Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2018-10-30Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019 1 Planning and Development Board Minutes Special Meeting – October 30, 2018 Board Members Attending: Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Jack Elliott; Mitch Glass; Matthew Johnston; McKenzie Lauren Jones; Emily Petrina Board Members Absent: None Board Vacancies: None Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning and Economic Development Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development Anne Redmond, Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: Cherry Street – Final Approval of a Major Subdivision Nels Bohn, IURA NCRE – Discussion Only Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects Arvin Tikku, iKon5 Steve Byers, Cornell University Robert Bland, Cornell University Others Attending: Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle LLP Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019 2 Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Members of the Board, staff, and Adam Walters, counsel to the Board, introduced themselves. 1. Agenda Review Deputy Director Nicholas said there were no changes to the agenda. 2. Subdivision A. Stewart Major Subdivision (4 Lots) Cherry Street, Tax Parcel # 100.-2-1.21 by Nels Bohn for the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA). Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval. The IURA is proposing to subdivide the 6-acre parcel into four lots. 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. This subdivision is part of a larger development project that 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), for which the Planning Board made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on September 25, 2018. Nels Bohn of the IURA appeared to represent the proposed subdivision. There were no questions or comments from the Board. Adopted Resolution for Final Subdivision Approval: On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has a pending subdivision application from the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), for the major subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #100.-2-21, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to subdivide a 6-acre parcel into four lots: 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. The applicant is also proposing the construction of a 400-foot extension of a public road (Cherry St). The project site is in the Cherry Street District (CSD) which has no minimum lot size or street frontage requirements and the following yard dimension requirements: no front yard setback except as necessary to provide a 5’ sidewalk and 8’ treelawn and minimum10’ side and rear yard setbacks, and WHEREAS: the entire development project, including this subdivision, the road construction and the production facility 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. Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019 3 WHEREAS: the Ithaca Common Council, the Ithaca Board of Public Works, the NYS Departme nt of Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County Industrial Development Authority all potentially involved agencies in this action 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 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: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with Chapters 290-9 C. (1), (2), & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on September 25, 2018, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on September 25, 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 Urb an 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. and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board did on September 25, 2018 make a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision, 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, and, WHEREAS: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on October 23, 2018 grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval to the proposed Major Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #100.- 2-21, by owner the IURA, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Final Subdivision Approval to the proposed Major Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #100.-2-21, by owner the IURA. Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Johnston In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019 4 3. Site Plan Review A. North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) Cornell University Campus by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for Cornell University. Discussion Only – No Action. 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 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 Cit y 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). Counsel to the Board Adam Walters provided an overview of the SEQR process. He said that every project that goes through site plan review with the Board goes through a SEQR review. He said that in order to comply with SEQR the Board is obligated to: 1. Identify the relevant areas of environmental concern, 2. Take a hard look at them, and 3. Provide a reasoned elaboration of any determination they make, whether it is a NegDec or PosDec. He said the term “reasonable” or “reasonably” appears in the SEQR regulations 20 to 30 times. It’s what the courts stress, and what is reasonable depends on the circumstances. He said that they have a lot of flexibility as lead agency. He said courts have said they will not weigh the desirability of the project or the action, or choose between alternatives. Alternatives analysis and benefits of the project are an aside. SEQR requires the Board to examine the potential environmental impacts of the project. What matters in the end is that the Board comes to its determinations in a reasonable fashion. He said it’s very easy to get caught up in Parts I, II, and III and think the determination of significance is somehow a mathematical equation – that you add 2 and 2 to get 4 and you have to require an EIS. That is absolutely not how SEQR works; it is a substantive analysis. He said the ultimate decision of whether to issue a NegDec or a PosDec (and require an EIS) is really a policy decision. New York State courts have said several times that determination of environmental significance is a policy decision. Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019 5 He said it’s about taking a look at the issues and coming to a reasoned conclusion that makes sense to the Board, as a group, as the Lead Agency. Walters said that he and his staff has taken time to review all the materials submitted by the applicant and all the public comments thus far to look at what guidance is available to aid the Board as it evaluates the energy impacts of the project. He said that there have been a lot of concerns about upstream impacts, as the project will use natural gas. He said that a big concern is that it will be fracked gas coming from Pennsylvania, as is pretty much all natural gas used in the Northeast. He said that there’s been a lot of concern about that, about leakage of methane, and so on. He said that there are two relevant sources of guidance on this. The first is the FEAF Workbook, available online. He said that there are a variety of ways to approach it, but in his experience, if a project meets some of the narrative criteria set by the DEC, you mark moderate to large on Part II, examine ways the impacts will be mitigated in Part III, and determine if the impacts have been mitigated such that there is no significant adverse impact. He next reviewed the criteria for evaluating energy impacts listed in Part II: a. The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation. b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a commercial or industrial use. c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity. d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when completed. He said that based on his understanding, the answer to “a” and “b” are no. He said that though he had seen some comments from the public indicating that “b” does apply, in the context of SEQR, it refers to the need to bring new transmission or supply to a site from outside, not the extension of existing systems within a site. He said that though he views it as a “no,” the Board still has to make their own determination. He said that he believes the answer to “c” is a yes, and the answer to “d” is a definite yes. Walters said that the completion of Part II is just a starting point, and that the Board will need to have a thorough discussion on it. The second relevant source of guidance is the DEC’s policy for assessing greenhouse gas emissions in EISs. He said that this would be if they issued a PosDec, and that the policy only applies if the DEC is doing a project that results in GHG emissions. However, it offers good guidance for how they might evaluate some of these things. It’s available on the DEC website, and he encouraged the Board members to review it. He said that it distinguishes between direct and indirect impacts from GHG emissions, and that upstream emissions are generally regarded as “indirect.” He said that the DEC indicates that indirect impacts can be evaluated with a qualitative, rather than quantitative, analysis. He said that the purpose of including an evaluation Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019 6 of secondary, long-term, cumulative impacts in an EIS is to provide full disclosure and to show that they have thought about the issues; it’s not to do a detailed impact analysis. He said that the document also provides a discussion of mitigations, parallel to what one would do with a Part III, to address how emissions have been mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Walters said that at the end of the day, it is the Board’s job to be reasonable, and they will have to decide how far upstream they need to go. SEQR says the scope of analysis is to be reasonable and reasonable is dependent upon the circumstances. He said the Board will have to discuss it as a group and determine what makes sense for the analysis. He said one could easily use the record before them as the basis of a NegDec or as the basis of a PosDec. It could go either way, and it is up to them to decide. Johnston asked whether energy as a topic might be worthy of segmentation, and asked Walters to discuss what segmentation is. Walters said segmentation refers to dividing an environmental review into little pieces to be considered separately for the purposes of environmental review. He said the classic example is to take a ten-mile-long highway project and look at it one mile at a time (even though there might be a wetland here, and an historic farmhouse there) to avoid issuing a PosDec. He said it is prohibited under SEQR regulations, except under very narrow circumstances. He said that a lead agency sometimes struggles with how far to look and wonder if not looking at something constitutes segmentation. He said in this instance, it is not segmentation because the impacts of fracking and extraction are a completely separate issue happening in another state. He said the question before the Board right now is: “Will this project have significant impacts that will require the preparation of an EIS?” He said that as they think about that, some policy questions will arise, such as: “If there are [impacts], what could we do about it? What mitigations are there?” He said it can’t be methane capture requirements because there’s a regulatory process that goes on well beyond SEQR, beyond the borders of the State of New York. Pennsylvania has its own rules, and there are federal rules. Ultimately, it’s the Board’s responsibility to look at this project, and they have some flexibility in how far upstream to go. Walters said he doesn’t see it as a segmentation issue. Lewis said Walters mentioned a question of policy and asked him to explain further. Walters said that to make a determination of whether to require an EIS, the Board has to take a hard look at potential adverse impacts. However, the Board has a fair amount of discretion to decide if a project will have potentially significant adverse impacts and require an EIS, or if there are no potentially significant environmental impacts and a NegDec is appropriate. Walters said that policy considerations in question relate to environmental policy. The purpose of SEQR is to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. By issuing a PosDec, you’re saying there are potentially serious adverse impacts. That necessitates doing a detailed study of what those impacts are, and identifying appropriate mitigations. At the end of the EIS process, you’re Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019 7 certifying that from the reasonable