HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1992-08-18min
TOWN OF ITHACA
e
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk
AUGUST 18, 1992
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, August 18, 1992, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, James Baker,
Virginia Langhans, Stephen Smith, Herbert Smith, Candace
Cornell, John Barney (Town Attorney), Floyd Forman (Town
Planner).
ALSO PRESENT: Bruce Brittain, Larry Fabbroni, Karen Baum, L. Roscoe,
Nancy Goody, John Gutenberger, Attorney Shirley Egan,
Harry Ellsworth, Ke.v� Gordon•
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: CONSIDERATION OF A DETERMINATION WHETHER TO ACCEPT AS
SATISFACTORY THE DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DGEIS)
• PREPARED BY CORNELL UNIVERSITY WITH RESPECT TO ITS SCOPE, CONTENT AND
ADEQUACY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMENCING PUBLIC REVIEW. THE DGEIS HAS
BEEN PREPARED IN ORDER TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
A PROPOSED REZONING AND POSSIBLE CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS FOR A
PORTION OF 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. NANCY GOODY. PROJECT MANAGER
Chairperson Grigorov opened discussion on the above -noted matter.
Mr. Gordon stated, for the record, that there have actually been
two items delivered; one is a very comprehensive review of the
document for multi concerns Gth5trwas separated into seven or eight
different sections. Mr. said that another item sent along in
the packet with the report was the EIS Review Checklist, adding that
this is tied into points in the law that proscribe what a DGEIS.is
supposed to accomplish. Mr. Gordon stated that it does not separate
out completeness items; it gives, at one point in time, a place of
reference back to what the intent of the DGEIS is, adding that a lot
of his comments tonight with respect to support for the items
included in their report are going to go back to the Checklist. Mr.
Gordon stated that he wants the Board to know that where there are
elements of disagreement, that when Larsen prepared their list of
concerns, their primary focus was the Checklist and the criteria that
the law says are supposed to be considered in accepting a DGEIS, and
a Scope Outline. Mr. Gordon stated that the basis for their comments
is the Checklist which comes from the law, and the Scope Outline.
Mr. Gordon stated that he wants the Board to know that that has been
•
•
•
Planning Board
-2-
Larsen's perspective in doing the
recommendations that they did recommend.
August 18, 1992
review and making the
Chairperson Grigorov said that the Board does not want to get
into anything that is not necessary for the completeness section.
Mr. Gordon concurred with Chairperson Grigorov, but wanted the Board
to know that that forms the basis for a lot of Larsen's
recommendations.
At this point, the Board,
along
with Cornell,
reviewed at length
the document entitled "Items To
Be
Incorporated
Into DGEIS Before
Acceptance" dated August 14,
1992,
which is
attached hereto as
Exhibit #1. The Board also reviewed
at length the
document entitled
"Cornell's Response on 11 Comments
issued by
Larsen Engineers for
DGEIS Completeness Review August
14,
199211, which
is attached hereto
as Exhibit
#2.
A member of the public present, Harry Ellsworth, addressed the
Board and stated that it seemed to him that the Town planners are
trying to do what Cornell should have to do. Mr. Ellsworth stated
that the Town suggested Cornell reference past studies, which is
true, and that means that Cornell does not have to spend money on
that, but Cornell should also indicate in the GEIS whatever is going
to go in there and how it is going to impact adjacent roads. Mr.
Ellsworth stated that he thought the Town needs to know that; the
taxpayers need to know, and Cornell needs to know that information.
Mr. Ellsworth stated that he felt it was more than just a reference;
someone at Cornell has to make a judgement as to what is going to go
in there and how it would affect the roads. Board Member Cornell
responded that the answer the Board always gets is that Cornell does
not know what they are going to build. Chairperson Grigorov noted
that a public discussion need not be opened now because a public
hearing will be held later on.
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion.
MOVED by Candace Cornell, seconded by James Baker.
