HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2018-09-25 Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
1
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
September 25, 2018
Board Members
Attending:
Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Mitch Glass; Matthew
Johnston; McKenzie Lauren Jones; Emily Petrina
Board Members Absent: Jack Elliott
Board Vacancies: None
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning, Division of Planning and
Economic Development
Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning
and Economic Development
Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and
Economic Development
Applicants Attending: 111 Clinton St Tax Parcel # 80.-11-11 – Minor Subdivision
Lynn Truame, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
West End Heights Project) at 709 W Court Street by Lakeview
Health Services Inc.
Harry Merryman, Lakeview Health Services
Cherry Street Extension, Major Subdivision, and Emmy’s
Organics Site Plan Approval
Nels Bohn, IURA
Andy Sciarabba, T.G. Miller P.C.
Yamila Fournier, Whitham Planning and Design
327 W. Seneca Street Apartments – Declaration of Lead Agency
Rob Morache,STREAM Collaborative
NCRE Cornell University – Declaration of Lead Agency
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects
Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape
Architects
Arvin Tikku, iKon 5
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
2
Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
He announced that due to length of public comments regarding NCRE last month, Privilege of
the Floor and all public comment periods would be limited to 30 minutes each. Also, the time
limit for individuals wishing to speak would be reduced from 3 minutes to 90 seconds. Any
comment period with people still wishing to speak after 30 minutes would be continued next
month.
1. Agenda Review
Nicholas said there were no changes to the agenda.
2. Privilege of the Floor
Upon reviewing the list of people who signed up to speak, Chair Lewis determined that they
were all interested in items with public hearings that night, and he closed Privilege of the Floor.
3. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston, the June 26, 2018 minutes were unanimously
approved with no modifications.
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones, the July 24, 2018 minutes were unanimously
approved with no modifications.
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Glass, the August 28, 2018 minutes were unanimously
approved with the following modifications:
Petrina requested adding her request for clarification on all collisions at the intersection
of Jessup and Pleasant Grove Roads during the Transportation Impacts portion of the
NCRE presentation.
4. Subdivision & Site Plan Review
A. Minor Subdivision of 111 Clinton St., Tax Parcel # 80.-11-11. Lynn Truame for
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public
Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and BZA Recommendation.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 1.71 acre property onto two parcels: Parcel A
measuring 1.6 acres (69,848 SF) with 299 feet of frontage on S Geneva St and 173 feet
on W Clinton St and containing two existing buildings, parking and other site features;
and Parcel B measuring .1 acres (4,480 SF) with and 75 feet of frontage on W Clinton St
and containing one multi-family building. The property is in the P-1 Zoning District
which has the following minimum requirements: 3,000 SF lot size, 30 feet of street
frontage, 25-foor front yard, and 10-foot side yards. The project requires an area
variance of the existing deficient front yard on the proposed Parcel B. The project is in
the Henry St John Historic District. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
3
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject to environmental review.
Lynn Truame appeared in front of the Board on behalf of INHS to explain that they were
proposing to subdivide the property to transfer ownership of the multi-family building to a tax
credit partnership to help them secure funding for renovations.
Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency:
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of
the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a Lead Agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the Lead Agency
shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the
action, and
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #80.-11-11, by owner Ithaca
Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 1.71 acre property into two parcels: Parcel A
measuring 1.6 acres (69,848 SF) with 299 feet of frontage on S Geneva St and 173 feet on W Clinton St
and containing two existing buildings, parking, and other site features; and Parcel B measuring .1 acres
(4,480 SF) with 75 feet of frontage on W Clinton St and containing one multifamily building. The property
is in the P-1 Zoning District which has the following minimum requirements: 3,000 SF lot size, 30 feet of
street frontage, 25-foot front yard, and 10-foot side yards. The project requires an area variance for the
existing deficient front yard on the proposed Parcel B. The project is in the Henry St John Historic District,
and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code , Chapter
290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum
of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board is the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead
Agency for the environmental review for the action of Subdivision approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel
#80.-11-11, by owner INHS.
Moved by: Jones
Seconded by: Johnston
In favor: Blalock, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
4
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing
on a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones.
Adopted Resolution for Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance:
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #80.-11-11, by owner Ithaca
Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 1.71 acre property into two parcels: Parcel A
measuring 1.6 acres (69,848 SF) with 299 feet of frontage on S Geneva St and 173 feet on W Clinton St
and containing two existing buildings, parking, and other site features; and Parcel B measuring .1 acres
(4,480 SF) with 75 feet of frontage on W Clinton St and containing one multifamily building. The property
is in the P-1 Zoning District which has the following minimum requirements: 3,000 SF lot size, 30 feet of
street frontage, 25-foot front yard, and 10-foot side yards. The project requires an area variance for the
existing deficient front yard on the proposed Parcel B. The project is in the Henry St John Historic District,
and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter
290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum
of one additional buildable lot, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving
and funding or carrying out the action did, on September 23, 2018 declare itself Lead Agency for the
environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission has been given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned
have been considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on September 23, 2018
review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a plat entitled “Survey Map, 301 South Geneva Street,
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York,” with a revision date of 7/13/2018 and prepare d by
T.G. Miller, P.C.; and other application materials, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
5
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for
this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels require area variance from district regulation in the
requirements in the P-1 Zoning District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
Subdivision will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declar ation for
purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by: Jones
Seconded by: Petrina
In favor: Blalock, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
The Board next reviewed the recommendation they are making to the BZA regarding this case,
BZA # 3105:
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
These are all existing deficiencies and there will be no physical change to the property or occupancy
of the buildings.
The Board also agreed to forward comments received from Daniel Hirtler to the BZA for their
consideration.
B. 709 West Court Street Housing (AKA West End Heights Project) at 326 & 328 N
Meadow St. and 709-713 W Court Street by Lakeview Health Services Inc.
Extension of Site Plan Approval. This project was approved in September 2017.
Project funding was delayed and the applicant is requesting a 24 month extension of site
plan approval. The applicant proposes to construct a five-story L-shaped building with
footprint of 10,860 SF and GFA of 62,700 SF on the .81 acre project site comprising four
tax parcels (to be consolidated). The building will contain sixty (60) one-bedroom
apartments plus associated shared common space (community room, laundry facilities,
lounges, and exterior courtyard), support staff offices, program spaces, conference room,
utility rooms, and storage. The siting of the building allows for a small landscaped front
yard, a south-facing exterior courtyard, and a 16 space surface parking lot in the rear of
the site.
Harry Merryman appeared on behalf of the applicant to request an extension of the site plan
approved in September of 2017. He said they had not secured some needed funding, though they
were hopeful that they would obtain that within the next year, and they wanted to be sure that the
approvals for the plans would not expire before they could get started on construction.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
6
Adopted Resolution for Extension of Site Plan Approval
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston.
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board Granted Final Site Plan Approval for a
housing project at 326 & 328 N Meadow St and 709-713 W Court St to applicant Trowbridge Wolf
Michaels for Lakeview Mental Health on September 26, 2017, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a five-story L-shaped building with footprint of 10,860 SF
and GFA of 62,700 SF on the .81 acre project site comprising four tax parcels (to be consolidated). The
building will contain sixty (60) one-bedroom apartments plus associated shared common space (community
room, laundry facilities, lounges, and exterior courtyard), support staff offices, program spaces, conference
room, utility rooms, and storage. The siting of the building allows for a small landscaped front yard, a
south-facing exterior courtyard, and a 16-space surface parking lot in the rear of the site. Site development
will require the removal of five structures and associated site elements. The project is in the WEDZ-1
Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) §176-4 (1) (k) and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4
(11) and is subject to environmental review for which the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency made
Negative Determination of Environmental Significance August 22, 2017, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is requesting an extension of the site plan approval for 24 months, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does herby grant the requested
extension until September 2020.
Moved by: Petrina
Seconded by: Johnston
In favor: Blalock, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
C. Major Subdivision, Construction of a Public Road & Production Facility (Emmy’s
Organics) at Cherry Street, Tax Parcel # 100.-2-21 by Nels Bohn for the Ithaca
Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) and Ian Gaffney for Emmy’s Organics. Public
Hearing, and Determination of Environmental Significance. The IURA is proposing
to subdivide the 6-acre parcel into four lots and extend Cherry Street by 400 feet. Lot 1
will measure 1.012 acres, Lot 2 will measure 1.023 acres, Lot 3 will measure 2.601 acres,
and Lot 4 will measure .619 acres. Lot 3 will be sold to Emmy’s Organics (see below),
Lot 4 will be left undeveloped for future trail use, and Lots 1 & 2 will be marketed and
sold for future development. The project is in the Cherry District which requires 5- and
10-foot side yards, and 10 feet for rear yards. The road will be built to City standards
with a 65-foot ROW, 5-foot sidewalks and tree lawn, and will be turned over to the City
upon completion. Emmy’s Organics is proposing to construct a production facility of up
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
7
to 24,000 SF, with a loading dock, parking for 22 cars, landscaping, lighting, and
signage. The project will be in two phases: Phase one, which will include a 14,000 SF
building and all site improvements; and Phase two, (expected in the next 5 years) which
will include an addition of between 14,000 and 20,000 SF. As the project site is
undeveloped, site development will include the removal of 2 acres of vegetation
including 55 trees of various sizes. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B(1) (c) and (j) and B(4)
the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (11), and is subject
to environmental review.
Nels Bohn of the IURA, Andy Sciarabba of T.G. Miller P.C., and Yamila Fournier of Whitham
Planning and Design appeared in front of the Board to present project updates. Fournier
explained that the project would require the extension of Cherry Street and the removal of a
number of trees from the site. She said that they had had an expanded tree survey done since the
last meeting and are proposing the removal of 101 trees, which she said sounds like a lot but
explained that when you go onsite you see that many of them are tall and spindly with few
branches on the lower parts. She explained that this frequently happens when you have pioneer
species all growing together, that they develop very tall and thin and support each other so that
when you remove some, what’s left behind doesn’t have the sort of structure and support that
they have when they are all together. She said that in addition to being somewhat unstable, they
don’t offer much screening. She said that many of these species are fast growing and tend to be
weak wooded. She said that they had walked the site with City Forester Jeanne Grace and
considered ways to replant the site with a lot more native hardwoods and shrubs, offering area
wildlife high quality habitat.
Fournier also explained that they had revised their plans so that there would now be no grading
within the wetland buffer, and that there had been a concern about possibly needing to protect
the silt fence with a stronger additional fence.
Andy Sciarabba said that there were concerns about the staging area next to the silt fence, and
they could use a second, more robust fence to protect the silt fence if that is desired, but
explained that due to its size, the project would be inspected weekly (by a qualified inspector) to
ensure that all stormwater and erosion controls remain in place, so if the silt fence were to be
compromised in any way, the contractors would be required to fix it immediately.
Director Cornish said that the code enforcement officer would also monitor stormwater and
erosion control mechanisms.
Fournier next reviewed changes to the grading plan and sidewalk alignments, and said that they
had added a dumpster enclosure.
Fournier next addressed concerns from the PRNR Commission, relayed to the applicant via a
letter from Dan Hoffman, primarily relating to the trees / plantings, screening on the Black
Diamond Trail, and planting in a street tree pattern. Fournier said that some planting selections
might change if shorter trees are needed to accommodate overhead wires.
Fournier also shared revised elevations submitted by STREAM Collaborative.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
8
Public Hearing
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Blalock, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing
on a motion by Blalock, seconded by Johnston.
Nicholas requested the applicants provide a layout plan with everything (materials, etc.) labeled
for the next meeting.
Jones asked for elevations showing what the dumpster enclosure will look like.
The Board next reviewed the FEAF Part III.