alternatives available you have picked the one that minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. He said part of the policy decision for him is the question of whether they’d get any additional analysis form an EIS. Would there be benefits to the process, and would we get a better decision? Those are some of the policy considerations, and he said he is sure the Board can think of others, but that’s the concept, and it has to be a Board decision as to whether they think they would get value out of an EIS. Elliott said that he thinks that when they talk about energy, they often focus on consumable energy that is easy to quantify, such as operational energy (thermal and electrical), but you can also look at energy in terms of embodied energy, the energy captured in the materials used to build the building. He said that for him the question of energy is much broader than what comes through a pipeline or wire. Water requires energy to purify and pump, for example, so water use is closely tied to energy use. He said he isn’t sure if there’s a way to bring these issues into a larger picture of energy use, especially with respect to the DEC, because policies are often lagging behind the reality of environmental degradation. For example, he said he was reading something recently that was talking about “carbon pollution,” but they weren’t talking about particulates, they were talking about CO2. He said it’s now considered a pollutant, but that sort of concept isn’t reflected in the DEC policy. They don’t see it as a toxic, disruptive pollutant, so he said he doesn’t know if the municipality does, or what the policy is with regards to toxic pollutants in Ithaca. He said maybe that’s too progressive for the Board, but that he believes that if it is going to be policy, they have to apply it equally to every project that comes before them. He said we can’t just pick on Cornell. Any time any project is going to use fracked gas, whether a downtown hotel or a housing development on the waterfront, they should all have to pass the same sort of litmus test. He said that the scale of this makes it more impactful than many other projects, but if they’re going to have a policy on this, they have to apply it evenly. He said he thinks the policy should go further, but that’s beyond the purview of the Board. Maybe Common Council or the DEC can set the new policy; maybe a more progressive municipality already has one in place. He said that they are working on the Green Building Policy, but it’s not in place yet, and maybe by the time it is, it won’t go far enough. Blalock said that he has served on the Board for the past 8 years, and looking back, can’t remember any project for which the energy usage model was described in such detail. Based on precedent, he said he sees this project exceeding the bar that has been set. He said that maybe they should look at the project differently because of its size. He asked if it were the same type of project divided over 10 buildings, would they look at it differently? He asked if they should look at the overall energy usage or the per-capita energy use. He said that many comments from the public have been along the lines that they should look at this applicant differently than other applicants. He said his a priori reaction is that all applicants should be considered the same. He said that if it is the case that they should look at this project using a different bar than used for prior projects, then the question is one of engineering: The applicant says this is a better project in terms of energy than some alternatives proposed by members of the public, so if they were to go with some of the proposed alternatives, it might make the project worse. He asked how they should evaluate the claim that one model is better than another. Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019 8 Walters said that regarding whether this is one large project or 10 smaller projects with a comparable number of beds, the overall project size does matter. Type I projects are more likely to have significant adverse impacts, and the thresholds in the FEAF Part II are designed to point the Board in the right direction for bigger projects, but they’re not absolutes. He asked them to consider that they could do a single environmental review for the entire set of projects coming up for environmental review every month. He said it’s not required, but some would argue it’s more protective. “Would you get a benefit from doing a cumulative review?” he asked, and said he doesn’t know, but he thinks that’s why they have a reasonableness standard – because you could make yourself crazy trying to be perfect. He said you could exhaustively analyze every potential impact to make sure every potential impact has been addressed, but that’s not required. He said SEQR requires you to take a hard look at the issues, but it doesn’t require a specific outcome. He said that with respect to the question of whether all applicants are the same, he said yes. Not all projects are the same, but all applicants should be treated the same. He said it doesn’t matter who the applicant is, the Board’s job is to evaluate the proposed action and whether there are potential adverse impacts. Jones said that there’s a lot of conflict around this project, and when she said previously that she doesn’t feel good about the project, she was referring to the conflict. She said she feels good about the buildings, the project itself, but not the conflict, and wants to make that clear to the applicant. With regards to treating this applicant differentl y, she said that one concern is the scale of this project, and another is that Cornell has made a very specific commitment to reduce GHG emissions along a set timeline, and this project does not seem to align with those goals. She said that one other way that Cornell is different is that they are the only applicant she is aware of that is producing its own energy. She said that she agrees with other Board members who have suggested that current protocol is not sufficient. At some point, they want to have more strict regulations for energy, and because they are always in the middle of conducting SEQR and site plan review, the development of those stricter guidelines will happen during some project. She said she has asked herself if they can push the needle in the middle of this project. Anytime they push the needle it