Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2008-07-15FILE mots D A TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, NEW YORK TUESDAY, JULY 159 2008 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Fred Wilcox, Acting Chair; George Conneman, Larry Thayer, Susan Riha, Kevin Talty, Alternate, Absent: Chairperson Rod Howe and Hollis Erb, Staff Presents Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Carrie Coates Whitmore, First Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Acting Chair Wilcox brought the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He stated the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. Persons to be Heard Acting Chair Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:01 p.m, and invited members of the public to address the board on an item that was not on the agenda that evening. Ms. Webb — Fred, we have a pamphlet, or a little group of papers to hand to everybody if you would let us do that. Leslie Intemann is to my left. She lives at 1415 Slaterville Road. I am Cathy Webb; I live at 1417 Slaterville Road. We both happen to be neighbors and we both happen to be realtors with Audrey Edelman, Coincidence. We are both, -I guess, adjacent, to the property at 1415 -17 Slaterville Road that the Quakers, the Friends...you okayed a driveway to go in there at the meeting of June 17, 2008, at which time, both Leslie and I talked, and if you look at the minutes of that meeting, I'm there,. Cathy with a C, even though it says K, and there is a question mark about who else was to speak and there was a question mark, and it is Leslie Inteman, she was the one that did speak. So in your minutes, where there is a question mark, it was Leslie. Okay. I, what we approve, what we have here, and we will let you read it at your leisure, but, on second, I think the pictures are worth a thousand words, and you can see our speaking points on the first page, but, when we went to this meeting, I was on Sabbatic in Seattle; Leslie called me in December and said, "Cath, there's a bulldozer between our properties." And I said, "There can't be, there was no permit." And being a realtor for twenty -some years, I kind of know permits and what you're supposed to do with Planning Boards. Bulldozer went away. I talked with Kristie Rice, I talked with Dan Walker, they said that "Don't worry, you'll see the site plan, it will go before a meeting and you right there, you're an adjacent property owner, it will happen." The talking points on page one tell you there was no such map, even at the meeting on...so when came into town on June the 17th, Leslie told me, she saw my car come in from Seattle, she said, "Quick, there's a meeting tonight." I said, "okay ". I said, "they'll just be Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 2 presenting a map, then we'll talk about the map and so on". Well, before we knew it, the map was ... there was no map ... we never saw a map., and the map ... anyway, so, it got voted in and we never got to even see a map until 4 days later. On these pictures, what you can see is, A & D are the road at 14 ... well, it's right between Leslie and my house, 1415 -1417 Slaterville Road. The B & C is the road; it's the road down where the driveway could be at 1410 Slaterville Road, also where they own property. E is, shows you how the new driveway that was put in on, June 18t' ... no, June 21st ... June 21 s� the driveway went in. F shows you that not only did the driveway go in but there is no chain across it, there's nothing that says no trespassing, and the bulldozer took down the, the, you know, there's deer for the next 4 miles sign. DOT hasn't put it back up, but there's a lot of deer through there. The concerns are, also on the next page, you'll see that this is a driveway heading right for Van Etta's Dam, right for it. If you look at, this came from Google Earth or one of those ... and B is where we think the driveway should be, A is where you gave permission for it to go. It points right at Van Etta's Dam and I can't prove it, but I have talked to the police and I think that the guy who jumped into 4" of water... anyway, that day, there were a lot of kids going down the driveway. So, what we're saying is, we think that driveways can be moved and it's not the Quakers, it's not what they're going to do for 10times or 7times or 14times a year that we're concerned, I'm going to say I'm concerned about, and you're concerned about, it's what happens the other 360 days and that road, if you go see it, that points right at Van Etta's Dam and Comell, students are bright enough to know that. And, I'm very concerned that you gave the okay, very concerned. Leslie, you had something that you wanted to ad. ..l know I did most of the talking, but you... Ms. Intemann — No, I think Kathy hit most of the points, but we are incredibly concerned. Just the fact that it doesn't feel like due diligence was done for this driveway to go in. Ms. Webb — That was in today's paper. Due dil ... the search is on what to look for in due diligence, it was in this mornings' paper, and I... Ms. Intemann — It was just that we were told last November that there would be,. .A, B and C would be done and I don't think it was done, all of a sudden. The vote came one Tuesday and the next Tuesday the driveway was started and the bulldozers were done 4 days later. Ms. Webb — One other thing. We were at the meeting, I'm pretty sure it said the driveway was going to be 104eet from Leslie's property. When that driveway was going in, I called Sue Ritter down at the Town of Ithaca and she says ... I said "somebody should be here. Nobody's here except Leslie and me, and my husband, but he's not staying at ... And there was no one from the Friends there, and there was just us. The bulldozer was on Leslie's property. Its 10 -feet at the end of it. It's two feet or even right Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 3 on your pin right at the road. And it's not what was okayed, and yet when I read the minutes, there's nothing in the minutes that says ten feet. I'm confused at that too. Board Member Riha — We had a site plan so we would have had the... Ms. Webb — But we didn't see the site plan. Board Member Riha — Well we didn't know that because we did have a site plan that was sent out to us. Ms. Webb — Right. I told Sue Ritter we should have at least been told that ... we did not know it was at the...we did not know it even existed. Board Member Riha — But if it was put in not where it said it was going to be put in the site plan, that's an issue for the Code Enforcement. Ms. Webb — I don't think that's the issue though. I think the issue was we didn't see the site plan; we would have addressed that at the meeting. But we never saw it, it wasn't, and I said to Sue, "Couldn't you have put a sticky on the letter that said that we are going to have..." It said preliminary. If you look at the agenda last week, it said that you were going... Mr. Kanter — I think it said preliminary and final. Ms. Webb — Yeah, but how can you do both? Acting Chair Wilcox — I don't want to get into a debate here. I can talk about process in general, because Kathy, in your cover, you say "it's customary in the towns of Ithaca, Dryden, Ulysses.., Ms. Webb — Yeah, I've done... Acting Chair Wilcox M- ... to present a map that one "...that's not true. For large projects, let's take Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, which is a huge project, yes, we have sketch plan review, yes, the developer comes in and shows us the plans. We make comments, but what on what I would call "smaller" projects, the developer works with Staff, the Staff ensures that the application materials are complete and reasonable, and then provides them to us, schedules the public hearing, the materials are available. As a landowner... Ms. Webb — They weren't. Nobody told us. Acting Chair Wilcox — Wait a minute. Wait a minute. As a landowner, you have a responsibility to check the legals, check the Town bulletin board. I believe, out of courtesy, you might have gotten something in the mail as a landowner. Okay. But Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 4 that's done out of courtesy. You could have contacted the Town. They have the materials. We can't have the materials unless they got them. Ms. Webb - Troy Road, Troy Road. When I did a project on Troy Road, I was the realtor. We had to have a map and we had to tell each of the adjacent landowners, this is Town of Ithaca, and I've done it with Dryden, I've done it with Ulysses. I did it on Maplewood Point in Ulysses. We had to contact each one of the owners and say "there is a map at the Town of Ulysses or the Town of Ithaca, or wherever, and then, if they wanted to look at it, fine. If they didn't want to look at it, fine. We didn't even have a sticky... Acting Chair Wilcox - No, not in Town of Ithaca. Ms. Webb - Town of Ithaca...right ... there was no ... Yes! I had to do it on Troy Road. Paul Ruben. We did a whole site plan; I can get you the tax map number. Mr. Kanter - Well, that was a sketch plan, to begin with, and so that wouldn't have gotten approval at that meeting because sketch plans are only concept plans... Ms. Webb - Well we were (inaudible) for 4 meetings and it didn't get approved, you know, but, what I'm saying is... Mr. Kanter - Right, because he never pursued it. Ms. Webb - Right, he became ill. Mr. Kanter - So that's a totally different kind of proposal. Ms. Webb - but what I'm saying is, is that had., first of all, i just got into Town, okay. Leslie was a landowner. She had no idea, she's been a realtor like 2 months, you know. She doesn't know that you have to go...l would have known. However, it was that night, and I truthfully said to her "Don't worry, there'll be a map at the meeting, we'll see it there." There wasn't. Mr. Kanter - There certainly was. Ms. Webb - There was not. Not that we saw. Mr. Kanter - Well, but, there certainly was a map. The Board had it... Ms. Webb — Well, how bout the ... you never... 