HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Packet 2024-05-21
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, May 21, 2024 6:30 P.M.
Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom. The public will
have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments in-person or through Zoom at
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382.
If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only, it is recommended to watch the
livestream video on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7NQ/live).
AGENDA
1. State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) discussion for the proposed Cornell University
Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreational Facility located at Robison Alumni Fields on
Tower Road on the Cornell University campus. The project involves replacing the Robison Alumni
Fields with a 90,000+/- square foot, 56-foot-tall indoor fieldhouse building and a new synthetic
outdoor multipurpose field along with new sidewalks and pedestrian connections, stormwater
facilities, landscaping, lighting, and other site elements. The project will be largely located within
the City of Ithaca with a portion in the Town of Ithaca. This is a Type I Action under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. The City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board declared their intent to be the Lead Agency to coordinate the
environmental review. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board concurred with the Lead Agency
declaration on January 16, 2024. Cornell University, Owner; Kimberly Michaels, TWM, a Fisher
Associates Landscape Architecture Studio, Applicant/Agent.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board
regarding proposed changes to the Official Map of the Town of Ithaca.
3. Persons to be heard.
4. Approval of Minutes.
5. Other Business.
6. Adjournment.
C.J. Randall
Director of Planning
607-273-1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY
CHRIS BALESTRA AT 607-273-1747 or CBALESTRA@TOWNITHACANY.GOV.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
Accessing Meeting Materials Online
Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town’s website at
https://townithacany.gov/meeting-calendar-agendas/ under the calendar meeting date.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 21, 2024, starting at 6:30 P.M. on the following
matter:
Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding proposed changes
to the Official Map of the Town of Ithaca.
Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall (215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY) or
virtually via Zoom. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments
in-person or through Zoom at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382.
If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only, it is recommended to watch the
livestream video on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7NQ/live).
Any person wishing to address the board will be heard. In addition, comments can be sent via email to
townclerk@townithacany.gov up to the end of business the day of the meeting and all comments will be
forwarded to the board. Additional information is available at https://townithacany.gov/.
C.J. Randall, Director of Planning
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
215 N. Tioga St 14850
607.273.1747
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner
DATE: May 14, 2024
RE: Cornell University Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Center Project –
Discussion of Additional Materials, SEQR Segmentation
Enclosed please find additional materials related to the Cornell Meinig Fieldhouse project, dated April
19, 2024. The Planning Board received a complete packet of materials for the Meinig Fieldhouse
project, including a Full EAF Part 1, at the sketch plan review meeting on January 16, 2024. The Board
issued concurrence with the City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board (PDB) to act as the Lead
Agency in the environmental review of the project at that meeting. The City PDB formally declared
themselves the Lead Agency in the New York State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process on
January 23, 2024.
Board members may recall that the Meinig Fieldhouse project was on the February 20, 2024,
Planning Board meeting agenda for SEQR discussion but was pulled from the agenda at the request of
the applicant. The applicant has since revised the project scope to include a larger, multipurpose
outdoor synthetic playing field located adjacent to the proposed Meinig Fieldhouse and has proposed
relocating the field hockey field to the Ellis Hollow/Game Farm Road area in the Town of Ithaca. The
applicant is requesting “permissible segmentation” of the environmental review process, to allow the
new field hockey field project in the Town of Ithaca to undergo a separate environmental and
approval review process than the Meinig Fieldhouse project.
The purpose of the May 21, 2024, meeting is for the Town Planning Board to discuss the revised
project materials, and to consider comments to make to the City PDB about whether SEQR
segmentation might occur and if so, whether segmentation is appropriate for this project.
The City of Ithaca PDB, as the Lead Agency, will review the same set of revised application materials
at their meeting on May 28, 2024. However, the City PDB is not expected to make a decision on SEQR
segmentation or an environmental determination until June or July. The Town Planning Board will
review a revised Full EAF Part 3, provided by the City after May 28th, and will provide feedback,
comments, and corrections on the FEAF at a future meeting (possibly one of the June meetings).
SEQR segmentation
The additional application materials provided by the applicant, dated April 19, 2024, anticipate future
development of the field hockey field as an additional field at the existing Ellis Hollow Athletics
Complex on Ellis Hollow/Game Farm Roads in the Town of Ithaca, and not located adjacent to the
proposed Meinig fieldhouse (as stated in the December 15, 2023, materials). A SEQR review of the
field hockey field that is separate from the SEQR review for the Meinig fieldhouse and the adjacent
multipurpose field might be considered a “segmentation” of the environmental review process.
2
According to SEQR regulations, segmentation means “the division of the environmental review of an
action, such that the various activities or stages are addressed as though they were independent,
unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of significance.”
While normally prohibited, segmentation is permitted by the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part §617.3(g) in
certain circumstances. The SEQR Handbook gives examples of three circumstances, when considered
together, that may warrant segmentation when a project has several phases:
• Information on future project phase(s) is speculative,
• Future phase(s) may not occur, or
• Future phase(s) are functionally independent of current phase(s).
§6 NYCRR Part 617.3 (g) (1) of the SEQR regulations states that “If a lead agency believes that
circumstances warrant a segmented review, it must clearly state in its determination of significance,
and any subsequent EIS, the supporting reasons, and must demonstrate that such review is clearly no
less protective of the environment.”
As the Lead Agency in the environmental review of the Meinig Fieldhouse project, the City of Ithaca
PDB will determine if segmentation would occur if a SEQR review of the proposed Ellis Hollow/Game
Farm Road field hockey field occurs separately from the SEQR review for the Meinig fieldhouse and
multipurpose field. If the City PDB determines there is segmentation, it would then determine
whether circumstances warrant a segmented review.
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as an Involved Agency in the environmental review process, can
comment on these SEQR segmentation issues and can suggest language for the city to consider in its
resolution. The Planning Board should discuss this at the meeting on May 21st.
Please feel free to contact me by phone at (607) 273-1721, extension 121 or by email at
cbalestra@town.ithaca.ny.us if you have questions before the meeting.
Att.
Cc: Elisabete Godden, Project Manager, Cornell University Facilities and Campus Services
Kimberly Michaels, Director of Landscape Architects, TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio
Lisa Nicholas, Director of Planning and Economic Development, City of Ithaca
Leslie Schill, Director of Campus Planning, Cornell University, Office of the University Architect
1
New Baseball Field
at Game Farm Road
Preliminary Site Plan, SEQR
& Special Permit Review
Town of Ithaca
October 19, 2021
5-21-2024: Excerpt from 2021 Cornell Hoy/Booth
Baseball Field application - presentation contains
Master Plan for future athletic field development on
Ellis Hollow and Game Farm Roads (including future
field hockey field)
•Baseball is a NCAA Division I varsity sport with a long history at
Cornell University and recently celebrated its 150th year in the
Athletics department
•Hoy Baseball Field on Cornell’s Central Campus will be the site for a
new academic building
•The Game Farm Road site is proposed for baseball development.
This location is envisioned to grow slowly, over time to
accommodate other athletic fields.
Purpose and Need
Project Location
Cascadilla CreekHoy Baseball Field
Project
Location
March 10, 2016
Existing Site Conditions
Long Range Vision
Long Range Vision
Long Range Vision
18
Archaeology Phase 1a Study Area
19
Archaeology Phase 1b Study Area
Meinig Fieldhouse
Indoor Sports and Recreation
Facility
Additional Materials
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
April 19, 2024
TWM - A Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio
Fisher Associates, P.E., L.S., L.A., D.P.C.
April 19, 2024
C.J. Randall, Director of Planning
Department of Planning, Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Director Randall,
Attached please find additional site plan review materials regarding the Meinig Fieldhouse / Alumni
Fields project for Cornell University. Thank you for all of your time, attention, and dedication to date. As
a result of changes to the project scope, including the reconfiguration of the outdoor field from a field
hockey field to a multi-purpose field (“Alumni Fields”) and relocation of the field hockey field to a new
site on Game Farm Road (solely in the Town of Ithaca), Cornell University respectfully requests
permissible segmentation to allow SEQR review to occur separately for each project. A letter formally
requesting that the City Planning Board make a finding of permissible segmentation of environmental
review is enclosed within this package. We intend to pursue SEQR review and site plan review for the
field hockey field on Game Farm Road separately, with the Town of Ithaca Planning Board acting as lead
agency.
As we work through SEQR coordinated review, including the requested permissible segmentation, and
site plan review for Meinig Fieldhouse / Alumni Fields, submitted materials will be organized based on
outstanding items for review. In the following package you will find responses to questions from the
planning board and additional information pursuant to SEQR, permissible segmentation, and site plan
review, including additional reports, drawings, and specifications.
Included with this letter is the following:
1. Updated narrative explaining project
changes
2. Written request for permissible
segmentation
3. Responses to SEQR-related City of
Ithaca and Town of Ithaca Planning
Board Questions
4. Updated Civil Plan Set
5. Updated Landscape Plan Set
6. Updated Site Lighting/Photometrics
Plans
7. Cornell University Energy Strategy
Letter
8. Synthetic Turf Specifications and
Additional Information Letter, Haley
& Aldrich
9. Updated Geotechnical Report
We are targeting the following schedule moving forward for the Meinig Fieldhouse / Alumni Fields
project:
May – City Planning Board makes a finding of permissible segmentation
June – SEQR Review
July – SEQR Determination
TWM - A Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio
Fisher Associates, P.E., L.S., L.A., D.P.C.
August – consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval
September – zoning variance review, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
October – consideration of Final Site Plan Approval
If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to call. We are hoping to
discuss permissible segmentation at the next Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting on May 21st.
A copy of this letter and all materials will also be sent to the City of Ithaca.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Michaels
Director of Landscape Architecture
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description of Project Changes & Responses
to Planning Board Questions ................................................... 01
Revised Site Plan ....................................................................................... 01
Revised Site Access and Circulation .......................................................... 02
Revised Operations and Maintenance Strategy ....................................... 03
Landscaping and Planting Plan ................................................................. 03
Stormwater Updates and Additional Information .................................... 04
Revised SEQR Calculations, Site Work Details .......................................... 05
Zoning Variances ....................................................................................... 05
Renewable Energy / “Solar Ready” Design ............................................... 05
Ithaca Energy Code Supplement ............................................................... 06
Red-Tailed Hawks Nest ............................................................................. 07
Artificial Turf ............................................................................................. 07
Construction Staging Information ............................................................. 09
Appendices ............................................................................. 13
Appendix A: Permissible Segmentation Request
Appendix B: Cornell University Energy Strategy Letter
Appendix C: Synthetic Turf Information Letter, Haley and Aldrich
Appendix D: Synthetic Turf Public Comment Response Letter
Appendix E: Vehicle Tracking Study
Geotechnical Report ................................ Under separate cover
Technical Drawing Set .............................. Under separate cover
Description of Project Changes & Responses to Planning Board Questions
Revised Site Plan
As previously noted in the December 2023, Site Plan Review Application, Cornell University is proposing to
construct the Meinig Fieldhouse, an indoor sports and recreation center, on Cornell’s Central Campus in the area
currently occupied by Robison Alumni Fields. Since the original submission, the project scope has been revised to
show a new multi-purpose athletic field in the location of the previously proposed field hockey outdoor turf field
to the west of the proposed Meinig Fieldhouse building. The previous submission included a proposed 77,354 SF
field hockey field with amenities. The revised project scope includes a proposed 92,098 SF (93,098 SF with
perimeter curb) multi-purpose synthetic turf athletic field that will support a variety of sports activities for much of
the year. The updated site plan removes several elements that were previously proposed for the field hockey field,
including the removal of the flagpole, team storage area, team shelters, press box, and spectator seating. The
proposed scoreboard has been relocated to the southern portion of the field.
Due to the field size expansion, the sports lighting poles have shifted slightly further apart. The sports lights to the
west (F3-F4) of the multi-purpose field have been shifted towards the field corners to avoid existing underground
utilities and surface features remaining on site. Due to this shift, these two poles now have a mounting height of
80 feet, while F1-F2 remain at a mounting height of 70 feet.
The scope of the Meinig Fieldhouse portion of the project has not changed. The Meinig Fieldhouse is a 90,000SF
building at 56 feet tall which will enable year-round practice and play space for athletes as well as limited
competition venue for NCAA Lacrosse Players.
Revised Site Access and Circulation
A revised Site Access and Circulation diagram is provided below. As noted in the original Site Plan Review
Application dated December 2023, very little parking is expected to be needed daily as the facility is primarily
expected to be used for students for practice, recreation, and club play. Bicycle parking on the site has been
reconfigured and includes a total of 21 bicycle parking spaces separated into three bicycle parking facilities. As
noted in the December 2023 submission, bicycle parking facilities will be easily accessible from pedestrian or fire
access pathways and will not intrude into these walkways.
Due to changes to the site layout, only one (1) non-ADA parking space will be removed from the Bartels Lot to the
south because of the proposed project. Three (3) ADA accessible parking spaces will remain in the Alumni Lot to
the north, and 8 ADA accessible parking spaces in the Bartels Lot to the south.