will me in the middle of some project. She said she wants to see this project succeed, but she’s a little unsure as to how to address the conflicts around energy. She said that even if they all want to look at upstream energy, they don’t have support for that under SEQR – yet. She said she doesn’t think the DEC policy has a lot of guidance for them when it comes to an applicant who is producing their own energy. She said that she thinks the rigorous review given to this project should become the new standard for all projects, whether the applicant is Cornell or someone else. Walters said that with respect to the question of “this applicant is different,” he thinks many of the items listed by Jones are really project-specific (such as generating their own steam/electricity), and are not, in fact, applicant-specific. He agreed that they are in an evolving area in this case, but said that as lead agency, the decision is theirs and all other interested agencies will be bound by it. Johnston referenced the DEC’s policy for assessing greenhouse gas emissions in EISs and said some of the topics and subtopics therein (building design and operation measures, transportation, site selection, design guidelines, etc.) could provide guidance here. He said it states that Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019 9 municipalities may use it for guidance but are not bound to do so. He said he thinks they should use this document to do a cogent analysis and nudge the applicant to do something that’s not just bread and butter at this stage but nods towards what’s up and coming. He said he thinks this could be a great demonstration project. Petrina said that as she reviews information, she typically falls back on the codes, and she feels the applicant has mitigated adverse impacts to the extent required. She said that being 30 percent better than what code requires for energy efficiency is a high bar. She said that nevertheless, there is still conflict around this project. She said in an ideal world, she would want the applicant to look into a hybrid system for this project, but the analysis provided by Taitem for Cornell is looking at either the CHPP and Lake Source cooling, or ground-source heat pumps. She said she would love to have the applicant say, “Let’s use 80 percent of our energy from the CHPP and Lake Source Cooling, eliminate any natural gas use above what we’re using now, and supplement with these other systems.” She said that’s the primary question she has that she thinks the applicant could elaborate on. Glass said he thinks it’s a good project for the City and the Town, and he wants to see it happen. He said he thinks they all want to protect the environment, and he hopes that’s clear to the public. He said the volume of public comment has been very powerful, and being new to the Board, it has surprised him. It has led him to question some of the findings Cornell has presented, and though he is not an expert, he has reviewed everything closely. He said that some of the supplemental information Cornell provided recently gave more direct responses to some of the public comments, and he said that that has pushed him towards an acceptance of Cornell’s strategies and analyses, and has helped him see the project holistically in the context of other projects and actions around the campus. He said that he thinks the project yields yes answers to questions b, c, and d of the FEAF Part II and he wants to hear more from the applicant about the proposed mitigations before he comes to a conclusion on the declaration of environmental significance. Finally, he said he wants to wrap his head around what an EIS really means, in terms of the timeline. He said they heard in September that Cornell has voluntarily undertaken an EIS for two other projects. He asked why they are not proposing one for this project, and if they are opposing it here, why? Is the timeline such that it’s a burden? What impacts would requiring an EIS have? Walters said they could debate his interpretation of Part II, but at the end of the day, whether you check one energy box or three, you’re still saying that it could have potentially large impacts. He said that he thinks Glass is dead on by saying that it all comes down to what mitigations are proposed. He said that with respect to the EIS, there are lots of pieces and layers to the process, and it takes time. With respect to doing an EIS, it becomes a question of what’s the value, what do you get out of it? He said that there are three phases to it: scoping, in which you determine what will be looked at; draft, in which the Board accepts a draft document and accepts public comments; and final, which incorporates all comments and changes made as a result of those comments. He said it’s a lengthy process, and the quickest you might get through it would be 7-8 months, but there’s value to it, it’s a hard look at a really deep level, and there are real upsides to an EIS from an environmental perspective, from a policy perspective, from the perspective of inviting public involvement. He said there are also downsides, it’s easy to get bogged down, and sometimes project opponents say the same thing after an EIS that they said on day 1 and are Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019 10 never satisfied. He said there’s a lot that goes into the decision, but it’s the Board’s decision whether to require one. Policy-wise, he said the timeline issue is not a central policy consideration. Those considerations are outside of the SEQR concerns. The Board recessed for a few minutes to accommodate seating for additional members of the public who had arrived since the start of the meeting. The applicant was next given an opportunity to address questions and concerns raised by the Board members. Michaels said that Cornell has previously undertaken EISs voluntarily because they had sufficient time and anticipated that one would be required anyway. She said that the timeline for this project is important because if they miss the upcoming construction season, local labor will miss out on work at home in the next year, and the project will be delayed a year. She said if you do an EIS it will take a year, maybe more. She said the intent was not to shove anything down the Planning Board’s throat or pull the wool over the public’s eyes, but to give really good information so that the Board can take a hard look and