WHEREAS, Cornell University has requested the Town of Ithaca to
consider rezoning certain lands of Cornell in the "Precinct 7" area
off of Route 366 from Residence District R -30 to a Special Land Use
District or similar district; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has been designated
lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
related local provisions and regulations; and
WHEREAS, Cornell offered to submit a Generic Environmental Impact
Statement ("GEIS ") in view of all of the activity previously
undertaken, tentatively planned, and considered in the future in and
around the area proposed for rezoning, and the Planning Board, with
Planning Board
-3-
I�
August 18, 1992
I
the consent and active encouragement of Cornell has found that all of
• such activity warrants the preparation and submission of a GEIS* and l
WHEREAS, Cornell has submitted a Draft Generic Environmental
Impact Statement ( "DGEIS"); and
11 I;
WHEREAS, there has been intense review by the Town's staff and
Planning Consultant of the DGEIS pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 (the
"SEQR Regulations ") and particularly Sections 617.8, 617.14 and
617.15 of the SEQR Regulations to determine its scope, content, and
adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review, and
WHEREAS, the staff, members of the Planning Board, the Town's
Consultant have all met on several occasions with Cornell
representatives andl consultants to communicate concerns and comments
on the adequacy of„ the DGEIS and it is anticipated that this
cooperative effort will continue toward the end of obtaining a DGEIS
that is satisfactory; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has likewise reviewed the DGEIS and
reached a conclusion as to the adequacy of the DGEIS for submission
to the public for review;
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that at this time the Planning Board finds
that the DGEIS is not yet satisfactory with respect to its scope,
content, and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review
• for, among others,'; the reason that the DGEIS needs the additional
information,. -data, explanations, and discussions set forth in the
document entitled G "Items To Be Incorporated Into DGEIS Before
Acceptance" prepared,by Larsen Engineers, dated August 14, 1992, as
modified by the notes on same.
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the enumeration of materials in the
Larsen document is not exhaustive in that it does not intend to omit
other corrections and modifications to the DGEIS to which Cornell has
previously agreed in discussions and meetings with Staff and
Consultant.
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that examples provided in the referenced
document are not intended to be exclusive, but are illustrative only
and enumeration of them does not mean that incorporation of
information relating only to the examples included therein will
require this Board to find a re- submitted DGEIS to be adequate.
AND IT IS FURTHER; RESOLVED, if Cornell submits a revised DGEIS
incorporating new materials that are not fully in response to the
matters raised in this resolution and associated documents, that this
Board in reviewing such revised DGEIS is not constrained to conclude
that such new material is fully responsive to the concerns raised by
this Board or necessarily makes the DGEIS satisfactory for purposes
of commencing publicreview.
is Chairperson Grigorov asked for discussion on the Motion.
,
Planning Board -4- August 18, 1992
• At this point, Mr. Gordon stated that he would like a
clarification in that, when the DGEIS says "these materials ", are the
materials referenced in that document? Mr. Gordon stated that he was
suggesting that there should be more than just Cornell's alternate
report, and that the earlier reports that Larsen had provided also be
referenced and applicable to the document. Ms. Cornell responded,
right, where Cornell University has agreed, but they have not amended
the document. Mr. Gordon stated that there are some that Cornell has
not agreed with. Chairperson Grigorov commented -- in that case the
Board should have discussed it tonight. Mr. Gordon said that there
were earlier reports that were done that specified, that referenced,
conformance for the Scope Outline and conformance with Section 617.15
of the SEQR Regulations; those are the legal context issues of the
completeness finding,.adding that he did not think the list should be
a substitute for those enumerations. Candace Cornell commented that
the Board has reviewed a number of lists where Cornell University has
agreed to change things, that should be incorporated. Mr. Gordon
said, yes, things that Cornell has already agreed to. Ms. Cornell
stated that she thought that the Board had hashed that out before,
but she thought that the Board had hashed out everything where the
Board had not come to a resolution; if it had not, that was what was
supposed to happen tonight. Mr. Gordon responded that he realized
that, but the process of going through a list of 300 to the list of
50 has allowed certain things to fall through the cracks that are not
incorporated in that specific documents the process is not
incorporated in the document. Mr. Gordon said that those things
• previously agreed to have a history of back and forth, all of which
are not included. Attorney Egan stated that Cornell will just have
to be on Scout's Honor to do that unless the Board wants to start to
open a whole new can of worms, adding that when Cornell received the
material it said "Items to be Incorporated into the DGEIS Before
Acceptance ". Attorney Egan stated that she thought this is very
misleading, and, at 10:10 pm to suddenly come up with this, she was
sorry, and she thought they will just go home, and the Board can tell
them what it decides in the morning.