Revised Operations and Maintenance Strategy
The revised Operations and Maintenance strategy includes minor modifications to the areas in the site identified
for piling snow, including removal of a snow piling area on the northeastern portion of the field, and relocation of
one of the southern snow piling areas. The location of the concrete dumps ters on heavy-duty concrete pads,
accessible via flush curb from the parking area adjacent to the Friedman Wrestling Center, remains unchanged
from the December 2023 submission. Service access to the Meinig Fieldhouse via 10-feet wide roll-up door, as well
as proposed service access drives and delivery routes, remain unchanged from the December 2023 submission.
Landscaping and Planting Plan
As noted in the December 2023 submission, natural landscaping around the building will include a variety of
species with a strong emphasis on using native, non-invasive plant materials. The City of Ithaca Planning Board
requested additional information regarding tree clearing and protection and tree planting, as well as an updated
planting plan. During construction, a total of 18 Quercus rubra will be removed, and 60 trees will be planted on
site, resulting in a net addition of 42 trees on the site. As noted in the Planting Plan under separate cover, the trees
to be planted include:
1. (11) 2.5” caliper Acer rubrum ‘Redpointe’
2. (14) 8-10’ height Amelanchier x grandiflora ‘Autumn Brilliance’
3. (18) 8-10’ height Betula papyrifera ‘Oenci’
4. (10) 8-10’ height Cercis canadensis ‘Northern Strain’
5. (7) 2.5” caliper Ulmus americana ‘Princeton’
A variety of shrubs, perennials, ground covers, and a native planting mix are also proposed to be planted on the
site. Reference L5-01 and L5-02 in the revised technical drawing set under separate cover for additional
information.
Stormwater Updates and Additional Information
All of the proposed stormwater management practices will be located within the City of Ithaca. Runoff from the
artificial turf field and a majority of the proposed fieldhouse will be conveyed to a single below grade detention
system with the required volume to detain the 1% chance storm event. This system will use manufactured
chamber units encased in an envelope of stone and be located underneath the turf field. Diversion structures will
be placed upstream of the detention system to direct runoff from low flow events to the system’s pretreatment
“isolator rows”. Higher flow events will bypass the isolator rows and enter the system directly. An outlet control
structure will be installed downstream of the system to ensure discharge rates do not exceed the existing
conditions. Sand filter units, located underneath the below grade detention system, will provide water quality
treatment for the required water quality volume (WQv). A bioretention filter located in the open space north of
the fieldhouse will provide additional WQv treatment and satisfy the project runoff reduction volume (RRv)
requirement. Additional WQv will be provided by a hydrodynamic separator located in the landscaped area south
of the proposed fieldhouse.
Revised SEQR Calculations, Site Work Details
Due to changes to the project scope, including the expansion of the outdoor turf field to a +/- 92,000SF field (see
“Revised Site Plan” above), impervious surface on the site will increase from 4.07 acres – including the existing
natural grass turf on the site, which is considered an impervious surface due to the underdrain systems
underneath the field – to 5.79 acres, or a net increase of 1.72 acres of impervious surface.
Construction will require 3,600 CY of cut and fill for building foundations which will remain on site. No soil
materials will be leaving the site. As a result of the change in the scope of the Alumni Field work, an additional
3,500 CY of imported aggregate will be required. The maximum depth of excavation will be eight (8) feet. An
updated geotechnical report is included as an appendix with additional information relevant to excavation and site
preparation.
The anticipated water usage on the site is not anticipated to change as a result of the changes to the project scope.
Zoning Variances
Unchanged from the original December 2023 submission, two zoning variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals are required for the proposed project because Cornell’s campus is zoned Low Density Residential
in the Town of Ithaca. The project will require an area variance due to the height of the Meinig Fieldhouse. The
peak of the sports complex roof is approximately 56 feet from average grade. The Town of Ithaca’s Zoning Code
§270-59 generally limits building height to 38 feet below interior grade or 36 feet below exterior grade (whichever
is lower).
The proposed project will require a second variance from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals due to an
exceedance of allowable lot coverage as specified in the Town of Ithaca’s Zoning Code §270-61, which permits a
maximum lot coverage of 10%. The proposed project will be constructed on Town of Ithaca tax parcel 67.-1-12.3,
which is 31 acres in total size and includes approximately eight (8) buildings. Existing structures on the parcel
exceed the maximum 10% (3.1 acre) lot coverage allowance at 3.12 acres; therefore, an area variance is required.
Renewable Energy / “Solar Ready” Design
Renewable energy production (REP) required to satisfy portions of the IECS renewable energy credits for the
Meinig Fieldhouse will be allocated from the University’s existing renewable energy portfolio. At this time, the
university receives qualifying REP from the following assets where the University has worked with development
partners to create new renewable energy assets:
2.8MWdc Cornell University Ruminant Center Solar Farm – Harford, NY
5.7MWdc Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Solar Farm – Ledyard, NY
2.8MWdc Cornell University NYS Agricultural Experiment Station Solar Farm – Geneva, NY
26.5MWdc Cascadilla Community Solar Farm at Cornell – Ithaca, NY
Cornell University manages all utilities, including renewable energy utilities, as an interconnect ed campus district.
When considered in a campus context, the capacity for installation of solar equipment on individual building
rooftops for specific projects is often mismatched with the IECS REP requirement, and must be supplemented. The
University continues to invest in larger-scale renewable energy projects to increase the institution’s renewable
energy portfolio at a district scale. Ground-mount solar energy systems presently yield more electrical generation
per dollar spent than rooftop solar. They also offer more robust opportunities to use the Ithaca campus as a living
laboratory to develop and demonstrate co-benefits of renewable energy development to help address the
challenges facing deployment of renewables at scale, state-wide.
For these reasons, the University is currently focusing investment on these types of projects. The Meinig
Fieldhouse will be constructed as a solar-ready facility to be prepared for the time the campus district utility
system requires this implementation to support broad campus energy and sustainability goals. This pre-positions
the facility for the possible addition of solar renewable energy systems by providing interior electrical pathways,
structural design capacity within the building framing to support roof loads associated with solar panel equipment,
and space within electrical rooms for future equipment installation. This allows for the Fieldhouse to be
aggregated into a larger pool of available project-ready sites in the future.
Ithaca Energy Code Supplement
As noted in the Design Development Phase Energy Analysis (see attached), the project will pursue compliance with
the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement via the LEED-based compliance pathway and the IECS Section C402
Prescription Compliance Path/Easy Path. Reference “Renewable Energy/Solar Ready Design” above for additional
information regarding the approach to the IECS renewable energy credits for the project. In addition to the
renewable energy credits, the project must earn at least seven (7) additional points to achieve code compliance.
The project has the option to pursue points from the following improvement categories:
• AI5 – Modest window-to-wall ratio (1 point)
• RE1 – Renewable energy systems (3 points)
• OP2 – Walkability (1 point)
• OP1 – Development Density (1 point)
• OP6 (Custom energy improvement (1 point)
An IECS Compliance Checklist is provided on the following page.
IECS Prescriptive Points LTHW - LEED
Heat Pumps for Space Heating EE1
Heat Pumps for Domestic Water Heating EE2
Commercial Cooking Electrification EE3
Smaller Building/Room Size AI1
Heating Systems in Heated Space AI2
Efficient Building Shape AI3
Right-Lighting AI4
Modest Window-to-wall ratio AI5 1
Renewable Energy Systems RE1 3
Biomass Space Heating RE2
Development Density OP1 1
Walkability OP2 1
Electric Vehicle Parking Spaces OP3
Adaptive Reuse OP4
Meet NY Stretch Code OP5
Custom Energy Improvement OP6 1
Total IECS Points 7
Please note that this list is tentative, and the project may ultimately seek a different combination of IECS points
when submitting a final design to the City of Ithaca Building Division for IECS compliance review.
Red-Tailed Hawk Nest
As noted in the SPR Application package submitted in December 2023, two existing sports lighting poles currently
serve as the preferred nesting location for a pair of beloved Cornell red -tailed hawks. Though the poles will no
longer serve athletics lighting needs, both existing sports lighting poles will be retained for hawk nesting, as part of
the proposed site plan; disturbance to the hawks is not anticipated. The nesting season for red-tailed hawks
typically runs from March to June, which is being taken under consideration for the construction of the fieldhouse
and outdoor field. The hawks seem especially resilient, since numerous construction projects have occurred during
their occupation in this area of campus, and they continue to make th is location their home.
Artificial Turf
The synthetic turf system at the Meinig Fieldhouse and Alumni Field locations are composed of a dual long-fiber
system, with both slit film and monofilament polyethylene fibers, sand and rubber infill, and a performance shock
pad. The synthetic turf system is chosen based on the One Turf Concept that considers individual components,
longevity, and overall performance requirements including player safety. The One Turf Concept was created by
International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), World Rugby, and International Hockey Federation (FIH).
Performance requirement parameters, as shown in the chart below, include shock absorption, vertical
deformation, rotational resistance, impact attenuation (HIC), ball roll (large ball), and vertical ball rebound.
Synthetic turf fields are replaced every 8-12 years depending on performance and wear. During the field
replacement process, the existing turf will be recycled.
Cornell University is advancing the use of synthetic turf to provide a surface that can be used for athletic,
recreation and wellness activities even when the weather is not favorable. Due to rain and/or snow, synthetic turf
allows for heavy use by all university programs throughout the entire year. The current grass fields are not usable
November – April and during periods of prolonged inclement weather. Additionally, synthetic turf significantly
reduces the need for high levels of maintenance: mowing, fertilizing, painting lines, and repairing any damage
done to the grass.
Growth potential is a concept used to describe the ability of grass to grow at a certain temperature and is useful
for estimating how the grass may grow. On natural grass sports fields, growth is required for surfaces to recover
from use. Therefore, we can consider the growth potential curve (included below) like the field’s utilization
capacity based on its ability to recover (100% is maximum potential growth). In a perfect scenario, all field
utilization would occur between May and October when the grass has the capacity to grow and recover. Field use
must be adapted appropriately to preserve field quality, safety and encourage adequate recovery during periods of
low growth. However, that is not realistic for spring and fall athletics that occur outside this window (or simply
when students are on campus). Fields are in consistent use from January through November.
Construction Staging Information
Construction staging and laydown will be located north of the proposed building and west of the existing Robison
Alumni Field Hockey Field. Palm Road lot will be used as overflow contractor parking and staging as needed.
Construction vehicles will be directed to access the site via a prescribed route from Tower Road for new field work and
from Campus Road for the building work. The project will generate approximately 1,200 truck roundtrips over a three-
month period. The largest volumes of truck activity would be associated with importing general fill used for rough
grading the site and bringing the new building up to finished floor elevation, when a maximum of 30 trucks could be
expected to arrive on site in a single day.
Most long-distance delivery routes to/from Cornell’s campus utilize route 81 north or south. Traffic leaving the site
and heading north would exit campus on Tower Road, utilize route 366 to route 13 to 81 north. Traffic leaving the site
and heading south would exit campus on Hoy Road, use Pine Tree Road to route 79 to 81 south. Route diagrams are
included below.
Traffic leaving the site and heading north would use route 366 to route 13 to 81 north.
Traffic leaving the site and heading north would use route 366 to route 13 to 81 north, zoomed in.
Traffic leaving the site and heading south would use Pine Tree Road to route 79 to 81 south.
Traffic leaving the site and heading south would use Pine Tree Road to Route 79 to 81 south, zoomed in.
Site Construction logistics, approximately November 2024 – March 2026
Appendix A: Permissible
Segmentation Request
April 19, 2024
Lisa Nicholas, Director of Planning & Development, City of Ithaca
Department of Planning, Building, Zoning & Economic Development
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, NY, 14850-5690
C.J. Randall, Director of Planning
Department of Planning, Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
To City & Town Planning Boards and Staff,
Project Updates
The City has been established as the lead agency for purposes of environmental review of Cornell’s
proposed Meinig Fieldhouse project, located on the university’s central campus, that crosses the City-
Town municipal boundary. The City and Town Planning Boards are engaged in a coordinated
environmental review of that project, which will be built in part on the location of the existing field used
by the women’s field hockey team. Cornell had initially proposed to build a new field hockey field on the
western end of the Fieldhouse project site.
Cornell has now determined it is in the best interests of the university to instead build the new field
hockey field at Game Farm Road in the Town of Ithaca, approximately 1.5 miles from the Fieldhouse
site. The portion of the Fieldhouse project site that would have been a field hockey facility is now
proposed to be a multi-purpose field that will support use by a greater variety of athletic teams and
student groups than a dedicated field hockey facility. Updated application materials regarding this
project change have been provided to the City and Town.
Cornell submits this letter in support of its request that, to the extent the City Planning Board deems it
legally necessary, it segment the environmental review of the Meinig Fieldhouse project from the
environmental review of the Game Farm Road field hockey project.