1 had to put them on big cork boards. Mr. Kanter — Were you in the audience at that meeting? Ms. Webb - Yes I was. We were there from the very beginning. Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 5 Mr. Kanter — Every single Planning Board member who was here, every single Planning Board member who was here had a map in front of them and you could have certainly asked to see it. Ms. Brock — Whenever...in the past, anybody from the public has asked to see a map that they don't have a copy of, one of us will get up and hand them our map. Ms. Webb — Well, maybe it was just that I had just driven 3,000 miles and therefore I wouldn't have known that, but Leslie wouldn't have known that. I think somebody... Ms. Intemann — I also spoke with Dan Walker that afternoon and we discussed the driveway and the fact that it would be 10 feet and I said, "is this a done deal ?" and he said, "Basically, it is." And at no point in that conversation did he... Ms. Brock — Well, he had no right to say that.. He is not the Planning Board. Only the Planning Board can approve site plans. Ms. Intemann — Exactly. He said "They're going to approve it." He said, "The way we've written it, they're going to approve it, "...but, he did not, at any point... Ms. Brock — He can't say that. Ms. Intemann — Well, I'm saying what he told me in my conversation... Ms. Brock — Well I'm telling you that what he said is of no legal validity. He does not have the authority to say that. M. Intemann — That's fine. But what he did not say was the site plan is available and has been available since May 16th and I had been talking to him since November 28th and 29th. So I think there was a little bit of... you know... Ms. Brock — No, it's... Ms. Webb — And I said to Sue Ritter, we could have even had a little sticky, I mean, just a little sticky on that agenda that said there was a map, it was stamped on May 18th, got it on Thursday, the meeting was on Tuesday. There is no...l guess what we're saying is ... I don't, even with that, I don't think you had due diligence in looking where this driveway is. Look at where the ... look at where the passing zone is. Where it should be, there's only passing in one area. Where you put it, there's passing in two areas, two driveways right across from each other. Ms. Brock — I think we did have some neighbors who came who talked about the location of the driveway. People who live in that area... Ms. Webb — I was here. I was here. Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 6 Ms. Brock — Right, right, so they made comments correct? About the location of the driveway.. . Ms. Intemann — They aren't the adjacent landowners. Ms. Webb — They're not the adjacent and it was NIMBY. Not in my backyard. Penny Lane doesn't want them (inaudible ). Ms. Brock — All right. But you said we didn't do due diligence. We held a public hearing; we heard comments form the public, including people who live on that road in that vicinity. That is what we're supposed to do. We're not omniscient. We can not divine facts out of thin air. If you're saying the people who live in that area that aren't directly adjacent don't have the right information, you were here and you should have gotten up and you should have told us that's not the right information... Ms. Webb — If you remember, the first thing you did, look in the notes, you can, you know, I'm not going to argue this right now. I am saying I think procedurally, this was not right. There should have been some kind of a map that was handed out to the public. Ms. Brock — Okay. Well, what I'm saying is what we did was legally sufficient and adequate and if anybody had asked for a copy of the map, one of us would have been happy to have given them a copy of our map. Ms. Intemann — I would like you to look at our facts and look at those two little placements of that. One thing that the Quaker person said, Marrin said, was that the sightline was better, Jt's in the minutes...the sightline is better from where the driveway is now than the driveway closer to Honness Lane. That is not true, plus, that's totally, totally, totally subjective. But if you go there and you drive...again, I was exhaust ... I went and looked, I haven't been in Town for 9 months, 1 went and looked and you look at that and you try to get out of ... by 1410 Slaterville Road or by 1415 and 17 Slaterville Road and 1 think you'll see that the sightline from 1410 Slaterville Road is much clearer. There is not passing in both lanes that way and I think you should really look at the facts that we have put down on page one. Ms. Brock — Well that we can certainly do. Ms. Webb — Thank you. Acting Chair Wilcox — Thank you Kathy and Leslie, if I may call you Leslie. Ms. Webb — And that is Leslie in the minutes. The question mark after,.. person #5,,. Do we have to sign anywhere ?... Final PS 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 7 Acting Chair Wilcox — If you will, you can put your name on the Sign In list.. 'Anybody else this evening like to address the Board on an item which is not on the agenda? I'm right on time aren't I....moving right along... Acting Chair Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:14 p.m. He then announced the next agenda item. Agenda Item: Consideration of Acceptance of the Draft Cornell Transportation Focus Generic Environmental Impact Statement known as T -GETS, as adequate and complete for public review and comment and Consideration of setting a Public Hearing to hear comments from the public regarding the T -LEIS. Acting Chair Wilcox -- To members of the Board, if it's okay with you, I would like to concentrate on either outstanding issues that were not resolved at the last meeting, one of which is the background growth methodology and any new issues that my come up. Hopefully we won't back track too much on issues that were discussed, resolved and either resolved through discussion or resolved through the replacement pages which we received. So having said that, Katherine, are you expecting us to ask questions? Do you have opening comments? Or what? Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects, 1001 West Seneca Street, agent for Cornell University. I don't really have anything prepared other than just a very brief statement to summarize the methodology that was used for background growth and we're really just here if you have any questions. Acting Chair Wilcox — If we can, can we do that first? That was one of the biggest issues that was left over from the previous meeting. Go ahead, yeah. Ms. Wolf — Okay. The background growth methodology which is summarized both in Appendix E and a memorandum, and it's also described on page 245 of the T -GETS, was essentially... the methodology was derived through a series of meetings and conversations but principally, one meeting which was held with area planners, including Ed Marx from Tompkins County, Fernando de Aragon from ITCTC and representatives from the NYS Department of Transportation. And what we did, is ... first of all, the task was to identify how much traffic had grown on average, per year, over the last 15 years. So the way we did that was to look ... we sought out traffic counts and records of actual traffic counts that had been done by ITCTC, the County, and NYS DOT on various corridors. We then identified locations where traffic counts had been taken consistently over the years so that we could compare and understand how the traffic growth had changed from year to year. Based on that information, we were able to ascertain an average of 2.2% traffic growth on those corridors throughout Tompkins County over the last 15 years. So, some corridors had higher growth rates than 2.2% a year and some had lower, but the average was 2.2. And that was sort of corroborated if you will, by NYS DOT who said that their standard, if lacking traffic counts, then they recommend Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 8 using a figure of 2% per year. They view that as sort of the average in NYS. So it's a little bit higher in Tompkins County. So, all traffic in Tompkins County was determined to be growing, over the last 15 years, on average, at 2.2% per year. The next task was to identify how much of that growth, traffic growth, was attributable to what we call "background growth ", which is all