Adopted Resolution for Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance:
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Glass:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has received three applications. Two,
from the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), for a major subdivision and construction of a 400 -foot
extension of a public road (Cherry St) and a site plan review application from Ian Gaffney of Emmy’s
Organics, for construction of a production facility on one of the subdivided parcels, and
WHEREAS: the IURA is proposing to subdivide a 6-acre parcel into four lots and construct a 400-foot
extension of Cherry Street. Lot 1 will measure 1.012 acres, Lot 2 will measure 1.023 acres, Lot 3 will
measure 2.6 acres, and Lot 4 will measure .619 acres. Lot 3 will be sold to Emmy’s Organics and developed
as a manufacturing facility, Lot 4 will be left undeveloped for potential future trail use, and Lots 1 & 2 will
be marketed and sold for future development. Emmy’s Organics is proposing to construct a production
facility on the proposed Lot 3. The facility will be approximately 28,000 SF, with a loading dock, parking
for 22 cars, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The project will be in two phases; phase one will include a
14,000 SF building and all site improvements; phase two is expected to commence within the next 5 years
and will include an addition of up to 14,000 SF. The project also involves the sale of public property and
potential tax abatements, and
WHEREAS: taken as a whole, these actions constitute a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B(1)(c) and (j) and B(4), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (11), and is subject to environmental review.
WHEREAS: the Ithaca Common Council, the Ithaca Board of Public Works, the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County Industrial Development Authority all potentially
involved agencies in this action have all consented to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this
project, and
WHEREAS: that on August 28, 2018, the Ithaca Planning and Development Board did declare itself Lead
Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
9
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission has been given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned
have been considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on September 23, 2018
review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board, the following
drawings: “ Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Showing lands owned by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency,
Located at Southerly End of Cherry Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County New York” dated 7/23/18,
and prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C.; drawing for the road extension: “Existing Conditions Plan - C100”,
“Demolition Plan – C101”, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan – C102”, “Layout Plan- C-103”, “Utility
Plan – C104”, “Grading Plan- C105”, and “Details- C201” dated 7/31/18 and prepared by T.G. Miller,
P.C., and drawings for the production facility: “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan –C102”, “Demolition
Plan C103”, “Site Plan –L-1.0”, “Emmy’s Organics Landscape Plan – L2.0”, “Cherry Street Landscape
Plan – L3.0”all with a latest revision date of 9/18/2018; and “Elevations Phase 2 – A201” and “Elevations
Phase 1- A202” dated 7/27/18and “Exiting Conditions –C-101” and “Utility Plan- C105” all dated 7-27-18
and “Grading and Drainage Plan – C104” dated 7/27/18 but showing revisions from the drawing with the
same date, to reduce the size of the future addition and remove all grading/ disturbance for the 25’ wetland
buffer, and “Details –C201” dated 7/27/18 but showing revisions from the drawing with the same date, to
include more detailed tree protection details, and all prepared by Stream Collaborative et.al. and other
application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for
this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels conform to district regulations for the Cherry Street Zoning
District, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
Subdivision will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for
purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by: Jones
Seconded by: Glass
In Favor: Blalock, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
D. Apartments (12 Units) at 327 W Seneca Street by Noah Demarest for Visum
Development. Public Hearing and Determination of Environmental Significance,
and BZA Recommendation. The applicant is proposing to construct a three-story
apartment building with 12 units. Project development requires the removal of the exiting
building and parking area. The project will include exterior bike storage, a trash
enclosure, walkways, landscaping, signage, and lighting. The project is in the B2-d
Zoning District and requires variances for front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks. A small
portion at the rear of the property is in the CDB-60 District. The project is subject to
Design Review. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
10
Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”), and is subject to environmental review.
Rob Morache of STREAM Collaborative appeared in front of the Board to provide project
updates. The biggest change is the elimination of several windows on the first floors on west and
east elevations due to code requirements for fire shutters for windows adjacent to egress
pathways. He also discussed some color changes, window selections, and additional drawings
and plans provided.
Nicholas reminded the Board that the Project is subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines and
would go through Design Review at the next Project Review Committee meeting.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing.
Tessa Sage Flores of 154 Compton Avenue, asked if these apartments will be non-smoking,
saying that in her experience smoking is rampant in low-income housing around Ithaca and that
can cause them problems with asthma and allergies. She said she hopes the apartments will have
a strict no-smoking policy enforced.
There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public
Hearing on a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones.
Chair Lewis asked Morache if he wanted to respond.
Morache responded to the comment by saying that he would inquire with Visum, but that as far
as he knows, most of their buildings are non-smoking.
Morache next presented some information comparing the costs of renting and commuting from
an apartment outside of the City (Lansing was example given) versus the cost of renting at this
building.
After a few questions about how the applicant might provide alternate routes for pedestrians
should the sidewalk be closed during construction, the Board considered the Negative
Declaration.
Adopted Resolution for Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance:
On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Johnston:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has received a site plan review application
for a 12-unit apartment building by Noah Demarest for Visum Development, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
11
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a three-story apartment building with 12 affordable
units. Project development requires the removal of the existing building and parking area. The project will
include exterior bike storage, a trash enclosure, walkways, landscaping, signage, and lighting. The project
is in the B2-d Zoning District and requires variances for front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks. A small
portion at the rear of the property is in the CDB-60 District and is subject to Design Review, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject to environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving
and funding or carrying out the action, did, on August 28, 2018 declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental
Review for the proposed project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission has been given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned
have been considered, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on September 23, 2018
review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board, the following
drawings: “Site Plan –L001” showing the Site Layout Plan and the Planting Plan, “Site Plan L002” showing
the Work Zone Traffic Control Plan and the Utility Plan, “Plan –A101” showing the First Floor Plans,
North Elevation- A102” and “West Elevation A103” and dated 9/24/18 and “South and East Elevations –
A104” dated 9/18/18 and prepared by Stream Collaborative and other applications materials, now, therefore
be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed
Subdivision will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for
purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by: Blalock
Seconded by: Johnston
In Favor: Blalock, Glass, Jones, Johnston, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: None
E. North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) at Cornell University Campus by
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for Cornell University. Presentation: Building Design
for Energy Performance. Public Hearing and Special Meeting Date. The applicant
proposes to construct two residential complexes (one for sophomores and the other for
freshmen) on two sites on North Campus. The sophomore site will have four residential
buildings with 800 new beds and associated program space totaling 299,900 SF and a
59,700 SF, 1,200-seat, dining facility. The sophomore site is mainly in the City of Ithaca
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
12
with a small portion in the Village of Cayuga Heights; however, all buildings are in the
City. The freshman site will have three new residential buildings (each spanning the City
and Town line) with a total of 401,200 SF and 1,200 new beds and associated program
space – 223,400 of which is in the City, and 177,800 of which is in the Town. The
buildings will be between two and six stories using a modern aesthetic. The project is in
three zoning districts: the U-I zoning district in the City in which the proposed five
stories and 55 feet are allowed; the Low Density Residential District (LDR) in the Town
which allows for the proposed two-story residence halls (with a special permit); and the
Multiple Housing District within Cayuga Heights in which no buildings are proposed.
This has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(b), (h) 4, (i) and (n) and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(5)(iii).
Kathryn Wolf and Kimberly Michaels from Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels Landscape Architects
provided an overview of the project, and Arvin Tikku of iKon5 Architects appeared in front of
the Board to make a presentation regarding the design of the buildings’ energy systems.
Tikku said that the project is being designed to meet LEED Gold standards. He said that the
envelope design; glass technology; and energy-efficient mechanical, plumbing, and electrical
systems will help them achieve that goal. He went on to explain their materials and technology
selections and how they calculated the heating and cooling demands for the buildings.
Wolf said that the buildings had originally been proposed as LEED Silver but the architects have
been working very hard to make the best buildings possible and now they’re confident that they
can make them LEED Gold. She also said that the project as proposed today uses less
greenhouse gas than the alternatives; however, Cornell is committed to achieving carbon
neutrality by 2035, and that it is their intent to get off natural gas by then. She said that that is
why the designs are intended to be flexible to allow them to be switched to whatever energy
source makes sense in the future.
Jones asked what plan is in place for renewable energy, and when and how would that be
implemented. She also asked why renewables are not being used at all (or at least in part) right
now.
Wolf said they are pursuing all avenues, and she referenced Cornell’s solar initiatives, as
described in a recent packet of supplemental materials provided to the Planning Board. She said
that some of the energy produced from Cornell’s large scale solar project will offset this project,
even if it is not assigned as such. She said they are pursuing all avenues.
Blalock asked if part of the goal of the project is to be able to provide surge space housing for
students currently housed in other dorms, which would allow them to renovate those older
facilities. He said it would be interesting to hear what kinds of energy improvements could be
made to those older dorms, as they are renovated.
Applicants said they would look into that.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
13
Glass said it’s good that they went from LEED Silver to Gold and asked, “Why not Platinum?”
Tikku said that it seemed feasible to make some changes to move the plan from proposed Silver
to Gold, but it would require many more changes to achieve Platinum, and he noted that many
factors are taken into account under LEED certification, not just energy.
Johnston asked about long-term accountability with respect to efficiency and energy usage in
these buildings.
Michaels said that they have discussed their commissioning previously, and she pointed out that
Cornell is continually monitoring and dialing energy use up and down, that they have sub-
metering in place.
Tikku said that they track energy use closely because it’s good for Cornell to know what’s going
on in a building, because it’s good for the environment, but it’s also cost effective.
Wolf said that enhanced commissioning is one of the requirements of LEED Gold.
After a few questions from Wolf, Johnston agreed that he wanted to see greenhouse house gas
emissions tracked long-term and ongoing.
There being no more questions from the Board at this time, Chair Lewis reminded everyone that
the Public Hearing would be limited to 30 minutes, but he said that if anyone still wanted to
speak at the end of the allotted time, the Public Hearing would be extended to the following
month. He also urged anyone with comments to submit them in writing if possible. Further, he
said that they hear many of the same points raised over and over and asked that people appearing
to speak try to raise new issues. He reminded everyone that all speakers would be limited to 90
seconds.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Glass, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing.
Julie Kapuvari of 205 Wycoff Avenue said she is a senior at Cornell studying environmental
science and climate change. She said she’s part of a student organization called Climate Justice
Cornell, and she said they have been circulating a petition regarding the NCRE that has nearly
600 signatures, 85 percent of which are Cornell faculty and students. She said that almost all the
comments (nearly 60) they received pertain to the lack of an EIS, the lack of comprehensiveness
of using a LEED standard as a metric of building performance (but within that metric, why is the
bar being set to LEED Silver?); the lack of an upstream methane leakage calculation mechanism;
and the lack of inclusion of student opinion. She also said that the window to wall ratio should be
lowered to 15 percent to reduce energy consumption. She said that though the designers claim
that larger windows would improve mental health for students, the students they spoke with said
that there are other options that would be more beneficial.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
14
Milo Vella of 660 Stewart Avenue said that he appreciates that Cornell administrators have put
a lot of work into energy monitoring and efficiency, but at the same time, he is disappointed that
they are not pursuing Passive House Certification as they did at Cornell Tech. He said that he
finds their lack of transparency as to why they are not doing so “frustrating.”
Gabriela Vega of 114 College Avenue said she would pick up where Julie Kapuvari left off and
said that there are more important and directly beneficial efforts that would support mental health
for Cornell students, such as improvement of resources of groups such as Cornell Minds Matters
and other relevant organizations. She also said that involving students in the planning process
and consulting the relevant people would reduce top-down assumptions and improve
communication, especially important for a project that directly impacts student life. She said that
they have a resolution that they would be presenting to the student assembly next week, and that
they will be meeting with the Provost in October to discuss sustainability concerns.