Segmentation
Even assuming that these two projects initially meet the requirements to be considered the “whole
action” proposed by Cornell, segmentation of environmental review for the new field hockey field from
the review of the Meinig Fieldhouse project on Cornell’s central campus will not be less protective of the
environment, and is permissible and appropriate under state law and regulations (6 NYCRR 617.3(g)(1)).
Segmentation is “the division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or
stages are addressed … as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual
determinations of significance” (6 NYCRR 617.2(ah); City of Ithaca Municipal Code §176-2). In
determining whether segmentation is appropriate in a given case, the lead agency is directed to
consider factors such as: i) the purpose, goal, and timing of each segment; ii) the geographic locations
involved; iii) whether the segments share a common impact or owner; iv) the segments’ functional
dependence on one another; v) whether approving one segment commits the agency to approve other
segments; and vi) the definitiveness of information about future segments (SEQR Handbook, pages 53-
54).
First, the projects are functionally independent and will not have related or compounded construction
or operational environmental impacts that cannot be appropriately assessed in a segmented review.
These are not two phases of the same project, but rather two independent projects connected only by
the location of the existing field hockey field that is being replaced. The proposed Fieldhouse and multi-
purpose athletic field on central campus can proceed and be fully functional regardless of the outcome
of the proposed field hockey development. See Concerned Citizens for the Environment v. Zagata, 243
A.D.2d 20, 22 (3d Dep’t 1998) (upholding permissible segmented review of waste transfer station and
incinerator located at the same location because the facilities were functionally independent). The
projects will not share utilities, traffic, construction plans, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans, or end
users. Both are Type I projects, and any environmental impacts of the Fieldhouse project that the City
and Town Planning Boards are reviewing through the current coordinated review will not be artificially
reduced by Cornell’s change in plans, nor compounded through a segmented review.
Second, although Cornell owns both project locations, the two locations are in different municipalities
and completely separated by nearly 1.5 miles. See Friends of Stanford Home v. Town of Niskayuna, 50
A.D.3d 1289, 1291 (3d Dep’t 2008) (affirming a finding of permissible segmentation where two projects
were located a mile apart and not part of a common design). The City Planning Board has no
discretionary decisions to make regarding a field hockey development at Game Farm Road. Because of
that lack of jurisdiction, the City Planning Board would not be an involved agency for the field hockey
development and coordinated review would not be appropriate. The environmental review required by
SEQRA will be best accomplished by the Town Planning Board serving as the lead agency and applying its
knowledge and familiarity of the Game Farm Road site, Town-specific environmental and utility
concerns, and other relevant factors.
Third, the City Planning Board’s review and anticipated approval of the Fieldhouse project does not
commit the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to approve the construction of the field hockey field. The
Town Planning Board will be free to take the required “hard look” at any issues raised by the proposed
field hockey development and make its own determination of the significance of that project’s
environmental impact. See Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation v. Boff, 110 A.D.3d 1326, 1328 (3d
Dep’t 2013) (upholding segmented environmental review where review of future construction would
ensure environment would not be less protected as a result).
Cornell requests that the City Planning Board make clear at this time that any segmentation required is
permissible under state law, in order to permit the coordinated environmental review of the Meinig
Fieldhouse project to continue, and for Cornell to submit the field hockey project for review and
approval separately by the Town of Ithaca.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Michaels
Director of Landscape Architecture
Appendix B: Cornell University
Energy Strategy Letter
Sarah Carson
Director
Campus Sustainability Office
129 Humphreys Service Building
Ithaca, New York 14853-3701
t.(607) 254-2818
e.sc142@cornell.edu
February 2. 2024
Dear City and Town of Ithaca Planning Boards,
This letter is intended to clarify Cornell University’s strategy for achieving its longstanding goal of
campus carbon neutrality by 2035 and the requirements of the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement (IECS)
Renewable Energy section for individual building projects , toward our shared decarbonization
goals. Renewable energy production (REP) required to satisfy portions of the IECS renewable energy
credits for the Meinig Fieldhouse will be allocated from the University’s existing renewable energy
portfolio.
At this time, the university receives qualifying REP from the following assets where the University has
worked with development partners to create new renewable energy assets :
•2.8MWdc Cornell University Ruminant Center Solar Farm – Harford, NY
•5.7MWdc Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Solar Farm – Ledyard, NY
•2.8MWdc Cornell University NYS Agricultural Experiment Station S olar Farm – Geneva, NY
•26.5MWdc Cascadilla Community Solar Farm at Cornell – Ithaca, NY
When considered in a campus context, the capacity for installation of solar equipment on individual
building rooftops for specific projects is often mismatched with the IECS REP requirement, and must be
supplemented. The University will continue to invest in larger scale renewable energy projects to
increase our renewable energy portfolio at a district scale. Ground-mount solar energy systems
presently yield more electrical generation per dollar spent. They also offer more robust opportunities to
use our campus as a living laboratory to develop and demonstrate co-benefits of renewable energy
development to help address the challenges facing deployment of renewables at scale, state -wide.
Therefore, the University plans to focus investment on these types of projects.
The Meinig Fieldhouse will be constructed as a solar-ready facility. This pre-positions the facility for the
possible addition of solar renewable energy systems by providing interior electrical pathways, structural
design capacity within the building framing to support roof loads associated with solar panel equipment,
and space within electrical rooms for future equipment installation. This allows for the Fieldhouse to be
aggregated into a larger pool of available project-ready sites in the future.
Sincerely,
Sarah Carson
Appendix C: Synthetic Turf
Information Letter, Haley and
Aldrich
H & A OF NEW YORK ENGINEERING
AND GEOLOGY, LLP
213 W. 35th Street
7th Floor
New York, NY 10001
646.277.5685
www.haleyaldrich.com
2 April 2024
File No. 204866-000
TO: Sasaki
Trey Sasser, PE
FROM: H & A of New York Engineering and Geology, LLP
Jay Peters, Principal, Risk Assessment
Scott Goldkamp, Principal
Subject: Evaluation of Health and Environmental Effects: Synthetic Turf
Indoor Sports and Recreation Center & Multipurpose Field
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
The purpose of this H & A of New York Engineering and Geology, LLP (Haley & Aldrich of New York)
memorandum is to provide a summary of recently published studies and reports that evaluate the
safety (health and environmental risks) of using synthetic turf athletic fields, with focus on chemicals
contained in or associated with synthetic turf.
There are approximately 13,000 synthetic turf athletic fields in the United States and more than 1,200
are being added each year. Similarly, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) estimates that there are
13,000 large synthetic turf fields in the European Union. There are no state or federal laws that prohibit
installation of synthetic turf fields.
A synthetic turf field consists of three main components, including turf blades (the portion of the system
that mimics grass blades), a backing material that holds the turf blades in place (similar in concept to
backing material that holds household carpet together), and an infill material. The purpose of the infill
material is to keep the grass blades standing “up”, provide cushioning for the system, and provide
appropriate foot to surface interaction (e.g., traction) as well as feeling underfoot (e.g., soft versus firm).
Turf blades and backing material are typically made from polyethylene and/or polypropylene (plastic
family). Infill is comprised of a mixture of sand and rubber.
Two synthetic turf fields are proposed for installation at the Cornell University Indoor Sports and
recreation Center and Alumni Field:
An outdoor field and indoor field will contain an infill comprised of sand and either recycled
crumb rubber or a virgin synthetic rubber.
Sasaki
2 April 2024
Page 2
The Town of Ithaca Conservation Commission – Environmental Review Board, raised concerns about the
potential emissions and impacts from crumb rubber infill, including heat emitted by the field.
Crumb rubber, also referred to as recycled crumb rubber / ambient rubber, consists of small rubber
fragments (between 0.25 and 4 millimeters in diameter) that are created by recycling tires. There has
been a lot of focus on crumb rubber as an infill material, primarily due to allegations in 2014 by the
University of Washington women’s soccer team that exposure to crumb rubber is associated with higher
rates of cancer. However, evaluation of those allegations by the Washington Department of Public
Health as well as researchers (e.g., Bleyer et al., 2018) determined that there is no link between use of
synthetic turf fields with crumb rubber infill and increased incidence of cancer. In addition, attention
has been drawn to crumb rubber infill over concerns about release of emissions to the air, and release
of chemicals to the environment through infiltration of rainwater that passes through the synthetic turf
system and into storm water that is eventually conveyed to surface water. Finally, concerns have been
raised about heat retention and emission of synthetic turf fields that use crumb rubber infill.
Synthetic rubber (ethylene propylene diene monomer [EDPM]) can be used as a substitute for crumb
rubber. EDPM as a synthetic fill is supplied by several manufacturers, including TTII PLAY-SAFE 65 EPDM
Infill, which is being considered for this project.
The following content in this memorandum addresses potential health and environmental effects
associated with synthetic turf field system components, with a focus on crumb rubber and EDPM infill,
and a focus on the shock pad, backing, and turf blade components.
A substantial amount of information exists on the internet concerning the makeup of synthetic turf and
its intersection with children, athletes, and the environment. When evaluating that information, it is
important to focus on scientific studies that are peer reviewed. Scientific studies seek to resolve
questions using carefully documented methods and procedures, with results that are evaluated using
widely accepted statistical and other techniques. Studies that are peer reviewed ensure that the
methodologies used for the studies are appropriate and valid, that the findings are interpreted using
appropriate approaches, and that the conclusions are supported by the data developed in the study. A
key aspect of a peer reviewed scientific study is that the study provides detailed documentation that
would allow an independent party to repeat the study and verify the results. For these reasons, peer
reviewed scientific studies were used to support the conclusions developed in this memorandum.
EVALUATION OF CHEMICALS AND HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH CRUMB
RUBBER AND EDPM INFILL
Most of the studies on synthetic turf are specifically related to concerns about contact with crumb
rubber infill. Over 100 scientific, peer-reviewed, published studies have been performed worldwide
evaluating the potential health risks associated with turf fields that use crumb rubber. We are not
aware of any peer-reviewed scientific studies which draw an association between adverse health effects
and use of crumb rubber. Similarly, the New York State Department of Health concluded that synthetic
turf fields that use crumb rubber infill pose a low concern regarding health risks (NYSDOH, 2018).
We have reviewed recent studies and reports that have evaluated whether chemicals contained in
crumb rubber have the potential to cause adverse health effects from contact with the crumb rubber.
Sasaki
2 April 2024
Page 3
Contact with crumb rubber can occur when the rubber particles stick to the skin, or when they are
accidentally ingested (e.g., through field play that involves body contact with the turf). However,
exposure to chemicals present in the rubber requires that the chemicals come out of the rubber (e.g.,
leached out by stomach acid if ingested, or leached out through sweat for particles that stick to the
skin). The following studies were conducted by extracting crumb rubber samples from playing fields in
fluids that simulate sweat and gastric fluid and analyzing the extracts for metals and organic chemicals.
Conclusions from these studies are as follows:
Pavilonis et al. (2014). The researchers concluded that health risks associated with use of
synthetic turf fields with crumb rubber infill were orders of magnitude below regulatory levels
used to define safety thresholds.
Peterson et al. (2018). The results of the study showed that cancer risks for use of synthetic
fields were below the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) de minimis risk level of 1x10-6,
and that risks for health effects other than cancer were below the EPA threshold value of 1.
Furthermore, the evaluation showed that risks estimated for use of synthetic turf fields are
lower than risks estimated for natural turf fields which contain ambient background levels of
metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the soil.
Schneider et al. (2020). The study concluded that estimated risks for use of synthetic turf fields
with crumb rubber infill were below guidelines used by both the European Union and the EPA.
Pronk, eta al. (2020). The study concluded that chemical concentrations in crumb rubber infill
complied with concentration limits set for mixtures of substances in Europe, and that health
risks were below regulatory guidelines.
In addition, EPA (2019) collected crumb rubber from 9 tire recycling facilities, 15 indoor turf fields and
25 outdoor turf fields from throughout United States and analyzed the samples SVOCs, metals, and
microbes. The study also measured the bioavailable fraction of metals in the samples and the emissions
of VOCs at both 77- and 140-degrees F. Key findings from the study are:
Metals and SVOC concentrations were similar to those reported in other studies that examined
the chemical content of crumb rubber.
Emissions of VOCs were generally not detectable at 77F. Emissions of some VOCs increased
slightly at 140F. Nevertheless, even at 140F, emissions were very low.
Approximately 3% of the concentrations of metals were estimated to be bioavailable if the
crumb rubber is ingested, and less than 1% were estimated to be bioavailable if the crumb
rubber sticks to skin and the metals transfer from the rubber through the skin.
The type and number of bacteria in samples of crumb rubber were similar to those present in
environments where synthetic turf is not present. The report cited literature indicating that
crumb rubber infill harbors fewer bacteria than natural turf.