Mr.
forth
Gordon
Gordon
that say
stated
said
Cornell
that
that
has
there
there are
agreed to do
were things
a series of
this, this,
agreed to
memoranda back and
and this. Mr.
that did not get on
"this"
allowed
particular
a lot of
list,
things
the
to
process in which this
fall through the cracks.
list was created
Mr. Gordon stated that all he was asking the Board to do is to
include in its resolution those agreements made prior. Mr. Gordon
noted the following: if Cornell submits a revised DGEIS incorporating
materials in response to the matters raised in the resolution and
associated documents that the Planning Board, in reviewing such
revised DGEIS is not constrained. Attorney Barney stated that his
understanding is that the Board is referring to the document that
will be attached to the resolution as modified after discussion at
tonight's meeting. Attorney Barney stated that the Board is also
• referring to agreements that have been previously reached, even if
they are not enumerated in that document. Mr. Gordon stated that all
he wants to do is to clarify that one statement that says, "in this
Planning Board -5- August 18, 1992
II
• resolution and associated documents ". Mr. Gordon stated that he was
suggesting that thisnot be considered the only associated document;
there is a history broader than this. Attorney Egan stated that she
thinks there are two''distinct problems; one is that Cornell certainly
has no problems as to things that have already been agreed to; what
she did not want to be blindsided by is someone saying -- ohl but
there was this that you agreed to and Cornell searches their files
and cannot find any evidence that they agreed to it. Board Member
Finch stated that the Board has relied on the good faith conversation
of the Consultants to work out some of these things, and felt that
the Board has to go with that.
Attorney Egan said that she thought the other thing everyone
needs to go back to is that Cornell is putting themselves far more at
risk by ignoring something that they agreed to. Attorney Egan stated
that she has a fear that there will be something that, in absolute
good faith, someone will have thought was agreed upon, but Cornell
did not think it waslagreed upon, but it did not appear on the list
dated August 14, 1992. Mr. Forman, directing his comment to Attorney
Egan, stated that it, may be helpful to wait until Stu Mesinger
returns to Ithaca for his input.
Attorney Barney', stated that, if Cornell comes back and there is
an issue of whether there was an agreement or not, and, unless there
is some very majorideficiency that makes it absolutely impossible to
review the DGEIS publicly, then he (Attorney Barney) would recommend
• that it be moved to a public session and dealt with as part of that
process. Attorney Barney said that he did not want to go through any
more of the Completeness issue any more than anyone else; Cornell
wants to get it in and the Town wants to get it out to the public and
move the process along. Attorney Barney stated that he is prepared
to rely on Mr. Mesinger's and Cornell's good faith.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Cornell, Finch, Langhans, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
it
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Consideration of
a determination whether to accept as satisfactory the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) prepared by Cornell University
duly closed, the document having been determined not yet satisfactory.
AGENDA ITEM: REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER
Mr. Forman reported that Hospicare of Tompkins County is in the
process of purchasing the Chase Pond site on East King Road and they
will be, potentially, coming before the Planning Board meeting
scheduled for September 1, 1992. Mr. Forman noted that the site is
• in a Multiple Residence District on approximately 20 acres and
Hospicare is seeking'to subdivide it in half and asking that both
separate parcels be rezoned. Mr. Forman, referring to the Hospicare
.
Planning Board
• parcel, said that a
allowed in an R -30
the project would cc
could have housed
•
•
-6-
August 18, 1992
nursing home, convalescent home, would be a use
zone by Special Approval. Mr. Forman offered that
)nsist of one low -rise building on an area that
a number of apartment buildings, adding that
meetings
have been held with the
neighbors, and the
neighbors
are
quite pleased with the project.