Ezra Stein of 216 Delaware Avenue quoted Cornell President Martha Pollack, as having said
(at a Student Advantage meeting in spring of 2018), “If Earth-Source-Heating turns out not to be
feasible, all bets are off for carbon neutrality.” He said that this does not inspire much confidence
that the administration is committed to the goal [achieving carbon neutrality by 2035]. He said
that he thinks they need to hold the administration more accountable, especially if they are going
to leverage the Climate Action Plan as a reason for this project.
Mitchell “Buzz” Lavine of 719 Ringwood Road spoke about the NCRE project. He said that
the PEDC two weeks ago requested the applicants clarify the GHG emission totals for the
project, and said that they seem to answer that request on page 9 of their September 17 response
to the Town of Ithaca, but he said that after looking at the source materials for the numbers they
provided, their calculations do not seem to include upstream methane emissions. Additional
comments were submitted in writing and are included as an addendum to these minutes.
Vera Scroggins of 71 Gus Park Lane, Brackney, Pennsylvania, said she lives in a one of the
top fracking counties in Pennsylvania, and she asked Cornell to please consider them because
they are being fracked for the gas that the University is using. She asked they not wait until 2035
[to make a change]. She said that they have 1,600 gas wells and 52 compressor stations in her
county alone and there are 25 counties in Pennsylvania that are supplying gas. She said that these
facilities are next to homes and schools and are connected by hundreds of miles of pipelines. She
said they have endured this for 10 years now, and asked they consider it a moral imperative
because if people stop using the gas, they will stop fracking.
Charles Geisler of 517 Ellis Hollow Road said that he is interested in the question raised by one
of the Board members about what it would take to have a building achieve LEED Platinum
status. He said that he is circulating comments from another Cornell professor emeritus, Dr.
Tony Ingraffea, who is in favor of doing a full EIS. Geisler said that Ingraffea raises several
issues, including using Cornell’s hydroelectric generator on Fall Creek, which could generate 40
percent of the energy needed for the new dorms. That, coupled with ground heat pumps and Lake
Source Cooling, would result in considerably less GHG emissions than the current proposal. He
asked Cornell to please do an EIS. Additional comments were submitted in writing and are
included as an addendum to these minutes.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
15
Marie McCrae of 710 Irish Settlement Road, Dryden, read from a statement from Joe Wilson
which was submitted in writing and is included as an addendum to these minutes.
Zoya Monsin of 103 McGraw Place said students were not involved in the planning of the new
buildings as much as she thinks they should have been given that it pertains to student life.
Additionally, she thinks a full EIS would allow for the exploration of different options.
Mary Alyce Kobler of Brooktondale said she finds it unconscionable that Cornell is moving
this project along a timeline that gives the community inadequate opportunities to have their
concerns addressed. She asked the Planning Board to do due diligence and ask for an EIS.
Elisa Evett of 298 Bald Hill Road, Brooktondale, said that Cornell is operating under an
assumption that they will be able to eventually heat these buildings with Earth Source Heat,
thereby offsetting a “temporary” use of natural gas. She said that the likelihood that ESH will be
realized within the timeframe they suggest is shaky at best. Her prepared statement, which was
submitted in writing, is included as an addendum to these minutes.
Anthony Arce of Ithaca said that the use of natural gas in this project is hypocritical and
untenable, given that the production of gas [from fracking] has been outright banned in this state
and that we should not pass along environmental externalities to another state. He also submitted
a written statement which is included as an addendum to these minutes.
Brian Eden of Ithaca asked if public comments would be continued the following month. He
said that this has been a moving target with piecemeal introductions of new information. He
asked if the Board had received the presentation in advance of the meeting, saying that you’re
supposed to have the subject matter of the public hearing available to the public because we can’t
comment on things that are introduced just before we speak. He said that by his calculations, 600
single family homes converting from fossil fuel heating to heat pumps would be replaced by the
amount of gas released in this project. He said he’s the chair of HeatSmart Tompkins Board. He
said they have done fewer than 100 homes in the past two years, spending $150,000 and
hundreds of hours of volunteer labor. He said it’s unconscionable that he has to go to
homeowners who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint and tell them that it’s just not worth
it because whatever you commit or invest, it’s all going to be wiped out by this project. He said
he is offended by the process and hopes that the public will be able to see all relevant documents
in the future in order to make effective comments. He also submitted written comments which
are included as an addendum to these minutes.
Gina Cacioppo of Ithaca spoke against NCRE, saying that she dragged her baby out of bed to
be here. She said that this project is going to be horrible for the future. She said she is impressed
by all the Cornell students and professors who speaking out against the project, because it’s not
easy to speak against the school where you got your degree. She said that for them to ignore the
environment and not have a complete EIS is unreal. It makes her very angry to know that Cornell
built to the highest standards downstate because they were forced to. She said that if they want to
do this project, they will find the money to do it right, and we need to hold them accountable to
do it the right way.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
16
Elmer Ewing of 1520 Slaterville Road said we need an EIS. His comments were submitted in
writing and are included as an addendum to these minutes.
Mike Moritz of Ithaca said he is an environmental studies major at IC. He thanked the Board
for their work and said he hopes all voices will be heard on this issue. He said he thinks we need
to see more details and that 2035 is too far off [for achieving carbon neutrality].
Tom Blecher of 313 Utica Street said that he thinks Cornell has been duplicitous in their
application and has been from the beginning. He said that they have conveniently omitted the
upstream emissions, thereby fraudulently minimizing their carbon footprint by over 50 percent.
They have claimed that their emissions have declined by 33 percent since 2008, when they have
actually increased by over 100 percent when upstream emissions are included. He said we need
an EIS that honestly looks at alternative heating and electrification plans for these dorms. His
comments were submitted in writing and are included as an addendum to these minutes.
Sara Hess of 124 Westfield Drive said she has been to five presentations on this project, and
she said she’s okay if they want to keep changing their plan if they want to tighten up the
building envelope or identify energy savings, and in fact, that’s exactly what would honor their
students and their climate goals. Her comments were submitted in writing and are included as an
addendum to these minutes.
Tessa Sage Flores of 154 Compton Avenue said the project uses methane, which is the most
potent destructor in our environment. Cornell can’t pretend that they don’t know better, or that
they don’t have enough resources to make something that is really going to work for our future.
She said that the Board needs to do the work and say “no.”
Claudia Braymer of Glens Falls asked the Board to have another meeting on this issue. She
said that it is her understanding that they have already determined this to be a Type I action, and
as such, it is presumed to have a significant impact. She said that all that is needed for the Board
to require an EIS is the determination that there is potential for one significant environmental
impact, and you have that here. She asked the Board to require an EIS.
Having reached the end of the time allotted for the public comments this night and there being
more members of the public wishing to speak, Chair Lewis said the Public Hearing will be held
open until the following month’s meeting.
Michaels responded to comments, saying that no information has been hidden, it’s all available
in the documents and that the LEED Silver was always a minimum standard, but that now they
feel confident they can achieve Gold.
Chair Lewis asked staff to clarify the legal standard for the Board to require an EIS.
Director Cornish said the Board would have to clarify what information they would need from
the applicant in order to further the analysis of the topic. She urged the Board to closely review
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
17
all documents provided and identify if there are any points they need the applicant to address or
if they need any additional information.
Chair Lewis asked, so if there are any questions they need answered or points not addressed, they
can request an EIS?
Cornish answered that that is correct.
Jones said she needs time to review the material to determine what questions she might need
answered. She said she doesn’t see an evil plot, but more a missed opportunity to set a higher
standard for buildings in Ithaca. She said she’s learned that on the Planning Board, they can’t
make decisions based on feelings. She also expressed concern over the controversy around the
project, and would like to find a way for the project to move forward without ridiculous delays,
but such that the public feels that they can trust Cornell and the work of Trowbridge Wolf
Michaels. She said she wants the public to feel like the Board has done its due diligence. She
expressed tentative support of an EIS, but said that would be dependent on what outstanding
questions she might have.
Blalock asked staff what other projects have been required to complete an EIS in the last 10
years.
Staff listed Chainworks, Collegetown Terrace, North Campus, and West Campus.
Cornish said she thinks the Board really needs to focus on what’s been submitted and determine
what more they need.
Glass said his question about LEED Platinum is still unanswered, and is the question of Passive
House or Net Zero, and it’s not clear what the constraints are from the institutional perspective.
He said he’s seen a lot of data, and that data needs to be clarified because they’re getting two
stories, one from the public and one from the applicant team. He also expressed concern at the
pace of the project and expressed tentative support of an EIS.
Petrina expressed support for Glass and Jones, and said that she’s read the materials closely and
that she returns to them after each meeting, particularly the sections on energy, and still doesn’t
feel qualified to say if she has questions. She agreed that the pace is a concern, and asked if they
could get the help from an outside expert to help them interpret the data.
Cornish said that SEQR would allow it.
Chair Lewis said he wants to point out to the applicant that if people are saying they don’t feel
heard, they are probably not being heard, and he suggested to the applicants that they address
student concerns.
Discussion of a special meeting followed. October 30 was set as a tentative date.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
18
Blalock and Lewis said they don’t feel they have a lot of outstanding questions, but would
welcome a third-party expert to evaluate the data provided.
Nicholas said that SEQR is a local environmental review, and she is concerned about asking
applicants to do an analysis of their upstream methane emissions because they don’t require that
of other projects. She said she has a question about if they can even look at that, and if they do it
for one project, do they have to do it for every project?
Jones said it seems to be a question of scale, and that the projects for which they have done an
EIS in the past seem to be much larger than typical projects they review, so the embodied energy
or the externalities of that embodied energy have a much greater impact than for a smaller
project.
Nicholas said yes, but in none of those projects did they look at the upstream emissions in
Pennsylvania, but now that the question is out there, she said she thinks they have to get their
hands around it.
Applicant Michaels said while she doesn’t know the bigger legal answer to Nicholas’ question,
she knows that they did not consider upstream emissions for the MapleWood EIS, and the DEC
guidelines for assessing carbon emissions in an Environmental Impact Statement do not include
considerations for upstream emissions. She said that if doing the project as proposed makes x
amount of emissions, and doing it another way makes, for example, one-third more, the upstream
methane emissions are proportionally amplified, so it’s kind of irrelevant because the decision
has been from the beginning to be the most conservative with energy. She said she understands
the concerns and the activism, but in terms of SEQR she’s not sure if that information is relevant
to the Board’s decision making. In the end, the one that uses the least energy is going to produce
the least upstream emissions.
Jones said she thinks conservation of energy is one piece and the sourcing of it is another. She
said that she thinks they are at the leading edge of a changing tide in terms of how the City wants
energy to be sourced. She said they have new guidelines around green buildings, and it’s
possible that SEQR might need to catch up to the new standards.
Petrina said she thinks it’s a unique situation to have an applicant who’s producing their own
power, and for that reason, reviewing it might take more time.
Blalock said that he’s been on the Board for eight years and the only EIS he’s been through has
been ChainWorks. He said he’d like to know what about the North Campus and West Campus
projects necessitated one. He also said that the vast majority of residential buildings they’ve seen
were just heated with natural gas without any of the additional conservation technologies
described in this proposal, and they’ve never said anything about it. Now they are talking about
upstream emissions in Pennsylvania and other topics that have never come up before. He asked if
those topics are germane just because of the scale of this project, or is this project being
evaluated by a different standard? (In which case, he said he thinks it’s not germane and they
should not consider it.) He said they’ve never held a project’s energy systems to such scrutiny in
the eight years he’s been on the Board.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
19
Chair Lewis said Blalock makes a good point, and he also think Petrina’s comment about the
applicant making their own power perhaps giving the Board more to consider is also valid.
Applicant Michaels pointed out in regards to Blalock’s comment about North and West Campus
projects that Cornell decided to produce an EIS voluntarily (without a Positive Declaration from
the Board to require it).