The following tables provide comparisons of the 90th percentile concentrations of metals and organic
chemicals detected in the crumb rubber collected from the turf fields to the New York Soil Cleanup
Objectives (SCOs) applicable to soil in residential yards (6 CRR-NY 375-6.8NY-CRR). When SCOs were
unavailable, the EPA Regional Screening Levels were used (EPA, 2023a). The SCOs are standards that are
Sasaki
2 April 2024
Page 4
used to determine if chemical concentrations in soil are safe (i.e., would not pose a health risk concern)
and are protective for children contacting soil through play, and adults contacting soil through yard
work. In addition, SCOs and RSLs that are protective for migration of constituents from soil to
groundwater that is used as drinking water were also used.
Sasaki
2 April 2024
Page 5
The 90th percentile concentrations of the majority of metals and organic chemicals detected in crumb
rubber are below the screening levels. Exceptions to this include cobalt, zinc, benzo(a)pyrene, and
aniline.
The same comparisons were completed for EDPM samples, using analytical data developed by an
independent testing laboratory (Labosport). As indicated in the tables below, the majority of metals and
organic chemicals analyzed in the EDPM samples were not detected, and the reporting limits (lowest
concentrations that can be reliably measured by the analytical equipment) are below the screening
levels. The two metals and five organic chemicals that were detected, were reported at concentrations
well below the screening levels.
Sasaki
2 April 2024
Page 6
It is important to note that the analytical results and comparisons to screening levels presented for
crumb rubber and EDPM do not account for the portion of metals and organic chemicals that may leach
out and be available for exposure. EPA (2019) concluded that only 3% of the metal concentrations
reported in the crumb rubber samples are available for exposure. This suggests that the concentrations
of cobalt, zinc, benzo(a)pyrene, and aniline that exceeded the screening levels would not pose risks of
concern. The analytical results for the EDPM samples indicate that use of EDPM as infill material would
pose no risks of concern for contact with the infill and would pose no risks of concern for potential
leaching of metals and organic chemicals and subsequent migration to groundwater.
The information provided by these studies demonstrate that the chemicals that are in crumb rubber
infill are unlikely to come out of the materials at concentrations that would harm people or the
environment. By comparison chemicals are present at lower concentrations in EDPM and would not
come out at concentrations that would harm people or the environment. Consequently, rubber infills
are safe for contact by people and will not harm groundwater or surface water.
Sasaki
2 April 2024
Page 7
EVALUATION OF CHEMICALS AND HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH SHOCK
PAD, BACKING, AND BLADES
Since the potential for adverse health effects from playing on synthetic turf fields is low, as described
previously, and the studies evaluating those effect included exposure to the whole turf field system
(backing, blades, and infill), it is reasonable to conclude that the shock pad, backing, and turf blades
would also not cause adverse health effects.
Historically, some older synthetic turf blades contained lead. Synthetic turf now needs to comply with
consumer product safety requirements, which means that turf blades no longer contain lead.
Information is available on the chemicals present in synthetic turf system components from two recent
studies, which are described below.
Tetra Tech (2021)
Tetra Tech evaluated the chemical composition of a synthetic turf system which specified a polyethylene
carpet with a woven backing over a polypropylene pad and using sand and an organic infill (Brockfill
which is comprised of material derived from a specific pine tree). A significant aspect of the Tetra Tech
study is that it evaluated each of synthetic turf system components for chemicals that have historically
been evaluated in crumb rubber infill (e.g., metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]), as well
as per- and poly-fluoralkyl substances (PFAS). It is important to note that this study was peer reviewed
by the Horsley Witten Group.
The evaluation included chemical analyses of each turf system component (turf carpet, shock pad, glue
and bonding agents, and infill) for semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), metals, and PFAS
compounds. Testing was also performed to evaluate both total and leachable concentrations of these
chemicals. The analytical results were used in a risk assessment to evaluate possible pathways for
migration of chemicals to the environment, potential exposure to human and environmental receptors,
and possible health and environmental risks. The risk assessment was completed by comparing
detected concentrations to standards and screening levels that are protective for exposure to soil in a
residential yard setting (i.e., high frequency contact by toddlers, young children, adolescents and
adults), and protective for migration to groundwater that is used as drinking water.
Based on the results of the risk assessment, Tetra Tech concluded that:
Concentrations of metals were similar to or less than those that naturally occur in soil and were
below standards and screening levels.
Most SVOCs were not detected, and those that were detected were below standards and
screening levels.
None of the PFAS compounds regulated by the State of New York were detected. Two PFAS
compounds (PFPeA and 6:2FTS) that are not regulated by New York were detected in synthetic
turf system samples at low (estimated) concentrations that were also below available standards
published for other PFAS compounds.
Sasaki
2 April 2024
Page 8
None of the compounds analyzed were detected at concentrations that would pose a concern
for leaching to groundwater.
The Tetra Tech report evaluated 29 PFAS compounds and also evaluated PFAS using a procedure which
evaluates the potential for transformation of a certain class of PFAS compounds (known as precursors)
into other PFAS compounds, to mimic conditions that could hypothetically occur under some
environmental conditions. The results of the procedure indicated that two additional PFAS compounds
(PFHpA and PFBA) could be generated through transformation of PFAS precursor compounds. Neither
of these compounds are regulated by the State of New York. However, the leachable concentrations
measured in the leaching study were below the concentrations that are protective for drinking water
issued by other states.
Since the results of the Tetra Tech report indicate that the synthetic turf system would not pose any
significant risks to human health or the environment, it can be concluded that turf carpeting and
bonding agents alone would not pose any significant risks.
TRC Companies (2022)
TRC conducted a study to evaluate whether a synthetic turf system that had already been installed
contained PFAS. TRC tested the turf carpet, shock pad, and infill. The infill used in the project was an
organic material (US Greentech Safeshell Infill). The turf system components were analyzed for 70 PFAS
compounds. The study found that five PFAS compounds that are unregulated by the State of New York
were detected at low concentrations. TRC also evaluated PFAS using a procedure which evaluates the
potential for transformation PFAS into other PFAS compounds, to mimic conditions that could
hypothetically occur under some environmental conditions. Several additional PFAS compounds were
detected after the oxidizing procedure, but all at concentrations well below available screening levels
that are protective for exposure to soil in a residential yard setting (i.e., high frequency contact by
toddlers, young children, adolescents and adults). Based on the evaluation, TRC concluded that the
synthetic turf system did not pose any health risks of concern from PFAS.
SOURCES OF PFAS IN THE ENVIRONMENT
PFAS has been used in numerous consumer products, including cosmetics, sunscreen, non-stick
cookware, waterproof shoes and clothing, and stain-resistant furniture and carpeting. It has also been
used in manufacturing for its surfactant properties and in firefighting foam used to suppress petroleum
fires (ITRC, 2022). Due to its widespread use over the past 50+ years, PFAS is present in the
environment (soil, surface water, groundwater, air, and even rainwater) as a background condition. In
fact, the states of Maine and Vermont have each conducted studies of the PFAS concentrations that
exist as a background condition in soil. In both studies, PFAS was detected in nearly all of the 60-plus
soil samples collected from each state. The background studies demonstrate that PFAS is a ubiquitously
present in surface soil. The sources of the PFAS in surface soil are likely due to atmospheric deposition
through PFAS in the air and PFAS in rainwater.
PFAS is not a chemical that is added to synthetic turf components, nor is it used to manufacture tires
which are recycled to create crumb rubber. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect that it would be
Sasaki
2 April 2024
Page 9
present in synthetic turf carpeting or crumb rubber infill at anything other than negligible
concentrations. Evaluation of the PFAS detected in the Tetratech (2021) and TRC (2022) studies indicate
that fewer PFAS compounds were detected in synthetic turf, and at lower concentrations, than those
that are present as a background condition in soil.
The information provided by these studies demonstrate that the chemicals that are in the synthetic
turf cannot come out of the materials at concentrations that would harm people or the environment.
Consequently, synthetic turf systems are safe for contact by people and will not harm groundwater or
surface water.
EVALUATION OF “HEAT ISLAND” AND SYNTHETIC TURF
A Heat Island is an area where the temperature is higher than in the surrounding area. Heat Islands are
caused by reduced natural landscape in urban areas, the properties of urban materials (pavement,
roofing, aggregate-based building materials), urban geometry (dimensions and spacing of buildings
which can trap heat), heat generated by human activities (e.g., automobiles, air conditioning), and
weather and geography. In particular, the combination of urban materials and urban geometry can
create large thermal masses that cannot easily release heat. According to the USEPA (2023b), Heat
Islands often build throughout the day and become more pronounced at night due to the slow release
of heat from urban materials.
The surfaces of synthetic turf fields get warmer than the surfaces of natural turf fields. However, the
differences in temperatures vary depending on weather conditions (e.g., sunny versus cloudy) and time
of day. Several studies have examined the differences in heating between synthetic turf fields and
natural turf fields. A comprehensive study by Jim et al. (2017) indicates that:
On sunny days, surface temperatures of synthetic turf fields can be 30 to 40 degrees C higher
than surfaces of natural turf fields. On cloudy days (defined as days when cloud cover reduced
solar radiation to approximately one-half that of sunny days) surface temperatures of synthetic
turf fields may be approximately 20 degrees C higher than natural turf fields, and on overcast
days (defined as days when cloud cover reduced solar radiation to approximately one-quarter
that of sunny days) there is essentially no difference in field surface temperatures.
Despite substantial surface temperature differences between synthetic and natural turf fields on
sunny days, there is only a few degrees (centigrade) difference in air temperature between
synthetic turf and natural turf fields at 20 inches and 40 inches above the playing field surface,
and essentially no difference in air temperature at 60 inches above the field surfaces. This
difference becomes smaller as daytime heating increases, with 20- and 40-inch air temperatures
above synthetic turf nearly equaling those above natural turf during the afternoon hours. On
cloudy and overcast days there is essentially no difference in air temperatures between
synthetic turf and natural turf fields at 20- and 40-inches above the playing field surfaces.
Synthetic turf surfaces and the air above synthetic turf fields heats and cools more rapidly than
those associated with natural turf.
The solar radiation released by natural and synthetic turf fields during nighttime is the same,
meaning that that synthetic turf does not ‘hold heat’ and release it after sunset. This
Sasaki
2 April 2024
Page 10
observation reflects that fact that synthetic turf has a poor heat storage capacity, which is
reflected in the rapid changes in surface temperature profiles of synthetic turf as compared to
natural turf, and the observation that synthetic turf surfaces return to the same temperature as
natural turf surfaces when solar radiation is reduced (e.g., late afternoon/evening on sunny days
and the duration of the day on overcast days).
One of the reasons that synthetic turf surfaces get hotter than natural turf surfaces is due to the
common use of infill materials that absorb heat from solar radiation. Since the synthetic turf field
proposed for field hockey use will not contain infill, it is anticipated that surface temperatures of the
field will be lower than those typically associated with synthetic turf fields.
Collectively, this information suggests that, while synthetic turf field surfaces get warmer than natural
turf field surfaces, air temperatures above synthetic turf surfaces warm only marginally more than
those above natural turf field surfaces, and that synthetic field surfaces do not retain heat once
daytime heating is discontinued. These differences are substantially minimized on cloudy days and do
not exist on overcast days. In that respect, synthetic turf fields are different than urban systems
(aggregate buildings, roof tops, and pavement) which are associated with contributing to Heat Island
effects which by the nature of those materials continue to release heat well into the nighttime hours.
References
1. Bleyer, Archie, and Theresa Keegan. 2018. “Incidence of Malignant Lymphoma in Adolescents
and Young Adults in the 58 Counties of California with Varying Synthetic Turf Field Density.”
Cancer Epidemiology 53 (April): 129–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2018.01.010.
2. Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2022. PFAS Technical and Regulatory Guidance
Document. Updated June 2022. https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/
3. Jim, C. Y. 2017. “Intense Summer Heat Fluxes in Artificial Turf Harm People and Environment.”
Landscape and Urban Planning 157 (January): 561–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.012.
4. Pavilonis, Brian T., Clifford P. Weisel, Brian Buckley, and Paul J. Lioy. 2014. “Bioaccessibility and
Risk of Exposure to Metals and SVOCs in Artificial Turf Field Fill Materials and Fibers.” Risk
Analysis 34 (1): 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12081
5. Peterson, Michael K., Julie C. Lemay, Sara Pacheco Shubin, and Robyn L. Prueitt. 2018.
“Comprehensive Multipathway Risk Assessment of Chemicals Associated with Recycled
(“crumb”) Rubber in Synthetic Turf Fields.” Environmental Research 160: 256-268
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29031215/
6. Pronk, Marja E. J., Marjolijn Woutersen, and Joke M. M. Herremans. 2020. “Synthetic Turf
Pitches with Rubber Granulate Infill: Are There Health Risks for People Playing Sports on Such
Pitches?” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 30 (3): 567–84.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-018-0106-1.
7. Schneider, Klaus, Anne Bierwisch, and Eva Kaiser. 2020. “ERASSTRI - European Risk Assessment
Study on Synthetic Turf Rubber Infill – Part 3: Exposure and Risk Characterisation.” Science of
The Total Environment 718 (May): 137721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137721.