Mr. Forman stated
that the other
portion
would be ten acres and potentially
rezoned
to R -15.
Mr.
Forman
stated that Hospicare has
suggested that they
may only put
ten
units on
the ten acres, which is a
much lower density
than would
be
allowed now by right.
Mr. Forman stated that there is a proposal to rehab the present
incinerator at Cornell and erect a 200 -foot high steel chimney stack
attached to the incinerator, adding that the location is at the Vet
College on the Cornell University Campus.
OTHER BUSINESS.
There was no other business conducted at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the August 18,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Bryant, Recording Secretary,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
1992,
0
•
CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ITHACA
ITEMS
70 BE
INCORPORATED INTO DGEIS
;BEFORE ACCEPTANCE
I
i
I
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE
• EXPANSION SOUTHEAST OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY'S
!MAIN CAMPUS
i
i
LARSEN ENGINEERS
AUGUST 14, 1992
41 236
I
I. COMPLETENESS REVIEW PMASE: ISSUES AND ITEMdS TO BE INCLUDED
PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE ;
19 Describe The Action
Ia. The primary action is an intent to rezone the
University's Precinct 7 Lando to aacompliah a
broadly defined future development program, which
also includes other campus lands South of
Cascadilla Creek.
lb. The description of the action, and the discussion
of iG5 '"Ip4uL, will include the logical and
foreseeable consequences of the rezoning, which is
the development program. Concerns include:
concurrent projects in the study area, direct
construction impacts resulting from development
within the% study area, relocation of
activities/ functions currently in the study area,
and direct and indirect effects of future
construction and occupation.
ice The description of the action should also include
future projects to be located within this area (for
example, the chilled water storage facility),
utility service to and through the area and
mitigations proposed for the action. It is
recognized that other than traffic, stormwater
management, and infrastructure requirements, the
discussion will be limited to significant,
beneficial or adverse effects described empirically
rather than quantitatively, and only to the degree
of specificity that information is now available.
Id. The description of the rezoning component of the
action should include discussion of rezoning
component of the items to be addressed in a new
zone, for example: height, rianAi;ty, fl onr ara;4
ratio, site plan approval criteria, permitted,
conditional, and prohibited uses.
2. Imoacte Should be Tdentified Outside tvhe Project Area
2a.
Maps.
development on the area on
all sides.
should be revised
periphery of the study
to
show
X2b. The information on the maps, and data presented
should be sufficient to identify potential impacts
to adjacent areas.
&3.(236) 1
2c. Explicit statements should be made regarding the
potential for impact on these adjoining areas.
Reference will be mada to commonly accaptad,
• measures of impact on residential neighborhoods.
2d. Regional and local impacts should also be discussed
empirically.
3. Include the rationale for desigonating the Planning Board
as Lead Agent for SEAR.
49 All plans and studias of lands in the study, area and
affecting the study dreg sliculd ire reterene' ed.
Recommendations from these documents which would affect
development in the study area should be discussed.
5. Discussion or Alternatives Should be t=anded
5a. The 'ono action" alternative will be better
described as a baseline for examining future
impacts. Requirements at the present zoning code,
including SLUD enabling language will be included
as the "no action" zoning alternative. Alternative
land use control mechanisms, particularly zoning
options, and the use of F.A.R. which could
effectively be used by the Town to guide
development in the study area will be identified
and benefits and limitations discussed.
5b. A mid range development alternative will be
• identified and discussed, but not documented to the
extent of the low and high end alternatives.
6. Identify and discuss possible methods for determining
Town share versus Cornell share of improvements.
Discussion also to include, in a general way, the types
of improvements that may be the subject of cost sharing.
7. The Transportation Section Should Be Expanded
7a. The transportation system discussion should be
1 �t��,t�� ►1q' e�anded to include information such as roadway
p� r conditions, capacity, volumes, and safety which are QVl
uoually a part of the dcncription of the existing
pp transportation system.