traffic other than Cornell, so that we could separate that for the purposes of analysis. And the memo in Appendix E describes some of the factors that were considered but essentially, the approximate proportion of Cornell population growth over that same time period, relative to the County population growth over that time period was utilized to establish that approximately 1.5% of the 2.2 was attributed to background growth — meaning all non - Cornell traffic. Board Member Thayer — So that figure is not included? Ms. Wolf — That is the figure in scenario one — scenario one is considered no Cornell growth. So under scenario one, which is no Cornell growth —the background... but its assuming no Cornell growth, but assuming that other traffic in the County continues to grow because other jobs, other retail, whatever the reason. We saw in the paper last week about the wine trail growing — whatever the factors are. So there is going to be other growth is the assumption —even if Cornell doesn't grow at all. So it was assumed that the other traffic would grow at 1.5% annually for 10 years in scenario one. So that assumed no Cornell growth and that's what scenario one shows you— background growth only. Then scenarios two, three, and four —those growth scenarios were defined, as you know, I think we've gone over that, based on actual growth rates at Cornell during different decades- -during a low growth, medium growth, higher growth decade essentially. So then when the traffic analysis is done according to those scenarios we can compare traffic attributed to the Cornell growth to what would be occurring as a result of the background growth. Follow me? You with me? Ms. Brock — And they always add the Cornell growth to the background growth. So scenario two is background growth plus the .1 % increase; scenario three is background growth plus .5 %...and Discussion of the three growth percentages used. Board Member Thayer –1.5% is included. Ms. Wolf — Is the background. Acting Chair Wilcox — And it's always included. Board Member Thayer —Always included. Ms. Brock —Always included. Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 9 Ms. Wolf – Yes. That is correct. Board Member Thayer – Gotcha. Acting Chair Wilcox – Does that answer your question? Ms. Brock –No. There's another piece to it, which Kathryn is about to explain. Ms. Wolf – Oh, am I? Let's see — which... Another point that I wanted to point out then is that on Page 245 of the TGEIS this...where we are describing the background growth, there we had actually rounded up this 2.2 annual growth to 2.5 and Susan has suggested that that should be —that we make that change to 2.2 because 2.2 is the agreed upon and that is the number that was used for background growth. This was sort of just an average shown here in the text. So, Susan, I guess I'm not entirely clear on what we agreed I was going to describe for the next step, so... Ms. Brock – So my question was, I mean if you do the math, basically the planners were assuming that .7% of all the traffic growth in the County on an annual basis over the last 15 years was attributed to Cornell because if they said the traffic is growing at 2.2% and the non - Cornell traffic is 1.5% that leaves 7% that you would attribute back to Cornell. But my question was, are these different growth scenarios.. those numbers are much lower than the .7 number and how do you explain that. Now one thing I've done since then, too, is gone back and look at the memo and the memo says use 1.5% for the non - Cornell growth and,. but it doesn't say use .7% for the Cornell growth. It says use the independently generated, hypothetical growth numbers for the Cornell growth and those independently generated, hypothetical growth numbers are the numbers that are in the scope that everybody, including this Planning Board, accepted and agreed were reasonable hypothetical growth numbers. So I do believe the TGEIS is doing what it said it would do, but it seems that when the non - Cornell background growth was calculated, then ... it seems as if maybe the number is a little bit law- -the non - Cornell background growth. But that was the number that a number of people worked together to arrive at. And I know Kathryn has looked more at what are the actual numbers in here, like with the intersection analysis and maybe you can explain that. Ms. Wolf — Yeah. When we look at the ... and we don't. .unfortunately we don't have a nice tidy table that shows this now, but this is something we could certainly provide in the next step, as Susan said, I do believe that for the purposes of adequacy we've done everything as its outlined in the scoping document and I think if there are ongoing questions about this, we could certainly address this and provide more information and analysis if needed. But we did look at the increases in traffic at the various intersections under the various growth scenarios and so again, Susan's question is, has it grown, sort of to be equivalent to this .7 %. And under the...and again we don't.. unfortunately we don't have a tidy table so we had to go back and construct this from the information in the appendix and in looking at that, the intersections that we've evaluated so far under scenario three, most of those intersections were approaching an annual growth rate of Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg, 10 Cornell traffic of .7 %. So that would be consistent with the number that was backed out of the background growth. Are you following me, Fred? Am I assembling,.. Acting Chair Wilcox – Keep going. Alternate Member Talty – He took a sigh of relief at that point. Acting Chair Wilcox – I didn't answer your question. I said keep going. Ms. Wolf – So that under scenario three and then there is scenario four, in fact, most of the intersections that we looked at, the Cornell attributed traffic growth ranged between .6% and up to 2 %. So its straddling that .7% that would be, again, we know that the — just a reminder here —we know that the traffic grew at about 2.2% in the County total. We attributed 1.5% to all the non - Comell traffic. So that would mean that roughly .7 would be the Cornell traffic, but the .7 isn't what we used in the math —we feel very confident about the growth numbers that we used because based on the Capital Plan, what Cornell sees really happening over the next 10 years, which they have a good sense of what's likely to happen there, I think we feel very confident about the growth numbers. So I think the intersections, to me, are looking like they are fairly consistent and confirm that the growth scenarios are fairly consistent with the background growth numbers. The question is, I think the one that is —feels less consistent —is when you look at the corridors. The corridors are looked at differently than intersections. And the corridor growth numbers, if you look at all the corridors, they're averaging about half a percent annually attributed to Cornell. However, I guess I would also point out that if in fact...so what Susan is suggesting is that perhaps the number, the background growth should have been a little bit of a larger number and in fact and perhaps the Cornell growth is a little bit lower. However, if the background growth were in fact a somewhat higher number, what that means is —that growth is still reflected in scenarios two and three. So the impacted is reflected; it perhaps is just not reflected as being —it's reflected as Cornell traffic as opposed to community traffic. Acting Chair Wilcox -- I'm wincing here because I'm thinking about what you said as I point to the Town Attorney— Attorney for the Town. You compared, Susan, you compared the .7% historical Cornell traffic growth number with the scenarios, which refer not to traffic growth, but population growth of Cornell. Ms. Brock — Yes. Acting Chair Wilcox — And though you pointed out 0. 1, 0.5, 1.0 may not straddle 7, 1 think we are comparing apples and oranges. Ms. Brock — No. I'm sorry if I said that. That wasn't... Acting Chair Wilcox — No. You didn't say that. That was my interpretation of it. Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 11 Ms. Brock –No. That's right. You are taking percentages of different things. Right? Acting Chair Wilcox – Correct. Yes, Ms. Brock – In the first instance we are looking at entire County traffic and we are looking at how fast its growing and we are deriving percentages from that and figuring out how much of that is attributable to non - Cornell generated growth traffic and everything else. But then when we are looking at the impact of Cornell growth we are taking percentages of the Cornell population. So the .1% is of the 30,000 population. So you always have to keep that in mind. So I'm not saying that the .1, .51 1 aren't somehow straddling .7— that's not it at all. What I'm saying is, if in fact Cornell is responsible for .7% on an annual basis of the growth in total Countywide traffic, do any of our scenarios yield results equaling .7% of the total traffic in the County, especially scenarios one and two when we are looking at adding 300 people or 10 years or 1,000 people over 10 years or whatever the scenario... Acting Chair Wilcox – Yeah. Scenario two is 300 and scenario three is 1500. Board Member Riha – So Susan, you are saying, the implication is even if Cornell isn't adding new people, it could still be increasing? Ms. Brock – No. I was just wondering whether we were actually in fact going to end up with a situation where we are accounting for just what's been happening historically or were we going to end up with numbers that were too low. What I'm hearing is, actually, for the intersection analysis it sounds as if in fact, I mean I haven't seen it, but it sounds as if maybe that's okay. The question is with the corridors, even if you look at scenario four, I'm not sure any of those corridors are showing a 2.2% annual increase over 10 years. I mean that would be over a 22% increase. Right? And I don't think when you look at the numbers that they are increasing that fact. Board Member Riha - But I guess the one piece of missing information. for me is over the period which there was this increase in traffic attributed to Cornell, how many more people were at Cornell? Ms. Brock - Well, we know —in the Scope it tells you what the growth was over different periods of time. So we know from 1990 to 1999 Cornell grew at .1 % and so that's 300 people... Board Member Riha - Okay and that resulted in .7% increase... Ms. Brock - Well, no. I mean I don't think that number did. Ms. Wolf - Well, the 2.2% is an annual average also. Right? I mean that's over 15 years. So there are years where it could have been much higher and years where it was much lower. So it's an average and I'm sure there was a lot of up and down. Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 12 Mr. Kanter – I think what this is all saying is that the Cornell population figures were actually much more readily available and apparent. The traffic numbers were not as readily apparent and that's why it was difficult to come up with the assumption of the conversion of population to traffic. Board Member Riha – Yeah. Ms. Brock – I mean, I think Cornell did what they were asked to do. The agreement was to use 1.5% as a non - Comell background growth and to add onto that these different scenarios with these specific numbers, which everybody including this board accepted as reasonable numbers. So they did that. The problem is maybe in the corridor analysis the background growth, especially, is somewhat understated. Ms. Wolf – And I think we always knew it would be imprecise ... I mean there's no way know exactly how to attribute the background growth versus the Cornell growth and I certainly think that we can in this next phase run some scenarios of, you know, just to understand what if the ... because I actually talked to the traffic engineers about this today and their feeling was that well even if —okay lets say that background growth is understated and so lets say ... how much more would it be. If it were 1.8% instead of 1.5 % ... if we just did some quick calculations, in most cases they didn't think it would be enough that it was unlikely that it would actually trip something into a different level of service. Again this was all ... you know, we need more time to really assess all of that. That's certainly the kind of analysis we can do to help us all understand how significant that might be. I don't think we ever thought it would be really precise and I think the transportation engineers in talking with to them today, I mean they certainly feel comfortable that the ultimate conclusions they feel really wouldn't be that much different because we are talking about numbers that wouldn't ... you know ... I mean I think its possible that the background growth should have been a little bit higher, but I think ultimately the conclusions aren't likely that different than what we have. Board Member Riha – Then I guess I just think it would be really difficult to distinguish given that Cornell has such a dominant influence on the community as an employer and as a generator of money, its hard to picture what exactly the background growth would be. That you are saying this is what would happen if Cornell is just not spending a penny more. Ms. Brock – Well, right. It includes Cornell traffic; it just doesn't include any increase due to growth at Cornell. Right? Board Member Riha – Yeah, but it just seems like there are so many aspects of growth at Cornell that are hard to attribute. Ms. Wolf – It's difficult. Board Member Riha – I mean, you know, as we get more startups and you have a whole bunch of startups and they are buying equipment and all that, but all that has to Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 13 do with Cornell and Cornell bringing in certain research money, following certain policies, and it wouldn't happen if Cornell wasn't making those decisions. So is that considered background growth or...? Ms. Brock - I think you probably consider Cornell growth to be Cornell faculty, staff... Board Member Riha - Yeah...but that's just a really small part... Ms. Brock - So yes that would be background growth, what you just described. Board Member Riha - Right, but then —but it's essentially —so as Cornell changes every, I think faculty members are generating more economic activity; it's certainly a conscience effort to do that at Cornell. So I think that's been happening over the last 10 years as well. Acting Chair Wilcox - Which leads to the 1.5% background growth. Board Member Riha - It just seems like it's really hard to make that really clear distinction. Ms. Brock - The question is just even when you add in the Cornell growth on top, we're not getting back to 2.2% perhaps. That was the issue for me, but... Board Member Riha - Those numbers may then be too low. Ms. Brock - Not because Cornell's hypothetical growth projections are wrong, because we think they look reasonable. So therefore it must be that the other number has to be too low. But then I looked at the mitigation section and even though there were a few corridors where levels of service dropped to unacceptable levels, they actually didn't recommend any mitigations specifically because of that. All mitigations are aimed at intersections or areas with high crash data, areas where there were identified pedestrian or bicycle safety issues, things like that. So even if they were to rerun the numbers, I mean it's possible there could be different mitigations that might end up being recommended. We don't really know or I don't know how it would affect the livability analysis either, but it seems to me they did what the scope told them to do and that it would be appropriate to go ahead and have this approved tonight unless you have other issues and that they can continue to look at this and perhaps provide further explanation in the final EIS if necessary. Acting Chair Wilcox - We have a new reporter from the Ithaca Journal here. You just said approved. I want you to explain what you mean by approve. We're not here to approve it; we're here to accept it tonight. Ms. Brock - Accept the scope as adequate to form content and... Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 14 Acting Chair Wilcox — Accepting the scope for public comment. We are not approving it. We're just accepting it as... Ms. Brock — Well, the scope has already been approved. Acting Chair Wilcox — Correct, but the document simply we are accepting it as complete for... Ms. Brock — So then it can be released for public comment. Acting Chair Wilcox — Are we done with this one for now? I feel like I understand it better tonight than I did two weeks ago. Board Member Riha — Yeah. Acting Chair Wilcox — I'm not sure I got it down pat, though. Mr. Kanter — You probably wouldn't be able to explain it to somebody if you asked you, right? Acting Chair Wilcox — Thank you. Yeah. That's true understanding. Yes. Board Member Conneman — Assumptions are always subject to interpretation so you do the best you can, but then you have to be willing to change if you're wrong. Board Member Riha — Or if better numbers... Board Member Conneman — We know Cornell has grown. Since 1950 Cornell is a much, much bigger institution than it used to be. Board Member Riha — I guess one more question I had for Susan, probably, is what then the GEIS actually means. How are we as a Town of Ithaca Planning Board going to use this GEIS as we move into the future? Ms. Brock — That's actually described in a couple of sections in here. There are two different ways. One is in the future as Cornell comes forward with various development related applications for site plan approval or special permit or for variances before the ZBA, for example, you will have the information in here to help you place that specific project within a bigger picture so that you are not looking at Cornell growth project by project by project, but now you've taken a look at all the projects or at growth anticipated from all the projects that were in their five year capital plan as of when they started this. So you'll have that information. Of course any site specific impacts of a particular project including traffic related circulation or whatever impacts, would still be looked at by you in the SEQR process you do