8. Tetra Tech. 2021. Synthetic Turf Laboratory Testing and Analysis Summary Report, Martha’s
Vineyard Regional High School Athletic Fields Project (DRI 352-M4) Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
https://www.oakbluffsma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7435/TetraTech-MVC-2021-02-26-
TurfAnalysisReport_FINAL
9. TRC, 2022. Evaluation of PFAS in Synthetic Turf. Technical Memorandum from Elizabeth Denly,
TRC Vice President and Dr. Karen Vetrano, TRC Risk Assessment and Toxicology Manager, to
Peter H. Rice, Directory of Public Works and Suzanne Woodland, Deputy City Attorney. June 7.
https://www.cityofportsmouth.com/sites/default/files/2022-
06/Technical%20Memorandum_Portsmouth_Final.pdf
10. US EPA, Office of Research and Development. 2019. “July 2019 Report: Tire Crumb Rubber
Characterization.” Reports and Assessments. US EPA. July 24, 2019.
https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/july-2019-report-tire-crumb-rubber-characterization-0
11. US EPA, 2023a. Regional Screening Levels. November, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-
screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables
12. US EPA, 2023b. “Learn About Heat Islands” https://www.epa.gov/heatislands/learn-about-heat-
islands
\\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204866\Deliverables\Synthetic Turf Opinion\2024 0402-HAI Cornell Synthetic Turf Memo_F.docx
Appendix D: Synthetic Turf Public
Comment Response Letter
110 Chauncy Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02 111 USA p 617 926 3300 f 617 924 2748 www.sasaki.com
9 April 2024
Kimberly Michaels, RLA, LEED AP
Fisher Associates, P.E., L.S., L.A., D.P.C.
1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 201
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Kim,
Based on questions, comments, and concerns from the recent public meetings for the
proposed synthetic turf at Cornell University’s Indoor Sports & Recreation Center &
Multi-purpose Field, please see responses below from Sasaki Associates and attached
Memo titled, “Evaluation of Health and Environmental Effects: Synthetic Turf Indoor
Sports and Recreation Center & Multipurpose Field” dated 2 April 2024 from Haley &
Aldrich New York Engineering and Geology, LLP for further information. Excerpts from
Memo used to answer some of the questions/concerns below.
PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM COI PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 27, 2024
1. The plastic turf pollutes and poisons with toxins throughout its lifecycle, from
extraction, transportation, manufacturing, usage, and disposal at the end of its
life.
a. RESPONSE: We are not aware of research indicating that synthetic
turf pollutes throughout its lifecycle. The information provided in the
memorandum indicates that synthetic turf systems, when in use as
play surfaces, do not cause adverse effects to human health or the
environment (soil, groundwater, surface water, atmosphere). The
Pavilonis et al. (2014), Peterson et al. (2018), Schneider et al. (2020),
Pronk, et al. (2020) peer-reviewed studies determined that estimated
health risks were below regulatory levels used to define safety
thresholds by the EPA and European Union. Emissions of VOCs
(volatile organic compounds) from synthetic turf into the atmosphere
were generally not detectable at 77F, and only increased slightly at
140F, as determined by the EPA (2019) study.
2. Plastic turfs are not being recycled and are extremely difficult to recycle.
a. RESPONSE: The synthetic turf, inclusive of turf blades and infill, will
be recycled after its life cycle of 8-12 years. The performance shock
pad can be used for at least two synthetic turf cycles, before being
recycled.
110 Chauncy Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02111 USA p 617 926 3300 f 617 924 2748 www.sasaki.com
3. In January 2023, the Governor of New York signed bill S834-2023 into law,
prohibiting the sale of carpets, including artificial turfs, containing PFAS
chemicals. As artificial turf often contain PFAS, this law effectively bans their
sale and installation in New York State.
a. RESPONSE: There are no state or federal laws that prohibit
installation of synthetic turf fields. PFAS is not a chemical that is
incorporated into the manufacture synthetic turf components, nor is
it used to manufacture tires which are recycled to create crumb
rubber.
4. The concept of PFAS-free turf is questionable. From discussions with experts in
our anti-turf coalition, we have a consensus that there is no truly PFAS-free
turf.
a. RESPONSE: PFAS is not a chemical that is added to synthetic turf
components, nor is it used to manufacture tires which are recycled to
create crumb rubber. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect that it
would be present in synthetic turf carpeting or crumb rubber infill at
anything other than negligible concentrations. Evaluation of the PFAS
detected in the Tetratech (2021) and TRC (2022) studies indicate that
fewer PFAS compounds were detected in synthetic turf, and at lower
concentrations, than those that are present as a background condition
in soil.
5. Is artificial turf truly fireproof? What chemicals is it treated with to make it
fireproof? Are those chemicals released into the air or soil over time?
a. RESPONSE: Synthetic turf is widely accepted and used across the
country, even in wildfire-prone areas such as California. Artificial turf
is tested to be fireproof when a sand-based infill is applied with the
turf. The exterior multi-purpose field and interior synthetic turf field
will be installed with this sand-based infill. No chemicals are used in
the treatment of synthetic turf to make it fireproof.
6. How well does artificial turf hold up over time? Does exposure to UV break
down plastics? Damaged plastics are hard to eradicate.
a. RESPONSE: Synthetic turf systems are designed to be used for 8-12
years, after which they are recycled. The EPA (2019) study and
analytical data from Labosport concluded that none of the metal or
organic compounds found in the crumb rubber or synthetic turf
samples posed risks of concern.
7. What about drainage? Will water pool on the turf?
110 Chauncy Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02111 USA p 617 926 3300 f 617 924 2748 www.sasaki.com
a. RESPONSE: Water infiltrates synthetic turf fields through the fibers
and infill and into the stone base below and then into the stormwater
system.
8. Covering a field with artificial turf will change water drainage patterns and
affect other buildings and soil.
a. RESPONSE: While water drainage patterns will change through the
implementation of the proposed site changes, there will not be
significant adverse impacts to the soil condition or surrounding
buildings. Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis has been conducted by a
licensed civil engineer to ensure that post-development flow rates of
stormwater runoff existing on the site do not increase from existing
conditions. Drainage design on the site has ensured that stormwater
runoff will not cause adverse impacts to surrounding buildings for all
design storm conditions. The existing conditions on Alumni Fields
includes a large stormwater subgrade system that lies directly below
the existing field.
9. The soil will die from lack of water, the heat buildup under the turf, and the
lack of light. Won’t the stadium become very hot as turf traps heat?
a. RESPONSE: While synthetic turf field surfaces get warmer than
natural turf field surfaces, air temperatures above synthetic turf
surfaces warm only marginally more than those above natural turf
field surfaces, and that synthetic field surfaces do not retain heat once
daytime heating is discontinued. These differences are substantially
minimized on cloudy days and do not exist on overcast days. In that
respect, synthetic turf fields are different than urban systems
(aggregate buildings, roof tops, and pavement) which are associated
with contributing to Heat Island effects which by the nature of those
materials continue to release heat well into the nighttime hours.
10. Do players prefer grass to plastic? Won’t they be injured more by sliding on
plastic rather than grass?
a. RESPONSE: Players prefer to have fields with surfaces that are
playable, even, and safe. Fields should meet the Performance Test
Standards for both Skin/Surface Friction and Skin Abrasion including
FIFA test method 08 “Determination of Skin/Surface Friction” and
ASTM F1015 “Relative Abrasiveness of Synthetic Turf Playing
Surfaces”.
110 Chauncy Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02111 USA p 617 926 3300 f 617 924 2748 www.sasaki.com
TOI CONSERVATION BOARD MEMO TO TOI PLANNING BOARD (JANUARY 31, 2024)
1. The impact on our local environment with the leaching of contaminants into
our air, water, and soil. The impact on human health with the exposure to toxic
material and physical injuries to athletes.
a. RESPONSE: Please refer to the response to Comment 1 of “PUBLIC
COMMENTS FROM COI PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 27, 2024”.
2. Effect of extreme heat emitted from fields during hot weather periods, both at
ground level and “head level” (and perhaps beyond). If a field is located in a
low-lying area, with barriers like hillsides or buildings around it, that could
create serious problems for people on the field and around it, as well as for
plants and animals.
a. RESPONSE: While synthetic turf field surfaces get warmer than
natural turf field surfaces, air temperatures above synthetic turf
surfaces warm only marginally more than those above natural turf
field surfaces, and that synthetic field surfaces do not retain heat once
daytime heating is discontinued. These differences are substantially
minimized on cloudy days and do not exist on overcast days. In that
respect, synthetic turf fields are different than urban systems
(aggregate buildings, roof tops, and pavement) which are associated
with contributing to Heat Island effects which by the nature of those
materials continue to release heat well into the nighttime hours.
3. Might Cornell define a monitoring and research plan that will advance the
understanding and motivate innovation in artificial turf that makes it a truly
“green” alternative?
a. RESPONSE: Cornell is a global leader in sustainability, and climate
change research, teaching, and engagement. As a leader in green
alternatives, Cornell has been working on ways in which to advance
and monitor material development in all industries. Our campuses are
living laboratories for developing, testing, and implementing
solutions that address these most challenging issues. There are more
than 100 majors, minors, and concentrations focused on
sustainability.
4. Since crumb rubber and other components of artificial turf degrade upon
exposure to sunlight, air, and water, they will be disposed of within 10-20
years. What is the composition of the materials at the end of their life? Will the
materials be hazardous waste?
a. RESPONSE: The chemical composition of crumb rubber at the end of
its life is very similar to the composition when it is first used.
Although some of the most volatile chemicals may be slowly released
110 Chauncy Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02111 USA p 617 926 3300 f 617 924 2748 www.sasaki.com
from crumb rubber over time, the other chemicals in crumb rubber
are only transformed or released from UV decomposition of tire
rubber when combined with other processes that are not natural (e.g.,
catalysts, high heat, or pressure) (as indicated in the memorandum,
even fresh crumb rubber does not release volatile chemicals at levels
that would pose a health concern). In fact, there is recent research
indicating that use of recycled rubber in pavement prolongs the life of
the pavement, primarily by making the pavement more resistant to
UV degradation. Tires, as well as crumb rubber and aged tires or
crumb rubber, are not considered hazardous waste.
5. Is the applicants plan that with the synthetic turf field relocation the current
synthetic turf field materials will go to a landfill?
a. RESPONSE: The synthetic turf materials including turf fibers and infill
will be recycled at the end of its’ useful life about 8-12 years after
installation. The performance shock pad will be used for at least two
turf cycles.
6. Is Cornell a leader in identifying an innovative solution to the disposal of their
artificial turf components during this project and when the updated turf field
reaches the end of its life within 10-20 years.
a. RESPONSE: Please refer to the response to Comment 3 of “TOI
CONSERVATION BOARD MEMO TO TOI PLANNING BOARD (JANUARY
31, 2024)”.
CITY OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING (JANUARY 23, 2024)
1. What happens when it needs to be replaced? Is it recyclable?
a. RESPONSE: The synthetic turf materials including turf fibers and infill
will be recycled at the end of its’ useful life about 8-12 years after
installation. The performance shock pad will be used for at least two
turf cycles.
2. How is it maintained?
a. RESPONSE: Maintenance activities on the synthetic turf surfaces seek
to provide consistent, safe playing surfaces and are carried out by
Cornell’s staff as well as the turf manufacturer’s regional service
provider. Regular inspections check that seams are tight and level,
surfaces are free of debris, and infill depth is correct and consistent.
Field grooming is completed as necessary, typically three to six times
per year, to alleviate compaction, redistribute and level infill, and
correct fiber layover. During grooming, a magnet is dragged over the
surface to remove metal objects.
110 Chauncy Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02111 USA p 617 926 3300 f 617 924 2748 www.sasaki.com
3. How often is it replaced/does it wear out?
a. RESPONSE: A synthetic turf field is replaced at the end of its’ useful
life, approximately every 8-12 years.
Sincerely,
Trey Sasser, PE
Senior Associate
Appendix E: Vehicle Tracking
Study
ALUMNI FIELD PARKING LOT
INDOOR SPORTS &
RECREATION CENTER
FFE 878.33
PARKING LOT CHARLES F. BERMAN FIELDILL
ALL
FIELD EL. 875
ALUMNI
FIELD
ACCESS FROM
CAMPUS ROAD
ACCESS FROM
TOWER ROAD
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO FIELD
ACCESS FROM
CAMPUS ROAD
ACCESS FROM
TOWER ROAD
ACCESS FROM
TOWER ROAD
Stamp
Project Directory:
Drawing No.