*7b_ The discussion of impacts will be expanded to
include tha effects of increased traffic on
adjoining land use, Particularly the residential
neighborhoods and on features of the circulation
system which have been identified by others to be
deficient. "Problem" intersections, sight
distance, grade, access, and alignment problems
•41(236) 2
* Items about which there may be disagreement with Cornell.
•
C7
1(236)
r,n Cc 5S0t : a•te,p W;t-� <<�O?eJjs
that may be exacerbated by traffic increases should o�' ✓P�����.r
be identified.
F���
*7c. Past circulation plans, traffic studies, and
traffic counts will be referenced and pertinent
information extracted to provide a regional and
historic context for the traffic impact report.
Identify plans advanced by others, which if
implemented would serve as alternate forms of
mitigation. (Not to imply Cornell's advocacy or
responsibility.)
1"
7d. Identify physical impediments and functional
limitations, which are apparent for the mitigations
which are proposed.
7e. Identify ways,to control access to and through the
study area for future development.
7f. Include discussion of a possible change in commuter
patterns resulting from the movement of University
support functions out of the present main campus
into the study area.
7g. Acknowledge the sensitivity of residential areas
and area roadways to increases in construction
truck traffic and to truck traffic associated with
truck dslivery dependent facilities.
8. Include a more extensive discussion of hazardous waste
and materials handling practices.
90 include more extensive empirical description of present
noise conditions and noise impact, particularly on lands
presently undeveloped.
10. Identify involved and interested agencies.
11. Include a discussion of performance standards as a basis
for establishing appropriate thresholds of environmental
impact which could be regulated within the study area.
Where appropriate, performance standards can be
recommended as mitigations for predicted impacts. The
concept of performance standards can also be discussed in
the Alternatives Section, along with description of other
land use mechanisms which could be utilized to guide
development in this area. .
3
1 I �•..•.� �Var_ rru -.. ... �! 1 C10..11• •Lf..J •.J i- _VVJ i rr� � �... •.. ..�... ....... �� �� ��_ _.,.
12. The scoping process should be discussed and the scoping
outline included as an appendix.
13. The discussion of alternatives and mitigations should,
include statements which acknowledge the changes in law,
policy, and technology which may take place :over the
development time frame. A1so'state intention to consider
best management practices at the time or future
development.
14. Address whether off site mitigations can be implemented
through identification of potential constraints.
15. Update information to reflect current conditions.
16. Identify development intensity assumptions (e.g., number
of employees /sq. ft. of building space). Reference all
source material. Provide narratives sufficient for a
reader to understand and evaluate the fiqures. Describe
any assumptions underlying development projections.
17 . - Identify issues of community'_ concern ,
OV'i S� 50c-t►�00 G�7 5IVSS r\ °t-
*18 '
`77
19. Include recommondations for handling issues,
new information, and procedures.
20. Discuss implications of urmit,igatable predicted adverse
• impacts.
is
219 Correct crrcrc and modify ,statements which could be
misinterpreted.
22. Figures should be legible and contain enough information
for the reader to be geographically oriented.
23. De5Qi lLbe , huw the DGEI3 can be used in reviewing future
actions.
24. Add appendix of correspondence received (documenting
statements in the DGEIS document) .
25. Add a tabular summary of mitigations.
26. Revise the energy section for accuracy. check projected
demand for each development alternative. Discuss the use
of conservation techniques and alternative fuels.
NOTE: Specifics of numbers 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, and 22 to
be determined after the Planning Board's decision.
Changes not agreed to will be reexamined during the
technical review phase.
41(236) 4
•
1'1 .
E% and discussion Of Matters to be decided and requiring
permits and approvals.
28_ Discuss in a
projects on
Specifically
.federal funds
review.
very general fashion the way in which
the Cornell' campus are financed.
identify potential sources of state and
that would be,, subject to ShQR or �xgt;,vA
30. Identify the types of projects' which might be constructed
within Precinct 7 and remainder of study area with view
toward project and neighboring area compatibility.
*11 . Tdentify the implications of the potential development on
admen ng,,properties in the Towns of Ithaca, Dryden, and
llp2�%, Lansing and the City of Ithaca. Also acknowledge, as
appropriate, potential impact on the study area of
proximate projects in these communit.ip.S.