for that project. So this does not replace SEQR for all the projects; you will still do SEQR. You will just have the benefit of this TGEIS information, which will be supplemented with anything else that is appropriate on Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 15 a site specific project basis. So that's the first way you are going to use this. The second way is Cornell has prepared this draft transportation impact mitigation strategy document, which they are asking the Planning Board and perhaps other City boards, maybe the Town Board and City Common Council to review and accept. I mean it is not a document they are required to prepare under any law or regulation, but they've presented it and if these boards feel it is appropriate they can say "yes, we accept this as reasonable statement of mitigations that Cornell and the community can be looking at in the future." There are number of things in the TIMS that are directly related to Cornell. Its really Cornell's strategic plan for mitigating single occupancy vehicle trips to Cornell, but there are also ... I haven't actually read it carefully yet —there are also I believe, I assume that some of the mitigations that are aimed at other community wide organizations are also in the TIMS such as support for van pools and park and rides and transit reconfigurations and things like that, which Cornell cannot control. Sometimes some of those projects are directly under the purview of particular agency or municipality, so anyway, that is the other way in which this board will use the TGEIS is to say because those mitigations were pretty much taken out of the TGEIS and put into the TIMS to say, "yes, these are appropriate mitigation strategies to be exploring." Board Member Riha — But, so, kind of just picking a made up example. If a few years from now Cornell proposes a project and traffic would be...it would maybe increase traffic through Forest Home and a full environmental impact statement is prepared and we might want to say we want to look at alternatives to routing that traffic, we would still have the ability to request that even if that was not the way it was presented here. Ms. Brock — Yes. You would have the ability to look at that. I mean it depends on what the specific project is as to whether you could ask Cornell to implement that as opposed to perhaps asking the Town Board to consider building a new road that takes traffic off Pleasant Grove and routes it somewhere besides Forest Home. But this is not binding you in any way to any particular universe of options. It's informative; that's what the document is. There was one more thing about this that I forgot to mention, which is: Cornell on an annual basis will be giving us a report that will tell us, you know, what's happening in terms of implementation of various TIM strategies to I guess probably also looking at population growth changes at Cornell to the extent they know. Changes in commuting modes, you know, whether there has been a big shift from single occupancy to vanpool. Ms. Wolf — What kind of participation rates we are getting in the various alternative programs. Ms. Brock — And actually Cornell will know those numbers because you sign up for various programs and you get certain benefits through the transportation and mail services department in that you'll get free parking passes for so many days...you know, if you give up your parking pass you get this in exchange. Ms. Wolf — They are setting up a program so it can be tracked better. Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 16 Ms. Brock — So on an annual basis we'll be getting updates to that as well. So we'll know as we're going how it is going basically. And the TGEIS, I believe, they were thinking of reviewing it on a 5 -year cycle or 10 -year cycle. 10 -year maybe. Mr. Wendt — Five. Ms. Brock — Five year? Okay. Acting Chair Wilcox — Bill Wendt said five years. Ms. Brock — Okay. Then we'll take five years and I don't think we'll go through this whole process again, but I don't really know what the five year review will look like. Yes, Kathryn will retire on this project alone. Acting Chair Wilcox — Kathryn's looking for job security. Ms. Brock — But in any event, this is not meant to be the end of the line in terms of looking at these issues. This is really a living document in a way. Board Member Riha — ,Okay. Ms. Brock — So you may still be on the board five years from now and there may be substantial work done to update the document then, too. Acting Chair Wilcox — Jon? Mr. Kanter — And so just to add to that the TGEIS wasn't meant to be a project or site specific document. So any time a large scale Cornell project comes up, we'll have to basically do the same kind of SEQR review that we've done in the past. It's just that there maybe relevant information from the TGEIS that will help decide the parimeters of how that will be approached. But there are some pretty big Cornell projects coming up like the information technology center at East Hill, Acting Chair Wilcox — Bill Gates building? Is that the Bill Gates building? Mr. Wendt — No. That's another one. Mr. Kanter — This is a bigger one I think. Not to mention the whole concept of the development of East Ithaca Village, which we are going to have to get into some heavy= duty environmental review on. So this document won't substitute for any of that that has to happen still. Ms. Brock — But to the extent there are specific problems in specific neighborhoods that would be exacerbated by a particular development, we can at least start here and have that information available and say, oh, look these are the areas where there were lots of bicycle vehicular conflicts. There's no sidewalk here and crosswalks are confusing and Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 17 so I think it will just enable everybody to see the big picture and know better what mitigations might be required for particular projects. Board Member Riha — Good. That helps clarify things for me. I've just been spending the last couple of weeks in a situation whith the DEC where they have a GEIS that was written in 1992 and they are making all environmental decisions based on that GEIS and they feel they can't switch that until they new a do a new GEIS. Mr. Kanter — What was that for? Board Member Riha — Gas well drilling. Ms. Brock — Ooh. Wow. Board Member Riha —1992 and that's the basis... Mr. Kanter — Wow. That sounds a little bit outdated. Board Member Riha — Yeah. So that's why I ... it's good it's an ongoing document with flexibility. Acting Chair Wilcox — And it becomes supplemental information when we have specific... Ms. Brock — And it says that in here in several places. So...it was in some of the replacement pages toward the back especially. Mr. Kanter — Oh, and while Susan is looking at that, I thought it was very helpful in, I think it was the first set of replacement pages you got, that there was a more complete description of the community initiative investment program that is actually starting to be implemented now, which has some things directly related to the TGEIS recommendations. Ms. Brock — So, Susan, the description of the proposed action on Page 11 talks about the kinds of things I've been describing and then right towards the end of the TGEIS it reiterates it again. For example it shows up on Page 439 is another place where it says these sorts of things. Board Member Riha — Good. (side conversation not audible) Ms. Brock — Who am I helping? Acting Chair Wilcox — Since you asked, my comment to Carrie had to do with the amount of information in front of us. Here we are talking about a document with 439 pages, plus Appendices. That was my comment to Carrie. Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg, 18 Ms. Brock – And I read every single one, didn't you, Fred? Board Member Riha – I read these, but I thought it would be good to once again clarify for the record. Acting Chair Wilcox – We have a treasure -trove of information. Ms. Brock – We do. I think the first time we get a project after this it will fall right into place. Everybody will feel much more informed about it, but I'm very comfortable with the process here. Acting Chair Wilcox – Shall we move on? Any other issues, concerns? Board Member Conneman – I have some concerns. Acting Chair Wilcox – Please. Go ahead, George. Board Member Conneman – First of all I want to thank Kathryn for producing a terrific document. Most things are in it; there are a few things that I don't think are and I think it is a noble idea to get people out of their cars and to bicycles and walking, but that may be more difficult than you think. Some of us go about doing other things like buying hybrids so we can still ride in cars. And I just wanted to say at the beginning that I will vote to accept this, but there are three issues that I would like to raise and since you have Bill Wendt here you can let him answer the one question. First of all, bicycle education, which I think is on page 68 of your revised sheet, talks about lots of things, but does not talk very much about obeying the rules of the road and enforcing them. The biggest problem we have with