on natural areas. Mr. Gordon stated that what is being asked for is a more definitive plan -- what the Town is asking for is something that from the very beginning, is identified as the action that actually sets the form, content, limits, assumptions, findings through the rest of the document. Mr. Gordon said that the idea of an impact statement is to evaluate an action, and what the Town is saying is unclear is what, in fact, is the action that Cornell is asking for. Mr. Roscoe 4 i Planning Board -7- July 21, 1992 • said that Cornell did say that the action was for a Special Land Use District (SLUD), but it is also true that a SLUD may not be exactly what Cornell wants; it might be a University District or a special zone or something, adding that Cornell wants to work with the Town very closely to define that. Mr. Mesinger noted that the question is -- do we include it up front or is that a product of the process? Mr. Gordon said that the point is whether it is a SLUD or some type of rezoning, an action is.being asked for to effect a change in land use legislation to accommodate a development plan, commenting that there is very little discussion throughout the document about ways in which a SLUD or some other type of modification for land use codes and regulations can be perfected, can be advanced, what are the alternatives, what would satisfy Cornell's own development objectives, as well as the Town's development objectives. Mr. Gordon said that he was just asking Cornell to be consistent, and identify up -front exactly what their action is, then the rest of the document should support and evaluate the impact, and look at alternatives for that action. Mr. Gordon again stated that as he reads it it is not clear really what the action is, once it is clear the rest of the document will fall into place. Mr. Roscoe stated that Cornell has taken the position from the very beginning that that definition would fall out at the end of this process, not the beginning. Mr. Mesinger stated that Cornell does agree that it has to be made clearer that the action is a change of zoning, whether it is by SLUD or some revised zoning ordinance. Mr. Mesinger said that the point about tying in mitigations, etc. to how they might affect a zoning • ordinance is a possible thing to do, but Cornell did not want to have to draft the legislation now not knowing what the end of the process was going to be. Mr. Gordon said that there is, normally, a more direct relationship between what is defined as the action and the description of the impacts, alternatives and mitigations to that action; simply, consistency throughout the document, and that consistency was not seen and it is a concern related to the adequacy of the document itself. Attorney Egan of Cornell University stated that they obviously disagree, perhaps this is being viewed outside of the usual mold. Attorney Egan referred to Page 1, A, GENERAL IMPRESSIONS (OBSERVATIONS), No. 7, "The document appears to be unbiased in the presentation of information, analysis, and conclusions. Unlike most DEIS's, it is not a "sales" document for the project (proposal) ", which she took to be praise, and feels it is absolutely key to what was being talked about in that, if Cornell had any idea of what they wanted there then the EIS is typically a sales document that says why this is okay, why is it justified, why this one should be given the "green light ". Attorney Egan said that, instead this was viewed as something that would help tell what that SLUD or zone change should be, and define it. Attorney Egan stated that she did not think Cornell was averse, as they. get a little farther along in the process, to starting to work on what that draft might look like and have the two of them kind of progress a step behind as they go along, • but to come up with it ahead of time just seemed to fly in the face of what the GEIS might, in an ideal world, be all about. Attorney Egan commented that Cornell might not set a wonderful record for Planning Board -8- July 21, 1992 • having the world's most directed GEIS, but she thought it may be a more honest one -- if, in fact, the analysis was done first and said okay -- what does the land tell us about what should be developed there, not the other way around -- not Cornell is telling it and justifying it. Board Member Finch stated that as he read the Larsen comments he was less sure that he understood why this document was being called a generic study. Mr. Finch said that to him generic is the opposite of specific, but as he read their comment it sounded to him that Larsen was asking for much more specificity, and much less generic. Mr. Gordon responded that he was asking for consistency, and, on the assumption that there was to be a plan. Mr. Gordon stated that if it seemed from the Scope Outline that what was expected was a plan, and the type of information that was being asked to be included in the Scope Outline implied that there would be, not a site plan, but just some type of a spatial representation... Mr. Finch stated that he thought that when the GEIS was first being talked about the Town was looking at something Cornell was presenting that might also fit into the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Finch wondered if he misunderstood at some point. Mr. Forman responded that he thought so, but not that it does not fit in; it is hoped that it can be made in sync so that what Cornell has given the Town, and what has been used already in some way toward the Comprehensive Plan, adding that he thought there needs to be an awful lot of back and forth between Cornell in what they propose. Mr. Forman offered that this is just • one portion of the Cornell campus, and the Comprehensive Plan, which the Town has given portions to Cornell that are completed, but the Town is still nowhere near fully integrating what Cornell's thoughts are and what the Town's thoughts are in terms of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Forman hopes in the end that can, indeed, be done, and certainly coming up with whether it is an institutional zone or a SLUD will most assuredly be considered in the Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Barney stated that the very basic tenet of the SEQR process is that a governmental body shall neither fund nor approve an action without going through the environmental process. Attorney Barney noted that the key word is action, adding that he shares a little bit of what Mr. Gordon is talking about -- trying to define what action it is that the Planning Board is being asked to approve. Attorney Barney, directing his comment to Mr. Finch, stated that the use of the work generic is not something pulled out of the sky; it is another form of environmental impact statement that is specifically recognized in the regulations that SEQR has put out, and it is generally used when there is a sequence of actions, or a series of actions by the same entity, or several actions contemplated by the agency, a generic impact statement is done which means more than one action is being considered as opposed to the circumstance which is typical where there is a single development project -- those collective common circumstances. Attorney Barney stated that the • term generic does not mean we are trying to get away from specific; normally it would come up in the context of Cornell walking in the door and saying -- we are going to do six projects up here, and that Planning Board -9- July 21, 1992 • is, indeed, back early on, what provoked the whole discussion about having a GEIS, as there were a lot of projects that were being proposed for this particular area of the Town. Attorney Barney said that generic does not mean getting away from the specifics it just means more than one combined collective group of actions. Attorney Barney went back to the point that the whole basis for the SEQR process is a decision to approve an action. Attorney Barney stated that he has some difficulty with Cornell saying they will come out at the end with the action, adding that he thought it was putting the cart before the horse. Attorney Barney stated that, without knowing what the action is, how does Cornell really articulate what the environmental effects of that action might be, then how does Cornell acticulate what they want to do to mitigate it -- are we going at this from the wrong end; should we really be looking at somewhat of an action, if it is rezoning, or if it is a university district, with some kind of discussion of what things Cornell wants, then the Board can review with some clarity what the potential impacts of that are, and address the mitigation of it. Chairperson Grigorov offered that the request was actually a way to get the GEIS started. Attorney Barney responded that he does not argue that, but when it was originally asked it was done in a context that there is a parking lot to plan, a tennis facility coming in, and five or six other projects were coming down the pike to be considered, and now that does not seem to be the case, and it has become a much less concrete and a much more amorphous kind of proposal. Mr. Roscoe commented on the scoping in that Cornell did not have specific projects at the time of • scoping; the Tennis Facility was not outside of the total GEIS area, but was outside the area of the proposed rezoning for SLUD, adding that this was always the action that Cornell wanted the area rezoned. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if this was something that could be solved just by writing a first page that describes what action Cornell wants. Mr. Mesinger stated that he did not think it was possible to write SLUD legislation at this point, and put it into an Appendix and say that the action is the adoption of the SLUD legislation. Mr. Mesinger thinks that it is possible to tie in their discussions and mitigation to a proposed action, which is a zoning change, e.g., when Cornell talks about floor area ratio Cornell says that the floor area ratios will become a condition of a proposed zoning district for this area. Mr. Mesinger mentioned performance standards and thresholds in this area that ought to be added to the document; those should be specifically stated as conformance standards and thresholds that should be incorporated into some future zoning district for this area. Mr. Gordon said that an action needs to be stated. Attorney Barney said that it is more than just a simple rezoning, he thinks that Cornell should outline, at least in some measure, what the parameters or what the nature of that rezoning is going to be. Mr. Gordon stated that there could be some agreement between staff and Cornell as to what the action is going to be, then the document has to be oriented a little bit differently to assure that there is an • evaluation of that action, and reasonable alternatives and mitigations, but it is just not simply making a change at the beginning; it is going to manifest itself in several changes Planning Board -10- July 21, 1992 throughout the document itself. 'Mr. Gordon added that part of the definition of the action is reasonably perceived activities or changes or effects on projects that could result from it, again, not in the specificity of a site plan. Mr. Gordon said that he thought part of the action also is, at least, an inclusive list of those reasonably, at this time, not all inclusive, but agreed upon reasonable results from it. Mr. Mesinger responded that he thought they did that -- what might be built there -- what the density of that building might be, and what the impacts of that might be. Mr. Mesinger said that it matters how one gets there and understands the concern that the Town wants to get there by stating explicitly, but it seems to him that Cornell has analyzed what the result will be, what uses will be there, the density, and how much and what those impacts will be. Mr. Mesinger stated that he is confused as to what Cornell left out. Mr. Gordon responded that he wants it tied to the action and also some of the impacts of the mitigations proposed should be a part of the discussion. Mr. Mesinger commented that that gets to another issue that was discussed -- mitigation is the widening of the road -- is it feasible to do that, and Cornell agreed to look at it at that level, not doing detailed inventories and feasibility studies, but looking and saying is it physically possible to do it without knocking down houses or going through wetland that it is a reasonable thing to do. Mr. Gordon stated, yes, there will be one major action, but as a result of that there are things that can be anticipated from that, • and those also become the topic for discussion in the GEIS. Town Planner Floyd Forman wondered if Mr. Gordon wanted to be more specific in that some other secondary impacts may be problems, potential pollution problems that the Town may have to deal with, drainage problems, utility problems, etc., when talking about secondary impacts. Mr. Gordon replied, yes. Mr. Mesinger said that he thought Cornell had talked about all those things, whether or not it was in the context of the action of rezoning. Mr. Gordon stated that, at this point, it is really a matter of perhaps specificity and scale. Mr. Gordon stated that he agreed a lot of things were addressed; they just might have not been addressed to the degree that the Town thinks they should be for the purposes of disclosure. Mr. Mesinger stated that Cornell needs to make an evaluation of the detailed comments. Mr. Roscoe stated that Cornell would like to plead for a close working relationship with the Town. Mr. Forman stated that he thought the Town tried to do that at the July 8, 1992 Planning Board meeting and this evening, as well, and it will be done in the future. Mr. Roscoe said that Cornell received "this" document yesterday afternoon, July 20, 1992, at 4:00 p.m., commenting that it is very difficult for Cornell to communicate about this detail by detail. Mr. Forman offered that the Planning Board received the document about a week ago, and he understands that it takes time to review the document. Mr. Fabbroni of Cornell spoke from the floor and stated that he • distinctly remembers coming to the Planning Board with individual projects, and the clear sense was that the Planning Board was frustrated by "this" project and "this" project coming to them, and Planning Board -11- July 21, 1992 • not some overall framework of where this was all heading to, but that the whole zoning framework that put the issue through the Planning Board, and subsequently to the ZBA for every last project that Cornell wanted to do, was not working for either side very well. It just was not leaving anybody with any kind of feeling of where it was all going to end up. Mr. Fabbroni said that Cornell knew for a while that the Town has been involved, and continuously involved, in quite a major study of their own Town and the comprehensive review of that Town, and more than likely that comprehensive review is going to wind up in its own zoning change; Cornell also knew that the SLUD was not the perfect mechanism but it was the only one that existed in the Zoning Ordinance, so they had a choice of talking about SLUD or a choice of creating some new zone, and, in the middle of all this study and introspection about the Town, was the ongoing proposal of a whole new zone to the Town at that point in time. Mr. Fabbroni said that the alternative was to look at all the planning options and talk to the Town interactively and come up with some common discussion, then it would end up in an action that everybody could agree to. Mr. Fabbroni said that if the semantics or the technicalities of this whole process makes Cornell go back and present the action that they would most like out of the document first, then go through the whole process, then interactively go through it and wind up at the same outcome, that is fine, but it should be clear to say that Cornell wants to have an interactive process that did not have a definite beginning to it; it is understandable where the Consultant comes from; _it is understandable where the Attorney comes from, but that basically is how Cornell came to where they are. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the reason it all got started was because the Board was worried about the environmental effects of all the different projects. Attorney Egan of Cornell, stated that it is clear any time one plans, some kinds of decisions are made and ruling out other sorts of things, and the whole point is to do that in the wisest manner possible. Attorney Barney responded that he does not see a program or plan, he sees parameters and limitations, but he does not see a program or plan. Mr. Roscoe pointed to the appended map and noted the program plan parcel by parcel for the number of square feet. Attorney Barney commented that -- this is not what Cornell is going to do; this is what you may do. Mr. Gordon stated that the fact is that there are differences of opinion as to what the action is, therefore, if one is not certain what the action is one questions the validity, the consistency, of the whole rest of the document, adding that he thought there could be an agreement as to what the action is; the Town is not going to tell Cornell that their action has to be X Y or Z. Mr. Gordon stated that a complete document should have a cause and effect, and right now there is disagreement as to what the cause is. At this point, Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that he received a letter from Cornell, dated March 5, 1991, from Paul Griffen, • specifically asking for a rezoning of the area shown on the map as a SLUD, and at the Town Board meeting of March 11, 1991, the Town Board resolved that this request for a SLUD be referred to the Planning Planning Board -12- July 21, 1992 • Board for review and recommendation and that the Planning Board be named Lead Agency, Mr. Walker stated that that is a pretty specific request for a specific action, commenting that all the details of the requirements of a SLUD are not listed, but from what Mr. Fabbroni talked about, and what the Town has been going through for 2 -1/2 years, everyone has wanted to work together to have a tool to set the thresholds, to set the parameters. Mr. Walker stated that he thinks that the request is that Cornell would like to develop that parcel as an institutional parcel, in an institutional zone which the Town does not have, so the SLUD was the only mechanism that is currently within the zoning Ordinance to set up a planned action and review it all in one package, but not necessarily specific building sites, but threshold levels. Mr. Walker stated that he thought everyone was in agreement as to what is being done, but it is not going any place. 29 Environmental Impact Statement Review (Review for Completeness) Mr. Mesinger said that he thought there is a way to solve this that is not too onerous or difficult as long as Cornell is not required to come up with a text of a SLUD at this point. Mr. Forman responded that he thought that would be appropriate. 3. The Geographic Scope Is Too Limited Mr. Mesinger stated that the request was for Precinct 7, and all the lands to the south were added. Mr. Mesinger said that that is, in part, addressed by the fact that Cornell studied an area larger than Precinct 7, but the point is also well taken that some of the maps would benefit by showing some of the surrounding area, adding that that is a reasonable comment and Cornell will do that. Mr. Mesinger offered that with respect to off-site impacts, most of those relate to traffic and noted that Cornell did a pretty good job in looking at the off -site impacts of traffic. Mr. Mesinger said that Cornell is in agreement with part of this comment and it can be addressed, it is not.a big issue in his mind, it is fairly simple. Mr. Mesinger noted that all the areas around Precinct 7 showed all the uses. Mr. Gordon said that the point was not that Cornell study in depth a wider area, but just when they look at the facts, they also give one a view that is a little bit broader than the line of their rezone -- just like when doing a site plan review one wants to know what is across the street. 