HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1994-01-18TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 18, 1994
FILED
�\
MW WX
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, January 18, 1994, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Kenerson, Virginia Langhans, Herbert
Finch, James Ainslie, Eva Hoffmann, Candace Cornell,
Stephen Smith, Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), George
Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Louise Raimondo (Planner
I), John Barney (Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Robert O'Brien, Frank Santelli, Rich Weiss, Walter
Wiggins, Attorney Shirley Egan.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the meeting duly opened at 7:34
p.m. and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of
Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town
Hall and the Ithaca Journal on January 10, 1994, and January 13,
1994, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of
Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each
of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks
of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins
County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or
agents, as appropriate, on January 12, 19944
Chairperson Kenerson read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
Chairperson Robert Kenerson stated that the Board members need
to nominate a vice - chairperson, and asked if anyone were prepared
to make a motion.
MOTION by Virginia Langhans, seconded by Herbert Finch:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board elect and hereby
does elect Stephen Smith as Vice Chairperson of the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board for the year 1994.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Smith.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
►
received
a letter
l
y
Planning Board 2 January 18, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 4.54 + /- ACRES
FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 73- 1 -1.2, 10.81 + /- ACRES TOTAL,
AND FURTHER, CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH REGARD TO A PROPOSED ADDITION
AND RENOVATIONS TO THE DARWIN C. SMITH SPECIAL EDUCATION BUILDING
AT TOMPKINS- SENECA -TIOGA BOCES, LOCATED AT 555 WARREN ROAD, TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 73 -1 -1.31 AND 73 -1 -1.32, RESIDENCE DISTRICT
R -15. TOMPKINS- SENECA -TIOGA BOCES, OWNER; ROBERT O'BRIEN, HOFFMAN
O'BRIEN LOOK TAUBE & CHIANG, P.C., AGENT.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the Public Hearing in the above -
noted matter duly opened at 7 :38 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted
above.
Robert O'Brien addressed the Board and stated that BOCES was
seeking a subdivision of four and a half acres from the property
currently owned by Cornell University. Mr. O'Brien stated that
BOLES was purchasing the land from Cornell University in order to
allow for more room for the proposed expansion for the Smith School
to enlarge the campus in order to separate different populations
with different needs. Mr. O'Brien stated that they were also
proposing a bus turn around beside the addition to the Smith
School. Mr. O'Brien stated that about one third of the property
would be disturbed and that the views from houses would be
primarily unaltered.
Board Member Candace Cornell asked if the purpose of the bus
turn around was intended to separate the students.
Rich Weiss, representing BOLES, responded that there were four
levels of student population, and the current bus circle could not
handle the quantity of students that would be attending the school.
Chairperson Kenerson stated, for the record, that Cornell
University, as the land owner, was requesting the subdivision.
Assistant Town
Planner George Frantz stated that the Town had
received
a letter
which stated that Cornell University was in
agreement
with
the
subdivision.
Assistant
Town
Planner George Frantz stated that the staff
recommends
that
the
Planning Board waive the requirement for Park
and Open
Space
set
aside.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she would like the
Planning Board to request cash in lieu of the Park and Open Space
set aside requirement.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that cash in lieu of was a
Planning Board
3
January 18, 1994
good suggestion and
'r
►
was
Planning Board
3
January 18, 1994
good suggestion and
that
there
was
a need for
a plan to be put into
context of an up to
date
Park
and
Open Space
Plan.
There
appearing to
be
no
further
discussion, the Chair asked
if anyone
were prepared
to
offer
a motion.
MOTION by Virginia Langhans,
WHEREAS.
seconded by Candace Cornell.
16 This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 4.54 +/-
acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 73- 1 -1.2, 10.81 +/-
acres total, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels
No. 73 -1 -1.31 and 73 -1 -1.32, Residence District R -15. Cornell
University, Owner; Tompkins- Seneca -Tioga BOCES, Applicant;
Robert O'Brien, Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube & Chiang, P.C.,
Agent.Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval, BOCES.
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead
Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 18
1994, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the
applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town planning staff, a
subdivision plat entitled "Final Plat Showing Lands to be
Conveyed by Cornell University to Tompkins - Seneca -Tioga Board
of Cooperative Educational Services, Warren Road, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Allen T.
Fulkerson, L.S., and dated November 15, 1993, and other
application materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance with respect to
the proposed action, as proposed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative
determination of environmental significance in accordance with the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above
reference action as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental
Impact Statement will not be required.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Ainslie, Finch, Hoffmann, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
1
Planning
Board
4
January 18,
The
MOTION was
declared to be
carried unanimously.
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann,
WHEREAS,
seconded by Herbert Finch.
1994
1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 4.54+/ -
acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 73- 1 -1.2, 10.81+/ -
acres total, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels
No. 73 -1 -1.31 and 73 -1 -1.32, Residence District R -15. Cornell
University, Owner; Tompkins - Seneca -Tioga BOCES, Applicant;
Robert O'Brien, Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube & Chiang, P.C.,
Agent.
29 The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 18,
1994, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the
applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town planning staff, a
subdivision plat entitled "Final Plat Showing Lands to be
Conveyed by Cornell University to Tompkins - Seneca -Tioga Board
of Cooperative Educational Services, Warren Road, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Allen T.
Fulkerson, L.S., and dated November 15, 1993, and other
application materials, and
3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review,
has, on January 18, 1994, made a negative determination of
significance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waived certain
requirements for Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the
Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the
materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a
significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control
nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board.
29 That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 4.54+/ -
acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 73- 1 -1.2, 10.81+/ -
acres total, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels
No. 73 -1 -1.31 and 73 -1 -1.32, conditioned upon :receipt for
signing by the Planning Board Chairman of an original or mylar
copy and four dark -line prints of the approved final plat.
vote.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
I
Planning Board
Aye - Kenerson,
Nay - None.
5
January 18, 1994
Langhans, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that BOCES had also come before
the Board requesting Site Plan Approval, and asked if there was any
further discussion or questions.
Mr. O'Brien addressed the Board and stated that BOLES wanted
to add approximately 50,00 square feet to the existing Smith
School, to expand the programs for special education. Mr. O'Brien
stated that the addition would be one story and wrap around into a
box shape to form an interior court yard. Mr. O'Brien stated that
the lighting and landscaping would be a continuation of what is
there currently.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked about the traffic impacts and
the possibility of stormwater drainage impacts.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the traffic generated
by the additional faculty and students would not adversely impact
that area. Mr. Walker stated that there will be on site measures
taken to mitigate the stormwater runoff, plus utilization of the
existing stormwater storage along Warren Road.
Board Member Candace Cornell asked if the Planning Board's
approval of the Site Plan would be conditioned upon the Approval of
the Town Engineer,
Town Engineer Daniel Walker replied, yes. Mr. Walker stated
that there was enough capacity at the Cayuga Heights waste water
treatment plant had enough capacity to handle the additional need
that could be caused from the BOLES expansion.
There being no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone
were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Virginia Langhans.
.P :I: : _
1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan
Approval, and further, a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals with regard to a proposed addition and renovations to
the Darwin C. Smith Special Education Building at Tompkins -
Seneca -Tioga BOLES, located at 555 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcels No. 73 -1 -1.31 and 73 -1 -1.32, Residence District R-
15. Tompkins - Seneca -Tioga BOLES, Owner; Robert O'Brien,
Planning Board
0
Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube & Chiang,
January 18, 1994
P.C., Agent, and
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on January 18, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate the Public School
Environmental Assessment Form and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement submitted by the applicant, and two site plan
drawings entitled "Campus Site Plan - Additions and
Alterations to Smith Special Education Building, Tompkins -
Seneca -Tioga Board of Cooperative Educational Services,
Ithaca, NY" and "Project Site Plan - Additions and
Alterations to Smith Special Education Building, Tompkins -
Seneca -Tioga Board of Cooperative Educational Services,
Ithaca, NY" prepared by Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube & Chiang,
P.C., and dated December 7, 1993, and other application
materials.
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance with respect to
the proposed site plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative
determination of environmental significance in accordance with the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above
referenced action as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental
Impact Statement will not be required.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Ainslie, Hoffmann, Smith, Finch, Cornell.
Nay - None
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Candace Cornell,
WHEREAS:
seconded by James Ainslie.
1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan
Approval, and further, a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals with regard to a proposed addition and renovations to
the Darwin C. Smith Special Education Building at Tompkins -
Seneca -Tioga BOLES, located at 555 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcels No. 73 -1 -1.31 and 73 -1 -1.32, Residence District R-
15. Tompkins - Seneca -Tioga BOLES, Owners Robert O'Brien,
Planning Board
III
January 18, 1994
Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube & Chiang, P.C., Agent,. and
2. This is a Type 1 Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
January 18, 1994, made a negative determination of
significance with regard to preliminary Site Plan Approval,
and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on January 18, 1994,
has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Public School
Environmental Assessment Form and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement submitted by the applicant, and two site plan
drawings entitled "Campus Site Plan - Additions and
Alterations to Smith Special Education Building, Tompkins -
Seneca -Tioga Board of Cooperative Educational Services,
Ithaca, NY" and "Project Site Plan - Additions and
Alterations to Smith Special Education Building, Tompkins -
Seneca -Tioga Board of Cooperative Educational Services,
Ithaca, NY" prepared by Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube & Chiang,
P.C., and dated December 7,1993, and other application
materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.
1. That the Town of
requirements for
the Preliminary
determined from t
result in neither
Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain
Preliminary Site Plan Approval, as shown on
and Final Site Plan Checklist, having
he materials presented that such waiver will
a significant alteration of the purpose of
site
plan control nor the
policies
enunciated or implied
by
the
Town Board,
and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan
Approval to the proposed site plans entitled "Campus Site Plan
Additions and Alterations to Smith Special Education
Building, Tompkins- Seneca -Tioga Board of Cooperative
Educational Services, Ithaca, NY" and "Project Site Plan -
Additions and Alterations to Smith Special Education Building,
Tompkins- Seneca -Tioga Board of Cooperative Educational
Services, Ithaca, NY" prepared by Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube
& Chiang, P.C., and dated December 7, 1993, conditioned upon
the following:
a. Submission to and approval by the Town Engineer of the
final design of the stormwater management facilities;
b. Approval of water improvements by the Town Engineer and
SCLIWC;
c. Approval of sanitary sewage plans by the Town Engineer
and village of Cayuga Heights Superintendent of Public
Works,
n
7
Planning Board
d. Submission
Department
8 January 18, 1994
to and approval by the Town Planning
of the final landscaping plan.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following:
a. there is a need for the proposed use in the
proposed location, as demonstrated by the
applicant;
bo the existing and probable future character of
the neighborhood will not be adversely
affected as a result of the proposed project;
c. the specific proposed change in land use as a
result of the proposed project is in
accordance with a Comprehensive Plan of
development for the Town of Ithaca.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals
its recommendation that the aforementioned request for Special
Approval be approved.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter of Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Approval and Site Plan Approval with a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed
BOCES expansion duly closed at 8:22 p.m.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: PROPOSED "BUTTERMILK VALLEY" CLUSTER
SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 36 -1 -4.2 AND 36 -1 -6,
74 +/- ACRES TOTAL INTO 70 LOTS, APPROXIMATELY 4,150 LINEAR FEET OF
ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, AND WATER AND
SEWER FACILITIES, TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN 1146 AND 1172 DANBY ROAD,
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15, SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT S -1. WALTER J.
AND JOYCE Y. WIGGINS, OWNERS /APPLICANTS.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the Sketch Plan Review in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 8 :24 p.m.
Walter Wiggins addressed the Board and stated that he was
I
Planning Board 9 January 18, 1994
seeking sketch plan approval for a cluster subdivision on Danby
Road that would enable Mr. Wiggins to construct homes in a more
modest price range than what is generally available in the Town of
Ithaca. Mr. Wiggins stated that there were 70 proposed lots, and
that the open space requirement had been met with a permanent open
space area of approximately 20 acres. Mr. Wiggins stated that
there were two pathways for access to the open space. Mr. Wiggins
stated that there was a temporary road which would be in place only
long enough for development. Mr. Wiggins stated that the road
would meet the specifications of the Town of Ithaca. (Sketch Plan
is attached hereto as Exhibit #1)
Board Member James Ainslie asked if there was a price range on
the homes Mr. Wiggins intended to build in the cluster subdivision.
Mr. Wiggins stated that the maximum price would be $120,000 in
Phase I of the project. Mr. Wiggins gave a brief description of
the costs involved in putting homes on the lot, having electric run
to each home, and putting in any other necessary utilities on each
lot, to show how he arrived at the $120,000 price for each lot.
The Board discussed affordable housing and if Mr. Wiggins'
proposed clustered housing would be considered affordable to the
average family living within the Town of Ithaca.
Board Member Candace Cornell proposed that the Planning Board,
at a meeting in the near future, come up with its own definition of
affordable housing in the Town of Ithaca.
Board
Member
Candace
Cornell
asked who
would have the
responsibility
for
the pond
shown on
the Sketch
Plan,
Mr.
Wiggins responded that he would
maintain the
pond or that
it could
be incorporated into Buttermilk
Falls State
Park.
The Board discussed stormwater management on the proposed
subdivision and in the surrounding area.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the matter of Sketch Plan Review
for Buttermilk Valley duly closed at 9:13 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY DGEIS COMMENTS.
Planner I, Louise Raimondo, addressed the Board and stated the
planning staff had included copies of the comments received from
the public, and a summary of those comments which was drafted by
Ms. Raimondo.