Drawing Title:
Key Plan
Project Title:
Scale:Project No:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Approved By:
Date:
ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
SASAKI
110 Chauncy Street
Boston, MA 02111
TEL. 617.926.3300
www.sasaki.com
CIVIL
TG MILLER
605 West State Street, Suite A
Ithaca, NY 14850
TEL. 607.272.6477
www.tgmillerpc.com
STRUCTURAL
LEMESSURIER
1380 Soldiers Field Road
Boston, MA 02135
TEL. 617.868.1200
www.lemessurier.com
MEP/FP
RFS ENGINEERING
71 Water Street
Laconia, NH 03246
TEL. 603.524.4647
www.rfsengineering.com
BUILDING AND FIRE CODE
HOWE ENGINEERS
141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110
Norwell, MA 02061
TEL. 781.878.3500
www.howeengineers.com
NOT FO
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
North
VEHICLE TRACKING
STUDY
28020.00
AR
1" = 20'
3/20/2023
Cornell University
TRUCK BODY
TRUCK CHASSIS
JP
AG
CROSS HATCHED AREA IS FOR
PEDESTRIANS OR LIGHT
VEHICLE TRAFFIC ONLY
FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS ADJACENT TO NE
AND SE CORNERS OF BUILDING.
- A FREE STANDING BUILDING FIRE
DEPARTMENT CONNECTION WILL BE
LOCATED ADJACENT TO BOTH HYDRANTS.
- A BUILDING SPRINKLER ALARM BELL AND
FIRE ALARM STROBE LIGHT WILL BE
LOCATED ON BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH
SIDES OF THE BUILDING NEAR THE
HYDRANTS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT
CONNECTIONS.
BUILDING NORTH ENTRY:
- DESIGNATED AS FIRE DEPARTMENT MAIN
ENTRY POINT.
- ENTRY VESTIBULE WILL CONTAIN MAIN
FIRE ALARM SYSTEM PANEL
BUILDING SOUTH ENTRY:
- ENTRY VESTIBULE WILL CONTAIN REMOTE
FIRE ALARM SYSTEM PANEL
ALUMNI FIELD PARKING LOT
INDOOR SPORTS &
RECREATION CENTER
FFE 878.33
PARKING LOT CHARLES F. BERMAN FIELDILL
ALL
FIELD EL. 875
ALUMNI
FIELD
ACCESS FROM
CAMPUS ROAD
ACCESS FROM
TOWER ROAD
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO FIELD
ACCESS FROM
CAMPUS ROAD
ACCESS FROM
TOWER ROAD
Stamp
Project Directory:
Drawing No.
Drawing Title:
Key Plan
Project Title:
Scale:Project No:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Approved By:
Date:
ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
SASAKI
110 Chauncy Street
Boston, MA 02111
TEL. 617.926.3300
www.sasaki.com
CIVIL
TG MILLER
605 West State Street, Suite A
Ithaca, NY 14850
TEL. 607.272.6477
www.tgmillerpc.com
STRUCTURAL
LEMESSURIER
1380 Soldiers Field Road
Boston, MA 02135
TEL. 617.868.1200
www.lemessurier.com
MEP/FP
RFS ENGINEERING
71 Water Street
Laconia, NH 03246
TEL. 603.524.4647
www.rfsengineering.com
BUILDING AND FIRE CODE
HOWE ENGINEERS
141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110
Norwell, MA 02061
TEL. 781.878.3500
www.howeengineers.com
NOT FO
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
North
VEHICLE TRACKING
STUDY
28020.00
AR
1" = 20'
3/20/2023
Cornell University
JP
AG
TRUCK BODY
TRUCK CHASSIS
CROSS HATCHED AREA IS FOR
PEDESTRIANS OR LIGHT
VEHICLE TRAFFIC ONLY
FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS ADJACENT TO NE
AND SE CORNERS OF BUILDING.
- A FREE STANDING BUILDING FIRE
DEPARTMENT CONNECTION WILL BE
LOCATED ADJACENT TO BOTH HYDRANTS.
- A BUILDING SPRINKLER ALARM BELL AND
FIRE ALARM STROBE LIGHT WILL BE
LOCATED ON BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH
SIDES OF THE BUILDING NEAR THE
HYDRANTS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT
CONNECTIONS.
BUILDING NORTH ENTRY:
- DESIGNATED AS FIRE DEPARTMENT MAIN
ENTRY POINT.
- ENTRY VESTIBULE WILL CONTAIN MAIN
FIRE ALARM SYSTEM PANEL
BUILDING SOUTH ENTRY:
- ENTRY VESTIBULE WILL CONTAIN REMOTE
FIRE ALARM SYSTEM PANEL
www.haleyaldrich.com
REPORT ON
CORNELL UNIVERSITY INDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION
CENTER & FIELD HOCKEY PITCH
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
ITHACA, NEW YORK
by
H & A of New York Engineering and Geology, LLP Rochester, New York
for
Sasaki
Boston, MA
File No. 0204866
February 2024
H & A OF NEW YORK ENGINEERINGAND GEOLOGY, LLP 213 W. 35th Street 7th Floor New York, NY 10001 646.277.5685
www.haleyaldrich.com
7 February 2024
File No. 0204866
Sasaki
110 Chauncy Street, Suite 200
Boston, MA 02111
Attention: Robert Titus
Subject: Cornell University Indoor Sports and Recreation Center & Field Hockey Pitch
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This report presents the results of subsurface explorations completed at the project site by others and
by H & A of New York Engineering and Geology, LLP (Haley & Aldrich), and provides geotechnical
engineering recommendations and associated construction considerations for the proposed Indoor
Sports and Recreation Center, Field Hockey Pitch upgrades, and associated site improvements on the
campus of Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, as understood at this time. Our work was conducted in
accordance with our signed Sasaki Consultant Agreement dated 16 September 2022.
Please contact us with any questions concerning this report.
Sincerely yours,
H & A OF NEW YORK ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGY, LLP
Lysandra L. Reed, P.E. (NY, MA)
Project Manager
Bradford J. Aldinger, P.E. (CT, MA)
Senior Associate
Scott Goldkamp, P.E. (MA, NH)
Principal
\\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204866\Deliverables\Geotechnical Report\2024-0207-HANY-Cornell ISRC-Geotechnical Report-F.docx
Table of Contents
Page
List of Figures v
List of Appendices v
1. Introduction 1
1.1 GENERAL 1
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
1.3 ELEVATION DATUM 2
1.4 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 2
1.5 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2
2. Subsurface Exploration Program 3
2.1 TEST BORINGS 3
2.1.1 Historic Borings by Others 3
2.1.2 2023 Test Borings by Haley & Aldrich 3
2.1.3 2024 Infiltration Testing and Sampling by Haley & Aldrich 3
2.2 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING 4
3. Subsurface Conditions 5
3.1 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 5
3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 5
4. Geotechnical Design Recommendations 7
4.1 GENERAL 7
4.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT 7
4.3 SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD HOCKEY PITCH 7
4.4 INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY FOUNDATIONS 8
4.4.1 Shallow Foundations 8
4.5 SPORT LIGHTING SYSTEM FOUNDATIONS 9
4.6 SETTLEMENT 9
4.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS 10
4.8 SEISMIC DESIGN 10
4.9 FOUNDATION DRAINAGE 10
4.10 VAPOR RETARDERS, WATERPROOFING, DAMPPROOFING, AND INSULATION 10
4.11 LATERAL PRESSURES 11
4.11.1 Restrained (At-Rest) Wall Condition 11
4.11.2 Unrestrained (Active) Wall Condition 11
4.12 RESISTANCE TO LATERAL LOADS 11
4.13 SUBSLAB UTILITIES 12
4.14 EXTERIOR GRADING 12
4.15 STORMWATER INFILTRATION SYSTEM 12
Table of Contents
Page
4.16 PAVEMENT SECTIONS 12
5. Construction Considerations 13
5.1 GENERAL 13
5.2 EXCAVATION 13
5.3 DEWATERING 13
5.4 PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION SURVEYS 13
5.5 GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION 14
5.6 PREPARATION AND PROTECTION OF BEARING SURFACES 14
5.7 BACKFILLING 15
5.8 BACKFILL MATERIALS 16
5.8.1 Granular Fill / Structural Fill 16
5.8.2 Common Fill 16
5.8.3 Base Stone for Turf Field 16
5.8.4 (Free Draining) Finishing Stone 16
5.8.5 Lean Concrete 17
5.9 EARTHWORK DURING FREEZING WEATHER 17
5.10 REUSE OF EXCAVATED MATERIALS 17
5.11 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION 17
5.12 REVIEW OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 18
6. Limitations 19
v
List of Figures
Figure No. Title
1 Project Locus
2 Site and Subsurface Exploration Location Plan
List of Appendices
Appendix Title
A Logs of Previous Explorations
B Haley & Aldrich Test Boring Logs and Observation Well Installation Report
C Infiltration Test Results and Boring Logs
D Laboratory Test Results
E Memo of Understanding Between CLASSE and the F&CS Project Managers for
the New Indoor Recreation & Sports Center
1
1. Introduction
1.1 GENERAL
This report provides subsurface information and our geotechnical engineering recommendations and
associated construction considerations for the Cornell Indoor Sports and Recreation Center (ISRC) &
Field Hockey pitch on the Cornell University campus in Ithaca, New York. The project location is
generally shown on the Project Locus, Figure 1.
We have coordinated our work with the following project team members:
Owner: Cornell University (Cornell);
Architect: Sasaki;
Structural Engineer: LeMessurier; and
Civil Engineer: T.G. Miller, P.C.
In addition to this report, we completed a Schematic Design Geotechnical Narrative dated 13 September
2022. This report supersedes our prior issued study and report.
Our current understanding of the existing conditions and proposed construction is based on discussions
with the project team identified above, and our review of the following available project documents and
drawings:
January 2022 RFP Package titled “Indoor Sports and Recreation Center Design Services.”
Drawings Titled “Design Development Set,” dated 22 December 2023, prepared by Sasaki.
Report titled “Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation: Proposed Covered Athletic Facility,” dated
27 March 2019, prepared by Stantec.
Technical Report titled “Project Definition Design Study for the Energy Recovery LINAC upgrade
to the Cornell Electron Storage Ring,” dated 30 September 2008, prepared by Ove Arup &
Partners Consulting Engineers PC.
Report titled “Subsurface Investigation: Athletics Field House,” dated 30 May 1986, prepared by
Empire Soils Investigations, Inc.
Report titled “Foundation Engineering Report: Biotechnology Research Facility,” dated 14 March
1986, prepared by McPhail Associates, Inc.
Report titled “Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Evaluation: Life Science
Technology Building,” dated 14 August 2003, prepared by Atlantic Testing Laboratories, Limited.
Report titled “Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation: Lynah Ice Rink Additions,” dated April 2005,
prepared by Hawk Engineering, PC.
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This subsurface investigation program was undertaken to obtain information on subsurface conditions
in support of the development of geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the
Cornell ISRC and Field Hockey pitch upgrades project. Our scope of services included:
2
reviewing readily available information on site history, subsurface soil and bedrock conditions,
and groundwater levels;
planning and implementing a geotechnical test boring program;
logging test borings, obtaining samples, and measuring groundwater levels;
performing geotechnical analyses; and
preparing this geotechnical engineering report.
1.3 ELEVATION DATUM
Elevations herein are in feet and refer to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29).
1.4 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The existing site is currently occupied by the turf Field Hockey pitch and adjacent grass playing fields
which is collectively known as Robinson Alumni Fields. A majority of the proposed site is located within
the City of Ithaca (west two-thirds of the Site) and the east portion is located within the Town of Ithaca.
Existing ground surface elevation ranges from about El. 871 on the west side of the site and grades up to
El. 878 on the east end of the site. The site is bordered by a parking lot and Bartels Hall to the south, a
track and sports field to the east, a parking lot and Tower Road to the north and Weill Hall to the west.
A portion of the proposed construction is located directly above the Cornell Synchrotron Tunnel
alignment. The Tunnel was mined in 1965 using steel ring sections with precast concrete segments and
shotcrete lining. The crown of the tunnel is at approximate El. 837, about 40 feet (ft) below existing
ground surface. Along the western perimeter of the site, the below-grade portion of Weill Hall extends
within the limits of the site. The footings for this portion of Weill Hall bear at El. 851.5. Additionally, the
Weill Hall stormwater management system is located below the southwest corner of the proposed
synthetic turf Field Hockey pitch.
Numerous utilities (steam, electric, telecommunications, water, sewer, field irrigation) traverse below
the site, generally along the southern perimeter of the site and through a utility corridor located
approximately in the mid-portion of the site. An irrigation system is located below both natural grass
fields.
1.5 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
We understand the proposed project consists of relocation of the existing Field Hockey pitch and
construction of a new indoor recreation and intercollegiate and club practice and competition space.
The new facility will have a footprint of approximately 94,000 square feet and will be about 54 ft in
height. The new turf Field Hockey pitch will consist of a synthetic turf field with a new scoreboard and
four-pole sport lighting system. Stormwater is planned to be managed onsite at both a bioretention
area at the northern perimeter of the site and a stormwater retention system located below the
southeast section of the proposed Field Hockey field.