4. Relationship to Cornell, Town, and Regional Plans Mr. Mesinger stated that there are two parts to this. One, Cornell planning, and two, Regional planning - particularly transportation planning, and this document's relationship to regional transportation planning. Mr. Mesinger stated that this document is not a transportation planning document for the whole community; there is no way that Cornell is a planning agency for this area. Board • Member Langhans said that Cornell has some of the land where some of these roads were proposed. Mr. Roscoe responded that Cornell cannot judge what the route would be, one would have to know the volumes of Planning Board -13- July 21, 1992 • traffic and where they would come from. Mr. Gordon said that no one is asking that; it is only to reference other planning, past and concurrent, studies in the plan. Mr. Gordon said that review is being asked for completeness; it is not viewed that the document can be looked at independent of things that have happened in the past and things that are going on now. Mr. Gordon said that one has to identify other studies that have been done in the area, other studies that are going on at the same time and acknowledge that they exist, and that there may or may not have been decisions made with respect to them, but this plan cannot be looked at independently of what else is going on. • Board Member Candace Cornell wondered, if roads were to be built across Cornell land, would Cornell pay for construction of the road? Mr. Roscoe responded that he did not know. Town Supervisor Shirley Raffensperger addressed the Board and stated that it was her understanding what was being asked for was to place this in the context of an almost unending cycle of plans, adding that there have been other proposals made. Supervisor Raffensperger stated that it was her understanding that Larsen Engineers was asking that it be referenced that problems had been identified. Supervisor Raffensperger stated that it seemed to her that it was to place all of this in an historical context so it did not look as though this area had not acknowleged that there had been previous, e.g., transportation problems. Supervisor Raffensperger said that she did not think anybody was asking Cornell to come up with some new circulation planning, but merely to reference the fact that there were efforts and joint efforts to improve the circulation in the area. Mr. Gordon responded that that was fully the intent, to put it in an historical perspective. Mr. Forman mentioned the joint effort of the Town, City of Ithaca, Two villages in the area, along with Cornell who is a non - voting member, in the formation of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) that is beginning to do transportation planning, and beginning to take a look at transportation issues in the area. Mr. Gordon said that to put it in a context of a generic statement, one of the things that a generic statement is supposed to do is to outline future plans or programs that can deal with certain issues that are identified, it does not have to solve them, but should identify what they are and point to ways in which they could be. 50 Identification of Mitigation Too Brief and Too Generic Mr. Mesinger said that he thought this comment goes back to Item 1, which is relating mitigation to some kind of zoning ordinance in a SLUD or University District. Mr. Mesinger stated that Cornell can do that. 6. Identify Mechanisms for Determinin Share of Improvements Town Share Vs. Cornell Mr. Mesinger noted that this was a very difficult one, obviously, because in the future conditions may change, and it is impossible to Planning Board -14- July 21, 1992 now say what the shares should be for any given item. Mr. Mesinger • noted that it was discussed that the document should set forth ways in which shares can be determined. 7. Limited Evaluation of Alternatives Mr. Mesinger said that Cornell asked the Town to be specific on, and, hopefully, it will be in the comments. Mr. Gordon stated that, necessarily that in terms of the completion issue he would say that a better base line could implement, with respect to the no action would be helpful in terms of completeness. Mr. Gordon said that certain alternatives may need to be mentioned and that may be a completeness issue, but how they are examined and in what depth is a technical issue. 8. The Transportation Section Lacks a Planning Perspective Mr. Mesinger said that there had been a lengthy discussion on this and, as he understood it, it was for Cornell to present potential alternatives to solving problems, not necessarily that there are alternatives that Cornell could implement, the collector road being one, but to at least provide a broader spectrum of the kinds of things that could be done, although they may be out of Cornell's power to do them. 90 Limited Discussion of Hazardous Waste and Materials Handling • Mr. Mesinger stated that this will be added to the document. 10. Deficient Noise Analysis Mr. Mesinger stated that Cornell chose the receptors that they chose because they were in the neighborhoods where people said they were concerned about traffic noise, e.g., at Forest Home. Mr. Mesinger said that Cornell can, if the Town wants them to, look at other receptors. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if there were any areas in mind that would experience the greatest change. Mr. Gordon said that the issue of relative change was not really addressed, and there are different standards for natural areas and rural areas -- different thresholds from those for developed areas, and the noise analysis did not include any discussion at all of the thresholds that are established for those kinds of areas; it only dealt with the higher traffic transportation corridors. 11. Identification Thresholds of Significant and /or Adverse Impact Mr. Mesinger offered that this was relates to the kinds of things that would be at some future time; these are actual things like noise, glare, light. • 12. Identification of Involved Groups, and Individuals a good comment; it really in a Land Use District performance standards for and Interested Agencies Planning Board -15- July 21, 1992 • Mr. Mesinger said that Cornell is in agreement with this comment. 13. Description of the Scoping Process Mr. Mesinger said that Cornell is in agreement with this comment. 14. Alternatives and Mitigation Reflect Practices the Past 30 Years Rather than Next 30 Years Mr. Mesinger said that these may be technical comments rather than completion comments -- Cornell thought they did a pretty good job of identifying what was state -of- the -art in terms of engineering. Chairperson Grigorov commented that the Ellis Hollow Planning and Environmental Watch Committee is an Ad Hoc committee that is not part of the Town; it is outside the Town, and what they suggest may be a good idea, but it is not something that has to be followed. Mr. Gordon stated that a project is not being dealt with that is going to be built in two years; one is dealing with development that is going to occur perhaps over a 30 -year period, so the observation with respect to completeness is just to acknowledge in the general discussion of alternatives and mitigations that there are going to be some evolutions of technologies that are likely to take place over this 30 -year period, adding that Cornell does not have to say specifically what they will be, but they may be able to point to some directions that would give some for instances. Mr. Mesinger said that that was a good point in terms of, if in ten years from now things have changed and a new type of storm water control is being looked at. 15. The Impact and Feasibility of Mitigation Are Not Considered Mr. Mesinger said that Cornell feels this is beyond the scope of a GEIS to start investigating specific environmental impacts of a road widening that might occur in 20 years, because that is clearly going to undergo its own environmental review at that time, but Cornell does feel it is appropriate to acknowledge whether or not those kinds of improvements can occur without obvious large and disruptive impacts. Mr. Mesinger stated that Cornell proposes, on a general level, to look at the mitigations that were off -site one by one, and say there do or do not appear to be physical constraints to this particular mitigation. Mr. Gordon stated that that is the intent -- to include some acknowledgment of whether something that Cornell has proposed could reasonably be done. Board Member Lesser wondered -- suppose the process is all approved, Cornell goes ahead and traffic reaches a threshold level where some mitigation step has to be taken, and, at that time it is found the mitigation for whatever reason is infeasible, what transpires at that point in time -- do they go on and build anyway because they have identified it? Mr. Forman responded that he thought that is the point where Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements are done, because there is new information or things were not addressed adequately, or things have changed since they were addressed, then another review is done to deal with whatever new Planning Board -16- July 21, 1992 • information is presented. Mr. Forman said that there may be three areas that have to be dealt with: a Supplemental EIS, Site Plan, and potentially, Special Permit, as well. Candace Cornell mentioned extending the mitigation period, for instance, if Cornell builds up to 30 years -- if the mitigation period could be extended for another 20 years to see the impact of the last thing that was built on year 30 -- that would be in the technical report. Mr. Mesinger responded that, presumably, before the approval was given one would have to undertake whatever mitigations were triggered by that particular building. Ms. Cornell said that sometimes unforeseen things happen afterwards, like bricks falling off the building. Mr. Mesinger said that he thought legislation could be written to address that. 16. Outdated Information Should be Updated Mr. Forman offered that one of the things that can be looked at, and it has been done in the Town Comprehensive Plan; is to take a look at the 1990 Census information. 