(Hereto
attached
are the following Exhibits: Exhibit #2
- Staff
summary
of public
comments, Exhibit #3 - Comments from the
Tompkins
County
Department
of Planning,
Exhibit
#4 - Comments
from the
Planning Board 10 January 18, 1994
Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, Exhibit #5 -
Comments from the New York State Department of Transportation,
Exhibit #6 - Comments from the Environmental Review Committee,
Exhibit #7 - Comments from Ellen Harrison, Exhibit #8 - Comments
from Barbara Peckarsky, Exhibit #9 - Comments from Doug and Bruce
Brittain)
The Board discussed the comments made by the public and
reviewed Ms. Raimondo's summary of those comments. The main
concerns of the public were water quality issues and traffic
issues. There was some mention of the natural areas in and around
the study area. The Board also discussed the set back distances
and the possible disruption of views. The Board discussed the
distances for set backs, buffer zones, and no -build zones to
surround natural areas.
Planner I, Louise Raimondo, addressed the Board and stated
that Cornell University Campus Planning Office had given Ms.
Raimondo their responses to the public comments which had been
received in response to the Draft GEIS. (Cornell University's
response to public comments is attached hereto as Exhibit #10)
Ms. Raimondo stated that the Planning Board may wish to appoint a
committee of Board Members to participate in drafting the actual
Town's responses and bring them to the full Planning Board for
approval.
Chairperson Kenerson asked if any of the Planning Board
Members were interested in working with staff to come up with the
language to answer some of the public's comments regarding the
DGEIS.
Board Members Candace Cornell, Eva Hoffmann, and Stephen Smith
volunteered to work with Louise Raimondo on the DGEIS and report
their progress to the Planning Board.
Attorney Shirley Egan asked if the meetings among the staff
and the three Board Members be open so that a Cornell
Representative could participate in that meeting.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that the purpose of the meetings
was a work group to draft the Town of Ithaca staff and Planning
Board draft responses and the product of that would come before the
full Board in a public forum.
Planner I, Louise Raimondo, stated that if the Board had any
comments or concerns about the DGEIS to please let her know as soon
as possible so that they could be addressed or incorporated into
the document.
There being no further discussion, the Chair closed this
segment of the meeting.
Planning Board
AGENDA ITEM:
OTHER BUSINESS.
091
January 18, 1994
Board Member Candace Cornell asked if the Board could discuss
the issue of affordable housing. Ms. Cornell stated that she also
wanted to know if the Planning Board could asked the Town Board
could establish a system for accruing funds for Park and Open Space
Plan. Ms. Cornell stated that the source of that money would come
from set asides that have been waived for some reason. The fund
would allow the Town to accept cash in lieu of the set aside
requirements.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that there was a problem with
taking money and using it for general park purposes townwide.
Attorney Barney stated that if money is taken in lieu of set aside,
the money would have to be used in for a park somewhere in that
general area.
Planner I, Louise Raimondo, asked Attorney Barney to provide
the Board with some legislation on the accepting money in lieu of
set aside requirements. Ms. Raimondo asked Attorney Barney if the
Town of Ithaca could be divided into quadrants for this issue.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that there needed to be a
resolution or a statement of concern drafted to present to the Town
Board.
There being no further discussing regarding affordable
housing, the Chair asked if there was any other business to be
discussed at this time. No on spoke.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that if any of the Board Members
knew of anyone that would be interested in serving on the Board, to
let them know there is a vacancy.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Kenerson declared the January 18,
1994 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at
10:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
StarrRae Hays, Recording Secretary
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
•
�rt
00
N
P
J � O
I5
� O
O
E
it
a
I A 9
3 E
V \ 7
`l
i ry`
E 4\
E
�i
J
•4
0
LI
\
for OW
a to .. i i if / I,/
Joe
iL
—• a ® \\
Aid
IE\
• :� \ h
J 11 \ \
3
'1 4
sit
dt
fA 1 /
wo vimo
01 IL
s�04
• O
r-
9
•
i
}
r
� � o
7 ti�:6.•...T•:2w�.
- --
r
:ll
N
4 oao
qfN • � J
i
I J
r
1 � a f �.
am
i
•
-
M
n
0
•
C
A
�
- --
r
:ll
N
4 oao
qfN • � J
i
I J
r
1 � a f �.
am
i
I
6
- --
r
:ll
N
4 oao
qfN • � J
i
I J
r
1 � a f �.
am
i
l $
•
i
, M-mm,
TOWN OF ITHACA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Louise Raimondo, Planner I
DATE: December 21, 1993
RE: Final GEIS - Cornell University District 7
The Planning Board has been designated as the Lead Agency for the Cornell
University Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), prepared for possible future
expansion southeast of Cornell University's main campus. Cornell had this document
prepared in response to the positive declaration of environmental significance made by the
Planning Board on May 21, 1991. Since that time, Cornell and their consultant have prepared
a very detailed and voluminous document which has undergone extensive review and
modification. On September 2, 1993, the Planning Board adopted a resolution finding the
DGEIS complete for the purpose of public review. We have received substantial public
comment on the DGEIS, comments which you received in your December 7 meeting packets.
I have attempted to summarize these comments below for discussion purposes.
Cornell Planning has drafted a preliminary response to the public comments, which
you received in tonight's packet. We are now at the stage where the Planning Board, as lead
agency, with the assistance of staff, must decide which comments are substantive and require
a response. Please see the attached information from the NYS DEC's SEOR Handbook on
contents of a final EIS.
According to the SEQR regulations, a final GEIS should consist of:
1. Copies or a summary of substantive public comments received,
2. The lead agency's responses to the substantive comments, and
3. Any revisions necessary to the DGEIS.
A FGEIS is usually due 45 days after the close of record for public comment
(11/30/93), which would necessitate having a completed FGEIS by 1/14/94. Due to the
extent of public comments received and the scope of the DGEIS, the 45 day requirement was
extended by mutual consent of both parties at a meeting held on December 20, 1993 between
1
Exhibit #2
1/18/94 Minutes
Town and Cornell participants in the FGEIS process. The attached timeline illustrates the
FGEIS and Findings process, and specifies target dates for completion. i
Findings must also be completed by the involved agencies between 10 and 30 days
after the FGEIS is complete. A findings statement for an approved ,action must balance
adverse environmental impacts against the needs and benefits of the action. Reasons must be
given in the form of facts and conclusions that are derived from the final EIS. They
represent the "blueprint" upon which future decisions regarding development of the Cornell
Precinct 7 area will be made. See the attached information from the SEAR Handbook for
more information on an agency's Findings.
To place this all in context of what Cornell has actually requested of the Town, which
began this environmental review process, the next step after the findings will be completion
and approval of the SLUD for rezoning of the orchards area. A draft SLUD was included in
the September 1993 version of the DGEIS as Appendix 2. During the FGEIS and Findings
process, we all need to keep in mind how this relates to the SLUD, and what we would like
to see specified in this new zoning legislation to insure that all that was set forth in the
DGEIS, FGEIS, and Findings has been incorporated into our Town Zoning Ordinance.
Planning and Engineering staff would like to propose that the Planning Board
designate a committee of interested Planning Board members to meet on an as needed basis
to give staff input on completion of the FGEIS and Findings. Subsequent drafts of an FGEIS
would be brought before the Planning Board regularly for full Board review.
A sample FGEIS and Findings (the Findings are attached) for the Rochester Science •
Park are available to give everyone an example of how another municipality handled a similar
project through the final stages. Please let me know if you would like a copy of this sample
FGEIS.
Cornell DGEIS Public Comment Summary:
a. Tompkins County Planning
1. Reference GEIS recommendations in the SLUD
2. Improve general performance standards
3. Clarification on acceptable noise levels for existing land use
4. Redefining the FAR to include basement areas
5. Using an overall wetlands mitigation approach, rather than on a project -
specific basis
60 A threshold at which a pedestrian connection to the central campus
should be defined
2
Ekhibit #2
1/18%94 Minutes
0
is
b. Tompkins County Environmental Management Council [Lynn Leopold],
1. A bird survey should be conducted in the breeding season (the DGEIS
survey was conducted in February)
20 Natural areas setback of 30 feet is inadequate
3. The addition of paved surfaces and roof tops should have been taken
into account in runoff predictions
4. How will overall potential impacts be addressed?
59 Consideration of requiring double -sided copies in the FGEIS and use of
recycled paper
c. NYS DOT
1. Correction of the DGEIS to include them as an involved agency
2. Staging of highway improvements to be consistent with development,
rather than after problems arise
30 Five lanes on Route 366 instead of 4 is recommended
4, clarification on intersection improvements in this area
5. Figure 2A in the Executive Summary would be more informative if it
contained trip generation data
6. DOT policy requires that developers pay for road improvements
• 7. DOT would agree to a phased mitigation plan between Cornell, the
Town, and DOT.
d. Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee
10 The proposed 30 foot setback from natural areas is inappropriate; possible
variable setback
26 Adequacy of traffic count information in DGEIS; possible need for additional
traffic count data
3. Avoid negative wetland impacts
e. Ellen Harrison - extensive comments, too numerous to summarize - refer to comments
directly
0 3
Exhibit #2
1/19/94 Minutes
L Barbara Peckarsky
I
1. Cumulative impacts of development on Cascadilla Creek are not adequately •
addressed; an ongoing monitoring program is needed (Sprang 1995 class
assignment ?)
2. A retention /detention pond system should mimic natural runoff pattern
3. Use of wetlands in buffering stream should be looked at carefully
4. CU should consider all available date in future when planning development
projects, not only DGEIS data
g. Bruce and Doug Brittain - Traffic impacts are discussed in depth - too numerous to
summarize - refer to comments directly
cc: Shirley Raffensperger, Town Supervisor
John Whitcomb, Town Supervisor Elect
Dan Walker, Town Engineer
George Frantz, Asst. Town Planner
John Barney, Town Attorney
Exhibit #2
1/18/94 Minutes
0
0
•
•
0
•
m
0
to
w
m
H
H
r-1
b
ri
N
�
a)
�
O
rn
1J
��
H
�'o
>1
C
�
rn
�-.:
y
0
�
0
U
CL
QQom.
U
'b
ro
N
iJ1
• rl
�
O
r-1
E�
0
M
a)
C
En
al
1J
0
H
�'o
�
Cw
0
rn
�-.:
y
0
�
0
U
CL
QQom.
U
'b
ro
o
a
(a
�4
�w
r-1
E�
0
�r
0
0
(13
C)
CL
U
Q
M
a)
W
En
al
1J
CU
H
�'o
�
Cw
0
>t
�-.:
• r�
0
0
0
r-•1
CL
QQom.
U
'b
ro
o
a
(a
�4
�w
r-1
m
0
�r
�n
Q
w
M
a)
W
N
al
1J
0
'D
�'o
�
U
0
l0
�-.:
-r•i
W
rn
0
�
�4
�
U
C:
ro
o
- r-4
0
0
r1
r-1
Q)
- ri
\�4wE
A
0
S4
r+
:1
0
U
r�
Qa
U
a
M
a)
W
al
1J
0
Cj1
�'o
�
U
0
l0
�-.:
-r•i
•r•1
rn
0
r-i
�4
�
U
Z
rn
Q)
�
rn
C)
of
Q)
C;
Exhibit #2
1/18/94 Minutes
r-I
� N
A a
b ,C
O jj
ro 0
C~ m
N
4.)w
X 0
W
N C
A N
� C
(13 0
U
a)
W
1J
0
C
�
0
C
rn
(13
0
�
�
�
N
rn
Q)
�
rn
C)
of
Q)
C;
\�4wE
o
of
CL
b
��4EC
�r
(a
0�+
o
E-+
U
C�
a)
1J
C
(a
0
rn
�
�
�
N
r-4
Q)
co
r-i
C)
of
H
04
\�4wE
r1
(0
0
0
oE-444U
ENVIRONMENTAL INWACT STATEMENTS
agency, and outside consultants may be utiliz-
ed both by the project sponsor and lead agen-
cy, but this in no way reduces the responsibili-
ty of the lead agency for the final product. The
lead agency may revise any responses offered
by the project sponsor.
10. Are there times when a draft EIS is produced
but no FEIS is required?
Yes, under two circumstances. First, if the lead
agency determines, on the basis of the draft EIS
and public comment period, that the proposed
action will not have a significant effect on the
environment, a negative declaration may be
prepared and filed in lieu of a final EIS.
However, in most cases it is better to proceed
to a final EIS in order to preserve the integrity
of the record. Second, if after preparing a draft
EIS a project sponsor withdraws its application,
no final EIS should be prepared.
11. How soon after acceptance of a draft EIS
must a final EIS be accepted and filed?
If a hearing has been held on the draft EIS, the
lead agency has 45 calendar days from close of
the hearing record to file its accepted final EIS.
If no hearing is held, the lead agency must file
the final EIS within 60 days of the filing of the
draft EIS. The filing of a final EIS may be ex-
tended, if more time is needed to adequately
prepare it or if it is necessary to materially recon-
sider or modify the impact statement because
review of the draft has revealed additional pro-
blems with the proposed action.
Under certain circumstances, the issues raised
may be of such significance that a supplemen-
tal EIS is required. Since the final EIS must then
address the questions and issues raised regar-
ding both the original and supplemental draft
EIS's, time frames for filing of a final EIS would
not apply until the draft supplemental EIS was
filed or a hearing, if any, was held on it (see also
Section 5 -E, SEQR Hearings, page 72, Section
6-A, SEQR Time Frames, page 88 and Section
5 -G, Supplemental EIS's, page 75).
12. Is a SEQR hearing held on a final EIS?
Exhibit #2
1/18/94 Minutes
75
No. The regulations do not provide for a hear-
ing on final EIS's.