Jones said that maybe there would not be too much resistance to doing one for this project then.
Michaels said she thinks this is different. In this case, they are proposing a project where the
infrastructure and the students already are, on an already developed site, one that doesn’t affect
other neighborhoods. She said that there aren’t really significant impacts in this case because
traffic will be minimal, and the building is really tight. She said she does not want to disrespect
people who have concerns, and that she feels much the same about climate change, but this is a
good project.
Director Cornish said that they have talked about this at length and couldn’t identify any major
negative impacts that would require an Environmental Impact Statement. She said the energy
piece has come up as a community concern, and the questions raised by Nicholas and Blalock
are good ones. She said she thinks they need to think this through and that staff might need to
seek outside guidance because climate change is a big topic and she’s not sure how to consider
development within the City within that context.
Chair Lewis asked the Board if they have any final comments.
Applicant Wolf asked about the scheduling for the special meeting.
Director Cornish reminded the Board to review all sections of the application, not just energy,
and prepare any other questions they might have on other sections.
Chair Lewis next called a five-minute recess.
5. Zoning Appeals
# 3101, Area Variance, 437 N Aurora St
The Board next reviewed the recommendation they are making to the BZA regarding this case,
BZA # 3101:
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and supports this appeal-
however it appears that the paving encroaches on the sidewalk.
# 3106, Area Variance, 108 W Falls
The Board next reviewed the recommendation they are making to the BZA regarding this case,
BZA # 3106:
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
The addition is well integrated with the rest of the building and will not be visible from the street.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
20
# 3107, Area Variance, 113 Fourth St
The Board next reviewed the recommendation they are making to the BZA regarding this case,
BZA # 3107:
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and supports this appeal
Applicant Alena Fast appeared to discuss the proposed access ramp. She said she is a real estate
developer at INHS and is the project manager for this renovation project. In regards to a
comment from the Board that this ramp is across from a park, she said that the park is across
Fourth Street from the property, but the ramp would be along Madison.
Jones asked a few questions regarding the location of the property before saying that it is a
residential neighborhood and that people should have access to their homes. She asked if this is
the only option available to the applicant for ramp placement.
Fast said that the proposal in front of the Board is the preferred option. Others include going
straight out to Fourth Street or locating the ramp in the back of the building, but that that option
would block a basement access point.
Director Cornish said that there’s also something to be said about providing everyone access to a
front door.
Johnston asked about materials selections, saying there are other examples in Fell Creek done in
wood.
Fast said they prefer composite decking.
Glass asked about where the ramp ends, if there is a landing or if it ends right at the sidewalk.
Fast said it’s pretty much right at the sidewalk.
Jones referenced several other ramps in the neighborhood and expressed concern about the
proposed vinyl railings. She asked if they could see materials.
Staff said that the Board could recommend materials.
Chair Lewis said his general sense from the Board is one of support for the variance with some
questions about materials.
After some additional discussion, Jones asked the applicant if they are just installing the ramp or
are renovating the whole unit.
Fast said that they are making the entire unit ADA wheelchair accessible. This is part of a project
to make five units out of INHS’ 98 total units accessible.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 27, 2018
21
Board expressed approval for the project and would suggest to the BZA to encourage the
applicant to select materials that would be in character with the neighborhood.
6. Old/New Business
Special Meeting October 30, 2018
After some discussion, the Board determined that October 30 would work best for the next
special meeting. NCRE would be the primary focus of discussion.
Special Permits
Nicholas said that the Board would see materials related to Special Permits soon and training
will be coming up.
December Schedule
Staff and Board should anticipate meetings to be moved forward by a week to accommodate the
holiday schedule.
7. Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m.
A ~e--s~\~W\}h9~A"{}-'~J·t"oI\5 .};:h1t.-llvl<-
+0 e¥\:>vr /!/~(t.-&I\~\(~M.Mt~DI)~a -k tt-s l.a
G\~~~~J.<afl ClitlVloY be...-.hll~~/ov5~lv~.f\1,J
~otl W~h~DArt~~f-'bcJ\~~p~c?IAJk~v'
~~J eaJ.~~.~AtNJ {)/\l ~~dewbfJmM fs ~v/~
,~V'e;t~~~tr-\CO~T6 ~jPo~kv"'\1'~~(1~~
~p~,t"'-\J ~e)<wll~l4res D~eA vWO I1l11d1'\~(CoI1~V&l ~
~tM~'\V~"l1r~o.rl ~~/\O\tfw.-",{~M prJuvJt1··~
(fl(\k.~~)SAt \~V1J f,vwW ~h (Ie.-oaeA'~~Vh .J-~
~l'ov1IJ~Y'~r--~~~V
Testimony by Thomas Blecher, 313 Utica Street, Ithaca NY
re:Proposed Cornell NCRE project -9/25/18 City of Ithaca
Planning Board
Two years ago Cornell's provost called on the Senior Leadership
Climate Action Group (SLCAG)to explore options to achieve
carbon neutrality by 2035.Cognizant of the catastrophic global
warming effects of methane, the group's report called for the
transition to a low carbon energy supply and options to replace
natural gas for campus heating.
The SLCAG group recognized that upstream emissions, or those
emissions from the drilling and transportation of gas to Cornell's
power plant far outweighed the emissions from combustion.In
their report the SLCAG stated"When we fully account for the
new additional emissions ... we must transition as quickly as
possible from fossil fuels"as upstream emissions account for an
additional 600,000 MT of C02e.annually
Cornell in their application before this board conveniently omits
upstream emissions thereby fraudulently minimizing their carbon
footprint by over 50%.They unabashedly state that their
emissions have decreased 33% since 2008 when they have
increased by over 100%when upstream emissions are included.
wCcmm\.llJng
~~r()n!l'
..Orlsillll Cmmus!.b::"·
Em~klns
If natural gas is used to electrify and heat the proposed dorms
hundreds of thousands of MT of C02e will be spewed into the
atmosphere over the 50 year projected life of these buildings.
While global warming is of paramount importance,there are
other environmental and health issues associated with the mining
of natural gas. They include but are not limited to the following:
include the following:
1) Of the over 600 chemicals identified in fracking fluid that is
injected into the ground.25%are potential carcinogens,and
37%are potential endocrine disrupters while 40-50%could
effect the brain.(https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/
campaigns/fracking/pdfs/
Colborn_2011_Natural_Gas_from_a_public_health_perspectiv
e.pdf
2) Pro Publica documents that 32,000,000 gallons of diesel oil
was injected into the ground as a lubricant by drillers over a 4
year period.(httgs://www.grogublica.org/article/drilling-
industry-says-diesel-use-was-Iegal)
3) Physicians for Social Responsibility urges a fracking ban
because of health concerns
4)The Pennsylvania Alliance for Water and Air compiles a "List
of the Harmed"which documents deleterious health effects to
humans and livestock as well as damage to aquifers, wells
and property. As of last month they had 23000 entries.
https://
pennsylvaniaallianceforcleanwaterandair.wordpress.com/the-
list/
5) Earthquake activity in states which allow fracking and/or the
injection of fracking waste into deep injection wells has
markedly increased (hUgs://earthworks.org/issues/
fracking earthguakes/)
6) Wells drilled in Pennsylvania's Marcellus shale use an average
11 ,200,000 gallons of precious water (water use per well in
Pa based on industry data submitted to FracFocus.
For NCRE, Cornell claims that their gas plant is the most
ecological solution possible. It may be the cheapest solution
possible for Cornell as the gas plant has excess capacity.
However, it is not the most ecological.They could be sourcing all
its electricity from their solar farms and from ESCOs selling
renewable wind energy thereby contributing to'a greener grid.
Cornell could install heat pumps powered by this renewable
energy. If Cornell did this it would be honoring the science that it
preaches through its Sustainability Office and the work of its
Senior Climate Leadership Action Group. It would then be part of
the solution,not part of the problem.
We need an EIS that examines the health and environmental
effects of Cornell's proposed use of natural gas in this project.
We need an EIS which shows a realistic calculation of emissions
and it's effect on the climate. We need an EIS that honestly looks
at alternative heating and electrification plans for these dorms.
NCRE Public Hearing
Bruce Brittain [brucebrittain@verizon.net]
To:
Anya Harris
Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9:20 PM
Hi Anya--
My brother Doug and I tried to attend tonight's Public Hearing, but, with so many people
in line ahead of us to speak, we decided to put our thoughts into an e-mail
instead. Could you please forward this to the members of the Planning Board?
Thank you very much.
--Bruce
----------
DATE: September 25, 2018
TO: Ithaca City Planning Board
FROM: Bruce and Doug Brittain
RE: Cornell's NCRE Project
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Cornell's proposed North Campus
Residential Expansion project. We tried to attend tonight's Public Hearing, but could
barely get in the door. With all the others in line ahead of us to speak, we decided to
return home and put our thoughts into this e-mail instead.
As is often the case, Cornell paints a rather rosy picture of its proposed projects,
claiming few, if any, impacts. However, the NCRE will have several impacts that have
not been adequately addressed or mitigated in the proposal:
o The NCRE Review Application Report, dated July 12, 2018 claims: "No permanent
acoustical impacts are expected to result from the proposed project." (p. 216) This is
clearly wrong. Adding noise sources (fans, air handling units, etc) will inevitably
increase noise. Perhaps the largest source of noise, the students themselves, is not
even mentioned in the report. As we all know from experience, freshmen can be very
noisy. Situating them in close proximity to Hasbrouck Apartments (married student
housing) with its sleeping babies seems like a very bad idea.
o The NCRE Review Application Report, dated July 12, 2018 states that one mitigation
measure would be to "explore the possibility" of realigning the intersection of Cradit
Farm Drive with Pleasant Grove Road (p. 165). This has been explored in depth in the
past, and is, in fact, already included in the University's Master Plan. Now is the time
to actually implement this change, rather than to continue to study it. Cornell needs to
take responsibility for its own traffic, rather than expecting vehicles heading from North
Campus to Central Campus to be routed through residential areas in the City or the
Town. The City should require that this intersection realignment be done as a part of
this project.
o An existing internal North Campus circulation route near the SAM fraternity, which
currently connects Triphammer Road to Jessup Road, is planned to be eliminated,
thereby displacing any traffic that this road would otherwise carry onto City streets.
o The NCRE Review Application Report, dated July 12, 2018 states that the University
plans to increase enrollment by 900 students (p. 20). At a meeting earlier this spring,
Cornell representatives indicated that the University employs about 3/4 FTE staff per
undergraduate student. An increase of 900 students thus translates to around 675 new
FTE employees, in addition to the new students. This is a significant increase, and will
result in significant off-site impacts. In the past, when Cornell has proposed a new
building, they have generally claimed that there would be no impacts, since the building
was simply required to relieve existing over-crowding, and was not expected to directly
lead to an increase in employment. But this time we know that there will be an
increase, and not only will there be the additional employees themselves, but also their
families and the ripple effect that this increase in population creates. The City will need
to consider these off-site impacts in addition to the increase in student population that is
discussed in the report.
When the North Campus Residential Initiative was initially proposed some 17 years
ago, Cornell presented it as an immutable whole, insisting that it be built exactly as
proposed, and resisted any changes. But the City persisted, and Cornell did,
reluctantly, make changes to their buildings and circulation plans. And the project
turned out far better as a direct result of the City's (and Town's) input. Once again, we
expect that Cornell will kick up a fuss, but if you insist on changes, Cornell will likely
comply. And the project will once again turn out better as a result.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
From: caroline byrne <carolinebyrne1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10:43 PM
To: Julie Holcomb <JHolcomb@cityofithaca.org>
Subject: Comment about North Campus Dorms
Dear Julie Conley Holcomb,
Please share this with everyone on the planning board, thank you.