17. Accuracy of Development Intensity Assumptions Mr. Mesinger stated that the Arts Quad was used as an example in terms of density, but things like water usage, utility usage, and sewer usage are based on standard engineering. Mr. Mesinger stated that that will be spelled out a little bit better. • Mr. Gordon stated that, again, the general comment with respect to Review for Completness, the reader should know what the basis is for doing certain calculations, what the assumptions were, and at what point a problem arises. Mr. Gordon stated that, again, they were suggesting that somewhere in the document there may actually be just a technical appendix -- some additional rationale or explanation given for the numbers that were used and some concurrence given by Cornell's technical staff that these are reasonably responsive numbers, and, going one step farther, the Town would use the same numbers in their comprehensive planning so there is some concurrence in the assumptions that are being made with respect to future use and future impact. Mr. Lesser wondered if, by accepting these specific Floor Area Ratio figures, it would necessarily be giving approval to exceed the Town's current height restrictions. Mr. Gordon said that if the action is defined as being a zone change in the context of a change to the present body of land use legislation, one could actually expect that then there would have to be a comparison between what may be expected within the development plan and what the present standards are, so in that case there would be at least identification that this plan may affect a present height limit. Mr. Gordon, referring to clarification, said that it is issue by issue, and, again, it gets down to what kind of information the • Planning Board feels ought to be extended to the public and extended to other review agencies for their review and input. Mr. Gordon, referring to more explanation in the document, stated that the Planning Board -17- July 21, 1992 • Planning Board could list 8 -10 items in general saying they would like more discussion in the document about various named items. Mr. Mesinger said that he has not had the opportunity to review the comments in the document, and he would like the opportunity to review the comments with Cornell and make a response to the Board and discuss them. Mr. Mesinger stated that he would like the Planning Board to give direction to Cornell that is specific. Board Member Langhans mentioned roads in that there will be a need for road improvement in the future. Board Member Lesser mentioned the importance of describing the actions of rezoning. Mr. Lesser said that, clearly, the form of rezoning and the process of review under the Zoning Ordinance is very intimately related to this document, i.e., if the rezoning says, essentially, that there is no further review he (Mr. Lesser) would say that this is inadequate. Board Member Lesser asked at what point does the Board know something about the potential form of zoning ordinance that might apply. Attorney Barney responded that there is not only a description of the action being a rezoning, but these are some of the suggested parameters or some of the elements that do not have to be in the form of legislation, but types of things -- height limitations, set -back -- review, site plan approval, special approvals. Mr. Lesser mentioned the traffic proposals that are presented. • At this point, Mr. Gordon stated two things with respect to Larsen's limitations as it is now defined. First, Mr. Gordon stated that they were not hired to redo Cornell's studies to see whether they were accurate or not -- Larsen is not running every analysis that Cornell ran to make sure that the numbers check. Secondly, Mr. Gordon said that Larsen is not really to be doing the planning or doing the evaluation of impacts, rather Larsen is to indicate whether they believe that Cornell identified impacts or not. Mr. Gordon stated that Larsen's role is not to understand the issues well enough to say - you should do this, this, and this; if Larsen were to do that they would have to have the same level of knowledge that Cornell has, and clearly Larsen cannot do that the way the relationship is now defined. Mr. Gordon said that Larsen can react, and say -- perhaps you have to do more, but in many cases Larsen is not going to be in that position to say you ought to be thinking about, or you ought to be doing this, this, and this. Mr. Forman responded that he does not disagree with Mr. Larsen, Mr. Forman stated that he thought Cornell solved many of their problems with stop lights, stop signs, and turning lights, but felt there are some instances, and these may be dealt with later as a technical issue. Mr. Forman said that much of the traffic is in the area of Route 366 and Judd Falls Road -- it is fair to say that much of the traffic in that area in the morning is going into Cornell -- much of it in the afternoon is leaving Cornell -- if one comes up with a proposal for a stop light and turning lights, and it does not solve the problem then there.has to • be other ideas presented. Mr. Gordon commented that if Cornell says, no, it is not mitigable, then that becomes one of the thresholds built in, adding that something else that needs to be done at some Planning Board -18- July 21, 1992 • point is to take some of these "findings" and turn them into results and suggestions for action or suggestions for thresholds turn it into something later on that the Board can use when a project is presented. Mr. Mesinger stated that he can see the finding statement doing that. At this time, Town Planner Forman communicated to the Board that if they had any specific comments to put them in writing, whether it is on the general issues that have been dealt with, or on traffic, so that they can get on the record in addition to the comments that Larsen has given. Mr. Forman noted that he would do that as well because he has a list of comments that he needs to make to Cornell. Mr. Gordon will provide a blank checklist for the Board to guide their own context of comments, and also indicate to Larsen the things they have identified in the checklist as to whether they are fair game or not. Mr. Forman stated that he thought Cornell has done an excellent job in looking at intersections. Mr. Forman commented -- what is happening between those intersections? Mr. Forman wondered, if it is a residental street and the amount of traffic has been doubled, how are those particular issues dealt with, say, on residential roads where there are a significant amount of children, etc. -- is it adequate not to deal it with it at all but simply to deal with intersections -- shouldn't we be looking at what is in between those intersections in terms of potential problems that can arise by • doubling the traffic or increasing it by 50 %. Mr. Forman said, again, that it is just not Cornell's problem; there will be other subdivisions that will add to traffic as well. Town Supervisor Raffensperger inquired about the Planning Board schedule concerning the next GEIS review. Supervisor Raffensperger wondered if her understanding were correct that the Planning Board will now present, to the staff, written comments as to their opinions of the adequacy and completeness of the GEIS. Chairperson Grigorov responded that she thought if something was not said tonight that they wish they had, then it should be presented in writing. Supervisor Raffensperger replied, yes, anything additional the Board wants to add to what is already in the record of the meeting tonight -- that would be done in a week to ten days. Chairperson Grigorov agreed. Supervisor Raffensperger noted that at that point the staff will attempt to review those and coordinate the different comments, and Larsen will be reviewing those with Cornell in an attempt to make changes that can be agreed on, but the Planning Board is committed to making some kind of a determination as to completeness, within 30 days. Attorney Barney responded, no, as he understands it, what will happen in the next two weeks, perhaps four weeks, is that the Planning Board will have an official list of those items they feel ought to be addressed, then that list will go to Cornell, then at that point Cornell will incorporate those that they agree with. Supervisor Raffensperger stated that she did not mean a formal • determination. Attorney Barney responded, no, it will not be a formal determination of completeness at that point. Board Member Finch said that the Board is expecting Cornell, in effect, to submit Planning Board -19- July 21, 1992 • Draft II. Attorney Barney offered that the Planning Board will give all of its comments and information to Cornell so they can start a Draft II within the next two to four weeks. Chairperson Grigorov noted that the actual vote would be taken sometime after the 4th of August. Attorney Barney said that the thought would be that there would be a consensus as to the list of requested changes to be provided to Cornell, rather than a formal vote on whether it is or is not complete, but more a list of those items that the Board would like to see addressed. Cornell Attorney Egan stated that she would feel good if there were some kind of straw vote or something, within the next few weeks, so Cornell would at least have the security of knowing that everyone said, yes, this is the list, I am happy with it. Mr. Mesinger said that in the meanwhile Cornell will have narrowed the issues, and, hopefully, have pages that are fine with them. Mr. Roscoe stated that he is still concerned about issues that are neither agreed to or disagreed to, but may have sort of a confusing resolution, adding that Cornell may need some direction from the Planning Board without waiting for the process of August 4th or the 18th. Town Planner Floyd Forman offered that he received a memo from Doug and Bruce Brittain, dated July 20, 1992, concerning the Completeness and Accuracy of Cornell's DGEIS. [Memo attached as Exhibit #1]. Copies were distributed to the Cornell people, along with the Planning Board. • Chairperson Grigorov mentioned the Transportation Report, Mr. Mesinger said that he did not receive the Report until yesterday, and Cornell is not able to react to any comments yet. Larry Fabbroni of Cornell reacted to the first paragraph under General Impression Comments. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the comment would not have been made if all the background studies had been in hand. Board Member Langhans stated that the Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road area has a tremendous impact on traffic. Ms. Langhans commented that she thought something had to be done to the Judd Falls intersection with Route 366 going north and south. Mr. Forman said that Cornell made the comment that the geography in the area does not work all that well for traffic lights because the roads are so close together. Board Member Candace Cornell said that she thought there were ways that that could be done -- that has been a problem at Cornell for quite a long time. Mr. Fabbroni responded that Cornell is just a part of the total solution. John Gutenberger of Cornell stated that Cornell has 16 miles of streets and roads. Mr. Gordon stated that one thing that would be helpful to all, both, parties is to think of this as an attempt at some point in time to share some mutual identification of problems, then perhaps consensus can be reached. Mr. Gordon noted that, where there are known • problems he did not think it inappropriate for Cornell to suggest ways that that might be handled -- it is not up to Cornell to say that this is the solution or the best solution, but to at least put I I Planning Board -20- July 21, 1992 something out on the table that says -- these are some things that our planners think might help the situation. Mr. Gordon stated that Cornell would not be asked to evaluate every one, but to at least put it out on the table, then the other reviewers can have a chance to determine whether it is appropriate or not. .Mr. Gordon stated that he thought that was one thing lacking in terms of trying to solve the whole problem -- future growth, and satisfaction of employees, and everything else that is affected by the traffic. Mr. Gordon wondered what solutions Cornell has thought about to solve their own problems that are also community problems. Mr. Forman commented that when a problem is found and it is promptly identified and the easiest solutions do not adequately address it, then one needs to take it a step farther and think about what else needs to be done -- it is not all Cornell's responsibility, but when Cornell shows the Board what they are thinking of building in the future, Cornell has to say, yes, the roads have the capacity to carry it, and, yes, the road system works, or if it does not work show some potential ways. Mr. Roscoe stated that he thought the mitigations are intended to show how the entire development works; mitigations are implemented at different stages. Mr. Forman responded that Cornell said that certain items are unmitigatible and it is stated in the document, e.g. Route 366 and Judd Falls Road. Mr. Fabbroni said that there may be other alternative solutions that Cornell would only be a very small part of -- what would be the purpose of suggesting those without major parties being the lead partners in studying those alternatives? Mr. Forman responded that it is proposing a solution or a number of solutions that the Town, City, and Cornell will work out in the future. Mr. Forman said that he was suggesting that when Cornell proposes 4 million square feet as potential building over the next 20 years, and the proposed solutions, and some of them may not work to the Town's satisfaction, then Cornell may need to look at other ideas. Mr. Gordon stated that for the purposes of the public perspective it would be helpful to know, where possible, that Cornell is involved in the finding of solutions to the problems that result from its own building program. Mr. Gordon said that Cornell is not solving the problem in the GEIS, but identifying that it is a problem for which there may be some alternative ways to solve, and, again, to the extent that Cornell can begin to engage in the thought process of correcting some of the deficiencies, and share that. Mr. Roscoe commented that that is a generality, in fact, Cornell thinks they have responded through two years of work and a great deal of money. Mr. Roscoe said that Cornell really needs the directions to be specific. Mr. Roscoe noted, e.g., there is a place in the Scope under Cultural Resources that says "you need to identify educational resources to the community ", and then it says "educational resources will be described within 3/4 of a mile of project area ". Continuing, Mr. Roscoe said that it was noted in the comments of the GEIS that Cornell did not identify the educational resources that Cornell represents -- Cornell does not know how to react to that -- what is meant by that -- the • whole University, the Day Care Centers, the Library; it is very difficult to deal with that kind of generality. Planning Board -21- July 21, 1992 • Town Engineer Dan Walker, referring to traffic issues, stated that if the Board wants Cornell to be more specific about problems, then the scoping area would have been the perfect place to say -- we need to solve the problem of regional transportation. Mr. Walker commented that he thought this is the gray area of completeness and technical, because in his opinion, the matter of regional transportation and the local transportation is a multi- agency question, adding that he thought this question is going to be very specifically dealt with in the Technical Review in the public review period -- that is the more appropriate place for that; Cornell has identified how far they can go with the intersections before they have what they feel is an unmitigatible situation. Mr. Walker stated that Cornell should tell the Town in the review period that that is something that has to be done. Mr. Walker commented that, from a standpoint of whether or not Cornell has addressed the-traffic situation, he would say that it is complete, but that does not mean that all of the questions have been answered satisfactorily, and the other agency input and the public hearing process may result in mitigating measures that are above and beyond what Cornell has already suggested. Attorney Egan stated that as far as she knows no overpass or connector solution has actually been adopted. Attorney Egan wondered if it would make more sense to simply reference the possible solutions that people already, over the years, have come up with. • supervisor Raffensperger offered that the Town of Ithaca does have an official Highway Map and there are roads to the east of Forest Home which are on the map -- certainly that is an appropriate reference -- that does mean that some official body has at some time approved something. Candace Cornell stated that her major problem with the whole thing only pertains to transportation, and wondered if that would go in the Technical reference. Mr. Walker responded that he thought there would be a lot of technical discussion before this whole process is over, this is only a small part of the review process. Mr. Forman added that it is what the Board feels is adequate right now to bring to the public. Attorney Barney stated that there are two levels of review -- right now it is a review for adequacy, then there will be a formal review of the document itself, which will have an opportunity to suggest conditions, alterations, and conditional mitigations -- when one talks about technical, the reference means that the Board will be reviewing the document after it has been accepted as being adequate for review purposes. Ms. Cornell wondered if she could still address transportation problems that Larsen noted. Attorney Barney replied, yes, but they can also be addressed to a certain extent now. Ms. Cornell stated that she actually thinks the report is a very good report. Mr. Forman concurred with Ms. Cornell in that he • thought Cornell has spent a lot of time and effort, and money as well, and has come up with a document that he thinks is solid and Planning Board -22- July 21, 1992 • shows that Cornell has put the time and effort into it and did a good job. Chairperson Grigorov declared the discussion of the Cornell D /GEIS duly closed. REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER There was no report from the Town Planner. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 21, 1992 MOTION by Virginia Langhans, seconded by William Lesser: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of January 21, 1992, be and hereby are approved with the following corrections: 10 That, on Page 7, Paragraph 4, Last Sentence, - Cayuga Lakes Land Trust - should be changed to read "Finger Lakes Land Trust ". 2. That, on Page 8, Paragraph 1, Last Sentence, - eco system - should be changed to read "ecosystem ". There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Smith, Lesser, Langhans. • Nay - None. Abstain - Herbert Finch, Candace Cornell. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to come before the Board. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the July 21, meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Mary S. Bryant, Recording Secretary, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. L� 1992, 11 1 • • • July 20, 1992 TO: Floyd Forman FROM: Doug Brittain Bruce BrittainJE) RE: Completeness and Accuracy of Cornell's DGEIS Thank you for allowing us to review Cornell University's Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Given the sheer size of this report, we have not been able to review the entire document in detail. However, we have noted the following problems with its completeness and accuracy: Transportation 1. Since the entire transportation analysis is based on an assumed annual baseline rate of growth in traffic levels, this assumed rate needs to be accurate and clearly supported. - The rate of 0.8% used in the calculations seems unrealistically low. A recent County traffic count analysis for roads near the project site indicates annual growth rates which range from 5.20% to 18.45% (see "Tompkins County Highway Depart- ment Traffic Counts -- East Ithaca Corridor ", attached). The actual growth rate in traffic volume appears to be approximately ten times that assumed in the DGEIS. 