13. Is there a comment period for final EIS's?
No. After filing of a final EIS, the lead and all
other involved agencies must wait at least ten
days before making their findings and a final
decision on the action. This period is not a com-
ment period, but allows time for the involved
agencies to consider the final EIS. However, con-
cerned parties may comment in writing to the
lead agency on the final EIS. The lead agency
has no obligation to respond to comments on
a final EIS.
14. Why comment on a final EIS?
It may be important for interested parties and
agencies to clarify points made earlier that have
not been satisfactorily responded to in the final
EIS. This information may influence the lead
agency (or in some cases other involved agen-
cies) in making findings and taking final action.
15. Is a final EIS the last step in the SEQR EIS
process?
No. The preparation of findings by the lead
agency and each involved agency at the time
they make their decisions regarding the propos-
ed action, is the final step in SEQR and occurs
after the final EIS has been accepted (see also
Section 5 -I, page 81).
G. SUPPLEMENTAL EIS's
1. What is a supplemental EIS?
A supplemental EIS provides an analysis of
significant adverse environment effects not ad-
dressed or inadequately addressed in draft or
final EIS's. A supplemental EIS also may be re-
quired to analyze the site - specific effects of an
action previously discussed in a generic EIS. The
scope of the supplemental EIS should be limited
to an assessment of the significant adverse im-
pacts of the changes or new information
identified.
•
i
A 1C
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
81
As with all supplemental EIS's, comments made
on supplements to generic EIS's should be
restricted to the new issues discussed in the
supplement.
I. FINDINGS
1. What are SEQR findings?
A findings statement is a written document
which declares that all SEQR requirements for
making decisions on an action have been met.
A positive findings statement means that the
project or action is approvable after considera-
tion of the final EIS and demonstrates that the
action chosen is the one that minimizes or
avoids environmental impacts to the maximum
extent practicable. A findings statement for an
approvable action balances adverse en-
vironmental impacts against the needs and
benefits of the action (see Section 5-Co "Purpose,
Public Needs and Benefits" on page 60). If the
action is not approvable, a negative findings
statement documenting the reasons for the
denial must be prepared.
SEQR findings are prepared by involved agen-
cies following acceptance of a final EIS. Findings
represent the teeth in the SEQR process because
they contain the substantive aspects of deci-
sions, including conditions imposed by the
agency.
In findings either supporting or denying an ac-
tion, the reasons must be given in the form of
facts and conclusions that are derived from the
final EIS. The findings statement identifies the
social and economic, as well as environmental
considerations that have been weighed in mak-
ing a decision to approve or disapprove an
action.
A model form for findings statements may be
found in Appendix I of Section 617.21 of Part
617.
2. Are SEQR findings mandatory?
Yes. The preparation of written SEQR findings
is required by the SEQR regulations (see 617.9)
for any action that has been the subject of a
final EIS.
Exhibit #2
1/18/94 Minutes
3. What are the benefits of findings?
The findings document provides a rationale for
agency decisions. It also provides a record if a
decision is challenged. The findings procedure
allows each agency to consider the relevant en-
vironmental factors presented in the EIS process,
and balance and weigh essential considerations,
including the economic and social factors.
4. Are SEQR findings ever made before an EIS
is completed, such as after review of an en-
vironmental assessment form (EAF)?
No. SEQR findings are only made after a final
EIS. Decisions made as a result or EAF review
are called determinations or significance. Some
other review procedures, such as the granting
of zoning variances, call for the making of fin-
dings, but these are unique to those processes
and should not be confused with SEQR findings.
Lead ,agency and Involved ,agency Findings
S. Who makes SEQR findings?
All involved agencies must make findings.
6. May an involved agency rely on the lead
agency to make its required findings?
No. Each involved agency is responsible for
preparing its own findings. If an involved agen-
cy concurs with the completed findings of the
lead agency and these respond fully to the en-
vironmental concerns of the involved agency,
it may adopt all or a portion of the lead agen-
cy's findings in its findings.
7. Can findings and an agency's decision on an
action be considered the same?
No. The SEQR findings are the basis for deci-
sions on an action. An agency may choose to
include the findings statement as part of its deci-
sion; however, a findings statement by itself
does not constitute a decision. Also, a decision
alone will not satisfy the SEQR requirement for
findings.
8. Can findings differ among involved agencies?
74
CHAPTER 5
F. FINAL EIS'S Comments do not need to be responded to ile
1. What is a final E15 (FEIS)? dividually or in order of their receipt.
A final EIS consists of:
• the draft EIS;
• copies or a summary of substantive com-
ments received, indicating their source
(correspondence, hearing, etc.);
• the lead agency's responses to substan-
tive comments; and
• revisions to the draft EIS.
2. Must the final EIS restate the draft EIS?
To simplify the final EIS, the lead agency may
incorporate the draft EIS by reference. The final
EIS should include any necessary changes or ad-
ditions to the draft EIS, with the reasons for
these changes, copies or a summary of the
substantive comments received and their
source, and all responses to the substantive
comments.
3. Should
the full
hearing
record on the draft
EIS be
included
in the
final EIS?
No. The hearing record should be referenced
in the final EIS and made available for public
review along with any other reference material.
4. Who receives the final EIS?
The final E IS should be sent to all involved agen-
cies, and to everyone who received a copy of
the draft EIS. If the final EIS is lengthy or the
number of documents available is limited, the
lead agency may provide notice to all non-
involved agency recipients of the draft EIS to
solicit their interest in receiving a copy of the
final EIS and provide copies for review in the
local library(ies).
S. Must all comments raised in the review of the
draft EIS, either in writing or at public hear-
ings, be answered, and if so, in any particular
manner?
Only substantive comments need to be
answered; general objections need no response.
The comments can be grouped by topic so that
responses in the final EIS are not repetitive.
Exhibit #2
1/18/94 Minutes
I
6. Who decides what comments are "substan-
tive," requiring response in the final EIS?
The lead agency decides which comments on
a draft EIS must be responded to in the final EIS.
7. How does the lead agency decide which
comments are substantive?
whether comments are considered substantive
will depend on the relevance of the comments
to identified impacts, alternatives, mitigation or
the importance of new environmental issues not
previously addressed. Comments are not always
"substantive" in the sense that they deal with
significant impacts; often there is need to ex-
plain why an impact is not significant or why
a particular topic is not covered or, more
specifically, how an alternative or special
mitigation will work. Clarification of scientific
terms, concepts or data interpretation may also
be necessary in a final EIS. If a subject has be
raised frequently, but is not an important e
vironmental issue, it may be wise to address it
at least briefly. Speculative comments and asser-
tions that are not supported need no response.
Minor discrepancies in wording and
typographical errors should be corrected, but
need not be responded to as substantive.
8. What if there are no substantive issues raised
during the public review period?
The lead agency should briefly acknowledge in
the final EIS the comments that were received
and account for any minor revisions made to the
draft EIS, as it is incorporated into the final. The
final EIS should then be ready for acceptance.
9. Who is responsible for the preparation of
the final EIS?
The lead agency is responsible for the adequacy
and accuracy of the EIS. A project sponsor may
be requested to respond to substantive com-
ments to a draft EIS. However, final acceptabe
ty is the responsibility of the lead agency. Oth
involved agencies may be consulted by the lead!
11
•
•
$2 CHAPTER S
Agencies involved in the same action may have
entirely different findings. This reflects differ-
ing agency perspectives toward balancing
various factors. An involved agency is not
obligated to make the same findings as the lead
agency or any other involved agency. However,
findings must be based on and related to infor-
mation in the EIS record. If one agency prepares
positive findings and another prepares negative
findings the action cannot go forward unless the
conflict is resolved.
9. What if findings to approve cannot be made?
An agency must not undertake, approve or fund
any part of an
positive findings
with social, econ
siderations from
natives, that the
action, if it cannot support
and demonstrate, consistent
omic and other essential con -
among the reasonable alter -
action:
• minimizes or avoids adverse environmen-
tal effects to the maximum extent prac-
ticable, and
• incorporates into the decision those miti-
gation measures identified in the SEQR
process as practicable.
An agency decision to disapprove an action on
environmental grounds must be accompanied
by negative findings. The model findings form
at 617.21(1) contains findings certifications to
either approve or deny an action.
10. Are there time frames for making findings?
Yes. Each agency involved in an action (in-
cluding the lead agency) must wait a minimum
of 10 calendar days after the lead agency has
filed the final EIS before it can make its findings.
The purpose of the waiting period is to allow
agencies and the public reasonable time to con-
sider the final EIS.
When an action involves an applicant, the lead
agency must make its findings no more than 30
calendar days after the final EIS is filed. Other
involved agencies may make their findings
whenever they make their final decisions.
11. Are there filing requirements for SEQR
findings?
Exhibit #2
1/18/94 Minutes
Yes. Section 617.10(i) requires that involved
agencies file copies of their SEQR findings with
the applicant and all other agencies involved
in the action. Section 617.10(h) requires each in-
volved agency to retain copies in their files
available for public inspection. No findings
statements are required to be filed with the
Commissioner of DEC for inclusion in the
statewide SEQR repository_
The sharing of findings among involved agen-
cies allows agencies making subsequent deci-
sions to benefit from the thinking process
represented in the SEQR findings statements, as
they proceed to make their discretionary deci-
sions related to a common action. Where any
involved agency imposes conditions or mitiga-
tion measures on an action, it is important for
other agencies to know what has been impos-
ed. This will avoid conflicts and assist in SEQR
compliance.
Social and Economic Consideration in Findings
12. How do considerations of social and eco-
nomic factors relate to SEQR findings?
It is not the intention of SEQR that environmen-
tal factors be the sole consideration in agency
decision- making. The purpose of SEQR is to en-
sure that the environmental impacts of an ac-
tion are weighed and balanced with social,
economic and other considerations so that a
suitable balance of social, economic and en-
vironmental factors may be incorporated in the
planning and decision - making processes of state,
regional and local agencies.
13. How should an agency balance environ-
mental harm against social and economic
benefits in order to approve an action?
There is considerable discretion given to agen-
cies to make decisions consistent with social,
economic and other essential considerations.
This would allow for decisions favoring resolu-
tion of social or economic issues even if all en-
vironmental matters cannot be totally resolved.
However, most adverse environmental effects
must still be avoided or minimized and mitiga-
tion measures applied, as practicable. The more
i
i
El
ENVIRONMENTAL
'...I.. i i -t i i.� i � i i.i -r �.ni � rrr,' r ,a irn .ir is �!i aii.. un : iicn, •r.. i.n i u i.. �
a project benefits important public social and
economic needs, the more it may balance
adverse environmental impacts.
Expanded authority through Findings
14. Can conditions and mitigation measures
outside the scope of an agency's jurisdiction
be incorporated into that agency's SEQR
findings?
Yes. Based on the draft and final EIS's and any
related application material, an agency should
incorporate all appropriate mitigation measures
as conditions to its decision making, even if such
conditions do not specifically fall within the
agency's jurisdictional authority. It is clear that
lead agencies have this expanded authority, but
involved agencies are more restricted. However,
conditions imposed by a lead or involved agency
cannot infringe upon the jurisdiction of any
other involved agency. In order for an agency
to incorporate mitigation measures as condi-
tions for its approval, the agency must identify
the supporting reasons in its SEQR findings
statement.
15. What is the basis for this expanded author-
ity?
All agencies have the authority, following the
filing of a final EIS and written SEQR findings
(or as part of a conditioned negative declara-
tion), to require substantive conditions upon an
action to ensure that the requirements of Part
617 are satisfied (Town of Henrietta v. DEC, 76
AD2d 21 S). This ensures that SEQR is not just
a procedure but includes the "teeth" to utilize
the information gathered by the environmental
review process, even if such conditions are
beyond the agency's jurisdiction (see also Sec-
tion 4 -E, question 5, page 48 on expanded
authority for CND's).
16. Must all mitigation be limited to the pro-
ject site?
No. Because of the substantive nature of the
SEQR process, reasonable mitigation justified
in the findinos ctatamant chniim ha innhoid
even when such mitigation may be off the pro-
Exhibit #2
1/18/94 Minutes
ject site. The offsite mitigation must be
reasonably related to the impacts from the
action.
17. What are some examples of conditions
which may be specified by an agency in its
findings under this expanded authority?
• A town board in granting a rezoning may
require a developer of commercial pro-
perty which will generate significant
traffic to install traffic control devices
at an intersection several blocks away,
if no other agency h'as such authority.
• An agency may require fencing or land-
scaping as a visual or sound barrier be-
tween commercial and residential pro-
perty when granting a wetland or
discharge permit if no other agency has
authority to mitigate such impacts.
Supplemental Findings
18. Is a supplemental findings statement ever
appropriate?
Yes. A supplemental findings statement may
be appropriate in at least two circumstances.
First, in the event a supplemental EIS is prepared
after an agency has issued its SEQR findings and
that agency has subsequent responsibility to
issue a discretionary deci sioh, the agency may
issue a supplemental findings statment taking
into account the supplemental EIS.
Second, a supplemental findings statement may
be appropriate in the event changes are propos-
ed by a project sponsor after issuance of the
FEIS and the agency's SEQR findings, which will
require the agency to issue an amended or
modified approval. In the event the agency
determines that no supplemental EIS need be
prepared (see Section 5 -G, page 75) the agency
may issue a supplemental findings statement to
document its decision not to require a sup-
plemental EIS.
�7
•
Tninokins County
DEPARTMENT OF PLkNNLNG
121 East Cotwt Street
Ithaca. Niw York 14850
James IV. Hanson, 7r.
CommLuloner of Planninz
Mr. Floyd rorrr.an
Town Plana; r
Ithaca Town Hall
126 East Senem Street
Ithaca, NY 11850
Dear Nir, Forman:
Telephone (6n 21a
FAX (607) r.4 -5578
N4.)vembePr 172 199 1
Ti:nrk ycu for giving us the opportunity to review and comment on the prcposal to rezone
approximatcly 271 acrCS of land owned by Cornell'Jnive amity. The Tornpkins County Planning
Department staff has reviewed the proposal, and has prep-'Ixed several comments and
rccornmcrdadom.