make a reasoned decision. She said that the document referenced by Walters about how to evaluate GHG emissions in an EIS is the approach that Taitem took when writing their energy report, and the mitigations Johnston referenced are listed on pages 193 and 199. She said the intent was not to be pushy, but to arm the Board with the data necessary to take a hard look and come to a reasonable decision. She said they looked for significant adverse environmental impacts and just didn’t see them, but that that decision ultimately rests with the Board. She said that there would be real impacts to the timeline if an EIS is required, but she said Walters is correct that that is not the Board’s focus right now, that the question in front of them is whether there will be a significant adverse impact, and if so, what do you do about it? Walters said that they could speculate about what additional information an EIS might provide, but that as a SEQR attorney who has written a lot of EISs, the information provided in the applicant’s report on energy is what he would provide. He said that if you were to require an EIS, scoping would determine what specifically would be required, but what has been provided is similar to what you would see. Lewis asked if any members of the Board had further thoughts on the energy section. Elliott asked for confirmation that the project will not result in any expansion of the existing energy production facility, that it will be using existing infrastructure in the way it’s already being used. Michaels said that is correct. Elliott asked if the project would put more energy into the equation. Byers said production would increase, but infrastructure would remain the same. Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019 11 Elliott asked if they had worked out how many watts per meter. Byers said he had not, but he could. Elliott said he was there when the University was still burning coal, and he was happy when they made the switch to natural gas, but it is considered a bridge fuel. He said he would like to see more about how their design will work with what comes next. Byers said the buildings are designed with a low temperature hot water system, and that the whole idea behind a district hot water system is that you can feed renewable energy in from anywhere in the system. When it’s completed the idea is to use Earth Source Heat and any other systems they develop (possibly biomass) to be able to use renewables to heat the water in the loop. Michaels said that right now campus buildings are heated with steam, but these buildings are being designed to be flexible in the future. Elliott asked them to consider ways to future-proof the buildings by looking for ways they could generate their own power or use their own waste, for example. Petrina said that the Taitem study said they would not be using PVs, despite the flat rooftops, because they won’t supply all the power needed for the buildings. She asked if there’s a scenario in which they might use, for example, 20 percent less from the CHPP and commit to using PVs to make up the difference or purchasing electricity from the grid that is produced from wind or solar. Byers said that they are taking that approach campus wide. They have a hydro plant, for example, but they are not going to put a plaque up on the building and say that all the power for the building comes from that. That wouldn’t make an impact. He said a lot of people do that, and he thinks its greenwashing. Petrina asked the Board if they feel better about the project if the building was a little less efficient, but it were not using power from the CHPP generated by natural gas. Elliott said in the past Cornell has said they would not buy green power. He asked if that is still the case. Bland said that’s correct, that their approach has been to do projects that create additionality to make an impact, instead of just paying for unbundled energy made in the midwest. He said they have built five solar farms at 2 megawatts each for a total of 10 megawatts and are hoping to break ground on a sixth in Dryden soon. He said their approach has been to do projects to add renewable power into the system, and not just buy what’s out there. Elliott said that the supply of renewable power is market-driven, and he’s not sure that buying it from the grid will have no impact. Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019 12 Bland said that yes buying from the market creates a cash stream that helps support renewable sources of electricity, but it’s not something they have done. He said they just joined a consortium of SUNY schools called NY Cares to procure a lot of renewable energy, and not just buy from projects already built, but sign long-term contracts to ensure new projects will be built. Jones said that the proposed building is highly efficient and that where they are getting stuck is not with the usage of energy in that building but with the production of energy. She said the project at hand is not the production of energy. She said that if the use of fossil fuels and upstream impacts are concerns, the Board needs to address that at a higher level for all projects, and that she doesn’t think that this particular building is an appropriate place for that discussion. Petrina said she has trouble decoupling the building from the production of energy. When looking at just the building, she said it looks like significant measures have been taken to mitigate impacts, but she said when she looks at the power plant, she’s not sure she can split the two. Glass said he’s not sure either, but he found the information they just received fascinating because it gives him a feel for the broader institutional context and what the University is trying to achieve on several fronts. He said they are looking at the buildings somewhat myopically, but there are a host of other strategies and innovations that are going on. He said that he thinks it comes down to an issue of trust and whether those things are going forward in positive ways and advancing sustainability goals. He said for him, it comes across as reasonable and practicable at this time. Blalock agreed with Jones that they have to have a broader discussion about the use of fossil fuels and GHG emissions going forward, but he said this is a good project and they have to make a decision on it now, not 10 years from now. He said he has looked at the