2. The 25% reduction in parking permits realized with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) was interpreted to mean that there had been a 25% decrease in commuter traffic. Unfortunately, this is probably not the case. While some people undoubtedly got out of their cars, there has been no noticeable overall reduction in commuter traffic. A large number of Cornell commuters who no longer park on campus are still driving, but now park in neighboring residential areas, causing some friction there. Also, there has been a great increase in the number of "drop- offs" -- Cornell employees who are dropped off and picked up at work. (This behavior actually doubles the number of vehicle trips through adjacent neighborhoods.) 3. The directional distribution of Cornell commuters indicates that only 17% come from the north. This is surprisingly low, and contradicts previous distribution analyses, some of which have indicated that more commuters approach Cornell from the north than from any other direction. 4. The DGEIS did not consider the impacts of traffic on residents who live in adjoining neighborhoods, just the impacts for motorists who pass through these neighborhoods. Buchanan, who formalized the concept of 4� . Page 2 Environmental Capacity, has suggested that residential streets should carry no more than approximately 300 vehicles per hour. More recent research on Environmental Capacity has recommended that even lower limits are appropriate. 5. There is no mention or discussion of conflicts between pedestrians/ bicyclists and automobile drivers. 6. The DGEIS did not identify and describe current traffic problems. 7. There is no indication of who would be responsible for financing the various mitigation measures suggested. 8. No mitigation measures were suggested for noise levels which exceed the 75 dBA threshold. 9. No mitigation measures were suggested for intersections in Forest Home once they have been signalized. What happens when the level of service (LOS) again becomes unacceptable ?` 10. Changes in air quality, due to increased traffic, have not been adequately addressed. 11. Our full -hour traffic counts indicate that the Judd Falls Road /Forest Home Drive intersection has approximately 300 vehicles per hour more traffic than reported in the DGEIS. Correcting the count for this intersection would also make the traffic data consistent with that • reported for the adjacent Pleasant Grove Road /Forest Home Drive intersection. Historic and Archaeological Resources 1. The report's conclusion that no historic structures are located on or adjacent to the project site is. not exactly true. Several interesting old barns exist on the property, most notably along Rte 366. Among these is the Blair Barn, which is mentioned in the Appendix. There are also some buildings from the former CCC camp located near the Game Farm Road /Ellis Hollow Road intersection. The land in the vicinity of the Caldwell Road /Rte 366 intersection is the site of the former Booltown, and the area in the vicinity of the Judd Falls Road/ Rte 366 intersection is the site of the mill community of Judd's Falls, which was settled nearly 200 years ago. It should also be noted that Rte 366 generally follows the.alignment of the old "Bridle Road ", one of the first thoroughfares built by white settlers in Tompkins County. The route of the Bridle Road had, in turn, generally followed the alignment of an old Indian trail. (See, for example, W. Glenn Norris Old Indian Trails in Tompkins County.) 2. It should be noted that the Hamlet of Forest Home has recently been designated as a New York State Historic District, and is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Although Forest Home is not immediately adjacent to the project site, it is nearby, • and would be affected by the project. EXHIBIT 1 P • • • 3. Although the DGEIS outlined a method of looking for indications of an archeological site, it failed to would be taken if such a site was discovered. Other Page 3 artifacts and other mention what action 1. When discussing the adverse impacts of this project, the DGEIS neglected to mention the loss of the Orchards, and its effect on the community in general, and the Pomology Department in particular. 2. When discussing the effects on educational failed to mention the loss of the Orchards for which it is currently utilized. Also, seems to contradict earlier statements that growing, and that the project area would no purposes. resources, the DGEIS and the educational uses the explanation given the university is not t be used for educational 3. When discussing alternate sites, the DGEIS failed to adequately consider other suitable university -owned land, such as that near the airport in Lansing and in Dryden. 4. When discussing alternate land uses, the DGEIS only considered highly developed forms of land use (dorms, classrooms), and failed to adequately consider alternate agricultural or other less - developed land uses. 5. When discussing the No Action alternative, the DGEIS failed to mention keeping the Orchards in production. 6. When discussing scenic views, the DGEIS concluded that development on Parcel A would have minimum visual impact. However, we did not find any discussion of the impact that development of Parcels B and C would have on scenic views. 7. The proposed means of mitigating the visual impact of development in the Orchards is to blend the new development in with the campus skyline. However, the change from orchard to campus skyline is the visual impact that needs to be mitigated! 8. The DGEIS mentions the number of fire calls that might be expected, but did not discuss the adequacy of existing fire service to respond to these calls. °. The calculation used to determine the expected number of fire calls is difficult to understand. Why would a 32% increase in gross square footage building area result in only a 6.3% increase in fire calls? 10. The DGEIS does not discuss potential development on adjoining properties. 11. The DGEIS does not discuss development impacts outside of the Town of Ithaca (Town of Dryden, City of Ithaca, etc.). 12. The DGEIS does not mention offsite utility plans for meeting the increased demand for steam and chilled water. EXHIBIT 1 • • • Page 4 J 13. Parts of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (attached) seem to have been filled out incorrectly. When does this get finalized? r � • • • Page 4 J 13. Parts of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (attached) seem to have been filled out incorrectly. When does this get finalized? We hope you have found this list of comments and concerns to be useful. Cornell University must satisfactorily resolve the issues raised in the Scope if the Town is to be able to adequately understand and assess the impacts that the proposed project would have on the greater Ithaca area. EXHIBIT 1 0 • II 1 1 I ] W I I lD r q N O tD lD r� I [� lD LD I I r•q 1� LD w O M N ri of m cT M w Cr Ol N Ln N Ln !O 10 % I M c Z Q C7 I I O O Ln r� r-4 r-L M 1 M Q1 tD I 1 Gl M r-4 r-L N M M O 01 [� r+ 1� Cr 0) O O M N c nj' r� N I Cr v w Z Q II car r-L r-q Q• r-1 H O 1 r•L co O 1 1 r••L N ri r••1 r.4 ,'D Ln r� O Ol 1� r-q h Cr T O N [r C'` N I�f1 / 1 lD lD Z Z Z 11 r-q I 1 1 r-1 r'L I 1 r-q r-1 N ar N r-L r-q ,� I I I II 1 I I I E-' II w r-L r-+ a m O 1 w Ln 1� 1 I Ln 1� 1� r-i M Qr M lD O tD O M 1� w Ln O O r-, Ln O (n 1 —+ O Z II M M r-4 a) r-1 Ln I er N C I 1 O N M M Ln 1� r-L Qr M tD Qr r'q M M Ln M M M .-•L M C I M (NJ Cn Q II Ln O M Cr m O cr I O M M I I O O r-I O Gl M r� 01 L� r-•L . 4 O M N %0 a) O O M Ln Ln 1 Ln M O 11 O h i o G D I M Cr cr 1 I I� Cr M r q r- r-r N N r-4 r-i Q' L`J [7r 1 r 1 o U II r-L N ri I 1 I I H 11 I > 11 I I I W 11 tD L9 I r-q r-1 rq 1 I lD ' D tD lD M N N N N N N N Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln x W 11 0000000 1 Odow I I coOCoOOOa000000000O000000 00OCOOO 1 ao co 0- E if Q 11 1 I 1 1 Q 11 Lc) •ad�*'�GCO I �[�[� 1 I OlGla)mcor�r�r�r� 1`r�LnLnLnG mmco OO I a) 00 II r-+ r-1 r-t 1 I I 1 If II I I I I E 11 O N C Ln I I G M M Ln er M N M CO I I C)1 W Ln O Ql r-i G M W o O M N Ln ' D fn w i -J to L� z II Ln r-•r Ln M 1 1 r-1 1� C.' N r� B M W G� I 1 Ln L� M N Ln M O O M U) N LT N C r-� M O LS'i G [� E• O 11 cr O r-L cT 1 1 to G1 M c" O Cr O I� G 1 I Ln O Vr tD [� N r.4 r-q N O r-e M r (� to Z O II Ln r-q I I tD Ln 1� I� co O N m Ln I I ri r.4 r•L r-L r-•L rt N M N r-L Ln Ln to r--q r-q E� O a 11 I I z a x n 1 1 I I W H I I lD 00 co Co 1 I M m m a) 01 LT Q1 O O 1 1 w '.O ' D tD tD lD tD ' D 01 D , 01 c. O1 1 c. [� [� z x Li W II OOoO Co I I OOOOOCoOOo Co I I co OOOLn co w co OOOD co 7JOO co co co OO E� O Q ii \ \ \ \ I 1 Q U a I I rn r-I r-q r-1 1 1 Ln Ln Ln Ln ctr .v cT r-L r 4 1 1 O1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln Ln Ln O1 Cif O1 m M c, (7%, ,n O a II r-1 r-1 ri I I rq r-1 I I r-+ w Q n Q U n Q II >+ x II d E� if H 11 > a z� a C7 E� 11 � s , U ;4 z Ix a ra H Vl 11 R! r� p � ra ,-i w a .f rr Q 11 ro ro 1J ra x in ro ro Lo 4-1 ro rl. rl; b Q) � ra a 0 (a W n Z ro a ra a Z rc • a a r0 v) ro ro ro a s er" z a ro a 3-q v a rcS Z In o F I ii o a E b m o a 3 w a :4 u a� x a x. a s .• a ro u a 3 Ln In Z Z 11 pq �e (a a W .; U 3 3 a a� s~ c >+ ro b ro ra �>+ � -r•a (a � a U (a � � � r� v 0 rC ;4 a) M 0 0 (2) al a) ;4 C: , -4 E l m (1) ul a > O E� H u O RS >+ L11 !.4 ,r. O r� a-I { L >_, H �, a� In N p a M m rn C a 3 Q) U2 14 Z W a) U z d I I Z 1-L :4 GL r0 W ; 4 M 124 t].:.L Lo 0 -ri S4 ii rQ Z z • z -r, �' 4-3 aJ O 3 � ; 4 Lo o Jm) � a]O U II a)a�c��z E O ?ZPgaZ cOaZZ ro r0 rn b c033 LoZ Lowaa o c0 rowCz: �U1 ZU 0 11 bLww w Lti " wwww 3 44 44 44 3 3QZZ x x aZ3 H w wwW 44 44 4.4 44 11 /0 0 0cM 0' Z44 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44 w44 0 0 w ow o 0 owww o 0 0 0 x U 11 r-♦ r-I (., r-1 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 r-4 PC W 11 -H 4-3 JJ +J }J : L i 4-•J +J a--L 4.) 4-J JJ 4J +•J -W y-J 4-J 4-J aJ 4--J aJ 4-J 4J J.J 4.J JJ yJ -♦•.J JJ J-) J.-J +-J :-J JJ JJ O W 11 > ;4 a E~ > to 34 .�% ;-+ (n i4 r+ Ul 1n M M W U) Ln r W �4 rn vl ui S-+ !4 E' Q II O O O a) O O O O Q) O O O a 0 Q) a) Lo O O Q) O m 0 0 0 W M Lo O O O O E� ii �=(n ZM �33Zcn+nz3ZZZ3w33wco U2 C4cnZZ3Ww cnZ ZZ a) II •r-1 •ri •i.-J Q) 1.1 Q) ,T,., JJ •rti 4J 4J y 1..J 4.3 •r-1 •rl •r-I 4.1 •rl -r-q •,..1 •r♦ •r•I -,..1 -ri •+-{ •r-! a.J •rl -r1 •ri •r-1 •ri •,-4 V1 •r♦ •ri 11 fn E 44 3 w 3 • w E w w LI.-1 w w E E E w E E E E E E E E E w E E E E E E rTj E 11 I~ r-1 O aJ O JJ >4 O r•q O O G G O r-1 r•q r-I O •-'1 H r 4 r•q .