• First of ail, we'd like to .ommend Comcll on the compilation of a very thorough and wall
written document. The draft GEIS addresses, in detaii, the major impacts associatcd with the
prupi.i!) rcxulling, a.rld uffers 1111ugati(m ineasures f(it arras that may lx siglmifie,.r:tly imFacted.
Our primary concern is regarding the Iangt-iage contained in the "Draft -Pin, posal; Special Land Use
Area (SLUR)" found in appendix 2:
1) What mechanism exists for makLlg sure that impacts idendfied in the dGEIS (c.g.
Ro_rmwari r management and wetland mingeition) are included in Lie Plaiu;ing Board's review of
each development proposal? The language proposers. in the SLUR is quite general; it does not even
reference the GEIS. We are concerned that, while there are very thorough and well thought out
recomma.mdations made in the GEIS, if it is not referenced in [lie S L'UD these recommendations
will riot be implemented. The GEIS, its recornmendarons and its promises, should be referenced
in the SLI;ll,
2) Some of the performance standards listed in the SLIM (f through m, in particular) are
vcry general and vague. More detailed, objective standards do exist for items such as odor, dust,
vibration, etc., and we reccrnmend that, where possible, more unite, objectiv: standards be used
to determine confom,;:nce. While we recognize that such standards are technically eom lex to
administer, that cost should be weighed against the enforceability of more general standards.
3) The performance standard for "noise" says acc.ptable sound levels depends on the
Receiving Land Use Category. In the case of vacant ,and, the Receiving Land Use Category
should be deflined as "the existing land use ", or "the most sensitive use permitted by zoning."
Exhibit #3
1/18/94 Minutes
1
Rerycled paper
c' Lmlvu
4) The Floor Area Ratio discusses only above ground floor area, but there seems to be the
Potential, at least in the long -term, for under•gmund construction in Precinct 7. na. definition of
the Floor Area Ratio ought to include all human occupied sFace, whether above or below round.
Perhaps there could be an exempdon for some u•aditional "baser =ie' use`; like HVAC equipment.
While we applaud the fact that unique natural areas and important wethmds are to be left
undeveloped, we are concerned that the need for creation of wetland mitigation areas is to be
determined "at the time an individual permit is applied fur" (page R-76). This L=i t- by- �r�jsect
approach to wedands creation will be far less effective (both envirownenuXy and - conotrucally)
than if a "high- side" estimate of wetland destruction was estimated, and one large wetland was
created (or, even better, a pristine wetland was pl=hased) to offset the wetland losses.
Finally, page I -52 of the dGELS states that, "A pedestrian connection to the central campus
will be installed when the pop::lation in Precinct 7 supports such a facility :' Could pedestrian
traffic be defined in terms of threshold, as automobile asaffic impacts have been defined?
Once again, thank you for including the Tompkins County Planning Department in your
review of this project. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact
Katherine White at (607) 274 -5560.
2
Exhibit #3
1/18/94 Minutes
.Si�gerely yours,
W. Hanson, .Jr.
ig Commissioner
0
0
Tompkins County
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
N r. Floyd Forman
Town Planner
Ithaca Town Hall
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mr. Forman:
121 East Court Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Telephone (607) 374 -5560
FALAX (607) V4=5578
FINAL.
COUNCIL° -' NOV 3 0193
November 30, 1993 C(D-py
"Thank you for the chance to review and comment on the Cornell University proposal to
rezone a 271 acre parcel of land, known as Sector 7, southeast of the campus in the
Town of Ithaca. Cornell Is proposal is well- thought out, well written and shoes
sensitivity to a wide range of environmental and social issues. On behalf of the Land
Use, Transportation and Energy committee of the Tompkins County Environmental
Management Council, I would like to share some comments, questions and suggestions
on the proposal.
1. In the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology section, the species inventories appear to be
extensive and encyclopedic, but not for the avifauna. While vegetation was surveyed in
all seasons of 1991 and 1992, the bird survey was not. As noted on p. 114 of this section,
the survey for resident bird life was carried out on February 19 and 20, a time when
only year round resident birds would be there. The fact that such a large number of
chickadees was seen is not an unusual occurrence in winter, since thev commonly flock
together when not in breeding season. The low diversity of species is directly
attributable to the time of year, i.e., non - breeding. In order to provide a truer picture of
the bird life of the proposal area, it would be wise to conduct a survey during breeding
season. It would also be helpful to do surveys during migration in the spring, since
many of the habitats described in the dGEIS may well provide resting and feeding sites,
as well as breeding sites for neotropical migrants.
By this same reasoning, a breeding season survey would provide more information on
the amphibian and reptilian life. Since most of the terrestrial and aquatic plants were
surveyed, it follows that the same effort be made to establish actual rather than
theoretical animal populations. Further, in the Letters of Record in the appendices,1vir.
Burrell Buffington of the DEC Significant Habitat Unit recommends that on —site surveys
be conducted to determine the presence or absence of species, even though their office
had no information attesting to the presence of endangered or threatened species.
2. We are pleased that the Cornell proposal acknowledges the two Unique Natural
Areas located in the sectors under consideration: Cascadilla Creek and McCown
Woods. Given that these areas provide the only relatively natural terrain between the
existing, developed Cornell campus to the north and the development at East Hill Plaza,
EMC
Exhibit #4
1/18/94 Minutes
E
AM
to r Recvcled paper
November 30, 1993
it is important that these two natural areas be protected. Setbacks of 30 feet for planned
buildings do not seem to provide much of a buffer between development and natural
areas. Every precaution should be made to shield the creek and the woods from the
impacts of construction, paving, run -off, pesticide use and other impacts associated
with development. These natural corridors are important habitat for a wide variety of
plant and animal species, as noted in the preliminary inventories. Further, they provide
and should continue to provide esthetic value to residents who use the corridor for
recreation. The danger with any development, is the continued fragmentation of
habitats, such as wetlands, shrublands, woodlands and stream courses, which
negatively impacts species diversity.
3. In the Storm water analysis, it is not clear whether the addition of paved surfaces
and roof tops has been taken into account in predicting the amount and severity of
runoff created by a storm event. Has this been done? If not, shouldn't it be, since
development will substantially change the behavior of surface water during a storm?
4. To what extent will all potential impacts of all the proposed (not- yet - identified)
developments be considered by the Town, should the rezoning to Special Land L, se
District be granted? A project of such potential magnitude can have enormous
cumulative impacts to land, to traffic volumes and patterns, to local economics, to plant
and animal species and to water resources. It is our hope that the impacts be considered
in their totality, rather than in a piece meal fashion, as would be the case when each
proposed development comes up for review.
5. While the Town of Ithaca is not directly responsible for the preparation of the dGEIS
(a monumental tome), it would serve environmental conservation if the Town required
double -sided copies wherever possible for such documents. While the dGEIS text does
use two -sided copies for the most part, the appendices do nol:; they could easily have
-been half their present size and weight. Much could have been saved by requiring
duplex copying. It is interesting to note that many state agencies, most notably the DEC
and Department of Economic Development, require duplex copies when submitting
grant proposals. In addition, they require the use of recycled paper. These are laudable
policies that need to be replicated at all levels of government and private industry.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to the dGEIS.
Very sincerely,
i
h./ '-'� -� l� 1wc�.
L Leopold
for the Land Use, Transportation & Energy committee, EPIC
cc Herb Engman, Chair, EMC
Exhibit #4
1/18/94 Minutes
EMC 2 November 30,1993
U
0
❑
E
0
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET
SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13202
HARRY CARLSON
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
November 22, 1993
Mr. Floyd Forman, Town Planner
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Mr. Forman.
' � j • its � .I r. 7 ..
f
Nov 23 1993
'r ! iA
11fJri.
RE: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR POSSIBLE
EXPANSION SOUTHEAST OF CORNELL
UNIVERSITY'S MAIN CAMPUS
TOWN OF ITHACA - TOMPKINS COUNTY
Thank you for the Draft
Generic
Impact
Statement dated September
1993 for the above cited
project
which
we receive as an involved
party. Kindly note this
status
in your
future issuances.
We have briefly reviewed the submitted document and have the
following comments.
Because of
our Highway
Permit authority, (a State
Highway Work
Permit will
be required
for any work in our right
of way in this
project)
the Department
of Transportation is an Involved
Agency
for State
Environmental
Quality Review (SEQR) purposes.
In our
Involved
Agency status
we anticipate receiving, from
your agency,
all the required
environmental
data pertaining to
this SEQR
action.
Please correct
your GEIS to include our
Department as an
Involved
Agency.
During our initial review of the DGEIS we noted the traffic
information presented in Figure 2A of the Executive Summary
indicated that the bulk of the traffic mitigation measures will
be done at or near maximum development. From a capacity,
operations and safety perspective it would be preferred that the
planned highway improvements be staged consistent with the
development rather than "kick in" all at once when a significant
impact is created. For example, to accommodate capacity, safety
and operation concerns, it would be beneficial to place left
turns and perhaps right turn lanes at important intersections
when vehicle delay (not necessarily LOS) changes and /or safety or
operation problems can be foreseen. As development continues,
mitigation measures can be added to the highway in incremental
stages, thereby continually keeping pace with development
demands.
Exhibit #5
1/18/94 Minutes
r1
Mr. Floyd Forman
November 22, 1993
Page 2
From an operations and safety standpoint, 5 lanes on Route 366
instead of 4 lanes mentioned on Page II -119 would be more
desirable even if capacity analysis showed 4 lanes are
sufficient. Appendix 6, page 34, states 4 lanes on Route 366
plus intersection improvements, do these intersection
improvements mean left turn lanes or signalization or both? A
schematic drawing showing lanes would strengthen Table S1 in
Appendix 6. Also Figure 2A in the Executive Summary would be
more informative if anticipated trip generation data as well as
GSF were shown. The Department has recently created an ALL WAY
STOP at Route 366 and Judd Falls Rd. (South) and we are presently
investigating signaling Rte. 366 at Tower Road and at Route 366
at Caldwell Road as part of the overall improvements to the
corridor.
Since a State Highway Work Permit will be required for any work
in the State's right of way (ROW), it is important that there be
an understanding of the Department's policy for this type of
project when a Highway Work Permit is required. It is the
Department's general policy that the developer pay for all
highway work to maintain existing capacity, operational and
safety characteristics of the highway. Basically, any adverse
impact on the highway must be mitigated at the developer's
expense. The policy also states that development impacts must be
based on full build -out on opening day so that the existing
capacity, operational and safety characteristics of the highway
are maintained as the highway would have operated absent the new
development. However, in this case, the Department would
possibly be agreeable to a phased mitigation plan, mutually
agreed upon by the Department, Cornell University and the Town of
Ithaca. Said plan would be in a contractual format, would ne
binding on all parties and would state the conditions and
responsibilities required for issuance of the Highway Work
Permit.
We hope you will find our comments useful and we look forward to
reviewing the Final Generic Impact Statement. As required by
regulation, we will forward you a statement of our Findings based
upon our final document review.
Exhibit #5
1/18/94 Minutes
0
Mr. Floyd Forman
November 22, 1993
Page 3
If
you have
any
questions,
please
do
not
hesitate
to
contact
L.
Harford
or W.
Egloff,
both of
my
staff,
at
315
- 428
-4409.
Very truly yours,
HARRY CARLSON, P.E.
Regional Director of Transportation
•
9
�/ru0 • / " 000
nis M. Gross
sociate Transportation Analyst
Exhibit #5
1/18/94 Minutes
FINAL
COPY
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 30, 1993
To: Town of Ithaca, Lead Agency
From: Candace E. Cornell and Phillip Za'iello, Environmental Review Committee, as amended.
Re: Comments on Cornell University's DGEIS Project No. 910346
The ERC believes this long -term development plan has been undertaken with a sincere interest to
develop a cooperative working relationship with the Town of Ithaca for the benefit of our residents as
well as Cornell University. This extensive study has been a unique and highly educational experience
for both Cornell University and our Town residents. The DGEIS is a very thorough and at times
exhaustive study of the possible positive and negative impacts of rezoning and developing "Precinct 7."
There are three areas of concern we feel have be inadequately addressed: Construction adjacent to
Natural Areas, Transportation, and Wetlands.
1) We believe an established setback of 30 feet from the drip line of trees and gorge edges is not
appropriate. This setback is more than adequate for some types of construction adjacent to ecologically
less sensitive natural areas (example: a one story storage facility adjacent to a grove of white pines).
However, it is insufficient for other types of construction adjacent to ecologically sensitive areas
(example: an eight story building adjacent to a wetland). We believe the setback needs to be variable
upon site - specific conditions. If a variable set -back is not acceptable, then the non - flexible setback
should be established using the "worst case scenario" -- the most sensitive natural area in Precinct 7
0oupled with a construction project of the highest magnitude of impact.
2) The traffic counts presented in the DGEIS for currently congested areas (especially the Pine Tree
Road and the Forest Home areas) in the Town may not accurately represent the current situation. Other
traffic counts, based on growth projections from Albany, may not be applicable to the neighborhoods
potentially impacted by development in "Precinct 7." We suggest several options:
a. If the Town accepts the traffic counts as presented in the DGEIS, then a supplemental EIS traffic
study should be performed for every project that would increase traffic as a result of development in
the study area. This might be expensive on behalf of the University and partially defeat the purpose of
having a GEIS.
b. If the Town accepts the traffic counts as presented in the DGEIS, then a supplemental EIS traffic
study should be performed for every project that would increase traffic above an amended threshold
(lower than currently established in the DGEIS) as a result of development in the study area. This
might also be an expensive option for the University.
c. A third alternative would be for the University to accept the traffic figures with which the Town has
the greatest confidence. If these figures do not exist, the Town should supplement the existing traffic
counts with new figures that reflect our current traffic situation. This new traffic study would be
performed by the Town or their agent and be paid for by the University. This alternative might instill
more confidence, on the part of our residents, in Cornell University's good faith in considering
potential impacts on neighborhoods.