engineering possibilities available today, read the statement as to why the proposed energy model is a good one, read the criticisms of that from the public, and read the responses to that criticism from the applicant, and he has concluded that at this moment, for this project, the proposed energy model is the most efficient one available, the best one possible. This project is one that regrettably will use natural gas, but is using natural gas in a way that is more efficient than other uses of natural gas by generating not only electricity but also capturing the heat from the production of electricity to heat the building. He said also that the use of Lake Source Cooling results in a huge reduction in electricity use compared to other models. He said he thinks the idea of connecting the buildings to a district utility system that can be upgraded in the future as better technologies emerge is the right way to go. Blalock said that he thinks the important thing he’s heard from Walters today is that were they to require an EIS, it seems unlikely that they would uncover a lot of new information. Walters said that he’s not saying that they absolutely would not uncover anything else because scoping would determine what would be analyzed in an EIS, but he said that were he preparing a draft scope, he would scope it based on the analysis provided here, and this would be typically what is expected in an EIS SEQR review. Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019 13 Blalock said that absent there being some large piece of information that they are missing, based on what they have right now, based on the energy use model provided, he does not see any reason not to declare a NegDec. Chair Lewis said that he agrees, and that if he looks at the building just as a building, the energy approach is ticking way more boxes than is typical. He said then there’s the issue of the energy production facility owned and operated by the applicant, and while he doesn’t know if he can separate that, whether looking at it together or separate from the building, he comes to a similar conclusion. The building uses energy really efficiently, and the power plant uses natural gas really efficiently to generate power, and that meets a standard that exceeds the vast majority of projects that come in front of the Board. He said he thinks it’s inappropriate to say that even though this exceeds standards for other projects, it’s not good enough because it’s Cornell. He said he thinks the only thing possibly driving a PosDec here would be the sheer scale of the building, and he said he’s not sure he’s comfortable about requiring all projects above a certain size to go through the full EIS process, but if that’s what the Board decides, maybe that’s the direction they will take. Johnston said he agrees with sentiments expressed by others. He said that it’s unfortunate that the building uses fossil fuels, but it is an innovative building in many other ways. He said that aside from the environmental considerations, the project, by increasing needed housing supply, will have numerous benefits to the City, the Town, and the University. He said that he thinks they still have analysis to do with respect to the energy impacts. Elliott said that he wonders if Cornell’s growth model might be making it harder for them to achieve their goal of carbon neutrality by 2035, and that maybe they should consider not building new buildings and making better use of the spaces they already have, but he said it’s not his job to hold them to their own deadlines. He said that maybe they won’t make that goal, but at least they are trying. He said he is leaning towards a NegDec. Jones asked Deputy Director Nicholas and Director Cornish what the City’s goals for energy reduction are, and what metrics are being evaluated toward that goal. Cornish said they do have goals for reduction, but they are not measuring progress as much as they probably should be. Jones said she doesn’t see the Board taking any measures towards those goals, and she is feeling a lot softer towards this project the more that she reflects upon their role in not upholding it for anybody. She said she is disappointed in both the Board and the City in that regard, and she is grateful to the public for raising these issues. She said she thinks they have to decouple the production of energy from the usage of energy for this project. She said she is not sure how they can address energy reduction goals, whether through Site Plan Ordinance or SEQR, but she will be much more comfortable voting for a NegDec if they have a solid plan for addressing this issue going forward. Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019 14 Walters said the municipality probably can’t set a policy from the SEQR perspective. Municipalities sometimes make additions to the list of what constitutes a Type I action, but in one recent case where a municipality tried to add drive thrus to the list, the Appellate Division said no, that violated SEQR by adding things that are Type II to the Type I list. He said SEQR is a process; it does not dictate outcome. In order to do something across the board, you really need to look to the local government. Common Council will have to find the authority to do so. A good healthy discussion can be had as to whether such a thing would be inherent in the police power. He said from the SEQR perspective the question is have they identified the areas of relevant environmental concern. He said he thinks they have. He said they have also had a good discussion about them and identified some pieces of relevant additional information that he said he’d like to clarify as the basis for taking the next step, which is a reasoned elaboration for the basis of any decision. He said he heard two fundamental follow-up questions: 1. Is there anything additional the applicant can do to reduce natural gas consumption? And 2. How does this project relate to the campus’ goal to get to net zero? He said that the applicant on pp 173-174 of their analysis discusses preparing for carbon zero, and perhaps the Board can ask the applicant to take a second look at that and explain further how the transition to net zero really work for this project. The Board next reviewed the FEAF Parts II and III and discussed next steps. 4. Adjournment: On a motion by Elliott, seconded by Jones, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.