--1 r-L ri r+ r 4 O r-L r-q r-L r1 r- r-4 -H II r0 O a)C a) t00 •00000 O O II i- 7C NOrJMMMN 000M000000000N 000'0 00 COO I I II a 11 a ai II aaQa x, uaxaaw a W as 11 a > a a u a x a a o p Q 11 W W W w a x A a x x a Q n rzzz�aaa GQaaaa Q QaaaWL� c�! as O u <zzz E--, Ix as a aaaacwaal rraHH a 11 FtQQrSE� axaaxaxxm ZZ Q a x;E•Ixz= 11 Zx.zZ =333 w�;aw.w3Z1x 3Q3333U3 IZ' N 11 aaa,a��t art zZZ Z z Z.ZZ a a a 4 o 0: Q �i ~i W>4>4 11 H H H H to W w W W 3 W W W U W W >+ >0 Z a H .i: Z .i 'I a Z W! ink O W W II xaxx�Cf: U;tnaxxCGQxaaaaaaat!]a�mr> fn to totoW V� JQ�wx`.L n E�E•E- E�wzzzxxaaraxaaaaaQZ Ww t zzzzz3za.1r�wac: 1 „ C 4 a Q at a o- �t a �t l-! �C Q a H < O r-' 11 ZZZZa = ^`• 1= 3333Z33sZG+�+33Zcl1Z E• E• y 11 W O II C7 1 � II 0.a. N 11 L0 �� U cD �Cl ,L' on U ra Q) w trJ Lo on U b r0 .0 U rc v w LT r^� t0 U RS rc rJ 11 r-q N N N M M v� cr c a Cr C C• Ln Ln Ln Ln ',D tD W tD lD tD lD tD (� r� 1� co oo O m U1 o O EXHIBIT 1 \/j w ' • II 1 1 Ln 1 I t I a w n I t l� o �0,'L:)�, I m- in �i, ;1 in ; I i��r*� Ln m m 1 qr rn 1 1.0 rn M o Ln mw c n� c m Ln � c� M ac Z4ZC7 If 1 1 tDLC1a!w I ri4iLn�N 'I /qzr ;I ?N(N r`OM 1 mcr) 1 4rtD mQLn �10C r4 NM�-�tD J7 W Z Q if 1 I r41,0 .•'1 [� ' 1 S Ln G1 r-4 C r` 1 co Ln 1 Ln M r-4 O M r-4 r•+ in m r` Ln N Ln Li 7 r� Z Z x if I 1 r-4 rj i 1 ��r. ; 1 1 ? C J ( I 1 N r c r c (n r i Q I1 II 1 1 1 I I 1 I E II I I 1� N 1` Ln 1 r� r` N I r-i I M cr tD co O 1 r� r-4 r-4 N r4 M 1� Ln r-4 ',D q+ +-4 m Ln Z if 1 I r 4 c0 C' r-4 t to t� 1` I r` I O 4 D C• Ln c0 I 1� Ln I O O co co co C• O to O O m r� r` 1` Ln 4 co Z II I I N qtT O O I r� 1� 1� I O I m m r-4 m O I ID M I M M r-4 N cr [� O m N cr r` M Ln N N Z O II 1 I r4 r-f I O cfi M 1 to I N r-4 r-4 O U if I I I t I I 1 H II I 1 I I 1 I 1 > II I I I I t I I W II I I r-4, r-I r 4 C4 l ai r-4 Ln 1 Ln I r-4 r-4 Ln r-4 Ln I 111 Ln I N c`J cV cV r-4 r-4 r-4 N N N N N N N N Z W II 1 1 0 00 0 00 1 0 0 0 I 0o 10 0 0 0 40 1 co 00 1 00 OD 0 0 00'0 CO CO 00 CO CO O CO co CO a E II \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 4Q 11 I I I I 1 I 1 4M if I I LnLnLnO I Oww I t0 I tDIDLntptD 1 totD I Q1mmmLncnLnmmmmOGla) c. 11 1 1 I I I 1 I n - n E II cf' tD C co co cr o l O M 4D Ln m r� N cn N O O m o N O o Ln H Q 1, r-4 O Ln C 10 'D O c, cr) z 11 N o Ln O r� ID M I N r� r-4 1� %w N Ln r� t0 C' z r--4 m O 'D Ln 1 O m M m r-4 '.D O c M e7• C (` E Z I I r-4 Ln 00 m N r` �31 I N Q r-i m m m O N 0 r--q r` m N r1 M M r-4 (`J M cr O M O o lD �v r-4 Q 7-4 Z Q I I r� ri r-+ r-4 r-4 I r� Ln O ID M M M N r-4 r 4 r 4 N c-4 r 4 r-4 r-4 N M lD E o a II , t` I�c�( �m[ �mmmmt0lz110 110 %0 m0) mmmmGlmm03co is U W II (m 4xJONOo00 1 OJmO4bOOoco cOOO000000emmOOOmO cc) O07ONOOO &4 a E if \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ a O Q II , <C) Q It oomomom 1 r- 4r- 4r4 0 ommm0r cc aowQ0wtatDCpr�r`r oao co oa)mmm C4 11 r-4 r-4 r--4 r-4 1 r-4 r-4 r-4 r--4 r-4 r-1 w Q n is U II rc ro If a a iy iv a) 01 1 H if rCra x�x z 0 � ulZ T 'C v v � :+ o zs 'rs a cn a a a r4 ry on I11 f a a a W � a� a o ri r-I t E 4 x r Il rirI >ari o v ° r 4 >� Ou 0a as ord a o a > 4 T to 41 4J J-J a In 4-) ro w II r t -ri -H r-4 lD N 410 •r4 (D r I Z t, Z C :4 rO rid Z C t l ra to 01 rLf to a (a ca u x x 3 x x LO Ia M a4 In m rr4 >4 (a (a >~ a) w a o o z Una Z i a E+ I I I O ID M H (D m 4O •ri •rl r i ^ w uI -r-4 �.' -r•1 -r•4 pa -r-I >1 ((a Z 2 11 >1 >+ r-I 4%, w tD 1714 cgs cis - 4 014 c� a rc rcl :4 ro H J'4 >1 r-I r--i ro s-4 tP x ra '?r ',D x o r Z to O II a) a) r-4 a) •r I M 1 1 rW -4 4J (E 0 ;4 -ri ra a) ro -r-4 O O Q) a) ro e. II O m l 4.) J O E-4 4J O O U O X �4 s4 Z O CQ •r4 W O :4 • w E•4 H H u z E4 11 sa S4 S4 r-4 -J r-4 r-4 0 E a E U u E•4 E•4 U a4 U E-4 4-J < II z En � W a LW • ri r-4 44 44 4-4 4-1 44 44 4W 44 4-4 = u4 44 44 44 cn O U II E-4 E-4 -r4 E-4 O m (a (C 0 0 44 w 4-4 al O 44 O 44 O 44 44 O O 4.4 O Z O 4••4 LW O O O O Z U O if r-4 44 4a J-) 44 rT4 0 0 0 C; O O O O O 0 0 44 H 4-1 II LW 44 rl 44 O O ,L" U) ra " H .-r' .0 .L" O O •^ r+ r •� U 11 o O W O 41 rc rc 4-4 4J J, -W �- r--I 4J � -W J, J-1 J, 4.) 4J .4.J 4J 4J Z -F•1 -W 41 O J-1 a-1 a4 H n r rn 'C 't3 � � 4 Un cn ;W o U2 'i m �4 (n M :4 m �w4 �4 1n M -W ; 4 �4 s_, i rZ4 If a-J 4J 4a +J 4J 4.J o r0 r o o a) a) ;4 o z p[a O 4a y O O (0 O;:; O a) w cn O O O O Cc4 11 cn co O m -4 Z m C7 rj h O Z 3 3 O (a rn W c!Z W Z ts7 3 O Z W VZ m Z 3 3 Cc z z O Z E Q 11 a1 iv 4a O o rn U w W4 II 3 3 .'� W Z ua rl 1 •r4 •r{ -r, -r-4 -r4 ,-•I •r•I -r-I -r4 -r4 -r4 I~ -r-i •r-I 0 -r-I -.1 -r•1 •ri E' II a1 E a1 y iv S E E E r1 E. E E E E E E E E E E v E E 4, •r 4 E E E E 11 'r -I •r1 -r-4 -r-4 ri -r-4 CT a) aJ If E E E E E r= rc 3 3 30000 E'ioc000o0oo000 30 o W �oo00 I I r-I r-4 r-4 r1 r-4 r4 -r.4 r i 4•3 43 J-J r i r~ r-4 r I G•' >1 r-4 r 4 r.4 r•4 r� r-I r-4 r-4 r4 4-4 ri 4-J r4 ri Q C r♦ r-4 r4 r-4 II �4 \ (1) (L) a) \ \ \ \\ �4 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ a) \ \O \ \% t l O O O O o O W ri W i>a W ri r4 r 4 ri r1 Q r4 r f r4 r f r-4 r-4 r-4 - 4 r-4 r-4 r 4 4] t r~ r 4 N n ri r-4 r-4 r4 II I I If x If a a`�a a4, a aka a u A 3 E- 4a a o � catlaaal 31�la3;3 a atn aaa aax 4a a a11a Eo00a1 o,o Q CO a n z is 04 is � vacn;ma zazo z z II Q Z H a H Z� a a' a W W .a la a O a� W o� O O a 00 0 a a 0 C 0 9 41 rnOxOxaaa4 4140wiw00 E•4wE -4Uu4 AE�E E" E-4 11 N II 4�va x Q•�tFLQ; 9VI&2 (2/87> -7c 617.11 • - Sa=CR Appendix A State EnAronmental Ouslity R#visw FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose•. The full E AF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine. in an. orderly manner, whether a project Of action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is ot always easy to answer Frequent, Iv, there are aspects or a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analvsts In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination Process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3 Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 1 is identified as potentiallylarge, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. 101 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE —Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this proiect: Pan C Part 1 CPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts t and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact. it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: C A. The project will not result in any large and important impacils) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment. therefore a negative declaration will be prepared C B. Although the project could have a significant effect.on the environment, there will not be a significant effect'for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will b-c prepared.• C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will bit prepared A Conditioned -Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Cornell University Request for Re— Zoning to S.L.U.D. -Name of Action Town of Ithaca Planning Board Name of lead Agency Carolyn Grigoi•ov Chairperson Print or Type `ame of Responsible Officer in lead Agency g Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(If different from responsible officer) Date EXHIBIT1 1 ,..... __....:.. Is PART I— PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor `OTILj; This document is designed to assist In determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effec on the en%.Ironment Please complete the entire form. Parts A through E Answers to these questions will be conslder.e. as par! ,>t the apple JtIOn ror approval and may be subject to further venflcatlon and public review Provide jnv additional information you belleve will t>e needed to complete Parts 1 and 3 It Is e%pe�ted 96idt comPlerlon of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not Invoi.r new studies re >earch or In%estlgation It Information requiring such additional work Is unavailable. so indicate and specl!% each instance NAVE OF ACTION Re- Zoning Proposal- Precinct 7 LOCATICN OF ACTON JAVU0111 $beet Address, Munitipabry An0 Countp Precinct 7- Principally Bounded by SR 366, NAMt OF APPLICANTWONS0lt Cornell Universi �Cew�Q 102 arripo 5 Service Building Cascadilla Creek, & Garne Farm Rd. i "NeW TELEPHONE f6071255-1126 Ithaca STATE D ►CODE NY 14853 NAME OF OWNER nr ditforenn BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADORESS I t 1 CrT'YlPO � STATE a► CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION ' • Review and approval of an overall land use mix for development of Precinct 7 I of Cornell University over approximately a 30 year period in the form of a Special Land Use District, Please Complete Each Question — Indicate N -A. if not applicable & Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas I Present land use = L:.fban Dndustrlal ;Commercial = Residential (suburban) CRural rnon -farm) ZForest xAgnculture 90ther bus Service Warehouses 1 Total acreage of project area: 2151 acres APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland iNon- dgrlcultural) 0 acres To Be acres Forested 15 acres Developed acres Agricultural ;includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc) 179 acres Through Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 14, 25 of ECL) 0 acres c,IS acres C acres water Surface Area 7 Process acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) g acres acres Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces 5 acres acres Other (Indicate type) 0 • 3 acres acres K'hat is predominant soil type(s) on project slW Lake. Laid Silt & Clay- Collatner Series a Soil drainage ItWell drained 10 % of site Emoderately well drained 70 Sfi of site 9:Poorly drained 1 20 % of site b If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY* Land Classification System? 2± acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370), 4 Are there bedrock outcroppings on protect site? CYes ?3No EXHIBIT 1 • r• Is PART I— PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor `OTILj; This document is designed to assist In determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effec on the en%.Ironment Please complete the entire form. Parts A through E Answers to these questions will be conslder.e. as par! ,>t the apple JtIOn ror approval and may be subject to further venflcatlon and public review Provide jnv additional information you belleve will t>e needed to complete Parts 1 and 3 It Is e%pe�ted 96idt comPlerlon of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not Invoi.r new studies re >earch or In%estlgation It Information requiring such additional work Is unavailable. so indicate and specl!