330 Veriz"y recently roportod presence of rare, threatpnad or
endangered species within the project area. Describe the
• eensitivity of tha species and the general location.
33. Expand the discussion of growth inducing aspects of
expanded infrastructure, upsized utilities and roadway
improvemanto.
34. Expand the inter - campus and intra- campus transportation
discussion.
35. Provide information on existing water supply wells within
the study, area. Discuss Lhe blabting effects on water
supply wells, if applicable.°
36. Discuss implication of the tile drains in agricultural
tields, and potential limitations to developmeri4,
including potential contamination from agricultural
chemicais,(no testing is recommended at this stage) .
37. Expand the mitigation discussion
which are not project- or time -
conservation or landscaping.
•41(236) 5
to include mitigations
dependent, ie. water
*38. Describe ^past, present, and anticipated efforts of the
Town and University to resolve development related
- problems ana to participate in the comprehensive planning
• process.
399 Include a map showing endowed versus statutory lands
within the project area.
40. In description of existing conditions, indicate impacts
of present agricultural practices and continuation of
agricultural related research facilities. Cite
beneficial and adverse impacts of continued use of this
area and facilities within it.
41. Include discussion of "tax issue" associated with state
owned lands.
42. Better address the issue of height by including a
discussion of how height should be addressed and reviewed
as a part of comprehensive 'land use controls for the
area
43. Show the location and areal extent of the old landfill
and er_pand tho discussion of its potential i.znpa�t on
future land use.
*44. Modify the discussion of secondary economic impacts to
include demand for additional retail and service land
uses in the vicinity, and acknowledge the potential for
existing retail and sarvioc facilities to partially (or
fully) serve these needs.
459 More thoroughly discuss and map limitations of soils for
development, with intent to identify areas of the site
more appropriate for higher density vs lower density
uses (we believe this dlzuday has been done in previous
Cornell plans for the area).'
46. Rewrite the Executive Summary to reflect modifications to
the text.'
• 41(236) 6
I
II. OTHER SCOPE, CONTENT, AND ADEQUACY
REVISIONS CONSENTED TO BY APPLICANT
• a. Add volume figures to ridership in transportation system.
b. Provide information on sidewalks and pedestrian /public
transportation interfaces as available.
c.' Add demographics of adjoining neighborhoods. Town will
provide additional information from the 1990 census to
Cornell .
d. Improve the quality and detail of location map.
e. Add a discussion of the processes of land clearing and
preparation for site development, including the
I
mplementation of appropriate best management practices.
f. Revise Table 5 to include the types of land cover which
would be disturbed.
g. Discuss the implication of ground water: on the
effectiveness of the retention ponds.
he Discuss the pedestrian circulation requirements
associated with new development.
i. Add the names and locations of the residential areas and
important community facilities within 3/4 of a mile of
• the project area.
j . Add discussion of Cornell ' s facilities to the educational
resources discussion.
k. Verify or clarify:
as Significance of noise guidelines..
b. Reference to the "comprehensive" nature of the
development program in Precinct T.
c. Expansion of the discussion on the purpose and
requirements for a generic environmental impact
statement. inclusion or part 617.15 to be noted.
1. Acid a reference to cascadiila creels water Quality
Standards to the primary DGEIS document.
m.
Include the relocation and demolition of structures in
the description of the action. Discuss the environmental
implications of these actions in very general terms.
n. Identify design and construction techniques to enhance
water quality. Include "urban runoff ".
01(236) 7
r
o. Enhance the clarity and usefulness of Figure lo. Provide
better locational reference to roads and /or natural
features.
p. Add a copy of natural area policy referenced on page 51
to appendix.
q. Include a reference to and a discussion of the East
Ithaca connector road.
r. Include discussion of transportation development district
in association with special land use district as possible
funding mechanism.
s. Incorporate the "Cornell Cycles" plan into DGEIS by
reference.