bicycles, I think, is not that people don't respect them, but that bicycles don't respect the roads. If you drive on the Cornell campus or walk on the Cornell campus you'll see what they do. Students don't obey the rules. Maybe they don't know what the rules are — Bill's going to teach them the rules, but if they don't follow the rules it's going to be a disaster. There should be enforcement, but there never has been. Both of you have heard me say this before. Secondly, neighborhood mitigation is very important to me because I believe in neighborhoods. I live in one neighborhood now that I think is very nice and I'm going to be moving to another within the Town, Fred, don't get excited... Acting Chair Wilcox – Don't look at me. Alternate Member Talty – He's the guest tonight. Board Member Conneman – But one of the neighborhoods that I have really studied more than others and I don't know whether the others have had the same problem is Forest Home. Your mitigation where you put a sentence in on Page 432 is inadequate in my opinion. That won't change my accepting it, but I think you do have to do things about getting people from Cornell not to go through Forest Home. I'm giving Kathryn Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 19 this sheet of paper that I gave her the last time several times. I believe you have to have an entrance to Cornell at the top of the hill. At the bottom of the hill what you have to do is direct them on Plantations Road and get them from going through Forest Home. I try everyday that I can to go on the Cornell campus when I go to Warren Hall and not go through Forest Home. I told Bruce Brittain I would put a quarter in a can every time I went through Forest Home; there are fewer quarters than there used to be in there. But it seems to me that we need to think about this entrance which we were promised 30 years ago to Cornell off of Pleasant Grove Road and try to get people to try to use that and certainly I think that is one of the issues. Ms. Brock — Fred, that is in here. Board Member Conneman — What's that? Ms. Brock — That is in here. The new road. Wasn't that in here? Board Member Conneman — Well, there was a ... I read all these things as best I could... Ms. Wolf — It is in there and also the reconfiguration of Cradit Farm to direct you. Board Member Conneman — But that's a different road. I'm talking about a road off the golf course that takes people off Warren Hall and directs them to Pleasant Grove. Ms. Brock — I think that was in there. Acting Chair Wilcox — We can argue whether it's in there or not. I think George's point is: time to stop talking about it; it's time to start doing it. Board Member Conneman — That's right. We've waited 30 years and Shirley Egan assured us when we move the Moore House that that would be done; at least that's my interpretation. Board Member Thayer — That was part of the deal. Board Member Conneman — That was part of the deal. Now the other thing is East Village. I don't know what's going on with East Village. I noticed that there was a little note in the paper that Cornell has acknowledged that they've bought Olivia's and I think that's the case for $925,000 or some amount like that. I hope the young man that owned it got some of that. One thing that would be nice is if Cornell would square with us and tell us what's going on when it happens. We knew ... I mean, I knew weeks before they actually... after they bought the old gym there, Courtside, but I think that's important. But it seems to me that those are important things. Bicycle education, I mean real education and enforcement would help because then more people might ride bicycles. And secondly I think neighborhood mitigation, there are lots of other examples in this that I think are important and I think also that we ought to know more about what's happening in East Village because it looks like a huge project and Hollis is not Final PB 07 730 -2008 Pg. 20 here to say the horse pasture is forever. I'll say that. I also hope that if something turns out not to work that you guys will adjust it in all fairness to what we're are going to approve and so that's not all your problem, Kathryn. I understand you... Ms. Wolf – Sure. I'd just like to make a couple comments. I mean I think the point about adjustment also is the. ..weIve stated and its in here that the TIMS will be updated every five years and the reason for that is the point is we can see what's working, what's not working. Do we need to ramp up programs if it turns out there's more growth or adjust according to what's actually happening. So I think that part of it is ... there's a process to allow for that and its acknowledged that that will be necessary. Board Member Conneman – Thank you for saying that. It's now in the official minutes. Ms. Wolf – And I think many of your other points will be discussed once we get passed adequacy and we have looked at the list that you gave us and believe that many of those things can be accommodated and I'm sure we'll talk about that as part of the FEIS process. Acting Chair Wilcox – Bill, you can speak any time. You're part of the ... we just need to get you to a microphone. Mr. Wendt – It's really quite nice to be here and agree with everything George has said. Board Member Conneman – Wow! I'll tell my wife that you said that. Mr. Wendt – I've got your memo here and as Kathryn said we'll try to address all the points you've made, but we have ... you know we're very much in -tuned to the same kind of things. I do have to tell you on the bike enforcement —we went through this about a month ago where there was a big concern that we don't enforce and the director of Cornell Police brought out and shared with me all the times we have now written tickets and stopped cyclists because they do not follow the rules as you've said very articulately. It is a big problem for us and people's behavior —where they drive even if we say drive somewhere else —it's something that we really can't enforce unless we make it attractive to go another way. Board Member Conneman – I agree with that. Mr. Wendt – And when you talk about one of the things when everybody was saying its in there, is trying to do something at the top of the Pleasant Grove hill so that people do go onto the campus and not down into Forest Home. And putting signs up. Some of the locations we've talked about. I would say it's probably - -on Forest Home's recommendation to the Town that the Town would put up signs and I think we could work with Fred Noteboom to put them up. Some might be on Cornell land and we'd be glad to put signs up where appropriate and some are in the Town. The whole point of this really is I think we're developing much better communications and by us reporting to you every year I think we can take care a lot of those little issues that probably have Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 21 been aggravation points for years, but we've never had a regular communication about it to make sure it happens. Board Member Conneman — Well, and if Fred says no you tell me and I'll go see him. I always said that if you had a sign and Liz, if you quote me on this, I'll kill you (jokingly). Anyway, if there was a sign on the top of the hill by Cradit Farm Road instead of going into Forest that said you will go to Hell if you go down that hill, people might make ... because those traffic trailers get down there (jokingly). Ms. Wolf — That's a good headline, though. Board Member Conneman — I mean I appreciate at that, Bill, because I think we have not done that in the past. If we had little license plates on bicycles we could report them, but I think it's a great idea, but you have to have the facilities. Acting Chair Wilcox — Anybody else? To the left, are we all set over here? Any comments? Ms. Brock — Um, on completely different issues? Acting Chair Wilcox — Anything having to do with the TGEIS? Ms. Brock — There were just a couple of changes in Chapter 5 were made. I'm song, in Chapter 4. On Page 334, which got replaced... Acting Chair Wilcox — Take your time, the All -Star game starts in 35 minutes. Ms. Brock — I missed the Home Run Derby, but the Tour de France goes 'til 11. So you deleted the text about the Buffalo Street comments that had shown up in the Northeast Ithaca neighborhood. It needed to get moved to the University Hill section and I didn't see ... you deleted it one place and I didn't see that it ended up being added in the correct neighborhood. Annette — I thought that was because it was already in that neighborhood. I could be mistaken. Ms. Brock — So why don't you check on that one. I went back and I looked and I did not see it in the University Hill neighborhood, but maybe I missed it. And then I'd also made the comment that the Hanshaw /Pleasant Grove intersection showed up in both the Northeast Ithaca neighborhood and the Village of Cayuga Heights neighborhood. And it looked to me as if it was still showing up in both neighborhoods. And I assume you want that to be in the Village of Cayuga Heights neighborhood? Annette — That was the Hanshaw /Pleasant Grove intersections? Ms. Brock — Yes. Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 22 Annette — Because the neighborhood, you know, sort of— northeast starts after Pleasant Grove and Cayuga Heights is sort of on the other side and it started out in one neighborhood and then we shifted it into another so it's distinctly possible that I overlooked it. It would be in the Cayuga Heights neighborhood. Ms. Brock — Cayuga Heights? Okay. To me ... it's in two places. So I'm not as tied to it being in one versus the other. Otherwise there were just, on the replacement pages, just a few typos, which I can tell you after the meeting. And there were a few references to this Forest Home Traffic Calming plan, which is now final so I know you removed all references to it being draft, but there were a couple of places where it said it was presented to the Town. In one place it said February 2007 and another place it said summer of 2007. 1 know, Jonathan, you were out when Annette and I met and were talking about it, I think Sue Ritter told us it's dated June of '07, but was received by Town in March of '08. Anyway, we'll try to sort out the dates just so you can get the right dates in there. Mr. Kanter — Although I guess we are going by the actual date on the report. Ms. Brock — So anyway, we may just adjust a little bit of —a few of your references to that maybe just to reflect the date on the report. So —just —that was it. Otherwise, literally, it was just a couple of typos, which I can talk to you about after the meeting as long as the Board is okay with it. Acting Chair Wilcox — So in summary, we have some potential information that needs to be moved from one section to another; we have some typos. So I don't hear that there is anything substantial. Ms. Brock — No. No. No. I did not intend to imply that. Acting Chair Wilcox — No. No. No. You didn't. I'm drawing that conclusion for myself and doing it out loud is what I'm doing. Ms. Brock — Okay. Yup. And that was it. Otherwise, all of my comments were addressed. Ms. Wolf — And then my point on Page 245 to change the 2.5% to the 2.2% background. Ms. Brock — Yes, which actually is just a correction conforming the number in the TGEIS to the number that is in the Appendix because the Appendix has 2.2. Acting Chair Wilcox — Would someone like to move the motion as drafted? Board Member Conneman — I'll move it. Acting Chair Wilcox — So moved by George Conneman. Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 23 Board Member Riha - Second. Acting Chair Wilcox - Seconded by Susan Riha. For the benefit of the members of the public, I'm not going to read the whole thing. I'm going to read one resolved, which is the only one I think is important tonight, or the only one I should read out loud. "That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the t- DGEIS, dated May 20, 2008, with amended pages dated July 2008, and further amendments/revisions discussed at the Planning Board at its July 15, 2008 meeting, is satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review, and hereby accepts said t -DGEIS as complete, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.9." Should we add language, Susan, about the changes? Ms. Brock - Yes. So in the 11th whereas at the end add —this is where it's listing all of the meetings and amendments dated July 2008 just add at the end, "and amendments /revisions discussed at the Planning Board at its July 15, 2008 meeting". Mr. Kanter - Do you want to add the same thing in number one? Ms. Brock - Yes. I was just waiting for Carrie to catch up. So same thing in the resolved. The first resolved clause, "That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the t- DGEIS, dated May 20, 2008, with amended pages dated July 2008, and further amendments/revisions discussed at the Planning Board at its July 15, 2008 meeting ", is satisfactory—and the rest will remain the same. Acting Chair Wilcox - Susan? George? All set? Change acceptable? All right. You are comfortable with having it written down? Ms. Coates Whitmore - Yes. Acting Chair Wilcox - Any further discussion? Mr. Kanter - Just one quick thing on typos. I had talked to Annette earlier today or yesterday about the numerous typos that had been corrected in the master copy of the TGEIS, but not necessarily put on blue revised pages that you had received. And so I guess part of what we need to do is figure out how to address that. We could talk about that after adoption of the resolution because it doesn't affect the acceptance per se, but it does affect the form of the accepted TGEIS. And one suggestion I guess Annette was thinking about, you could mention it a little bit more, was having rather than inserting every single page where there were addition typos shown, but have like an errata sheet that lists them with page reference numbers to what they were. You know, because the other question is do we want every board member and everyone who has already gotten a copy of the earlier draft to get a whole new version of the TGEIS or simply use the blue sheets and then perhaps this errata sheet that would describe the additional typos. Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg, 24 Acting Chair Wilcox — I'll look over here. For typos, I want an errata sheet. Board Member Riha — Yeah. It doesn't... Acting Chair Wilcox — If there is substantive change having to do with a conclusion or information, then I want replacement pages, but if it comes down to just typos or changing of a date, and I'll put date as a typo here, an errata sheet is more than sufficient. Board Member Conneman — Change italics, I mean, come on. You just changed that. Board Member Thayer — Really. Acting Chair Wilcox — An errata sheet works very well for me and I see agreement all the way down including Kevin, who is in agreement as well. I have a motion and a second I. Ym sorry... Alternate Member Talty — I was just saying it is unnecessary work. Acting Chair Wilcox — I have a motion and a second, any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor please signal by saying, "aye". Board — ayes. Carried unanimously. • RFOR _ Accentance of Draft MOTION by George Conneman, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS. 7. Cornell University has submitted a report outlining a proposal for a "transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GETS) and Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS)" dated August 26, 2005, being undertaken by Cornell University in cooperation with the Town of Ithaca. The t -GETS will address transportation impacts on the community surrounding the campus related to an increasing population traveling to Cornell. The TIMS will evolve in response to the information obtained from the t -GETS, and may include recommendations for transportation demand management, multi -modal transportation strategies, access and circulation modifications, and zoning changes. Cornell University, Applicant; Kathryn Wolf, RLA, Principal -in- Charge (Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP); Martin, Alexiou, Bryson (Transportation Consultants), and Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg, 25 2. The proposed transportation- focused GEIS would be a generic environmental impact statement that will identify, examine and evaluate Cornell's transportation= related impacts and potential mitigations for several hypothetical population growth scenarios over the next decade. The GEIS is a tool available under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, commonly referred to as SEAR. Unlike an Environmental Impact Statement, a GEIS is flexible enough to explore hypothetical or alternative scenarios, and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Department, on behalf of the Planning Board, distributed a Lead Agency concurrence letter to potential involved and interested agencies on September 12, 2005, and received no objections to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board serving as Lead Agency on this matter, and 4. The Planning Board after having reviewed the report referenced above, which includes a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, prepared by Cornell University, a description of the proposed action, a cover letter (August 26, 2005) indicating that the applicant proposes to prepare a transportation- focused Generic EIS and is requesting a positive declaration of environmental significance for the Planning Board's consideration, and Part 2 of the Full EAF, prepared by the Planning staff, established itself as lead agency on November 1, 2005 to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed transportation - focused GEIS and Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategy, as described above, and made a positive determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, confirming that a transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GEIS) will be prepared, and 5. Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board agreed that a public scoping process would be initiated to determine the scope and content of the t- GEIS, and that Cornell University would prepare a draft written scope of issues to be addressed in the t -GEIS, and 6. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on November 15, 2005, has reviewed a Preliminary Draft Scope, dated November 15, 2005, for the t -GEIS and TIMS, submitted by Cornell University, and determined that said Preliminary Draft Scope was adequate to proceed with a public scoping process, and 7. The Planning Board held two public scoping sessions, one on December 6, 2005, and a second on January 3, 2006, to hear comments from the public and interested and involved agencies regarding the scope and content of the t -GEIS, and accepted written comments on the Preliminary Draft Scope through December 16, 2005, after distributing the Preliminary Draft Scope to potentially involved and interested agencies and numerous stakeholders that had been identified, and Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 26 8, The Planning Board, at a meeting held on January 17, 2006, has reviewed a revised Draft Scope document (dated November 15, 2005, revised January 11, 2006) for the t-GEIS and TIMS, along with a "Responsiveness Summary for All Comments Received on t -GETS Draft Scope, dated January 11, 2006," and copies of all written comments and records of all oral comments made at the public scoping sessions, and Cornell University and the Planning Board agreed to additional revisions, and 98 The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca determined at its meeting held on February 7, 2006 that the revised Draft Scope document (dated November 15, 2005, revised January 11, 2006, with a final date of February 7, 2006) for the t- GEIS and TIMS adequately incorporates the relevant comments and concerns of the Planning Board, the public, and involved and interested agencies, and accepted the above - referenced revised Draft Scope document (dated November 151 2005, revised January 11, 2006, with a final date of February 7, 2006) as the Final Scope document and as being adequate to define the scope and content of the t -GETS, and 10. Cornell University has prepared and submitted a (t- DGEIS) transportation - focused Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Appendices, dated May 20, 2008, along with a Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies Draft Report (TIMS), dated June 3, 2008, to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for adequacy review, and 11. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed and discussed said t -DGEIS at its meetings on May 20th, June 3rd, June 17th, July 1St, and July 15th, 2008, along with amendments/revisions to the t- DGEIS, dated July 2008, and submitted to the Planning Board for the July 15, 2008 meeting, and amendments/revisions discussed at the Planning Board at its July 15, 2008 meeting, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE /T RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the t- DGEIS, dated May 20, 2008, with amended pages dated July 2008, and further amendments✓revisions discussed at the Planning Board at its July 15, 2008 meeting, is satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review, and hereby accepts said t -DGEIS as complete, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.9; and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby determines that a public hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at a time to be determined to obtain comments from the public on the t -DGEIS and TIMS, and that written comments from the public regarding the t -DGEIS will be accepted by the Planning Board until September 26, 2008; and Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg, 27 3. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby directs the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff to take those steps, including filing a Notice of Completion of the t- DGEIS and Notice of SEQR Hearing, as required under 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 and 617.12, distributing the t -DGEIS and TIMS to involved and interested agencies and the public, as may be necessary or appropriate to commence the public review of the t- DGEIS, and to publish a notice of the public hearing at least 14 days in advance of the hearing date, in a newspaper of general circulation in the Ithaca area. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty. NAYS: None. Motion was determined to be carried unanimously. Acting Chair Wilcox — We should point out that the public hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at which time... Mr. Kanter — We left the time undetermined. Acting Chair Wilcox — To see what the agenda is and we'll make a decision at that point where we can receive public comment on this document. Ms. Wolf — I have one further question. Does the Board anticipate that they would want further discussion? For example, on the background, growth issue that we were discussion tonight or other issues prior to the public hearing in September and so and maybe you don't know the answer to this right now, but so that we anticipate that there might be a working session in August that we should attend or you know... Acting Chair Wilcox — I can't speak for the board because I'm not the Chair any more, but, and I love you dearly, but I want to see you in two months. But that's just a personal opinion. [laughing] Mr. Kanter — Well, you were talking about tables that you were working on that kind of showed how intersections and corridors how the analysis might have changed if different background growth assumptions had been used. I don't know if there is any way you can do that in a very summarized form and just submit it for the board to, you know, have as just information. Ms. Wolf — We can take a look at what makes sense and to help you understand better in hopefully a simpler way than I was trying to describe tonight. Final- PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 28 Acting Chair Wilcox - And I don't know what the agenda may or may not look like for the next two months, but... Mr. Kanter - Yeah, we don't either. Acting Chair Wilcox - If there is a topic that either Jon or members of the board believe is interesting and you believe is something that you want to present, it should be presented. Certainly. Board Member Riha - So in September, you will make a presentation to the public. There will be another presentation —with the public here? Acting Chair Wilcox - I don't think they'll make much of a presentation...) would expect them to make too long of a presentation. We really want to give the public a chance to stand up and speak and I mean, we have 400 pages plus the appendices. I mean if the public takes the time to read it they are going to have a lot to say. The board, Ms. Wolf, and Annette discussed the various locations where the TGEIS would be available for public review. During discussion, Ms. Wolf added that they were also organizing an informational session and would be inviting all involved and interested agencies prior to the public hearing. Discussion concluded with the board thanking Ms. Wolf for her presentation. Agenda Item: Approval of July 1, 2008 Minutes Board Member Riha noted that she had a few corrections to the minutes. Acting Chair Wilcox stated that he moved approval of the minutes with changes from Board Member Riha. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -064: Approval of Minutes --July 1, 2008 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman, WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meetings on July 1, 2008, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections submitted by Susan Riha, to be the final minutes of the meetings on July 1, 2008. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Final PB 07 -30 -2008 Pg. 29 AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Tally. NAYS: None. Motion was determined to be carried unanimously. Agenda Item: Other Business Acting Chair Wilcox mentioned that the board needed to decide who to elect as vice - chair. He encouraged board members to think seriously about the appointment, who they want to run the meetings in Rod's absence, and who should be in line to be the next chair when Rod feels he does not want to continue as chair. The board felt that being vice -chair did not necessarily mean the person serving as vice= chair was next in line for chairperson. Acting Chair Wilcox agreed and noted that the chair position is appointed by the Town Board and the Planning Board elects its own vice - chair. Mr. Kanter gave the board an overview of the agenda for the August 5, 2008 meeting. Adjournment Upon motion, Acting Chair Wilcox adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, C tes itmore First Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, July 15, 2008 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Consideration of acceptance of the draft Cornell Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (T -GEIS) as adequate and complete for public review and comment., and consideration of setting a public hearing to hear comments from the public regarding the T -GEIS. 3. Approval of Minutes: July 1, 2008 4. Other Business: 5. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: July 15, 2008 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION - -, -, (2oroe� / l� Ar` e