• Exhibit #6
1/18/94 Minutes
3) Lastly, we urge the University to
wetlands of any size during the deg
*eing performed behind the Library
Cascadilla Creek Corridor. Projects
areas,
cc: Lewis Roscoe
John Whitcomb
Louise Raimondo
0
0
set a precedent in this region by avoiding all negative impacts to
relopment of "Precinct 7." Presently, the drainage construction
Annex requires the alteration of several small wetlands in the
of this sort can be designed to avoid impacting these sensitive
Exhibit #6
1/118/94 Minutes
•
0
0
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FINAL
VML
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Attn: Louise Romando: FAX 273 -1704
cc: Law Roscoe, Cornell Campus Planning
Ellen Harrison
November 28, 1993
Comments on. the DGEIS for Cornell Southeast Expansion
It is really commendable on part of the Town and Cornell to
take a comprehensive look -- really planning for the future. Such
planning on the part of Cornell dovetails with and makes more
meaningful the comprehensive planning program of the Town. It is
especially valuable to attempt to assess and plan for the mitigation of
the cumulative impacts of development activities rather than looking
one by one at specific projects. The openess of Cornell and the Town
Planning Board in seeking public input on this process is also much
appreciated.
It seems to me that it is quite a challenge to consider an EIS for
a development program that might range from 296,000 GSF to 13.5
times that -4 Million GSF. It may seem obvious, but I believe that to
be adequate, the impact assessment must assume full build - -the
"worst case" from an environmental point of view. That means
considering all the potential impacts of 4 M GSF of buildings plus the
4385 parking spaces (I believe this is the amount of building space
and parking proposed for Precinct 7 but I found it hard to
differentiate the Precinct 7 proposal from the larger study area so I
may not have these numbers exactly correct) and the associated
roads (I so not believe I saw an estimate of the amount of road
surface in the DGEIS - but it might well be in there!) and the 7334
employees. I do not believe that the DGEIS has adequately assessed
the differential impact of this widely divergent potential level of
development.
E. Harrison, DGEIS Comments Exhibit #7 1
11/28/93 1/18/94 Minutes
Much of the DGEIS is really quite a general discussion and not
specific enough to really consider the impacts. This is in part due to
the fact that as a Generic EIS, the specific location of facilities cannot
yet be ascertained and also due to the attempt to consider both
Precinct 7 and adjacent precincts together. It is also due to the
difficulty of simultaneously assessing such widely divergent
potential amounts of development. While understandable, the idea
that in the future a large conference center and associated parking or
other major construction might take place with only the use of an
environmental assessment form (EAF) and no EIS seems
inappropriate. Such a "carte blanche" is not consistent with the level
of detail in the DGEIS. Perhaps some threshold could be developed so
that future development that was not "major" could proceed with the
use of an EAF, but that "major" developments could trigger a
separate EIS.
As I mentioned at the October hearing, it is hard for laypersons
to visualize what development of this scale would "look like" on the
site. The statements comparing the proposed FAR to the Arts Quad is
somewhat useful, but since there is very little parking or roadway
included in the Arts Quad and since no lines are drawn on any map
of the Arts Quad in the DGEIS to show the comparative area, I am
still very unsure of how much space would be taken up by the
maximum build scenario. It would be very helpful for those of us
not familiar with interpreting GSF and FAR, to be ablle to see some
graphic representation which show examples of what the maximum
build might look like. I understand that development plans are still
too unknown to expect the maps to show building locations, etc. and
that maps might be misunderstood. However, I believe that a map
or several alternatives which showed what 4 M GSF of buildings
assumed to be 50 feet tall would look like evenly distributed on the
site plus parking lots for 4385 cars, along with the associated islands
and access ways is needed for the reader to make sense of the
proposal. This much parking is about 5 times the size; of the A or B
lots presently at Cornell.
E. Harrison, DGEIS Comments Exhibit #7 2
11/28/93 1/18/94 Minutes
• The consideration of Precinct 7
Precincts 8 and 9 is valuable, but it is
the DGEIS that only minimal develops
and 9. As submitted, however, there
level of development and so we must
the overall conclusions about impacts
in conjunction with the adjacent
also confusing; It seems from
nent is proposed for Precincts 8
is no commitment to this low
be sure that we are not basing
on this premise.
I apologize if I have missed things in the DGEIS, it is a large
document and it is quite possible that there are some things which I
have misconstrued or missed.
RELATIONSHIP OF GEIS TO SLUD
I do not understand how the acceptance of a final GEIS by the
Town Planning Board relates to the adoption of a SLUD by the Town
Board. A draft SLUD is proposed in an appendix to the DGEIS. Will a
draft SLUD be included in the final LEIS? If so, what will that mean
in regard to the future consideration of a SLUD by the Town Board,
• Clearly the acceptance of the final GEIS which may include a draft
SLUD cannot mean that that is the language of a final SLUD to be
considered and accepted by the Town Board since that will require
public review and since the Town Board is a different body.
In reviewing the DGEIS I have not commented on the SLUD
draft since I presume that there will be subsequent opportunities to
review it,
THE DEVELOPMENT PREMISE
In the alternatives section the statement is made that the
"maximum" build scenario is unlikely. The whole question of
whether Cornell really needs to be planning for such a massive
potential increase in campus space needs more consideration. In
discussions with people in the Cornell campus planning office, it
seems that there is really no consensus that such massive increased
development is needed and that some of the development originally
conceived several years ago for Precinct 7 might in fact be
Exhibit #7
E. Harrison, DGEIS Comments 1/18/94 Mal nutes
11/28/93
3
accomodated on the existing campus. Since the level of site impact is
very closely related to maximum development, it mECikes sense to
question the need for 4 Million GSF and 4385 parking spaces. The
GEIS needs to more fully consider the needs and ratiionale for the
proposed maximum development.
The DGEIS is predicated on the assumption that Cornell will
continue to grow in GSF at the same rate as it has in the past century.
The university has recently declared its intention not to increase
enrollment, but the arguement is made that new facilities will
necessitate continued expansion of physical plant. For certain items
like the library that is clearly a need (although new electronic
technology may have an impact which reduces the need for
increased shelf space). However, as someone engaged in part of
Comell's Strategic Planning Process, we may have to question the
assumption of growth since we need to ask from where the dollars to
support the construction, operation and maintenance of the space
will come. Certainly a proposal which envisions a potential increase
in the physical size of the campus built space by nearly one third
(adding up to 4.4M GSF to the current 1.2 -13 M GSF) seems extreme.
WATER QUALITY
Analysis of Water Quality impacts are probably the most
familiar to me given my 20 years of experience in water resources. I
am distressed at what I believe to be grossly inadequate analysis of
the water quality impacts in the DGEIS and I must confess that it
gives me pause about the other sections of the DGEIS) which cover
topics with which I am less familiar. If the one I ain knowledgeable
about is this flawed, are the other sections which I cannot assess as
critically equally flawed?
The DGEIS says on p. II -33 that development can impact water
quality in two ways. One is through increased sedinaent loads from
construction- related erosion. The second is that "runoff from
E. Harrison, DGEIS Comments Exhibit #7 4
11/28/93 1/18/94 MiLAnutes
•
E
development can adversely affect water quality due to the presence
of oil, grease, sediment, etc.". It goes, on to say that development
also impacts stream flow quantity, with the potential to increase
peak flows and storm runoff. With the exception of calculations of
increased runoff rates and detention basins to try and reduce the
increases in peak flows, there is no futher discussion of water quality
issues and mitigation.
The fact that development can be expected to cause a reduction
in low flow due to reduced infiltration and the fact that temperatures
can be expected to increase due to warming of runoff on pavement
and in retention basins are simply not mentioned. These effects can
have potentially severe impacts since temperature is directly related
to dissolved oxygen content (a critical water quality parameter) and
since low flow is the time when pollutants are least diluted and thus
stream life is most likely to be stressed. It seems incredible that the
DGEIS is satisfied to say "runoff from development can adversely
affect water quality due to the presence of oil, grease, sediment, etc"
and leave it at that.
To be adequate I believe the GEIS must attempt to quantify the
impacts which maximum site development would be predicted to
have on reducing stream flow, increasing stream temperatures and
on the quantities /concentrations of oil, gasoline, salt and other
pollutants which can be expected from the roads, parking lots and
paved areas. The impacts are likely to be directly correlated with
the amount of development. This information then needs to be
interpreted in terms of what the predicted impact on Cascadilla
Creek will be. How seriously will it degrade water quality and
reduce low flow? Will this impact aquatic life? Will it cause a
violation of water quality standards? How much will flow be
decreased under different hydrologic conditions? What impact will
that have on stream water quality? on dissolved oxygen? and thence
on stream fauna? What measures can mitigate those impacts?
Would less intense levels of development be more acceptable? Are
Exhibit #7
E. Harrison, DGEIS Comments 1/18/94 Minutes
11/28/93
5
there mitigation measures such as particular design of storm drains
which might help to lessen these impacts?
A 10 minute phone conversation with Cornell staff clarified an
important point which reading of the entire DGEIS did not. The
quality of water and richness of stream fauna in Cascadilla Creek is
reported to be excellent along the length of the study area until the
western end where drainage from Precinct 7 enters the stream. One
goal should be to preseve this quality. Present conditions divert
water flowing off of Precinct 7 from entering Cascadilla Creek
directly due to the blockage of drainage caused by the railroad
bed /recreation trail. The runoff ends up in the wet areas on the
North side of the trail and does not enter Cascadilla until the vicinity
of Judd Falls Road. This arrangement appears to be critical to
maintaining water quality in the Creek. In examining the DGEIS I
could not find this information, nor did I find as part of the
mitigation measures ways to ensure that the runoff from Precinct 7
will continue to be diverted to the downstream end of the study
area. 0
TRANSPORTATION and PARKING
Others are more equipped than I to address problems with
automobile transportation calculations and their interpretation. The
DGEIS provides an indication in Figure 24 (II -101) of
pedestrian/bicycle access to campus which is good. It does not
however clearly pin down when this will be built. In fact it is shown
in very light tones and noted as "conceptual bikeway /trail
expansion ". This should not be viewed as an optional link. It is an
essential element of the transportation plan and mitigation measures.
Just as with the other traffic improvements which ai•e keyed to
development triggers, this pedestrian link is critical and there needs
to be a commitment to its construction as soon as development of
Precinct 7 begins. In fact there is a need at the present time for such
a link which would connect campus all the way to East Hill Plaza,
E. Harrison, DGEIS Comments 6
11/28/93 Exhibit #7
1/18/94 Minutes
a 0
There are other issues regarding bicycle and pedestrian
transportation. The DGEIS asserts that the program of development
will improve bicycle and pedestrian transit, but it totally fails to
address the problems which bicyclists and pedestrians will face with
the increased traffic on 366, Game Farm Road and other area roads.
As it is now, there is no paved shoulder for most of the area where
Precinct 7 abuts 366. This area is presently dangerous for bikes and
walkers, but will be much worse once Precinct 7 is developed. The
transportation mitigation measures almost exclusively address
accomodating increased auto traffic. They need to equally
agressively address pedestrians. The plan must also provide a way
for pedestrians and bicycles to move from East Hill Plaza to campus.
This is presently a very dangerous route, yet it is one which makes a
lot of sense to encourage. There is an opportunity in this plan to
improve that situation now. A path leading from Precinct 7 to the
recreationway is indicated which is very desirable. The concept of a
path which then crossed the creek and allowed access to East Hill
Plaza without going immediately adjacent to Judd Fall Road would be
terrific.
Overall, then, there will be significant impacts on bicycle and
pedestrian travel. How can these impacts be mitigated? The GEIS
can do more to acknowledge and address these impacts.
I am concerned that the new road running through Precinct 7
will become the main thoroughfare for cars leaving campus and
travelling out Game Farm Road to Ellis Hollow. If the new road runs
directly across from Caldwell and ends up directly across from
Stevenson, it seems likely to become a through route. It would seem
very desirable to prevent a lot of traffic from taking this route in
order to maintain a "campus" feel. A few words in the DGEIS
mention that measures would be taken to prevent this from
becoming a through route. I would suggest that this needs to be
better defined. It would probably be desirable to have the road
terminate on Game Farm beyond Stevenson so that cars wishing to go
Exhibit #7
E. Harrison, DGEIS Comments 1/18/94 Minutes 7
11/28/93
f
out Stevenson would have to back track if they took the new road
which would discourage this as a "short cut."
Traffic through Forest Home is an increasing concern. If the
distribution of traffic in Figure 25 (II410) is used to project the
potential impact of 7334 new employees in Precinct 7 we can expect
1400 more trips through Forest Home each day. The neighborhood
impacts will be very real and significant.
The demand management traffic plans implemented by Cornell
over the past several years are highly commendable. One problem
noted by some travelers, however, is that the "free" lot assigned to
some users is the "A" lot which requires many of these users to go
through Forest Home. Why not provide for free parking for people
:living in the south and east in the "B" lot to avoid this impact?