•
jWI(236) a
J
0
For Town Planning Board Members consideration on August 18,1992
Cornell's Response on 11 Comments issued by Larsen Engineers
for DGEIS Completeness Review,August 14,1992
These Comments are taken from the document
Larsen Engineers August 14,1992
ITEMS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO DGEIS BEFORE
ACCEPTANCE
Comment numbers refer to the Larsen August 14 document.
Item 1. Comment 2a. The geographic area of investigation should be
expanded. Maps should be revised to show development on the periphery of the
study area on all sides.
Cornell Response. We suggest deleting the first sentence of this
• Comment. The geographic area of investigation has already been expanded
sianificantly from the Precinct 7 area for which rezoning is sought. We have
not agreed to study additional surrounding areas themselves, but rather, to
better define what is there now and what impacts might occur.
Item 2. Comment 2b. The information on the maps, and data presented
should be sufficient to identify potential impacts to adjacent areas.
Cornell Response. We agree with this comment and the asterisk
should therefore be removed.
•
1 August 18,1992 .
•
it
•
Item 3. Comment 7a. The transportation system discussion should be
expanded to include information such as roadway conditions, capacity, volumes,
and safety which are usually a part of the description of the existing
transportation system.
Cornell Response. The Transportation Section of the DGEIS and
the accompanying Traffic Impact Study address existing roadway conditions
in the study area. The Comment appears to express some desire for the DGEIS
to repeat existing condition information in the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
We believe duplicating this information is unnecessary.
The DGEIS reports Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes by
reference to the Town's Comprehensive Plan to avoid such duplication. The
Technical Supplement to the Traffic Impact Study includes detailed traffic
volume and capacity data. The data consists of two and one -half hour honing
movement count traffic volumes conducted during the A.M. and P.M. peak
traffic periods at the 17 intersections identified for study during the DGEIS
Scoping process. Capacities are reported for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours at
the study intersections for existing conditions and existing conditions with
mitigation
We don't believe we should be required to report roadway
conditions outside of what was agreed to in the Scope and which are addressed
as part of the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
2
August 18, 1992
d.
Item 4. Comment 7b. The discussion of impacts will be expanded to
• include the effects of increased traffic on adjoining land use, particularly the
residential neighborhoods and on features of the circulation system which have
been identified by others to be deficient. "Problem" intersections, sight distance,
grade, access, and alignment problems that may be exacerbated by traffic
increases should be identified.
.•
•
Cornell ResRonse. The Comment requests that the DGEIS
discussion of traffic impacts be expanded to include areas that are beyond the
Study Area boundary. This would require a change of the study Scope. We
have agreed to provide a generalized discussion in the DGEIS about the fact
that land development in Precinct 7 and, or that matter, anywhere else in the
Town, will have some influence on traffic conditions outside the Study Area.
We have also agreed to discuss, in the land use section, the types of impacts
traffic will have on residential neighborhoods.
The traffic impacts on study area roads from development
occurring outside the Study Area are evaluated in the analysis of Background
Conditions. This portion of the study addresses the impacts of a 17 percent
increase in traffic without the development of Precinct 7. This increase in
traffic could be viewed as either occurring over time as assumed in the study,
or as the result of some yet unknown major development occurring in an area
outside the study area.
The Comment regarding "features of the circulation system
which have been identified by others to be deficient" refers to the perceptions
of drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, and adjacent homeowners from the 1990
Residents Survey. As professional engineers, Travers Associates cannot
speculate on the potential impacts of perceived problems. The substantiation
of these residents' concerns requires detailed traffic engineering studies. The
purpose of a traffic impact study is to identify the traffic impacts or problems
caused by new development and identify improvements needed to mitigate
the impacts. Conducting detailed studies of perceived problems is beyond the
scope of the DGEIS and not relevant to the purpose of a Traffic Impact Study.
3
?7�z
August 18, 1992
Item 5. Comment 7c. Past circulation plans, traffic studies, and traffic
• counts will be referenced and pertinent information extracted to provide a
regional and historic context for the Traffic Impact Report. Identify plans
advanced by others, which if implemented would serve as alternate forms of
mitigation. (Not to imply Cornell's advocacy or responsibility.)