It seems there are two issues overall:
*Building efficiency: could it possibly be a more efficient structure? If passive house standard is
impossible then why? I have read it is not that much more expensive than building for weaker energy
standards but I don't know much about this.
*Source of energy. I believe them when they say their energy system is more efficient than heat
pumps/the grid. The problem with this is as a consumer, when you opt for a heat pump/the grid this
generally means you would be using your own wind/solar and/or you would buy into an esco which
would essentially be paying for wind/solar elsewhere. (based on a couple comments tonight it sounds
like IC is doing some of this). When Cornell uses their combined heat and power system instead, they
are opting to write a giant check to the oil/gas industry every month instead of a giant check for
renewables which would improve the grid. So, it may be more efficient, but it is still hurting rather than
helping the greater good. (On other hand I understand why they want to use their system if they
eventually want to hook it up to their own geothermal. it is frustrating though...because we have no
idea if and when this geothermal will happen)
I am glad they are finally building dorms- they have been expanding for at least 10 years! But, this seems
excessive to me. I wonder if they would consider scaling back? Honestly I think the economy will crash
halfway through construction and all the workers will be laid off with the buildings half done.
Thank You, Caroline Byrne
of Ithaca Planning Development Board
Public Hearing on North Campus Residential Expansion
September 25, 2018
Brian Eden
Dear Planning &Development Board Members,
The Earth is currently ng a climate crisis emergency.
Unfortunately very few people have been willing to acknowledge this reality.
Many academic papers have been written attempting to identify the
psychological barriers that limit human's capacity to address the existential threat
of climate change.
In my most recent comment I referenced a scientific paper that asserted
that we are fast approaching the threshold of warming that would activate a
series of feedback loops that will greatly diminish human's capacity to limit
further catastrophic warming.Linked here is the paper's abstract.
"We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System
toward a planeta threshold that}if crossed}could prevent stabilization of the
climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a
"Hothouse Earth"pathway even as human emissions are reduced.Crossing the
threshold would lead to a much higher global average perature than any
interglacial in the past 2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than
at any time in the Holocene.We examine the evidence that such a threshold
might exist and where it might be.If the threshold is crossed}the resulting
trajectory would likely cause serious disruptions to ecosystems}society,and
economies.Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away
from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state.
Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System-biosphere,climate,
and societies-and could include decarbonization of the global economy}
enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks,behavioral changes,technological
innovations,new governance arrangements}and transformed social values."
(Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene,Proceeding of the National
Academy of Sciences,August 14, 2018, Vol. 115, No. 33,p.1852).
Even if all human generated greenhouse gases were ceased tomorrow,a
highly unlikely prospect,global temperatures would continue to increase.
"Due the lifetimes of C02e,thermal inertia the oceans and the impact of
short lived aerosols and the reactive greenhouse gases,the Earth's climate is not
equilibrated to anthropogenic forcing.As a result,even if fossil fuel emissions
were to suddenly cease,some level of committed warming is expected".
(Thorsten Mauritsen and Robert Pincus,Committed Warming Inferred from
Observations,re Climate Change).
Environmental Assessment and the Determination of Significance
My primary concern is that is project will util a large quantity of
methane and does not sufficiently mitigate its environmental Impact.Have I
identified at least one potential significant adverse environmental impact?The
Citv's decision will be based upon the lowing criteria;
Adverse - Given the context of the increasing pace of global climate change that I
set forth in my introduction,I can think of few more negative environmental
impacts than those resulting from the use of methane.
Significant -
1. Large - The greenhouse gases associated with this project are
substantial and their impacts will not be confined to the immediate
geographic area but will be distributed to the Earth's atmosphere.
2.Duration -Upon creation the greenhouse gases have a Global Warming
Potential (GWP)Impact will be 105 with a 20 year average of 86 (IPCC).
Given that the standard life of such buildings are rated at 50 years,the
methane to heat these building will still be found in the atmosphere
with a GWP at 100 years of 28-36.
3.Irreversible -There is no current cost effective technological means for
removing these greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
The University has attempted to minimize the absolute amount of greenhouse
gas emissions by reflecting it as a percentage of the gas use for the more than 100
on campus buildings.Some conservation measures that mayor may not be
implemented elsewhere on campus,should not be reflected in your decision on
evaluating the proposed buildings greenhouse gas emissions impacts.Let's add
some human dimensions to assessing the impacts.I estimate that the calculated
greenhouse gases would be equivalent to the savings of 600 single family homes
annually converting from fossil fuel heating to heat pumps.As the Chair of the
HeatSmart Tompkins Board of Directors I can report on the number of heat
pumps that were installed through our program over the past 2 years;Ground-
source (27),Air-source (46), and ASHP Domestic Hot Water units (16).Obviously
the Cornell dorm proposal would completely wipe out our gains in reducing the
community's collective greenhouse gas emissions by many factors.Having
expended at least $150,000 and relied on hundreds of hours of volunteer labor,it
will be very discouraging to both the volunteers and homeowners who wished to
reduce the community's carbon foot print when they fully appreciate that their
efforts have been completely nullified by this Cornell project's greenhouse gas
emissions.
The main definition of significance is that it is something of sufficiently great or
important to be worthy of attention.I believe that this test has been achieved
here.
Options for Achieving a Carbon Neutral Campus by 2035 was produced by the
Senior Leaders Climate Action Group.The report was the result of a collaboration
of senior faculty,executive staff,and administrators.In assessing the impact of
natural gas,the report recommended that the impact of production and
transmission be accounted for in Cornell's calculations.Yet the supplementary
materials recently submitted by Cornell (September 17,2018)stated that this
report "lacked a framework well-established protocols because no consensus
protocols exist for quantifying upstream emissions",Our use of methane may
have impacts beyond its use on campus but we don't intend to be held
accountable for them.Is the Cornell Administration withdrawing its support for
the policy that resulted from this consensus report?
Planning for Carbon Neutrality
Converting the entire Ithaca campus from fossil fueled heating to one that
relies on greener grid electricity will be expensive.It must be accomplished in
phases over time.If the experimental Earth Source Heat project proves unfeasible
or too costly,Cornell has provided itself little time to institute Plan B whatever
that might be. If the University invests heavily in Earth Source Heat,there will be
far fewer funds available to study and implement an alternative solution.The less
time provided to develop the alternative,the more costly and unlikely a total
conversion becomes.Without long-term planning,the pledge to achieve carbon
neutrality by 2035 may soon be little more than empty rhetoric.
Accounting for Upstream Methane
The Community Inventory accounts for all GHG emissions from Tompkins County,
including governments,higher education institutions,residents,non-profit
organizations,and businesses. The County Government Operations Inventory
accounts for all GHG emissions associated with Tompkins County government
operations,including the County's buildings and facilities as well as its vehicle
fleet and off-road equipment.
Emissions associated with the use of fracked shale gas are calculated very
differently depending on whether one uses currently accepted GHG accounting,
or if the findings of evolving climate science on methane are applied.Although
the inventories are calculated using widely-accepted international protocols,it is
important to recognize the significance of methane emissions and look ahead to
what may soon be modifications to those protocols to better understand the
extreme impacts sha gas may have in the near term.
With guidance from internationally-renowned experts from our community to
account for the methane leaks from shale gas that occur outside the county,and
accounting for the increased significance of methane's impact in the near term,
estimates are that,rather than decreasing,emissions that could be attributed to
energy use in the community may have actually increased by 67%and risen by
10%for County Government between 2008 and 2014.{Press Release}September
16,2016 Tompkins County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories Completed.)
Mitigation Measures That Are Practical and Reasonable Require Further Study
1.Geothermal Energy Systems - Errors in the assumptions,methodology,
and calculations require more analysis. I defer to the more technically
qualified of those among us to advance this argument.
2. Passive House Design Standards - The FEAF (p. 207) states that "This
project is unlikely to meet Passive House requirements without significant
changes to the design."Cornell's policy is to design to a LEED-Silver
standard.The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
system awards points to positive considerations within a building's
materials and design. The LEED standard does not focus on final energy
performance as part of the points system,but rather,focuses on the
materials used for the project.Materials are rated for their durability,
environmental friendliness,and energy efficiency.The Passive House
standards focus on achieving energy efficiency by requiring design
elements that lower the energy consumption in day to day use. The
regulations and standards of building to Passive House are based on
insulation values,the use of sunlight,an airtight building envelope and use
of controlled ventilation systems in order to maintain a steady temperature
within a home throughout the year. The Passive House standard sets firm
maximum numbers in three categories:total heating and cooling demand
per square foot;total energy demand (including lighting and appliances)
per square foot;and total air leakage.
There are synergies between these differing building standards.An
optimum outcome would combine the best characteristics of LEED
Platinum,PassiveHouse, and Net Zero Energy.There is modeling software
that will provide the necessary data to support such a project.The
modeling costs are a very small investment in relation to the overall costs
of a project and the energy modeling will reap large benefits in energy
savings and greenhouse gas emission reductions.
An Integrated Design Process must be adhered to with rigorous predesign
criteria that focuses on constructing a superior energy performing building.
Then establish the desired performance standards prior to undertaking
conceptual design.
When an Environmental Impact Statement is required I will provide case
studies to demonstrate that Passive House design is the best design
standard to achieve greenhouse gas emission mitigations.
3. Lake Source Heating -I understand that such a project would be
technically somewhat different than Lake Source Cooling. As recently as the
September 28, 2018 issue of the Cornell Chronicle,Cornell has been touting
the seven major state,national,and international awards it has received for
the LSC project."Lake Source Cooling has worked exceptionally well since
2000 and is one of our most significant investments in reducing our
environmental impact".Should we have the opportunity to participate in
an EIS process, a highly qualified expert has committed to providing a
feasible proposal for this technological concept.
An Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared.Both the Town and the
City have required an EIS for the somewhat smaller multi-family housing projects
of Maplewood and Collegetown Terrace. The important issues raised by the
public during the past 2 months require an organized and comprehensive study
not the piecemeal responses that Cornell has provided in response to the issues
that we have raised.
Conclusion
For an academic institution with the acclaimed status of Cornell,the
statement in the recently submitted supplementary materials that Cornell should
not be held responsible for upstream emissions is amoral and embarrassing.The
gas was produced to meet Cornell's demand for it. If there was no demand,there
would be no production.Whether SEQR technically requires Cornell to perform
these calculations is morally irrelevant.Slavery was also once legal. This may
seem to be a harsh statement upon first hearing it but very soon our descendants
will be appalled at how casually we treated methane emissions.
Unfortunately it's evident that the broader community does not regard
global climate change as an existential crisis.Consequently environmental laws
and regulations as well as building codes are totally insufficient to address the
threat.Therefore,we can choose to "Fiddle While Rome Burns"or we can
maximize the use of the environmental review tools that do exist to protect our
civilization from a catastrophic outcome.
Comment Submitted to the Planning and Development Board,
Ithaca New York
September 25, 2018
Elmer Ewing
"While the NCRE will increase building square footage on campus by 4%it will only increase
energy use on campus by approximately 1.4%."(Statement from Cornell's application)
We need an EIS.Cornell claims the new dorms will "only"increase campus
energy use by 1.4%! That is still a huge amount of new energy.Even if we were to
go by the data in the application,this would not be acceptable.If Cornell, the
county, and the state are to meet greenhouse gas (GHG)reduction goals, we cannot
afford the impact of so much additional GHG.
What is worse, as others have pointed out, the actual impact would be far
greater than what is projected in Cornell's application. The calculations in the
application are based on methodology developed to compute effects of methane as
a GHG before "fracking"became king of oil and gas mining.Back then it was
supposed that methane was 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a GHG,
and nobody gave much thought to the effects of leakage.