VIEWS
The impact of views as
amenity should not be minimi
views seen from cars are not
seen by cars are accessible to
daily life and are a significant
makes people love Ithaca.
a very important environmental
zed. The report seems to imply that
important. Quite the < ;ontrary, views
many many people as part of their
factor in the "quality of life" that
The DGEIS discusses the views of Precinct 7, suggesting
measures to keep the proposed development from destroying the
rural feel which one gets from the recreation trail along Cascadilla
Creek. That is important and it is appropriate for the DGEIS to
address that. Precinct 7 itself, however, is important scenery not
only as seen from the Creek, but in providing a rural edge to the
university development. One of the particular and unique charms of
Cornell and Ithaca is the fact that campus meets county in a sharp
demarkation rather that through acres of sprawl. This is due in no
small part to the agricultural lands which Cornell itself owns and
operates. I believe that the portion of Precinct 7 along 366 east of
the turn into the BTI research area and extending along Game Farm
;E. Harrison, DGEIS Comments Exhibit #7 8
11/28/93 1/18/94 Minutes
•
0
Rd. to and including McGowan's Woods is an essential component in
providing this rural "gateway" (See Figure)
The agricultural use of this same corner of Precinct 7 also
provides for fantastic views from 366 across to Mt. Pleasant. I
believe that the GEIS should provide for mitigation of these potential
view impacts by preserving this corner of Precinct 7 in
agricultural /education use. Since as I read the DGEIS even a
maximum build scenario would leave at least 136 acres of parcel C
undisturbed (Table 6 p. I -48)7 it would seem to be possible to
accomodate this reservation of this corner without requiring a
reduction in the total amount of development. Preserving this corner
would effectively not only preserve the rural /campus transition and
the views from 366, it would also help to ensure that McGowan
Woods does not suffer too great an impact. As proposed in the
current DGEIS, intense development could occur within 30 feet (75
feet in the draft SLUD) of the edge of the woods. If that were to take
place, it is impossible to imagine that the quiet woods and the habitat
it provides would not be impacted.
HABITAT and SETBACKS
Habitat considerations should not only deal with threatened or
endangered species. McGowan Woods is important as a habitat not
for rare species, but simply for woodland birds, plants and animals.
The plan for Precinct 7 can provide the opportunity to mitigate the
potential impacts to this valuable resource - -but it does not.
There is little in the DGEIS which helps to assess the adequacy
of the proposed set back distances from the significant natural areas
of McGowan's Woods and Cascadilla Creek. How was the distance
arrived at? The DGEIS says "no area of high quality habitat (i.e.
Cascadilla Creek Corridor or McGowan Woods) will be affected by
development." (II -73) How can 30 feet be adequate to prevent any
Exhibit #7
E. Harrison, DGEIS Comments 1/18/94 Minutes
11/28/93
E
Y
impact to habitat? Imagine a 1000 car parking lot 30 feet from
McGowan's woods or the exhaust fans from a 5 storey building.
The DGEIS states that
noise levels in these natural
development plans have not
clearly true. The problem is
environmental impact statem
"the impact of fu
areas cannot be
been formulated"
how can this be
ent without such
ture development on
determined because
(II -187) which is
considered an adequate
knowledge?
In general the DGEIS seems to have little discussion of
proposed mitigation of impacts to McGowan Woods. In chapter II for
example, there is no discussion of mitigation while there is at least a
cursory review of measures to protect Cascadilla Creek. This woods
is a unique resource which deserve more than passing consideration.
It would seem that the concept proposed above under the section on
views which would preserve in agriculture /open space the land
abuting McGowan's woods on the north would at least help to
mitigate the impacts.
There are inconsistencies in the set back distances mentioned
in the DGEIS. The DGEIS says 30 feet while the draft SLUD says 75
feet.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
SlopejL The map figure 14 of slopes (p. II -8) is too difficult to read.
Is there a larger scale version particularly of Precinct 7 which will be
given to the Town for its use in reviewing site proposals?
Development of slopes exceeding 15% is recognized in the DGEIS as
having particular erosion concerns. The DGEIS states that "little or no
construction is proposed for such (steep) slopes" (II -15, but nothing
in the DGEIS or draft SLUD commits to removing such slopes from
development or providing special protection as far as I can tell.
Prime Farmland: Conversion of prime farmland soils to other uses
will occur if Precinct 7 is developed. A summary of the number of
Exhibit #7
E. Harrison, DGEIS Comments 1/18/94 Minutes 10
11/28/93
acres of prime farmland soils which Cornell presently owns in the
• Town of Ithaca and an analysis of what proportion of these soils
would be converted to irrevocably to other uses under the maximum
development scenario would be important information in considering
the overall impact of this proposal.
Recreation: The DGEIS discusses the recreational facilities (II- 141 -2).
In discussing available parks and recreational facilities, it does not
mention the very important and valuable facilities which Cornell
itself provides. This includes not only the Plantations, but also the
golf course, equine research park and adjacent woods and access to
Fall Creek in several locations. The contribution of Cornell to
providing much used open space for hiking, walking, cross - county
skiing, etc. deserves to be recognized. It is becoming increasingly
important to recognize the value of these lands both as part of the
discussions of "what does Cornell pay -back to the community" and as
the overall development plans for the university proceed. We should
work towards a commitment to retaining these open spaces and
public access to them.
Number of Employees: I am confused about the total number of
potential employees. Table 20 (II -107) shows a total potential of
7334 employees while p. V -1 says it could create a miximum of 4079
new jobs. Is the difference of 3255 all employees currently on
campus who might have their jobs relocated to precinct 7 without
other new employees taking their place on campus?
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
This section of the DGEIS fails to mention the unavoidable
adverse impacts to water quality, noise and views across the land,
from the land and of the land from Rt. 366.
• CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES
E. Harrison, DGEIS Comments Exhibit #7 11
11/28/93 1%18%94 Minutes
I
The two and one half page consideration of alternatives does
not seem to seriously address the question of alternatives. The first
paragraph states that the 11 maxiumum" level of development is
unlikely. Then why propose it?
The DGEIS needs to more fully address the lesser impacts of
less intense development. It may well be that development of the
full blown 4 Million GSF with 4385 parking spaces proposed is not
acceptable in its impacts. The DGEIS as written seems to assert that
the only differences between the low (296,000 GSF)and
high(4,000,000 GSF) ends of the potential new development of
Precinct 7 (a factor of >13.5!) have to do with infrastructure
construction timing and sizing for water, sewer, traffic and retention
basins - -all items that can be mitigated by infrastructure. That is
clearly an inadequate assessment. Water quality ,impacts, noise,
view impacts will increase along with the amount of development.
'The plan does not acknowledge this. In fact it seems to suggest that
there will be no impacts that cannot be mitigated, which is absurd (I
am not here suggesting whether or not the impacts are acceptable, 0
but clearly there will be more impact on say water quality with more
development).
The plan does not adequately address less intense development
as a potential alternative. The alternative action section of the DGEIS
also needs to consider what the impacts of different clustering of
development on the site would be. As proposed with the exception
of small setbacks from Cascadilla Creek and McGowan's Woods, all of
:Precinct 7 is proposed to be treated alike. The potential level of
development and uses are not differentiated within this 271 acres. I
believe that there is a tremendous amount to be gained by
restricting use on the northeast corner of the site (a triangle shown
in the figure I. have enclosed) would substantially mitigate impacts to
views and habitat in McGowan's Woods. There may be other impacts
which could also be addressed through a consideration of location of
development on the site. It is unlikely that all 271 acres (excluding
Exhibit #7
E. Harrison, DGEIS Comments 1/18/94 Minutes
11/28/93
12
•
6 ,
the buffer setbacks) are identical in their suitablility for
• development.
•
CONCLUSIONS
The DGEIS as written fails to adequately consider a number of
potential impacts and their mitigation. In particular, water quality
issues require substantially more evaluation. Views, habitat and
bicycle /pedestrian transportation also require more consideration.
The consideration of alternatives needs to address the relationship
between the intensity of the development of the site with the level
of impacts.
I understand from an answer to my question at the October
public hearing that another public review and comment of the
revised final GEIS is not planned. I wonder if the comments received
on the DGEIS are substantial enough to warrant a reconsideration to
ensure that the revised GEIS adequately addresses the issues raised
in this public review.
The final GEIS needs to be substantially revised so that the final
document is one which the Planning Board is willing to accept as its
own words.
Exhibit #7
E. Harrison, DGEIS Comments 1/18/94 Minutes
11/28/93
13
�,
SCHOOL
C
40
,0 r0 �
�, ■
1•APLEW000 0 �
PARK. ® a
0
EAVIAWN
y CEMETERY
iL lor7lr 9e
U'TCI+ELLSTREEr I fa.l
*'EAST HILL F
a w� ■ '1
D o LANE ■ °r�
i_
a r ; PED rtiAltlMlw ^
TENNIS
CO3 FACLm
0001 Q a
ao°°O ■ �z
--- C3 E CENTE ON ` V � T
P
I
1
Gi
m
+ i I
f� �• it
—
r�w0.0 cREEx f, - --___-
G
' n
1
McGOWAN 1
WOODS W
i
b
TRAIL ■
r
i
0
,r
• t r
Q(cs, ■ a m a
R04 D o
vETERn1ARr a
CAMPUS • a o
SNYDER I HILL
S SNVOER HILL
♦
� Opp ♦ � ; o
oop op s la
o fl � nn
a�soos ®ru rE"ov os�ISO®s■
■ by 0 coon C3 ° O a o
col O ° HONNESS LANE
�oolaa °tutu ❑o,��a oil 00 mp 0
00
a ° d+ fl
Oo 0 D
O
o Soo 1000 FI 1 tutu
e
PRECINCT T
_ m
a• G
� a
m_
Ib
I*
S
B
O
O
00
0O
O)
o ■ -
■ a
■
■
■
B
HUNGERFORO ■
HILL B
• B
■
B
■
� o a � o♦
s
c 0000 �
•a p D
.a 0 D
• ° o
11 D o p a
� 0aO O
0 00 p
0
00 e
%1 the LA group DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRDNMI:NTAI.
Landscape Architecture IMPACT STATEMENT
and Engineering. EC. FOR
40 Long Alley CORNELL. UNIVERS'[TY
Saratoga Springs SOUTHEAST
New York 12866 Figure
518/587 -8100
Telelax 518/587 -0180 GEIS Study Area
RCN 44,010, lV
Exhibit #%
1/18/94 Minutes
I.
CORNELL
U N I V E R S I T Y
0 College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
•
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Attn.: Floyd Forman
November 28, 1993
Dear Planning Board:
Department of Entomology
Comstock Hall
Ithaca, New York 14853 -0999
[in]P:
Facsimile: 607 255 -0939
i�
Ipp
DEC -
The following are my comments on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
prepared for the development program for possible future expansion southeast of Cornell
University's main campus. My primary interest lies in the preservation of Cascadilla Creek
between Game Farm Road and Highway 366. This is a valuable stretch of stream often used for
teaching Cornell University students in the Introductory Biology (Biol. Sci. 101 -104),
Freshwater Invertebrate Biology ( Entom. 471) and Stream Ecology (Biol. Sci. and Entom. 456)
courses. Given its close proximity to campus and relatively rich fish and invertebrate fauna
(which are not well documented in the GEIS), it is well worth preserving in at least its present
state if not improving its condition with better land use practices. I am also concerned about
conserving the relatively pristine riparian zone south of this stretch of stream. Although this side
of the creek is outside the area being considered for rezoning, it could be impacted by improper
land use practices on the north side of the creek, which has been proposed for rezoning.
I will structure my comments in two parts. First, I will suggest the optimal information
that would be necessary to assess the impact of proposed development on the water quality of
Cascadilla Creek. Second, I will discuss the importance of considering potential impacts on the
water quantity or annual hydrograph of the creek. Often people overlook this second
consideration; but stream ecologists are beginning to recognize that impacts of poor land use
management practices on the daily and seasonal dynamics of stream flow may be irreversible and
much more difficult to mitigate than impacts on stream water quality. In this particular case, like
many others, mitigating impacts of riparian zone alterations on the quantity of stream flow may
go a long way toward improving water quality as well. Thus, I will give this latter aspect
primary focus.
Water Quality
The major potential impacts of urbanization (paving areas of riparian zone that would
normally be vegetated) on stream water quality are increased inputs of inorganic sediments and
organic or toxic materials associated with the specific riparian land use patterns. The GEIS does
not provide enough evidence to state unequivocally (as on p. II -73) that Cascadilla Creek will not
be adversely affected by development. Direct and indirect effects of urbanization on streams in
the same watershed are complex and must be studied carefully for proper mitigation of potential
impacts. Unmitigated replacement of vegetated areas with paved areas or buildings would
exacerbate surface runoff, increasing bank erosion in the very steep north bank of the creek.
Materials washing into Cascadilla Creek would primarily increase stream sedimentation and
nutrient loading, with associated residues of pesticides and petroleum products, which would
have negative effects on stream biota. Thus, the stream biota need to be monitored in order to
Exhibit #8
1/18/94 Minutes
• assess the effects of development and proposed mitigation efforts on the water quality of
Cascadilla Creek.
Stream organisms, especially invertebrates, have been increasingly shown to be excellent
indicators of water quality. However, it is insufficient to obtain biotic indices at only one time of
the year. A well- designed program of collections and calculations of associated indices of water
quality should be initiated as soon as possible in the stretch of Cascadilla Creek that receives
surface runoff and infiltration from precipitation falling on the area proposed for rezoning. I
would advise especially watching the section of stream that is vulnerable to runoff from the
Poultry Science waste water lagoon and the section vulnerable to runoff from the former dump
site: Baseline data should be accumulated indicating the present biological and chemical
conditions under baseflow, bankfull and floodwater situations, as well as during all seasons to
obtain a record of the existing fauna under the present annual hydrologic regime and seasonal
phenological cycles. This would make an excellent project for my Stream Ecology class, which
will be offered next during the 1995 spring semester. We plan to conduct an entire inventory of
the watershed including hydrologic parameters, streamwater chemistry, algae, invertebrates and
fish from January through April. A continued program of baseline sampling before, during and
after each new development would indicate the effectiveness of the proposed schemes for
mitigating changes in land use practices. At the very least, I would hope that the University
would incorporate what is learned from measured impacts of ongoing development into plans for
future development.