3
2. Subsurface Exploration Program
2.1 TEST BORINGS
2.1.1 Historic Borings by Others
Information on previous explorations conducted in the vicinity of the project site was provided by
Cornell for the following projects:
Bartels Hall: Test borings drilled by Empire Soils Investigations, Inc. in May 1986 for the
multipurpose field house east of Lynah Rink and south of the proposed site.
Weill Life Science Technology Building: Test borings drilled by Atlantic Testing Laboratories,
Limited in June and July 2003 for the Weill Life Science building to the west of the proposed site.
Biotechnology Research Facility: Test borings drilled by Empire Soils Investigations, Inc. in
November 1972 for the biotechnology research facility west of the Weill Life Science building.
Lynah Ice Rink Addition: Test borings drilled by Hawk Engineering, P.C. in March 2005 for the
additions on the north and south sides of the Lynah Ice Rink.
Logs and location plans for the historical test borings are provided in Appendix A.
2.1.2 2023 Test Borings by Haley & Aldrich
Haley & Aldrich planned and monitored a subsurface exploration program consisting of ten test borings,
designated HA-1 to HA-10, to obtain subsurface information to support geotechnical aspects of project
design, including depth to suitable bearing materials.
The borings were drilled by Nothnagle Drilling, Inc. of Scottsville, New York (Nothnagle), between 11 and
13 December 2023. Borings were advanced with a track-mounted CME 55 MCX drill rig using 4-in I.D.
hollow-stem augers to depths of 12 to 20 ft below ground surface (bgs). Standard Penetration Tests
(“SPTs”) were performed continuously in the top 10 ft, and at 5 ft intervals thereafter. One
groundwater observation well, HA-2 (OW), was screened in natural soils in a completed borehole. The
other boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
The locations of the recent borings were identified in the field using a handheld GPS unit. Ground
surface elevations at the recent borings (including the observation well) were estimated using the
elevation contours shown on the existing conditions plan prepared by others. Therefore, location and
elevations for the recent explorations should be considered approximate and accurate only to the
degree implied by the method used.
Locations of the recent borings and observation well are shown on Figure 2. Logs of recent borings and
the observation well installation report are provided in Appendix B.
2.1.3 2024 Infiltration Testing and Sampling by Haley & Aldrich
Haley & Aldrich monitored a portion of a recent subsurface exploration program developed by the
project civil engineer, T.G. Miller, P.C. (T.G. Miller), to support the design of a stormwater management
system, also by T.G. Miller. The infiltration test locations were determined by T.G. Miller and were
4
identified in the field using a handheld GPS unit and verified using measurements from known site
features. Locations of the infiltration tests are shown on Figure 2. Logs of the infiltration test borings
and results of the testing are provided in Appendix C.
The program consisted of five in-situ permeability tests, designated B-1 through B-5, and the collection
of soil samples from two test borings, designated B-2A and B-5A, for soil classification and testing. The
geotechnical testing of soil samples was performed in accordance with the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation Stormwater Design Manual Appendix D.
The borings and test locations were drilled by Nothnagle on 22 to 23 January 2024. Borings were
advanced with a Geoprobe 6712 DT drill rig using 4-in I.D. hollow-stem augers to depths of 7 to 9 ft bgs.
SPTs were performed in the two test borings from depths of 5 to 9 ft. The infiltration testing was
performed in accordance with Appendix D of the New York State Stormwater Design Manual. Upon
drilling to design depth, a 4-in. diameter PVC pipe was temporarily installed to the bottom of the test
boring exploration, 2 ft below the bottom of the proposed practice. The test holes were presoaked 24
hours before the falling head infiltration testing was performed.
The test results for the five tested locations are included in Appendix C and are summarized below.
Exploration
Designation
Estimated Hydraulic Conductivity
(cm/sec)
B1 8.5 x 10-5
B2 4.6 x 10-4
B3 ND
B4 6.9 x 10-5
B5 ND
Note: ND indicates Not Determined
Upon completion of the infiltration testing, the PVC casing was removed, and all boreholes were
backfilled to ground surface with soil cuttings.
2.2 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
Select soil samples collected as part of the infiltration testing program were submitted to a geotechnical
laboratory for grain size testing to aid with soil classification and to evaluate infiltration rate relative to
permeability testing conducted in the field. Results of the laboratory testing are provided in Appendix
D.
5
3. Subsurface Conditions
3.1 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The results of the recently completed test borings generally indicate the following sequence of
subsurface units in order of occurrence from ground surface downward.
Generalized Strata Description Range in Thickness
(ft)
Depth Below Ground Surface to
Top of Stratum (ft)
Ground Cover (Topsoil) 0.5 to 2 -
Fill/Reworked Natural Material 0 to 5.5 0.5 to 2
Glaciolacustrine Silt and Sand 6.2 to 6.6, where identified 0.5 to 6
Glacial Till Not determined 13.4 to 13.8, where encountered
Generalized soil strata encountered in the recent test borings are described below in order of increasing
depth. Detailed descriptions of each stratum and the Unified Soil Classification System (“USCS”) Group
Symbol for each sample are provided on the logs in Appendix B. The stratification lines designating the
interface between strata on the logs are approximate. The logs depict subsurface conditions at the
specific exploration location and at the time designated on the logs.
TOPSOIL – A relatively thin layer of loose topsoil was encountered at ground surface at all boring
locations.
FILL and Reworked Natural Material – Encountered below the topsoil in 6 of the 10 borings, this
layer was generally described as soft to stiff, sandy silt and silty sand with varying amounts of
gravel and traces of clay tile or brick fragments.
SILT and SAND, Glaciolacustrine Deposits – Encountered below the topsoil or fill, the natural
Glaciolacustrine Deposits were described as soft to hard, gray-brown to red-brown silt and sand
with varying amounts of gravel and clay. There was generally increasing sand content and
increasing gray color with depth, and mottling and signs of oxidation were observed. Most of
the borings were terminated in this stratum.
GLACIAL TILL – Typically described as very loose to dense, brown to gray-brown, silty sand and
silty gravel with sand and trace rock fragments. The Glacial Till was encountered at the center
of the site in borings HA-5 and HA-10. This stratum was generally more dense and well-
graded/non-uniform than the Glaciolacustrine Deposits. Where test borings were not
terminated within the Glaciolacustrine Deposits, the test borings were terminated within the
Glacial Till Deposit.
3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
During drilling, groundwater was encountered in borings HA-2 and HA-6 at depths of 14 to 10.4 ft bgs,
between approximate El. 860 to 864.6. At the other eight test boring locations, groundwater was not
encountered to the bottom of the test boring (approximately 12 to 20 ft bgs).
A groundwater observation well was installed in boring HA-2 and was set in the natural soils within the
Glaciolacustrine Deposit. One day after well installation, groundwater was measured at a depth of 10.3
ft bgs, at approximate El. 863.7. Approximately one month after installation, groundwater was
6
measured at a depth of 11.6 ft bgs, at approximate El. 862.4. The groundwater in this area is likely
locally perched above the hard Glaciolacustrine Deposits identified in this boring and is the result of the
relatively impermeable soil conditions at this location. Locally perched groundwater levels may be
encountered at other locations across the site associated with trapped stormwater.
Water levels can be expected to vary with seasonal changes, precipitation, snow melt, construction
activities, and other factors, and should be anticipated to vary both during and following construction.
The local geology and topography also likely will impact groundwater levels on the site. Groundwater
may be perched on top of low permeability soils, such as the Glaciolacustrine soils and Glacial Till. As a
result, water levels encountered during and following construction may differ from those encountered
in the explorations.
7
4. Geotechnical Design Recommendations
4.1 GENERAL
This section provides recommendations for design of foundations and slabs for the proposed re-
development at the site. Foundations should be designed and constructed in accordance with the
current edition of the New York State Building Code (Code), and the recommendations provided in the
following sections.
4.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT
Within the limits of the proposed area for new structure, synthetic turf field, and site features,
construction will require excavation of Topsoil and Fill soils in order to reach the suitable bearing
subgrade prior to construction. In some locations, and depending on final design elevation for
structures, localized deeper excavations within the Fill may be required to reach suitable bearing
elevations.
Existing utilities to be abandoned within the limits of the site will require cut-and-capping beyond the
plan limits of proposed structures and complete removal within the footprint of the site. Existing, active
utilities to remain and new utilities to be installed will require coordination with new foundation work to
avoid potential design conflicts, and construction activities will need to be coordinated to not impact the
operation of active, existing utilities or the construction of new utilities.
Construction will require management of existing on-site materials during excavation of Topsoil and Fill
across the site. To minimize the cost of transporting and disposing off-site, effort should be made by the
designers and contractors to process and re-use excavated material on-site.
4.3 SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD HOCKEY PITCH
We understand that the new Field Hockey pitch is planned to be constructed such that the playing
surface will be generally at the same grade as the current natural grass field. As such, preparation of the
subgrade immediately below the synthetic turf system will require some excavation/stripping and
removal of the topsoil within the limits of the field.
In some areas where the anticipated topsoil thickness extends below the design subgrade
elevation, we recommend that the excavation extend as needed to completely remove the
topsoil materials, followed by controlled placement and compaction of an approved backfill
material up to design subgrade elevation. Backfill materials may include previously excavated
soils or may require importing Granular Fill.
Re-use of excavated soils will be dependent upon visual characterization of the materials and
results of grain size analyses and laboratory compaction tests. Accordingly, we recommend to
the extent possible, that an on-site location be established for segregating and stockpiling
excavated soils.
Following completion of excavation to strip/remove the near surface soils down to subgrade
elevation for the turf system, static roll the surface using a large compaction roller to prepare a
8
firm, dry and stable subgrade. If, during static rolling of the subgrades, pumping or weaving
conditions are observed, alternate compaction techniques may be required and/or additional
subgrade preparation may be recommended (e.g., removal and replacement of soft,
compressible soils).
At all times prior to placement of the turf system, we recommend maintaining a dry and
undisturbed design subgrade so as to promote a stable working surface to receive the turf
system. Temporary re-grading outside the limits of the new field may be considered so as to
divert surface water runoff away from the work areas. Construction dewatering is not
anticipated to be required; however, if it becomes necessary, the Contractor shall make efforts
to discharge dewatering effluent on-site at distances away from the work areas so as not to
disturb subgrade preparation and to allow for construction in-the-dry.
The turf system subgrade soils are anticipated to consist of silty sand and sandy silt materials. In
the event the work is conducted during winter conditions, be advised that these types of soils
could be susceptible to disturbance due to freezing and thawing temperatures and the
Contractor should sequence operations, including protection of exposed and excavated (i.e.,
stockpiled) soils from moisture, to allow for successful completion of the work.
For the permanent condition, the maintenance, protection, and long-term performance of the
synthetic turf field will require an effective stormwater runoff collection and management
system. At a minimum, the sub-turf drainage systems must be designed such that the system is
entirely and at all times above groundwater level. Pending further discussions with Sasaki
regarding final surface grading and estimated runoff volume calculations, we recommend a sub-
turf drainage system design comprised of a layer of double-washed, AASHTO No. 57 crushed
stone (Sasaki to determine minimum thickness required) with perforated HDPE pipes (sized by
Sasaki) embedded within the crushed stone so as to effectively collect and transport by gravity
any accumulated runoff water that filters from the turf layer above to an appropriately sized on-
site collection/groundwater recharge/infiltration system (or direct discharge into a permitted
storm drain). Prior to placing the crushed stone and perforated piping, and to facilitate vertical
drainage of stormwater, a nonwoven geotextile fabric (Mirafi 160N or similar) should be placed
on top of the prepared and approved subgrade.
4.4 INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY FOUNDATIONS
Subsurface conditions at the site are generally favorable for supporting new building loads on
conventional spread footing foundations founded directly on naturally deposited soils. The fill soils and
soft, loose, or otherwise unstable Glaciolacustrine silts and sands are not considered suitable bearing
soils.
4.4.1 Shallow Foundations
Recommendations for design of new footing foundations are provided below.
Footings should be designed using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of the following:
– 4.0 kips per square foot (ksf) bearing in naturally deposited Glaciolacustrine silts and
sands; and
9
– Allowable bearing pressures indicated above assume over-excavation and replacement
of Fill and loose or soft materials at bearing level followed by replacement with
compacted structural fill.
The minimum footing width should be 3 ft.
In general, footing bottoms bearing in soil should be positioned a minimum of 4 ft below
adjacent ground surface exposed to freezing temperatures. Footings bearing at locations not
exposed to freezing temperatures may bear as shallow as 18 in. below the floor slab provided
the tops of footings are at least 6 in. below the bottom of the adjacent floor slab.
Soil bearing footings should be designed to bear below a reference line drawn upward and
outward on a 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical (1.5H:1V) slope from the bottom of adjacent utilities or
other underground structures, or future planned excavations. Where possible, footing
elevations should be coordinated with utility elevations to allow utilities to pass through the
foundation wall (rather than through or beneath the footing). Footing bearing elevations may
locally need to be lowered or stepped to achieve this criterion.