Now we know that value was significantly underestimated.Furthermore,it
was based on a hundred-year time frame. We don't have a hundred years--we have
only about a decade of increasing GHGs before so many tipping points (e.g.,
melting ice sheets,slowing Gulf Stream, release of methane from melting
permafrost,rising seas) are reached that there may be no retreat from devastating
consequences.Instead of 21 to one, based on a hundred years, we now know that
more accurate and more relevant values for the effects of methane to carbon
dioxide are 86 to one, over 20 years, and 100 to one, over ten years. And we have
discovered that leakage during fracking and delivery to the user is by no means
negligible--it is a crucial factor that must be included in decision making.
You have heard and will receive a host of comments presenting evidence
that an EIS is essential. I will mention two: Joe Wilson spells out what should have
been included in Cornell's application,and what was not, and other ways in which
the application was defective or inadequate; Tony Ingraffea reviews the flaws in
how energy is assessed and compares what is proposed in the application to
possible alternatives.Along with all the other comments, I urge you to take the
1
time to study these two longer ones and to give them the consideration they well
deserve.
Now please look again at the quotation at the top. On a square foot basis,
the new buildings will use 35% as much energy as does the rest of the campus,
which includes some very old, leaky buildings !We have to do better than that. 1
was pleased to learn via the grapevine that Cornell would be presenting a modified
plan for building design.(1 would have appreciated knowing the details in advance
so that 1could have studied them and made an informed response,but 1hope the
new design will represent a very substantial improvement over what was in the
initial application.)A huge improvement is needed.
1am attaching an excerpt from a letter that 13 others and 1addressed to Nick
Goldsmith and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board.Written July 18,2016 in
connection with the Maplewood project, it explains three different approaches to
evaluating how well a building meets energy performing standards. 1advocate for
the third of these, and meeting the standards for a "Passive House"; or better yet, a
combination of all three approaches.
We each have a role to play: 1) Cornell, the applicant; 2) we, the interested
public; and 3) you, the Planning Boards. 1hope you will consider well what
Cornell has submitted, and how the public has responded,and will come to a fair
conclusion--not fair just to Cornell's present needs, more importantly,fair to future
generations. You have the tools available to reach a fair,informed conclusion, and
the tools include an E1S and scoping. 1 respectfully urge you to use them. Thank
you for the chance to comment.
ATTACHMENT
Excerpt from July 18,2016 letter sent to Nick Goldsmith,Sustainability Planner
Town ofIthaca.
''At the July 12 meeting of the Planning Board,Board members expressed
unfamiliarity with the various building energy performance standards. There are
substantial differences between LEED (Certified,Silver,Gold,orPlatinum), Passive
House,and Net Zero Energy. Below we offer factual information describing the
focus and differences between these standards.
2
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)system
awards points to positive considerations within a building's materials and design.
The LEED standard does notfocus on final energy performance as part ofthe points
system) but rather)focuses on the materials usedfor the project.Materials are rated
for their durability)environmental friendliness)and energy efficiency.
The concept ofNet Zero Energy building is one that is based on being able
to produce as much energy as the building and its residents consumes over the
course ofa year. The goal ofthis type ofgreen building is to minimize the amount
ofenergy used by using energy efficient products and a sustainable infrastructure.
The assessment is done by measuring the amount ofrenewable energy produced
and used over _time.A structure built utilizing these guidelines will provide more
energy savings than one constructed to LEED standards.
The Passive House standards focus on achieving energy efficiency by
requiring design elements that lower the energy consumption in day to day use.
The regulations and standards of building to Passive House are based on
insulation values) the use ofsunlight) an airtight building envelope and use of
controlled ventilation systems in order to maintain a steady temperature within a
home throughout the year. The Passive House standard sets firm maximum
numbers in three categories:total 'heating and cooling demand per square foot;
total energy demand (including lighting and appliances)per square foot;and total
air leakage.
There are synergies between these differing building standards.An optimum
outcome would combine the best characteristics ofLEED Platinum)Passive
House)and Net Zero Energy. There is modeling software that will provide the
necessary data to support such a project.The modeling costs are a very small
investment in relation to the overall costs ofa project and the energy modeling will
reap large benefits in energy savings and greenhouse gas emission reductions. "
Signers of the letter:Peter Bardaglio,Elmer Ewing,Elan Shapiro,Fred Conner,
Jeff Furman,Irene Weiser,Pat Dubin, Sara Hess, Joe Wilson,Brian Eden, Marie
McRae,Martin Hatch,Kirby Edmonds,Kathryn Russell
3
Sept. 26, 2018
To: Ithaca Planning and Development Board Members & Others
Fr: Charles Geisler, Emeritus Professor, Development Sociology
In comments submitted to you today, Prof. Emeritus Tony Ingraffea
states three concerns with Cornell’s NCRE proposal and urges an EIS to
correct these concerns. I concur, and will amplify on his second concern
that “reasonable and practicable alternatives” are missing.1 These
should be, and according to SEQR must be, rigorously analyzed and
compared.
One carbon-free alternative already exists on the Cornell campus--
hydroelectricity from Cornell’s Fall Creek hydroelectric station. Prof.
Ingraffea states (based on empirical analysis) that, in tandem with
ground source heat pumps, that station could supply about 40% of the
new dorm demand with renewable energy; if then combined with in-situ
lake source cooling, these heat pumps using hydroelectricity will yield
lower GHG emissions than would natural gas.
Dr. Ingraffea notes that in 2016 Cornell’s own Senior Leaders Climate
Action Working Group underscored the benefits of on-campus carbon-
free power (such as the Fall Creek energy station he reports on), or of
off-campus carbon-free power. Other on-campus alternatives to natural
gas include water-source heating using Cayuga Lake and existing lake
source cooling infrastructure;2 and they include augmented solar and
windfarm commitments already pursued by Cornell. Off-campus
options, contrary to the impression given in Cornell’s Proposal, include
100% carbon-free mixtures of solar, wind, and biomass from ESCOs
1 His first concern takes issue with Cornell’s claim that the fuel mixes for heating NCRE are essentially fixed. In fact, peak electricity demand from
ground source heat pump technology is small enough to be favorably accommodated by hydroelectricity (see Figure 2, Ingraffea Comments). His
third concern pertains to the Proposal timeline which privileges misguided dependence on additional gas and foregoes up to 10 years of lower
GHG emissions, given the uncertainties of its earth source heating initiative.
2 https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877705817344569/1-s2.0-S1877705817344569-main.pdf?_tid=63a4b650-9918-41b5-9c40-
26ed18bd2665&acdnat=1537673468_ff9a8ef91f0ecb79b059ecd1a0e15c2d; https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sci-tech/renewable-energy_how-to-
get-heat-from-the-bottom-of-a-lake/41700430; and https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014WR015509
affiliated with NYSEG. The Grid around us is greening.3 Reuters reports
that the procurement of solar energy by U.S. utilities “exploded” in the
first half of 2018 and in Texas, a Mecca for gas, oil, and coal extraction,
nearly 90% of the state’s future capacity will be from wind and solar
(that’s Texas, not California).4
When Cornell made public its plans for earth source heating in 2016, it
produced an information sheet that stated: "Cornell cannot reach
climate neutrality without eliminating the fossil fuels that are used to
heat [the] campus,…”5 Listen to yourself in earnest, Cornell, and provide
an EIS for this new and important Project.
3 On July 31, 2018, Avingrid (owner of NYSEG and RG&E) filed 5-year Distributed System Implementation Plan detailing the improvements and
investments required to become a Distributed System Platform Provider (DSPP). It states: “We view this filing as a significant update in our
journey to become a next generation energy company. This will enable us to continue to broaden our capabilities, integrate renewable energy
into grid operations, enhance system planning, enable customer choice and implement New York State’s Reforming the Energy Vision (REV)
initiatives.” Iberdrola, the Spanish owner of Avingrid and world leader among utilities in renewable energy, states that sustainable heating and
cooling play a key role in decarbonizing buildings. It plans to encourage the deployment of electric heat pumps in the belief that they make an
important contribution to increased energy efficiency
(https://www.iberdrola.com/wcorp/gc/prod/en_US/sostenibilidad/docs/Iberdrola_Submission_Tanaloa_Dialogue.pdf). By the end of June, 2018,
of the total installed capacity of the Iberdola Group, 60% corresponds to renewable energies and 67% is free of emissions.
4 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/08/23/us-86-of-texas-future-capacity-will-comprise-solar-or-wind-zero-coal/
5 https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/cornell-has-a-plan-to-prove-that-the-east-coast-can-have-geothermal-heat/
To:Members of the Planning and Development Board of the City of
Ithaca
From:Sara Hess}124 Westfield Drive}Ithaca}NY 14850
Date:Sept.25}2018
I am active in community efforts to address and mitigate climate
change.I have written to you several times already with my
comments and questions about Cornell's dorm project.So far}I have
heard five presentations by Cornell representatives}including the
one tonight on high performance buildings.Other people,including
Buzz Levine'}Brian Eden}and Joe Wilson are addressing technical
and legal issues}and I full support them and their research.
J~erause±:c~deepl)'and'T~"tI=¥:toJ~.a,'~at~Fl.My
comments have not really changed}but with every presentation}I
hear more inconsistencies.Now}I'm okay if Cornell is changing
their plan because they want to tighten up the building envelope
and look for additional energy conservation in the design and
operations.In fact}that}s exactly what would honor their students
and their own climate goals.
If they were to put into writing}that the building would be designed
to meet Passive House or close to net-zero standards}I'd stop
pointing out the health}safety}and ethical problems with burning
more methane for the next few decades or more.At least then,they
could claim the building was built with the future in mind,and the
increased amount of methane would be very small.
But I would still have questions about Cornell's credibility.It was a
shock to me to hear Mr.Beyer say that the Tech Campus buildings
aren't really built at net-zero energy standard after all, as the
engineers and architects tried to make them be. And especially since
Cornell puts that intention and implied CLAIM in the first paragraph
of their glowing press releases.
It was another shock on Sept 12,to hear Mr.Beyer say to the City
Planning Committee,that these North Campus dorms,if built at 30 %
better than current energy code,would be MORE energy efficient
than the Tech Campus dorm that was built at Passive House
standards.How could this be?The first sentence in the Cornell's
own description of the Tech campus building says,quote:"As the
world's first residential high-rise,built to Passive House standards,
The House exemplifies Cornell Tech's commitment to setting new
benchmarks in sustainability and innovation."So,what can we
believe?Was the building built to ultra-high energy standards as
required for Passive House,or,was it actually built with less
efficiency in it than one built at 30 %better than current codes?"
As proposed,this project has failed to provide adequate information
on at least 4 required points
- 1.Absolute amount of energy use for these 7 buildings
(without considering campus offsets that are not in the ((4
corners"of this project)
- 2.Absolute amount of GHG emissions,including the upstream
emission data
- 3. Full description of alternatives (including building to ultra-
energy efficiency)that have been considered and rejected
The project obviously creates a conflict with the official municipal
climate goals of Tompkins County,the City of Ithaca,and the Town
of Ithaca to sharply reduce GHG emissions.
Therefore,I urge the City Planning Board to issue a positive
declaration,and require a hard look at the energy issues through an
EIS.
Public Hearing Comments from Climate Justice Cornell
Julie Kapuvari [jkk87@cornell.edu]
To:
Anya Harris
Tuesday, September 25, 2018 8:16 PM
Hi my name is Julie Kapuvari, I'm a senior at Cornell studying environmental science and climate change. I am in a student-run
organization called "Climate Justice Cornell." We wrote and circulated a petition regarding the North Campus Expansion, which
currently has just under 600 signatures, 85% of which are Cornell students, faculty, and the rest are mostly Cornell alumni and
Ithaca residents. On the petition, there was a section for community comments, only a fraction of which were submitted to the
board ahead of time (because we got about 60 comments and didn't want to make you read all of them!). Almost all of the
comments pertained to the lack of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement instead of merely Environmental
Assessment Forms, the lack of comprehensiveness of using a LEED standard as a metric for building performance (but working
within that metric, why is the Cornell Climate Action Plan is setting the bar to LEED Silver for all buildings on campus),
the lack of upstream methane leakage accounting from the Dominion New Market gas pipeline, and the lack of inclusion of
student opinion.