Water Quantity
The flow regime of a stream is the single most important abiotic factor determining the
nature of the constituent plant and animal populations. The instream flow conditions directly
affect the flora and fauna; and flow regime determines the structure of the stream channel, nature
and distribution of substrate particles and the amount of available habitat for the plants and
animals. Most streams experience annual flow fluctuations that reflect annual cycles of
precipitation and effects of the riparian vegetation on evapotranspiration. In this region, we have
seasonal flow maxima just after spring snow melt, and summer minima during the height of
forest canopy development, as well as less predictable fluctuations caused by storm runoff.
Plants and animals that have life cycles adapted to these flow fluctuations will not persist if
seasonal flow patterns are dramatically altered or if storm water runoff becomes too extreme.
Streams cannot be viewed as conduits or channels independent of the watersheds or riparian
zones through which they flow and with which they strongly interact. Alteration of the riparian
vegetation irreversibly alters the natural patterns of stream flow fluctuations affecting the levels
of groundwater saturation, which in turn govern the amount of water available for plant
communities living in areas immediately and remotely adjacent to the stream channel (e.g. the
undeveloped south side of Cascadilla Creek). While stream ecosystems may be resilient to some
types of instream modifications (e.g. pulsed chemical perturbations), they are very slow to
recover from habitat modifications of the channel structure and of the riparian zone (pressed
disturbances). In fact, on an ecological time scale, streams may never recover from extreme
structural changes, such as those caused by channelization and urbanization of the riparian zone.
Due to the intimate connections between the stream channel and its surrounding watershed,
management of stream ecosystems needs to be approached from a holistic viewpoint including
the evaluation of land use practices in the riparian zone.
Given the above discussion, I am most concerned that a retention/detention pond system
be designed that mimics as closely as possible the natural (or at least present) pattern of runoff
from the proposed area of development into Cascadilla Creek via the north bank. Sizing of
overflow pipes and spillways is critical to effectively regulating the outflow that will reach the
Exhibit #8
1/18/94 Minutes
creek. Designers of these systems need to recognize that reducing natural flow fluctuations can
be just as damaging as increasing them. I would recommend establishing flow gauging stations
at locations along the creek to develop baseline data on the present annual hydrograph so that
effects of runoff from future retention devices can be closely monitored. Other experts (e.g.
Barbara Bedford) should be consulted concerning the potential for incorporating wetland systems
into the design of the storm water retention ponds. Wetlands buffer streams not only from water
quantity changes, but also water quality changes that could result from precipitation events.
Where ever possible, areas disturbed by construction should be revegetated to maximize the
buffering capacity of the riparian zone. Finally, storm water retention ponds should be designed
such that water level fluctuations in the ponds themselves are minimized during and after storms.
Unpredictable and repeated water level fluctuations reduce the opportunity for establishment and
maintenance of a littoral rooted macrophyte community, which provides substrate, nutrients and
oxygen for other organisms. I suspect the University would not be interested in dotting its
development with aquatic eyesores. Thus, some consideration should be given to making these
retention ponds healthy habitats for plants and animals, which could enhance their value not only
aesthetically, but also for coursework instruction.
I recognize that a considerable amount of work went into preparing the generic EIS, and
that no document can be all things to all people. In addressing my concerns please note that it is
most important that the EIS be handled as a "living document" flexible enough to incorporate
new data that become available over the years of ongoing development of Cornell University.
As each new building or project is proposed, the University should consider all available data at
the time, not just those data submitted with the EIS, because we cannot expect a generic EIS to
include all possible contingencies that may arise as expansion of the Cornell campus proceeds.
As an institution of higher learning with access to extensive resources from ongoing basic and
applied research, we must set an example for the rest of the community by incorporating our
16 academic resources into the planning process with the goal of preserving out natural resources
and implementing environmentally responsible development.
Thank you for this opportunity to participate in this important planning process.
xcc Bob Bland
Ellen Harrison
Barbara Bedford
•
Barbara L. Peckarsky
Professor of Stream Ecology and
Aquatic Entomology
Exhibit #8
1/18/94 Minutes
0
•
•
November 29, 1993
TO: Carolyn Grigorov
FROM: Bruce Brittai
Doug Brittain
RE: GEIS for the Cornell Orchards Area
We took a quick look at the latest version of Cornell University's GEIS
for the Orchards Area (dated 9/7/93). Although there have been some
definite improvements, many of the concerns which we expressed in our
July 20, 1992 memo to Floyd Forman are still valid. Any document this
size will inevitably contain many errors, and require a tremendous amount
of time to examine. We have only been able to give it a summary review,
and have chosen to restrict our comments to the larger issues which we
noted.
The GEIS should be modified so as to make it clear that Cornell's
suggested traffic mitigation measures are just that: Cornell's suggestions,
and while the Town of Ithaca may acknowledge these suggestions, it does
not necessarily endorse or recommned them. Modifications to specific
roads or intersections can be undertaken only after a thorough and accurate
study and analysis, which is clearly beyond the scope of this GEIS. While
the inaccuracies and shortcomings of the GEIS preclude it from serving as
an interim Transportation Plan, it can nevertheless provide a useful look
at the general level of impacts and the type of mitigation measures that
might be necessary if Cornell and local traffic volumes grow at the rates
assumed by the GEIS. It should also be made clear that these rates are
likely to be far greater than indicated, with traffic - related impacts likely
to occur much sooner than predicted. In addition, the proposed SLUR needs
to be revised so as to incorporate off -site traffic impacts in its performance
standards, and in order to more narrowly define the various land uses which
it would allow. Finally, realistic alternatives to development of the
Orchards area need to be considered. Each of these concepts is discussed
in more detail below.
The GEIS predicts the extent of traffic - related impacts which would be
generated by successive stages of development in the Orchards area.
Recommendations are then made for how and when to reconfigure various
roads and intersections, based solely on the extent of development (GSF)
which has occurred. Although this may provide a very general feel for
what the future may bring, it is a rather roundabout and error prone
means of determining which traffic mitigation measures should be insti-
tuted when and where. Rather than having the implementation of the
various mitigation measures be triggered by the extent of development in
the Orchards area, they should instead be triggered directly by actual
ongoing traffic counts, or by measured traffic impacts. In this manner,
all of the inaccuracies inherent in the various projections, predictions,
and estimations can be avoided, and traffic problems can be addressed and
resolved on a case -by -case basis as they arise.
Exhibit #9
1/18/94 Dii -nutes
• ►
•
Carolyn Grigorov
GE IS
The procedure used in the GEIS for determining where traffic problems
are likely to occur and what mitigation measures would resolve them is
internally inconsistent and sometimes inappropriate. For example:
o The GEIS recommends the immediate placement of a traffic light at the
Caldwell Road /Route 366 intersection, even though this contradicts
the stated criteria for when and where such traffic lights should be
placed,
o The current Level of Service (LOS) for various intersections was
approximated from motorist delays, which in turn were estimated from
a single set of traffic counts. Since actual intersection geometry
plays such a large role in delay, it would have been much more
accurate to have measured these delays directly. This may explain
why the figures for current Level of Service included in the GEIS
bear little resemblance to how well the various intersections actually
function.
o The GEIS states that the Level of Service (LOS) was kept high in
Forest Home in order to limit the traffic impact on the community.
However, LOS is a measure of the impact of the community on the flow
of traffic, not a measure of the impact of traffic on the community.
Maintaining a high LOS is likely to have a larger negative impact on
Forest Home.
o The GEIS does not recommend solutions for all predicted problems. For
example, traffic noise levels are acknowledged to be currently unaccept-
able and predicted to get worse, yet there are no concrete suggestions
as to how to mitigate this impact.
Traffic impacts, and the consequent need for some form of traffic mitigation
measures, are likely to occur much sooner than predicted in the GEIS. This
is due to a number of factors, including:
o Some of the traffic count data included in the GEIS were too low. For
example, the Judd Falls Road /Forest Home Drive intersection is listed
as having approximately 300 Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) less traffic than
it actually has. 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.
o The GEIS has misinterpreted the effect that Cornell's Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program has had on the amount of traffic
travelling to campus. While there has been a decrease in on- campus
parking, there has been an associated increase in off - campus parking
in surrounding residential neighborhoods, as well as an increase in
pick -up and drop -off traffic coming to the university (see pp. II 22 -23
of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan).
it Exhibit #9
1/18/94 Minutes
•
0
Carolyn Grigorov
GE IS
o The GEIS projected a rate of background traffic volume growth of only
0.8% per year, while County figures indicate an increase of 5.20% to
18.45% for intersections near the Orchards area. There is no reason
to believe that the single pair of counts taken at the single inter-
section chosen in the GEIS is any more accurate or representative than
the County's seven pairs of counts at seven area intersections. Since
the projected rate is only approximately one -tenth of what may actually
be expected, the anticipated problems are therefore likely to occur
much sooner than predicted.
o The GEIS
which has
has underestimated Cornell's historic annual growth rate,
averaged 3% per year. If the university continues to grow
at
GSF
the rate
will
it has
be reached
been, the maximum expected development of 4,368,000
in 10 or 11 years, not in the 20 or 30 years that
the
GEIS
predicts.
The proposed Institutional Zone or SLUR does not reflect the "Campus- type"
zoning which many of us were expecting: three -story buildings situated on
grassy quads with sidewalks and trees. Instead, it is more of a "Shopping
Mall" zoning, which would allow for nearly half of the land to be paved
over, and which could include everything from beauty parlors to convenience
stores. There is no rational basis for this sort of "Anything Goes" zoning,
and we fail to see how it fits into the.Town's newly adopted Comprehensive
Plan. In addition, while the proposed SLUD has performance standards for
off -site impacts such as noise, vibration, odor, glare, etc., there are
none for traffic impacts on nearby residential areas. Since traffic
problems are probably the single most important off -site impact, it is
critical that they be included here. Development of the Orchards area
should not be allowed to result in a net increase in off -site traffic
impacts.
The GEIS considers no real alternatives to the development of the Orchards
area. Alternatives which were not explored include:
o The GEIS neglected to consider retaining the area as a producing apple
orchard. This would preserve the educational, research, environmental,
and aesthetic attributes of the Orchards, while avoiding the undesirable
impacts (traffic, etc.) of development of this site.
o The GEIS did not explore the concept of relocating future development
to Cornell -owned land near the Tompkins County Airport (within the
Towns of Lansing and Dryden). Since the GEIS states that Orchards -
area development would not be closely linked to central campus activity,
there is little reason to locate this development adjacent to the campus
on land that is valuable for other uses. The availability of essentially
unused land which is served by NYS Route 13 and the Tompkins County
Airport, and the proximity of the Cornell Research Park all make Cornell's
Lansing and Dryden lands seem more appropriate for this development than
the Orchards tract.
Exhibit #9
1/18/94 Minutes
Carolyn Grigorov
0
Page 4
o The GEIS
failed to consider
the possibility of no further growth
of
Cornell.
If the University
follows President Rhodes' advice to
become
"better,
not bigger ", then
there is no need to develop land in the
Orchards
or any where else.
This scenario would preserve all of
the
current
attributes, avoid all
of the potential negative impacts,
cost
nothing,
cause no disruption
or hardship, and would require no
mitigating
measures.
•
Exhibit #9
1/18/94 Minutes
•
•
t�
_... :.._ Ithaca, New York 14853-3701 Facsimile: 607 255 -5329
14 December 1993
Ms. Louise Raimondo, Planner
Ithaca Town Hall
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
Dear Louise:
Here are our preliminary responses to the comments the Town has
received in review of the DGEIS for Precinct 7. Rather than reply item by item, to
points that are sometimes repeated or overlapping, we have made general
responses to much of it, and replied specifically to some points in particular
detail.
GENERAL,
• The amount of Cornell University growth is unpredictable. The
University does not wish to become physically grander, nor sprawl over the
land. But the need for unspecified increased building space is probable, and the
University has undertaken much planning to see how to best utilize its space and
land. To make the core campus efficient for walking, there should be some
expansion to the perimeter of some less centrally necessary facilities and parking.
The only logical place for most of this is to the southeast, to Precinct 7. The
amount of increased space need is unknown and the DGEIS has identified a
maximum level of development that seems reasonable for a variety of reasons - 4
million gross square feet (GSF) although the number could be much less.
However, the physical planning limits and mitigations have to be based on some
imagined maximum, and that is the 4 million GSF that is in the document. The
floor area ratio (FAR) and open space proportions are based on those of an
attractive place on the core campus (the Arts Quad) and are intended to assure
the Town that this maximum level is a reasonable one. The amount of growth
will be a product of administrative policy and the economy no matter what
historic trends may suggest. The maximum levels of development are not
necessarily desired or expected, but amount to a commitment to not exceed what,
the University feels, is a realistic maximum density and use of this land.
The University has grown at a rate between one and three per cent over its
existence. But the rate of future development is not the basis of the GEIS and
would not change its outcome. Land use and density there are not based on
projections of University growth, but upon the quality and capacity of Precinct 7.
There is a maximum for future development, with mitigations at thresholds of
Exhibit #10
1/18/94 Minutes
f
development. While there is no realistic expectation the University could grow
by 4 million GSF in ten years, perhaps it could in 30 to 50 years, with much of
that in this Precinct. But whatever the rate or amount, that development is
limited by the conditions and characteristics of the GEIS study area.