% each instance NAVE OF ACTION Re- Zoning Proposal- Precinct 7 LOCATICN OF ACTON JAVU0111 $beet Address, Munitipabry An0 Countp Precinct 7- Principally Bounded by SR 366, NAMt OF APPLICANTWONS0lt Cornell Universi �Cew�Q 102 arripo 5 Service Building Cascadilla Creek, & Garne Farm Rd. i "NeW TELEPHONE f6071255-1126 Ithaca STATE D ►CODE NY 14853 NAME OF OWNER nr ditforenn BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADORESS I t 1 CrT'YlPO � STATE a► CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION ' • Review and approval of an overall land use mix for development of Precinct 7 I of Cornell University over approximately a 30 year period in the form of a Special Land Use District, Please Complete Each Question — Indicate N -A. if not applicable & Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas I Present land use = L:.fban Dndustrlal ;Commercial = Residential (suburban) CRural rnon -farm) ZForest xAgnculture 90ther bus Service Warehouses 1 Total acreage of project area: 2151 acres APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland iNon- dgrlcultural) 0 acres To Be acres Forested 15 acres Developed acres Agricultural ;includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc) 179 acres Through Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 14, 25 of ECL) 0 acres c,IS acres C acres water Surface Area 7 Process acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) g acres acres Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces 5 acres acres Other (Indicate type) 0 • 3 acres acres K'hat is predominant soil type(s) on project slW Lake. Laid Silt & Clay- Collatner Series a Soil drainage ItWell drained 10 % of site Emoderately well drained 70 Sfi of site 9:Poorly drained 1 20 % of site b If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY* Land Classification System? 2± acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370), 4 Are there bedrock outcroppings on protect site? CYes ?3No EXHIBIT 1 e . S. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 1S&10% 80 % (310►1S% _10 % • X15% or greater _10% 6 Is protect substantially contiguous to. or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? Yes 3 N 7 Is protect substantially contiguous to a site fisted on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ZYes ZNo 8 What as the depth of the water table? 0 to 5 din feet) 9 Is sate located over a primarv, principal, or sole source aquifer? =Yes ZNo 10 Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist an the project area? =Yes nNo 11. Does protect site contain am species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? =Yes 200yo According to CV's Natural Areas -Nancy Ostrran, Unique Natural Areas Identify each species (Locally inportant Liliutt Canadense) ot TcqpkUig unty 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project situ (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) CYes 52No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood 00Yes CNo If yes, explain East Ithaca Rcrenwayn space or recreation area 14 Does the - present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? f` _Yes`: XNo 15. Streams wit in or contiguous to protect area: Cascadilla Creek a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary _Cascadilla Creek Tributary Tn ramine Tnlot 16. lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: • a. Name Poultry Lagoon b. Size (In acres) 1 17 Is the site served by existing public utilities? ZYes CNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? Eyes CNo b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? CYes ENO 18 Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 3447 _Yes ZNo 19 Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 =Yes ENO 20 Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? $Yes CNo B. Project Description 1 Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by protect sponsor 215 acres. *b Protect acreage to be developed: acres initially; acres ultimately. *c. Protect acreage to remain undeveloped acres. d length of protect. in miles: 1'a (If appropriate) *e If the protect is an expansion. indicate percent of expansion proposed *f Number of off-street parking spaces existing * proposed g - maximum vehicular trips generated per hour (upon completion of project)?. • Im If residenuaf. Number and type of housing units. Initially One Family Two Family .Multiple Family Condominium Ultimately 'a. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure _ it height: width: length. I linear feet of frontapp alnriv a M.,e.aie .►,,.,..,,,a, ? „_ ...At :_, 4L EXHIBIT 1 I .d • 2 How much natural material !r a meek. earth, etc ) will be removed from the site) =_0 _ tons ;cubic Yards 3 Will dicr:,rbed areas be reclaur.ed? 2Yes CNo .N;A a It es ror what ,ntem, purpose is the site bung reclaimed? Landscaped Lawns & Gardens b ',�'i► 'opsoil be itockprled ror reclamation? • 'XYes CNo C upper subioil be i:ockprled for reclamation? x. Yes [No 4 HO%% mam Ji.res at %egetation itrees ihrubs. ground covers) will be removed from site? (2+ acres TD i '.Yrll mature rorest cs %er 't)V sears old) or other locally -tm portant vetteta rps be removed by this project? _ Yes,)' X �o et. c,, -,CHAR 5 6 If sing a phase protect: Anticipated period of construction N/A —__ 7 If multi- phased months. (including demolition) a. Total number or phases anticipated 2 (number). b Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 1) month ? Year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month - -__ Year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? CYes ENo 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Des TNo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 400 - after project is complete 10 `umber of jobs eliminated by this protect 0 11 Will project require relocation of any protects or facilities? CYes) ENO If yes, explain • 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? &Yes CNo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage. industrial, etc ) and amount Sewage b Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged N/A 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Eyes CNo T Sanitary Sewer Yt�e 1 14 Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? CYes UNo Explain DPtantinn Fdc lities will Dampen Runoff Additions 15 Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year Hood plain? Eyes CNo Cascadilla Creek 16 Will the project generate solid waste? kyes CNo 'A If Yes, what is the amount per month tons *b If Yes. will an existing solid waste facilits be used? 4t =Yes =No 'ic If Yes, give name # location *d Will any wastes not go into a selvage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ;;Yes CNo le If Yes, explain ,if• * To be determined in GEIS 17 Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? =Yes ENO a. If Yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons;month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site hie? years 1e Will project use herbicides or pesticides? iYes -.No 19 Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ,'Yes VNo 20 Will protect produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient nose levels? 'Yes ENO • 21 Will project result in an increase in energy use? XYes CNo If yes , indicate rypets) cu generated steam, chilled water, electric, water; NYSEG GAS 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity NSA gallons /minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day' gallons /day. 24 Does project involve local. State nr co.+o.,r i„„e+,.,a? v , ; ee+.,_ 5Ti4' SCj -kC) EXHIBIT (�� 2S. Apprgvals Requite City. Town 1. `age 3c.-.f City. Towr. fildge Planning Board City. Town Zoning Bcarrf City, County Health Departmert Other local Agencies Other Regional Agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies Type 2Yes =No Rezoning, SBQR x.I ENO Site Plan, SEAR '.Yes .2Yes Yes Yes .Yes .Yes .1%4o =No =No =No NO ZNo Water & Sewer SCLIWrr NYDEC Wetlands DOT Driveway Army Cores Submittal Date 2/91 2/91 12/91 5/91 12/91 12/91 _ 12/91 C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? GaYes ONo If Yes, indicate decision required: Czontng amendment i�zoning variance Ospecial use rmit �newirevision of master plan Cresource management plane Mother SLUR Osite plan 2 What is the zoning classlfication(s)of the site? R -30 3 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted b the R -30 Y present zoning? 4 What is the proposed zoning of the site? SLUR ( Special Land Use District) • S What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? . To bee lored h9ty LEIS 6 Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ®Yes =Na 7 What arP the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within -EduGa a '�mle radius of proposed action? I! ].Cana 1 i icn cgs a--sgp�riee— hek�0esg 111111111 1111 11111 11111111111 1111111111 111111 11 1111 t\'y i2 i C U L a i SA f f�Ei�' L�,yy i� G f�l E b Is the proposed action compatible wit aCfoiningtsu► rounding land uses Within amile? 87Yes CNo ,l 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot sue proposed? N/A t0 Will proposed action require anv authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? OYes ZNo 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? $Yes `ho C a. If Yes. is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand ?r U Yes CNo 2 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? * Oyes C,No a If Yes. is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? Oyes CNo * To be explored in GEIS D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any aJverse Impacts associated with your proposal. please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them • E. Verification 1 certif•r that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant'Sponsor Name signature Title Date If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment form before Proceeding EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 1 R