What we would like to highlight today is the design of the building, and we request something very feasible: that the window to
wall ratio is reduced to the optimal 15% for the sake of better building insulation, which requires a lower energy load from
the Methane/Fracked Natural Gas plant that will power the expansion project. Administrators claimed that they consulted us
about this and that the large windows would increase mental health and wellness, but after conducting this petition, we have
found that many students either had no idea there an expansion on north campus was occurring in the first place, and many
students said that there are several more important and directly efficient methods that would support mental health for
students, such as an improvement of resources for Cornell Minds Matter and other support programs. Therefore,
involving students in the planning process and consulting the relevant people would reduce top-down assumptions and lack of
communication and is especially crucial for something that directly concerns student life. We have written a resolution that we
will present to the Student Assembly next week and we will be meeting with Provost Kotlikoff in mid-October to discuss these
sustainability concerns.
Additionally, President Martha Pollack once said in a Student Assembly meeting that if earth source heat power does not devel op
"all bets are off" for Carbon Neutrality.
In light of Cornell's commitment to Carbon Neutrality by 2035, we believe as students with a long future of climate change ahead
of us, that the city of Ithaca should do everything within its jurisdiction to ensure that this expansion project is the most
committed to the plan and more, and the most sustainable it possibly could be.
--
Julie Kapuvari
Environmental & Sustainability Sciences
Pre-Law | Climate Change and Entomology
Cornell University | CALS '19
Oral presentation to C Ith Plng Bd 9/25/18
Mitchell Lavine 719 Ringwood Rd, Ithaca, NY buzz@baka.com
Retired: Tompkins County Planner, Town Planning Board Member, Cornell Faculty in Energy
Analysis and Environmental Analysis
My written comments were emailed to you earlier. I encourage each of
you to read them if you haven’t already done so. Orally here tonight I’m
focusing on just one aspect of that written submission.
The major concern of many of the comments made about the NCRE is the
outsized climate-change impact of the upstream methane emissions.
Such emissions are inherent in Cornell’s proposed use of natural gas to
heat these buildings.
Why is that such a major concern? — because methane is such a super
powerful and fast acting GHG. Therefore reducing its emission into the
atmosphere is our best chance to conquer climate change in the short
period we have left before it runs amok and completely out of human
control.
Even though CO2 is the most common and most recognized GHG, we
recognize the different powers of the different kinds of emissions by
converting all to a common metric, called CO2e. For a 20-yr time frame,
methane emissions are recognized to be 80-100 times more powerful than
CO2.
2 weeks ago, your PEDC members recognized this major issue and asked
Cornell to quantify those emissions for the several heating-system
alternatives being considered.
On Sept 17th, Cornell submitted additional materials that purported to fulfill
that request. The “meat” of that response is summarized in their page-9
table.
At first I thought that table indeed accounted for upstream methane
emissions because the emissions column was labeled CO2 equivalents,
not plain CO2. So finally we get to see these meaningful numbers! E ven
the footnotes labeled the emissions as CO2 equivalents.
However, after taking the trouble to check the source information from the
footnotes, it became apparent that the numbers do not actually account for
those upstream methane emissions at all and therefore should not be
labeled CO2e, rather just CO2. Furthermore, the tiny fraction of methane
that was accounted for, is based on long outdated methods which
considerably underestimate the global warming power of methane.
Cornell’s numbers here are very, very misleading. Some might say the
table is an exercise in obfuscation. It certainly does not answer the
question asked by your PEDC members — or by many public commenters.
I have three degrees from Cornell and was on the faculty in energy analysis
and environmental analysis. As a long time member of the Cornell
community, I’m heartbroken at this kind of behavior from my alma mater.
In my 55 years here in the Ithaca area, I spent 10 years working as a
Tompkins County Planner, and 20 years serving on my Town of Dryden
Plng Bd. As a long-time local citizen and planner, it’s apparent to me that
the only way to appropriately serve the public in reviewing this project is to
require an environmental impact statement. And that EIS should include a
robust scoping session to first agree on all information needs and analysis
protocols.
Both the City and the Town have required EIS’s for similar projects in the
recent past (Collegetown Terrace student housing in the City, with over 1200 beds,
and Maplewood student housing in the Town, with 872 bedrooms). So why not for
this project? An EIS seems to be the only way to provide the
municipalities with the information needed to make valid permitt ing
decisions.
Followup comments to the Planning Board
Buzz Lavine [mlavine@twcny.rr.com]
To:
Anya Harris
Tuesday, September 25, 2018 11:40 PM
Thanks for holding the public hearing tonight. I spoke tonight and submitted
comments, but several “official” statements were made tonight that are just plainly
wrong. Even though I’m a planner by profession and I taught environmental analysis
and energy analysis at Cornell, as well as served on my planning board for 20 years,
there was no way for me to give these comments at the time. So here are some
followup comments, the things I would have said if I was allowed to at the
meeting. Please consider them.
1. The reason that no one asked the Maplewood developer to re-visit the upstream
methane emissions issue as part of the EIS, or as a reason for requiring an EIS, was
that it had already been brought up as an issue by the public, been discussed and w as
mitigated by the developer's having commited to using heat pumps and grid electricity
instead of natural gas. That, by the way, is exactly what the public is asking Cornell to
do with NCRE, as that would also mitigate the adverse impact of upstream methane
emissions in the best way practicable.
2. And that, by the way, is the test for whether to require an EIS -- Are there
potentially significant adverse impacts remaining which are not being mitigated in the
best way practicable? Joanne Cornish’s instruction to the Planning Board on that test
tonight (are there any unanswered questions) is legally WRONG. Someone should
tell both Joanne and the Planning Board members. If you don’t want to believe me,
ask for advice from the County Planning Department or from DEC. Or look at the
DEC’s Guide for SEQR. Check out this DEC website on the
subject: https://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/47962.html
3. In addition, there is a misunderstanding of another concept given as “official”
advice to the Board tonight. SEQR may be viewed as a local law. However it’s false
to state that upstream methane emissions happen in Pennsylvania and thus should not
be considered as part of the SEQR review. First, those upstream emissions occur in a
variety of places throughout the life cycle of natural gas. And second, their impact on
climate change occurs all over the world. The impact occurs because of the local
action of using natural gas. This is an impact for which there is no “local.” It’s all
global. It affects us locally just as it does people in other places. Furthermore, that is
why NYS law REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF METHANE EMISSIONS as part
of the SEQR review. Look it up. And that’s in direct contradiction to the concept
stated tonight that they’re not local and therefore shouldn’t be considered as part of a
SEQR review.
Thanks again for asking for our public input.
Mitchell Lavine
From: Zaid Ward [zw83@cornell.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9:12 PM
To: JoAnn Cornish
Cc: SRitter@town.ithaca.ny.us; bcross@cayuga-heights.ny.us
Subject: Support for North Campus Residential Expansion - Planning Board
Good evening Ms. Cornish,
Thank you very much in advance for passing this on to members of the City of Ithaca Planning
Board; I’ve CC’d your colleagues Sue Ritter and Brent Cross. I understand that the deadline for
submissions was this afternoon, but hopefully my statement might still be considered.
I’m currently a senior at Cornell, and since I was a freshman, there has been a shortage of
housing on campus. When I lived in the freshman dorms, single and double rooms were being
stretched into forced doubles and triples, and now even communal lounge areas are being
converted into living spaces. I’ve heard firsthand the detrimental impact that these living
arrangements can have on students’ experiences at Cornell. Every student should be entitled to
live comfortably in a space that is not being filled in excess of its capacity, because the ability to
have a personal area to rest, study, and socialize are integral to mental health and academic
performance.
Further, the West Campus lottery system for upperclassmen housing has become so
oversaturated that many students don’t even attempt to find housing on campus after their
freshman year. This puts a substantial amount of pressure on the Collegetown rental market,
pushing rent prices higher and higher each year, and making it necessary to sign leases up to a
year in advance just to secure reasonably-priced housing near campus. In my opinion, it is a
disservice to all students for it to be so difficult and stressful to find a place to live. For these
reasons, I strongly support the North Campus Residential Expansion, and I hope that the
Planning Board allows this much-needed project to proceed.
Best,
Zaid
—
Zaid Ward
Student Manager Coordinator
Cornell Dining | Cornell University
m: 216.571.3777
Comments to the Ithaca City Planning and Development Board
for Tuesday 9/25/18
Joseph M.Wilson l
75 Hunt Hill Road
Ithaca,NY 14850
I am a member of the Campaign for Renewable Energy and of the 17 person group of residents
who previously submitted a memo 'which is part of your Agenda Packet.We understand it is part of the
record you will use during your review of Cornell's Application.I intend this submission to supplement
that memo.
1.To Meet the Requirements of SEQRA,Energy and Emissions Issues Must Always be
Assessed for their Significance.Methane is One of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions to be
Included.
A.The City is required under SEQRA to assess the potential negative impacts of energy
use and emissions.This is not a new requirement.
Cornell and its representatives,Taitem Engineering and Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape
Architects LLP, have chosen to use parts of the Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Gas Emissions in
an Environmental Impact Statement (Guide)to support its Application.
The DEC Policy which accompanies the Guide says in the preamble,"This Policy does not
create any new requirements under SEQR."[P.1,Emphasis added.]
The significance of this language is that the Guide is a detailing of how to carry out duties and
procedures for assessing energy and emissions which have always been embedded in SEQRA.
B.Assessing the impacts of energy and emissions is NOT optional.It is an obligation of all
Lead Agencies including local governments acting in a Lead Agency capacity.
"SEQR reguires that lead agencies identify and assess actions for potential adverse environmental
impacts. As state and local governments strive to meet this SEQR obligation, they will identify proposed
projects that have potentially significant environmental impacts due, in part, to energy use and GHG
emissions. Energy use and GHG emissions may either be among the issues identified as significant in a
positive declaration, or included based on public scoping for an EIS."[P.2, Emphasis added.]
The use of the words,"SEQR requires" and "obligation"negate the idea that lead agencies can treat
the assessment of energy use and emissions as optional under SEQRA..
C.That the City has not routinely met this obligation does not excuse it from performing the
obligation now or in the future.
Given that the duty to assess energy and emissions impacts is not a "new requirement" and that such
assessments are "required"under SEQRA, neither the City,this Applicant, nor futureApplicants can avoid
or omit such assessments. For the same reason, the Applicant's recent complaint that fully assessing energy,
1 I am a retired member of the State Bars of California and Delaware and practiced law in California for 20 years
before retiring. I taught at the Santa Clara University Law School and the Widener University Law School. I served briefly
as the State of Delaware's Director of Planning and Coordination before beginning a career as a school administrator. I have
attended many public and private meetings focused on NCRE and Comell's "Earth Source"campus-wide heating initiative.
I have read Comell's initial Application and its September 17 "NCRE Additional Materials."
2 The memo was submitted September 10, 2018 and was titled,"Cornell's North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE)-
-the Need for More, Accurate Information and for Completion of the Full Environmental Impact Statement Process."
1/5
emissions,alternatives and mitigation measures is beyond reason must be dismissed.
Guide indicates the process and the procedures to be used.