Growth and location: Much University growth will require a relatively close
connection to the main campus. To keep student walking time between classes
down, the University has concluded that teaching facilities will be kept near
central campus, but some faculty and some students and staff will need to move
back and forth easily from one place to another. Precinct 7 is an extension of the
campus, not a remote branch which would require extensive traffic. The
University wants to provide an attractive and pleasing environment that people
will enjoy using, but cannot commit to permanent land uses or space assignment
by any department. The Orchard, pleasant as it is for the public, is a University
teaching and research activity and subject to those needs and priorities, as
determined by the University for its programs and mission.
• Some information in this document, such as traffic data and water
quality characteristics, has, necessarily, been measured at specific points in time.
The data collected can not represent the full picture and may be out of date by
the completion of the GEIS. In these cases it will be necessary to measure
specific impacts of proposed projects against the base data, and to update the
base data periodically. It will be in the interest of the Town and University to
look at some of this data periodically to see how it is changing, and keep an up-
to -date official record of that.
• The DGEIS is not intended to foreclose future Town reviews or
investigation of project impacts; rather, the DGEIS provides a baseline of data,
which, if necessary, can be augmented for specific project proposals through the
EAF and supplementary project reviews (see pg vii of DGEIS Vol I). Thus, such
data as traffic and water quality may be subject to additional analysis at the time
of specific project proposals.
• The University has retained Stearns and Wheler to develop
additional information to respond to the several comments received on water
quality. This information should be available by mid - January. This additional
information will include the following information and will also respond to more
specific comments contained in several of the letters:
(1) A narrative discussion of how the planned remedial measures are
designed to retain the stream's natural hydrological characteristics. Runoff
controls incorporate both retention and detention. Stormwater runoff of
low to moderate volumes will be retained and infiltrated on site, so that
the base flow of the stream can be maintained. Large volumes of flow will
be detained to reduce the peaks. These points are made in the GEIS, but
are not referenced to the objective of maintaining the habitat for the
Exhibit #10 2
1/18/94 Minutes
development. While there is no realistic expectation the University could grow
by 4 million GSF in ten years, perhaps it could in 30 to 50 years, with much of
that in this Precinct. But whatever the rate or amount, that development is
limited by the conditions and characteristics of the GEIS study area.
Growth and location: Much University growth will require a relatively close
connection to the main campus. To keep student walking time between classes
down, the University has concluded that teaching facilities will be kept near
central campus, but some faculty and some students and staff will need to move
back and forth easily from one place to another. Precinct 7 is an extension of the
campus, not a remote branch which would require extensive traffic. The
University wants to provide an attractive and pleasing environment that people
will enjoy using, but cannot commit to permanent land uses or space assignment
by any department. The Orchard, pleasant as it is for the public, is a University
teaching and research activity and subject to those needs and priorities, as
determined by the University for its programs and mission.
• Some information in this document, such as traffic data and water
quality characteristics, has, necessarily, been measured at specific points in time.
The data collected can not represent the full picture and may be out of date by
the completion of the GEIS. In these cases it will be necessary to measure
specific impacts of proposed projects against the base data, and to update the
base data periodically. It will be in the interest of the Town and University to
look at some of this data periodically to see how it is changing, and keep an up-
to -date official record of that.
• The DGEIS is not intended to foreclose future Town reviews or
investigation of project impacts; rather, the DGEIS provides a baseline of data,
which, if necessary, can be augmented for specific project proposals through the
EAF and supplementary project reviews (see pg vii of DGEIS Vol I). Thus, such
data as traffic and water quality may be subject to additional analysis at the time
of specific project proposals.
• The University has retained Stearns and Wheler to develop
additional information to respond to the several comments received on water
quality. This information should be available by mid - January. This additional
information will include the following information and will also respond to more
specific comments contained in several of the letters:
(1) A narrative discussion of how the planned remedial measures are
designed to retain the stream's natural hydrological characteristics. Runoff
controls incorporate both retention and detention. Stormwater runoff of
low to moderate volumes will be retained and infiltrated on site, so that
the base flow of the stream can be maintained. Large volumes of flow will
be detained to reduce the peaks. These points are made in the GEIS, but
are not referenced to the objective of maintaining the habitat for the
Exhibit #10 2
1/18/94 Minutes
stream biota. This section will be used to link the design concepts with
their environmental impacts.
(2) Discussion of the need for and appropriate parameters related to
stream monitoring (baseline and as development proceeds).
(3) A quantitative analysis of the potential for changes in water quality
brought about by development, and the reduction in pollutant loading
achieved by the proposed remedial measures. This analysis will couple the
runoff volume calculations that are presented in the GEIS with simple
assumptions of contaminant concentrations. Literature values will be used
to define lower and upper bounds on the estimated concentrations. Flow
volume and concentration will be used to calculate loads to the Creek
under different remedial alternatives. Data will be presented as text,
tables, and graphs.
SPECIFIC REPLIES TO COMMENTS
Tompkins County Department of Planning:
We agree the proposed SLUR should reference the GEIS in a way that
permits the GEIS to be modified and augmented over time. The
40 mechanism for incorporating suggested mitigations into a future project is
the Town's site plan review.
Standards should stay general, but if the Town wishes to adopt more
detailed standards to be measured periodically, we will discuss this with
the Town. Note however, that such standards are very difficult to
measure and enforce. To date there hasn't been the need for such
standards, nor is such need likely, given the University practices.
We recommend no change on noise wording for "receiving land use
category ". The point is really moot - should a noisy use be proposed next
to a sensitive area, then a detailed review of that issue should be
undertaken.
FAR is not intended to describe or reference underground space. There
DLay be underground space in addition to the FAR space levels. The FAR
is intended to govern the proportion of building to open space. The
maximum of 4 million GSF would include all space including
underground.
The assumption for Precinct 7 is that there would be no significant
disruption of wetlands, thus there is no need for compensating purchase
• of off -site wetlands. The only wetlands impact anticipated would be
Exhibit #10 3
1/18/94 Minutes
associated with road crossings. Such crossings are covered by nationwide
permits and do not, generally, require mitigation. Total wetlands
impacts are expected to fall below ni
mimum standards requiring
mitigation.
The proposed pedestrian connection should be built when that area of the
Precinct has been developed with a sufficient population that would use
the connection. Rather than an abstract number of people, it is proposed
that this become part of a site plan for the developed area when there is an
obvious user group. It may be useful at present to have a connection to
East Hill Plaza, with trails and bridge to the south, but that is not a
consequence relative to existing minimal Precinct 7 development.
New York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT):
Answers to many of the NYS DOT questions are explained in the text.
It is proposed that the FGEIS be presented to the DOT as the
completed plan of Town and University.
The matter of timing for transportation related mitigations should be
discussed with the NYS DOT at the time a particular project is first
proposed. The mitigations could be done at the time or just before
projects are initiated.
The Town and University should meet with DOT to discuss the matter of
findings preparation responsibilities.
Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee:
Variable setback from natural edges has merit. There has been much
discussion of the methods to address this, including the 45° vertical angle
setback, which was rejected by the Town's attorney as being too
complicated. But the matter is complex and a variable response might
make sense. The size and nature of projects adjacent to woodline would
determine impact, and should be discussed with regional natural areas
specialists. A 30' setback of a small one -story farm shed would have a
very different impact from a 50' office building.
Traffic issues are addressed elsewhere. Additional environmental
assessment data may be provided if any new data indicates the need.
Wetlands of any significance will not be disturbed. Minor adjustments to
wetlands will normally be discussed with the Town during site plan
rreview.
Exhibit #10 4
1/18/94 Minutes
• Tomlkins County Environmental Management Council:
Having a comprehensive bird count is like the traffic count and water
quality measure; the DGEIS does not pretend to be fully comprehensive.
But Cornell's policy is that the natural areas will be protected.
The GEIS is designed to describe thresholds of development and
mitigations for overall impact rather than specific projects. The Town,
through the EAF and site plan processes will have the opportunity to
assess project- specific impacts.
Bruce and Doug Brittain :
We agree that traffic counts at any given time are needed to show total
traffic impact as well as Cornell P7 impact.
Caldwell Road/ Route 366 Intersection - The intersection evaluation
criteria stated in the Traffic Impact Study includes warrants for traffic
signal installation from the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD). The intersection meets Warrant 10 - Peak Hour Delay and
Warrant 11- Peak Hour Volume for signalization.
Level of Service (LOS) - The intersections studied were evaluated using
accepted methods of analysis. The conditions of the intersections do not
warrant direct measurement of delay.
Forest Home (LOS) - The Brittains appear to be is confused about a high
versus low LOS. A high Level of Service (C versus E) minimizes impact
because a high LOS means less traffic, less congestion, less noise and less
impact.
Noise - Mitigation has not been proposed because although existing levels
are in some cases relatively high, the predicted increases are not
considered significant and therefore do not require mitigation.
Traffic Count Data in Forest Home - The intersection traffic counts for the
AM and PM peak hours at the two intersections in question were
examined for inconsistencies by comparing the counts conducted by
Travers Associates in 1991 with counts taken by Bruce Brittain in 1988.
The peak hour counts at the Pleasant Grove Road /Forest Home Drive
intersection are consistent. The counts at the Judd Falls Road /Forest
Home Drive intersection are consistent except for the PM count of the
Exhibit #10 5
1/18/94 Minutes
eastbound approach of Judd Falls Road which should be about 300
vehicles higher.
Our analysis of the intersection with the addition of 300 vehicles indicates
that the intersection would have a LOS of E under existing conditions.
This LOS indicates that the intersection should be signalized as an existing
condition improvement to attain a LOS of A. The signalization of this
intersection as an existing condition rather than as a threshold condition
due to development has no impact on the study findings because the
intersection evaluation criteria requires that the LOS of the intersection
never drop below LOS C. Our analysis indicates that the signalized
intersection with maximum development with the 300 additional vehicles
would have a LOS of C rather than B.
Barbara L. Peckarsky:
The measurements here were made at specific times and places and
are not comprehensive. Some on -going measurement would be
desirable; class projects conducted periodically (and dependably) could
be very useful in providing updates of stream quality.
We are pleased that the Stream Ecology Class will be available in the
Spring semester of 1995 to provide a comprehensive study of the stream
ecology. This will be an important and useful update to the GEIS section
on water resources.
See the general section of this letter for a discussion of plans to respond to
other comments from Barbara Peckarsky,
Ellen Harrison:
Differential impact to primary environmental issues is generally
addressed by thresholds, but there is no way to predict and measure
impacts at many different possible levels. The effort would be very large
and the speculation so great as to make the effort unrealistic. An EAF
review of specific projects does require extensive examination, and the
Town may seek supplementary data and analysis when necessary.
The Cornell Planning Office does have FAR data for the central campus,
with a map showing the measurement boundaries. This map could be
referenced in the GEIS. It would provide tangible ways to judge what
various FARs feel like. The purpose of the FAR is to allow variable height
for visual attractiveness; there would be no general coverage of land by
buildings all of one height.
Exhibit #10 6
1/18/94 Minutes
•
For Precincts 8 and 9, the development amounts are only best guesses and
not commitments. But since no SLUD or rezoning is requested for this
area, any development by Cornell would go through all the same
processes as it does at present. The GEIS concerns only development
study and Town processes for Precinct 7, and only shows Precincts 8 and 9
as context as requested by the Town.
The draft of the SLUD in the DGEIS needs to reference the DGEIS, but is
not a commitment by the Town, once the FGEIS and Findings are
completed. The proposed SLUD will have to be approved separately
by the Town after public discussion of the Town zoning ordinance, as
with any amendment.
The University is very interested in improving and protecting the water
quality of Cascadilla Creek. State of the art mitigating measures,
including structural and non - structural best management plans for
stormwater control, form the foundation for a proposal to protect water
quality in the GEIS. In addition, much work has been accomplished
recently to protect the water quality, including conversion from the use of
on -site wastewater treatment systems to central sanitary sewer disposal,
and development of best management plans for manure handling.
See the proposed work in the general comments for how the specific
concerns of impact analysis will be addressed.
The GEIS shows Precinct 7 road traffic with a connection having two
possible directions depending much on how the Town responds to a
north -south route along Game Farm Road. Also, traffic flow could be
made slow and less attractive to through traffic.
Free parking in the B Lot is a complex policy issue. It could be considered
but in terms of the whole campus system and a would require a separate
analysis.
There is a commitment by Cornell to develop in a way that preserves or
enhances special views. To retain some flexibility for use of this land in
the very long range, the University can not commit to having no
development along the eastern end of Precinct 7, but would develop it in
a sensitive way with input on views and general landscape and
architectural quality by Town and University reviewers.
The variable setback proposed by other commentors could be applied to
McGowan Woods.
Exhibit #10 7
1/18/94 Minutes
C]
It is University policy to avoid interference with natural areas and the
GEIS identifies the Cascadilla corridor as a natural area. In Precinct 7, the
Cascadilla corridor is the only place where there are slopes of 15% or
more. Also, an EAF would identify the steep slopes and the Town would
review and require adequate impact provision .
There are some areas of very good soil in this Precinct. The available
reference for this is the Tompkins County Soils book, showing types of soil
and soil qualities throughout the County.
The fact that Cornell does allow the public to use its lands for recreational
purposes such as walking, jogging, hiking, biking, cross country skiing,
birdwatching, etc. can be included in the DGEIS.
Cornell has no way to accurately predict the number of employees it
may have at a future time; the numbers in the GEIS are derived from
extensions of density data. If one measures the present campus density
and projects it to Precinct 7 at some future full development, one comes up
with a population of approximately 7000. Of that, about 4000 are assumed
to be new employees, and 3000 moved from the central campus. The
Apace vacated by the 3000 is assumed to be for teaching purposes, not
lacem
S.
Director
Exhibit #10
1/18/94 Minutes 8