Cornell Response" The Comment requests that prior circulation
plans, traffic studies, and traffic counts be summarized in the DGEIS to
provide a regional and historic context for the Impact Study. As previously
stated, the intent of a Traffic Impact Study is to identify the traffic impacts or
problems caused by new development and identify improvements needed to
mitigate the impacts. A "regional or historic context" is not needed in the
Traffic Impact Study to accomplish this intended purpose. However, we have
agreed to reference and briefly discuss other studies. Traffic counts, other than
those used in the analysis of impacts as described above or used by Travers
Associates to calculate the study are growth rate, have no purpose in the
DGEIS.
Item 6. Comment 7h. Incorporate regional traffic planning issues
discussed in the 1990 Transportation Workshop which provide a regional and
historic context for understanding the traffic impacts associated with Cornell
• expansion. Indicate which are principally community vs. campus influenced
Cornell Response The Transportation Workshop addressed non-
site specific regional planning issues and identified potential policies,
regulations, and improvements to improve regional traffic conditions. No
agency, public or private, or government body to -date has formally committed
to implement any of these policies or regulations. The policies/regulation
issues described in the Workshop Summary are appropriate for Tompkins
County and/or the Town to adopt as part of their comprehensive planning
process. The evaluation of the impact of these regional policies is beyond the
scope of the DGEIS and the intent of a Traffic Impact Study.
Cornell's willingness to participate in ongoing policy discussions
and to take action to reduce traffic congestion is evidenced by the fact that we
hosted the Transportation Workshop and have implemented the area's first
employer -based Transportation Demand Management Plan. However,
inclusion of these Town -wide planning issues is beyond the agreed upon
GEIS Scope.
�z
4 August 18, 1992
n �
Item 7. Comment 18. Provide enough information to understand the
• effects of the newly defined action.
Cornell Response. The Comment is simply too broad for us to
agree to. We do not know what types of information may be requested and
cannot consent to its inclusion without specifying what is meant. Note that we
have agreed that the specifics of Comments 15,16,17, and 21 can beworked
out after the Planning Board decision, but we cannot agree to do so for this
Comment.
Item 8. Comment 29. Identify typical activities and impacts, locational
requirements, and special construction techniques and equipment associated
with the range of land uses proposed for inclusion in the proposed zoning
district. (For example, smokestacks associated with incinerators, deep footings
for high rise structures, expanded parking for "events'.)
Cornell Response" The Comment requests us to speculate about
future projects for which there are no plans and about which we have no
knowledge. To provide the type of information requested in this Comment
would require sheer speculation on our part. The purpose of a supplemental
review process in the future is to address item just such as this.
• Item 9. Comment 31. Identify the implications of the potential
development on adjoining properties in the Towns of Ithaca, Dryden, and
Lansing, and the City of Ithaca. Also acknowledge, as appropriate, potential
impact on the study area of proximate projects in these communities.
Cornell Response. We have agreed to better address the impact
of development on adjoining properties, including those in other towns.
However, we do not believe that our DGEIS should look at the impacts of the
projects may have on Cornell; that is clearly the responsibility of the
environmental review for those projects. With respect to traffic, the
background traffic growth rates are sufficient to incorporate the influence of
other projects in adjacent towns. A purpose of future supplemental reviews
will be to revise the traffic studies if future growth differs significantly from
the background factors considered in the DGEIS.
- z
5 August 18,1992
_•
•
Item 10. Comment 38. Describe past. present, and anticipated efforts of the
Town and University to resolve development related problems and to participate
in the comprehensive planning process.
Cornell Res one One of the central purposes of the DGEIS is to
agree on a review mechanism and parameters for review of future projects.
What "efforts" are anticipated to result in the future is essentially the purpose
of the SEQR review process. What is being requested here is a result of the
process, not a completeness item. This Comment should not be included as a
completeness item.
Item 11, Comment 44. Modify the discussion of secondary economic
impacts to include demand for additional retail and service land uses in the
vicinity, and acknowledge the potential for existing retail and service facilities to
partially (or fully) serve these needs.
Cornell Response We agree with this comment and the asterisk
should therefore be removed.
i
ki
6 August 18,1992