"...T]he purpose of this Policy is to assist ...staff in reviewing how energy use and GHG emissions
are identified and analyzed in an EIS,so as to allow staff to meet [the lead agency's]obligation under SEQR
as wellas to combat climate change and maximize energy efficiency.[Guide,p. 2]
This language further emphasizes the obligatory nature of the assessment.
Methane emissions are among Greenhouse Gases which must be assessed for
environmental impact.
"There are six main GHGs:carbon dioxide (C02),nitrous oxide (N20),methane (CH4),
hydroflurocarbons (HFCs),perfluorocarbons (PFCs),and sulfurhexaflouride (SF6).Evaluation of the
emissions of each of these GHGs could potentially be included in the scope of an EIS."[Guide,p. 4,
Emphasis added.]
This means that under SEQRA,Cornell and its consultant Taitem Engineering cannot choose
whether or not the City's assessment of Greenhouse Gases includes Methane emissions.Similarly,the City
cannot accept or acquiesce in Cornell's insistence on excluding Methane emissions.
BEFORE a Greenhouse Gas assessment,SEQRA required an agreement advance among
the the Town and Village as Involved Agencies with Applicant Cornell regarding assessment
methodology.
"For analysis of GHG sources other than C02 from combustion,C02 from waste, or methane
from landfills,quantification methodology will be handled on a case-by-case basis through consultation
between a project proponent, DEC as the lead agency, and Involved Agencies.[GUide,p.4,Emphasis
added.] This means that Cornell's refusal to calculate Methane emissions and its complaint that
calculating Methane emissions sets a "new precedent"or is confusing to future applicants are
misguided.
There is nothing on the public record demonstrating that such a consultation took place.Therefore,
the data now part of the Application cannot be used.Instead,it can only be after a methodology has been
agreed upon and used to generate data (with underlying data,assumptions,and calculations shown),that the
agencies can proceed to make SEQRA-based decisions.
The appropriate place to make a record of the agreement among the parties is during EIS scoping.
The proper place for the presentation of the data, etc. is in the EIS itself
The methodology used by Cornellffaitem is not capable of providing of
Greenhouse Gas Emission data described the Guide and required under SEQRA.
The methodology used by Cornell consultant Taitem was designed to assess carbon dioxide alone. It
excludes Methane emissions as well as the other "GHGs"listed at page 4 of the Guide.It does not use the
most current global warming potential factor for methane ("86 GWP"over 20 years)as required by the
Guide.
Underlining the inadequacy of the data presented are the opinions of internationally-recognized
experts Dr.Robert Howarth and Dr. A.R.Ingraffea.Each has reviewed the data and stated that the results
are both inaccurate and lead to incorrect conclusions.In short,Cornell's preferred methodology does not
and cannot serve as the methodology to be used going forward.
Senior Climate Leadership __11£0111111111111
calculations by
version that mernouoiozv SIlOUJIO
2/5
Town,Village, and Cornell.The County should also be involved in the decision. The agreed method
should then be applied in an EIS.
The methodology now used by the County and the Senior Climate Leadership Group at Cornell
(SCLAG) has been up-dated and refined following the scientific principles of peer-review.The County used
a version to complete its update of Greenhouse Gas Emissions inventory in 2016 and will use a yet-again,
up-dated version for its next inventory which is about to start.
Because of its interest in accurate data and because it is "an honest broker" in the context of
determining whether the Community's goals for reducing gas use and emissions are being met, the County
should join the City,Town, andVillage in making the SEQRA-required agreement on the emission
quantification process.
According to County Planning Commissioner, Katie Borgella, the County's methodology can be
accessed at:http://tompkinscountyny.gov/files2/planninglEnergy-greenhouse/Community 2014
Methodology GHGpdf
Conclusion:AFTER proper methodology is agreed upon and reliable data with assumptions
and calculations are produced,the City, Town,and Villagecan begin to determine whether the
proposed use of energy and resulting emissions create one or more significant impacts under SEQRA.
If so, an EIS to review "reasonable and practicable"alternatives and mitigation measures must
follow.
Il,The long-term impacts of using gas and generating emissions as proposed will last for
the 50+years useful life of the NCRE buildings.These impacts are significant and no reasonable,
practical,and timely alternatives have been offered by Cornell.An EIS is necessary to identify
such alternatives.
The rule of thumb for buildings such as those planned for the NCRE is that they have a 50+
year useful life. Cornell has not contested this.
Cornell has admitted in public that there will be a time when using grid-electricity to provide
energy for the NCRE buildings will generate less Greenhouse Gas emissions than using 100% gas in its
campus plant.It has not, however,indicated when this crucial "cross-over"is likely to occur. A
competent and transparently calculated estimate should be produced through the EIS because it is
crucial to the Involved Agencies'decisions about what reasonable and practical alternatives are
necessary.
In the Application Cornell/Taitem suggests that at some time in the future, Cornell will switch to
an alternative technology to meet the energy and heating demands of the NCRE. The primary
alternatives under consideration appear to be ground-source heat pumps or Cornell's "Earth Source"
initiative.No time line for implementing either has been given, however.
What is known from public meetings and promotional literature is that converting to an Earth
Source alternative is far off in the future and highly speculative. This is because the conversion will
cost $700-million in today's dollars; will take 15-17 years after it is started;that Cornell does not intend
to use its own money; and that there is no other funding now at hand.
Because of the absence of concrete,time-specific alternatives,the Involved Agencies must
make their decisions assuming that the effects of gas use and emissions will be "long-term,"i.e. for the
next 50+ years. As previously shared, an estimate using current methodology for those emissions is
5995 metric tons of C02 equivalent annually;299,750 metric tons over 50 years. Dr.Ingraffea has
calculated that that annual emission volume is equivalent to total emissions per year from 600 homes
using fossil-fuel for heat, hot water, cooking, and clothes drying.
This amount of emissions will overwhelm the emission reductions accomplished by renewable-
3/5
energy adopting individuals,local grass-roots organizations like Heat Smart and Solarize Tompkins,
and similar efforts by the City, Town, Village, and County.
For these reasons, an EIS is necessary to identify reasonable,practical,and timely alternatives
to the currently foreseeable decades of increased gas and emissions.
ID.The cumulative impacts of gas and emissions,coupled with the proposed building to a
design standard less than net zero,must be considered as a significant negative impact.An EIS
should be used to find a wider range of reasonable and practical alternative designs.
"Cumulative impacts" must be assessed when actions are proposed,or can be foreseen as likely,
to take place simultaneously or sequentially in a way that the combined impacts may be significant."
When the cumulative effects are significant,an EIS to review alternatives and mitigation measures is
required.["The SEQR Handbook,3rd Edition,2010,"hereafter,Handbook,at p. 83]
Cornell presented a rigid and limited range of design options in its Application. The NCRE
buildings will be in operation from 2020 through 2070 before any design changes are likely.Cornell's
proposal is for a building design which will make them 30% more efficient than current code requires.
Cornell argues that building to LEED-Silver standards will get them there.
That claim requires the so-called SEQRA "hard look."The reasons are that a developer earns
LEED "points"for a variety of features unrelated to energy efficiency or emission reduction and
because recent,peer-reviewed research says that the lower levels ofLEED-certified buildings such as
"Silver"do not actually perform up to code expectations.
4
The City's Green Building Policy [GBP] is specifically designed to reduce Greenhouse Gas
emissions.At its least demanding,the GBP requires a 40%emission reduction-not Cornell's 30%. This
standard applies until 2025, then requires 80% from 2025-2030,and zero energy buildings after 2030.
[GBP Final Report,p. 7]
The County's Energy Roadmap recommends buildings be designed for a 70%reduction in
energy use now (compared to the national median for comparable buildings)and that reductions
increase to net zero between 2030 and 2050. The Ithaca 2030 District calls for the same.
By contrast,the NCRE will operate for 40 years or 80%of its useful life far below any of these
standards.Moreover,until retracting its claims at recent NCRE-focused meetings, Cornell claimed to
have built to net-zero standards at Cornell Tech in New York City.
What all this means is that the Involved Agencies must use an EIS with public scoping to
identify and study a wider range of building design alternatives and find, as SEQRA requires,
reasonable and practical ones which will actually offset the impacts of the energy use and emissions to
be caused by the NCRE.
~There is a wider range of reasonable and practical alternatives to offset the impacts of
gas and emissions than Cornell has presented.They deserve review as part of an EIS.
Among the alternatives which the Involved Agencies should review are those items listed in the
table on page 9 of Cornell's September 17 submission. One calling for Ground-Source Heat Pumps,
Lake Source Cooling, and Grid Electricity stands out. The projected emissions are just 10%greater
than Cornell's proposal.Because it is not clear whether upstream Methane emissions are included, this
heat pump might actually generate fewer emissions than Cornell's proposal.Regardless, Cornell has
3 Cumulative impacts"... occur when multiple actions affect the same resource(s).***
4 Scofield, John H.,"Efficacy of LEED-certification in reducing energy consumption and Greenhouse Gas emissions for
large New York City office buildings,"in Energy and Buildings,VOL 67,December 2013,pages 517-524 at page 524.
https://l,vww.sciencedirect.comlscience/artic1e/pii/S037877881300529XMn0005
4/5
agreed in public meetings that grid electricity will result in fewer emissions over time while the gas
used in the co-generation plant will not. Therefore, starting NCRE operations with this alternative in
place will spare us years or decades of gas use and emissions which are at the heart of Cornell's
proposal.
Another range of alternatives are discussed in some detail in Cornell's "Options for Achieving
a Carbon Neutral Campus by 2035 Analysis of Solutions Cornell University Senior Leaders Climate
Action Working Group,September 2016." In a discussion of using heat pumps for heat on page 18, it
is noted:"If electricity were generated with on-site gas turbines [as Cornell proposes], this solution
would increase Cornell's carbon footprint;if sourced from the current grid, the carbon reduction effect
is small;'if sourced from a future carbon-free grid (or campus power sources), it could reduce carbon
impacts by up to 40-50 percent."[Emphasis added.]6
Cornell is understood to have carbon-free sources of energy including on campus sources at its
disposal, now. Using them to power NCRE as an alternative to the current proposal must be explored in
an EIS.
V.Under SEQRA the Decisions Regarding the Range of Alternatives to be Considered in
an EIS and Which Ones Might be Required are to be made by the City, Town,and
Village-not the Applicant.
In its September 17 submission Cornell says that were it to include Methane emissions in its
data, such data would "not materially affect our assessment of alternatives."The Handbook makes
clear that Cornell's selection of alternatives,however decided upon,cannot control the decisions of the
Involved Agencies:
Regarding the range of alternatives the Handbook reads, "...SEQR asks the lead agency [and
Involved Agencies] to decide: how many alternatives should be reviewed;[and] how much information
is enough; ..." [Handbook, p. 4]
Regarding final decisions on what alternatives shall be required, the Handbook reads:
"..., in preparing its SEQR findings, each Involved Agency must apply the following tests.It must
consider the reasonable alternatives and choose one [or more]which minimizes or avoids adverse
environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable.***[Handbook,p. 6]
Further, each of the Involved Agencies is responsible to reach its own independent conclusions:
"More than one agency may be involved in the SEQR process, and each is independently responsible
for balancing the project benefits against adverse impacts and mitigation.Since SEQR does not change
the jurisdictions of the agencies, this balancing enables the SEQR process to gather and analyze
information,then apply this information based on the jurisdictions,interests and concerns of each
agency.***"[Handbook,p.6]
5 It is worth noting that the Senior Leaders Climate Action Group does not subscribe to the disputed and possibly
disingenuous theory advanced in this Application that electricity coming from the grid to power heat pumps on the
Cornell campus come 100%from natural gas.
6 https://cpb-us-el.wpmucdn.com/blogs.comell.edu/dist/3/6798/files/2016/06/CarbonNeutralitv-26y22yn.pdf
5/5