4.5 SPORT LIGHTING SYSTEM FOUNDATIONS
Due to the thickness of Fill and variable and inconsistent density in the upper soils, as observed in the
recent test boring program and the historic test borings conducted for Weill Hall, we recommend the
sport lighting systems be supported on Caissons (Drilled Shafts). Typically, the lighting system includes a
pre-cast concrete “base” encased in a concrete filled caisson and designed to bear on natural inorganic
soils. The diameter and design depth of the foundation element into the Glaciolacustrine Deposits will
depend on the anticipated combined foundation loadings (vertical, lateral and moment loads) calculated
by the designer of the foundations based on the criteria in the below table.
Light Pole Foundation Design Criteria
Glaciolacustrine Deposit
Total Unit Weight (lb/ft3) 125
Buoyant Unit Weight (lb/ft3) 62.6
Effective Friction Angle (deg) 32
Undrained Shear Strength (psf) N/A
Active Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ka) 0.3
Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient (Kp) 2.1 (2)
Notes:
1. Fill and organic soils are not suitable for foundation support and should not be counted on for
foundation support.
2. Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient (Kp) includes a factor of safety of 1.5.
Footing foundations for the bleacher system or team area structures should be designed based on an
allowable bearing pressure of 4.0 ksf in the Glaciolacustrine Deposit. The footing should bear at least 4 ft
below the lowest ground surface exposed to freezing.
4.6 SETTLEMENT
For the recommended allowable bearing pressures and bearing conditions, we estimate total settlement
of foundation elements will not exceed about 1 in. with differential settlements between adjacent
columns or along 30 ft length of strip footings not exceeding about ½ in. The majority of the settlements
10
will typically occur as structure dead load is applied during construction, and during application of live
loads and roof snow loading.
4.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend designing the concrete floor slabs as soil-supported slabs-on-grade bearing on a base
course consisting of structural fill. The base course thickness should be 12 in. minimum. Soils to remain
in-place should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer to confirm they are firm and stable during
proof-compaction and prior to placement and compaction of backfill to subgrade elevation.
The synthetic turf system should be supported on a layer of crushed stone directly over a properly
prepared subgrade. Soils to remain in-place beneath the crushed stone layer should be observed by the
Geotechnical Engineer to confirm they are firm and stable during proof-compaction. A nonwoven
geotextile (Mirafi 160N or equivalent) should be placed between the crushed stone layer and underlying
soil.
4.8 SEISMIC DESIGN
Based on observed groundwater levels and soil conditions, site soils are not considered
susceptible to liquefaction during the Code-mandated design earthquake.
Seismically-induced total and differential settlements are anticipated to be less than 1 in.
Seismic Site Class D should be used in design, based on the subsurface profile and available data.
Per the Code and the conditions encountered in the test borings, the applicable seismic design
criteria are as follows: SS = 0.15; S1 = 0.06; Fa=1.6; and FV=2.4.
4.9 FOUNDATION DRAINAGE
Perimeter drainage is recommended around the entire building perimeter. The perimeter drainage
system should consist of a continuous 4 in. diameter Schedule 40 perforated PVC (or corrugated
polyethylene) pipe laid flat or with a slight pitch (about 2%) with slots down, at the exterior base of the
lowest level walls. The pipe should be completely surrounded with a minimum of 6 in. of ¾-in. washed
Crushed Stone, surrounded by a nonwoven geotextile.
This drain around the perimeter of the building should be designed to flow by gravity to the site storm
drain system.
4.10 VAPOR RETARDERS, WATERPROOFING, DAMPPROOFING, AND INSULATION
Buried exterior foundation walls, pits, and depressions extending below a depth of 10 ft below exterior
ground surface are recommended to be waterproofed. We recommend that waterstops, caulking, or
other seals be provided at all foundation wall and exterior wall/footing construction joints.
Foundation walls and slabs less than 10 ft bgs should be insulated and damp-proofed in accordance with
Building Code requirements, as applicable. We recommend providing a moisture vapor retarder
membrane directly beneath the ground floor slabs in occupied and finished spaces, in accordance with
ACE 302.2R-06, especially if humidity control is desired or relatively vapor-tight coverings will be used on
the floors.
11
4.11 LATERAL PRESSURES
Building foundation walls serving as retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the
applicable below-listed lateral pressures. The height of the wall (H) is defined as the distance in feet
between finished grade and the top of the lowest level floor slab.
For seismic loading conditions, walls should be designed to resist static earth plus seismic pressures.
Surcharge pressures do not need to be considered for seismic design unless the surcharge will be
applied over an extended time period.
The recommended minimum factors of safety against sliding and overturning under static loading
conditions is 1.5. The recommended minimum factors of safety against sliding and overturning under
seismic loading conditions is 1.2. Passive soil pressure should not be included as a resisting force.
4.11.1 Restrained (At-Rest) Wall Condition
Design walls that are braced at the top and bottom for the following lateral pressures:
Static Earth: Equivalent fluid unit weight equal to 65 pounds per square foot (psf) per foot
depth.
Seismic: Inverted triangular pressure applied over the height of the wall (H) (where H is in feet)
with a magnitude of 4.7 H psf at the top of the wall.
Surcharge: Uniform pressure applied from the elevation of the surcharge to the top of footing
with a magnitude of 0.5q psf, where q is the vertical surcharge pressure psf.
4.11.2 Unrestrained (Active) Wall Condition
Design walls that are free to deflect at least 0.00125H (where H is the height of the wall in feet) at the
top of the wall (i.e., are not braced) for the following lateral pressures:
Static Earth: Equivalent fluid unit weight equal to 45 psf per foot depth.
Seismic: Same as for restrained walls.
Surcharge: Same as for restrained walls except with a magnitude of 0.3q.
4.12 RESISTANCE TO LATERAL LOADS
Lateral loads acting on the structure can be resisted by passive earth pressures acting against below
grade portions of the structure such as footings or grade beams and frictional resistance between the
bottom of concrete foundations and the underlying soil. Passive forces to resist lateral loads may be
calculated based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of soil equal to 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This
value assumes that granular backfill is placed and systematically compacted in lifts. If the backfill is not
systematically compacted, an equivalent fluid weight of 100 pcf should be used.
A coefficient of friction between cast-in-place concrete and the Glaciolacustrine Deposits bearing strata
equal to 0.3 should be used to calculate ultimate sliding resistance. A factor of safety of at least 1.5
should be applied to calculate the allowable sliding resistance.
12
4.13 SUBSLAB UTILITIES
Utilities beneath slabs may be soil-supported (with suitable bedding) bearing on existing inorganic fill
soils or natural material that is stable under proof-compaction, or on compacted structural fill placed
following the removal of exposed unsuitable bearing materials, as applicable.
Utilities should be located above foundation bearing levels or above an imaginary reference line drawn
downward and away from the lower edge of the soil-supported foundation element at a 1.5H:1V slope.
Utilities that may be sensitive to inundation should be constructed watertight.
4.14 EXTERIOR GRADING
Surface runoff should be directed away from the building by sloping grades downward and away from
the building, use of swales or drainage trenches, and providing a low permeability surface finish
adjacent to building walls. Low permeability surface finishes may include bituminous pavements,
concrete sidewalks, or a 6-in. minimum thickness of low permeability backfill such as topsoil.
4.15 STORMWATER INFILTRATION SYSTEM
The Fill soils were noted to be variable in nature and visual observation indicated that the fines content
of the Fill ranges considerably from 10 to 50%. Additionally, the Fill is underlain by lower permeability
Glaciolacustrine Deposits. Given the variable nature of the Fill and the presence of Glaciolacustrine
Deposits that could act as an aquitard, stormwater infiltration could be difficult to achieve.
Based on in-situ testing, the hydraulic conductivity of the Glaciolacustrine Deposits ranges from roughly
4.2x10-5 to 3.7x10-4 cm/sec, which equates to an infiltration rate (Rawls Rate) of roughly 0.06 to 0.52
in./hr. (Textural Class of Silty Clay Loam to Loam, respectively). The design of the proposed stormwater
infiltration practice will need to consider these rates and low permeability soils encountered at the site.
4.16 PAVEMENT SECTIONS
The existing Fill is frost susceptible. There is some risk that paved areas could experience small amounts
of frost heaving and vertical misalignment where they are directly underlain by these soils within the
regional depth of frost penetration (4 ft). To limit risk of any frost-induced heaving and the associated
premium costs for short-term pavement maintenance, a full depth (4 ft frost depth potential) non-frost
susceptible pavement section would be required; however, this is not common construction practice in
this locale and is typically determined to be cost prohibitive.
A 12-in. thick structural base course, consisting of compacted Granular Fill, should be used for all
pavements and pavers. The base course should be placed and compacted to 95 percent of the
maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557.
Compacted Granular Fill beneath structures, pavement sections, and to raise site grades should consist
of suitable bank-run sand and gravel, free of clay, organic material, snow, ice, or other unsuitable
materials and should be well graded.
13
5. Construction Considerations
5.1 GENERAL
This section provides comments related to foundation construction, excavation, dewatering, subgrade
preparation, earthwork, and related geotechnical engineering aspects of the project. It will aid those
responsible for the preparation of contract plans and specifications, those involved with construction
monitoring, and those doing the work. Contractors must evaluate potential construction problems on
the basis of their own knowledge and experience in the area, on campus, and on the basis of similar
localities, taking into account their own proposed construction methods, procedures, and available
equipment.
In addition to the construction guidelines and recommendations made herein, excavation and
construction activities should conform to the requirements of OSHA and other applicable regulatory
agencies.
5.2 EXCAVATION
Considering the proposed structure does not have a basement or below grade space, local shallow
excavations will be required for footings and pits. Where space permits, open cut soil slopes inclined no
steeper than 1.5H:1V are considered feasible provided existing and/or new structures are not
undermined. However, such slopes should be confirmed on a case-by-case basis at the time of
excavation. Some sloughing and raveling should be anticipated on temporary earth slopes constructed
at this inclination. Excavation and sloping should be conducted in accordance with OSHA and other
applicable regulations.
All final excavation work and excavations within existing spaces should be conducted in-the-dry. The
silty, clayey site soils are highly susceptible to water disturbance. Control of surface and seepage water
into excavations for footings and other areas will be necessary to avoid disturbance of bearing surfaces
and promote completion of below-grade work within existing spaces. The Contractor should control the
flow of surface water, precipitation, and seepage water into excavations at all times. Construction
dewatering will be necessary as discussed below.
5.3 DEWATERING
Final excavations, subgrade preparation, filling, foundation construction, and utility construction should
be conducted "in the dry". Excavations to construct foundations and new utilities are anticipated to be
above the stable groundwater level. However, given that site soils are typically poor draining, we
anticipate that excavations will encounter pockets of perched groundwater above the glacial till and
bedrock, as well as surface water runoff, precipitation, and utility trench fill seeps requiring dewatering.
5.4 PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION SURVEYS
We recommend that pre-construction condition surveys be conducted in Bartels Hall and at existing
structures to remain adjacent to the site prior to commencement of construction or demolition of
existing site improvements. If desired, pre-construction surveys of other buildings within about 100 to
200 ft can be conducted by the Contractor or Cornell.
14
5.5 GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION
The proposed construction will be in close proximity to the existing below-grade synchrotron ring and a
light tower that is the site of a red-tailed hawk nest. As Cornell would like to protect their assets by
employing construction techniques that mitigate potential movements of existing structures, we
recommend collection of data to evaluate potential movements of existing structures during
construction. Specifically, we recommend installation of select geotechnical instrumentation to
measure movements and facilitate subsequent implementation of mitigation measures should the
measured movements of existing structures reach threshold or limiting levels (to be specified in the
contract documents). An instrumentation and monitoring program should be established in accordance
with the “Memo of Understanding between CLASSE and the F&CS Project Managers for the New Indoor
Recreation and Sports Center” document, attached as Appendix E.
The instrumentation program may include one or more of the following:
Preconstruction condition surveys (video/photo documentation) at the exterior of buildings
adjacent to the site as well as the streets and sidewalks (if remaining) adjacent to the site.
Vibration monitoring (with engineering seismographs) at the site perimeter if desired. We note
that relatively low vibration methodologies for foundations were recommended herein.
Survey reference points to measure vertical movements adjacent buildings, streets, utilities, and
other structures.
Details of the program (instrumentation types, measurement frequency and duration, etc.) can be
determined through project team discussions.
5.6 PREPARATION AND PROTECTION OF BEARING SURFACES
Exposed subgrade soils should be observed in the field by a Geotechnical Engineer to confirm the
assumed foundation bearing conditions. It may be necessary to require over-excavation and
replacement of loose, disturbed, or otherwise unacceptable foundation bearing soils.
Following excavation to the foundation bearing level, granular soil subgrades should be re-compacted
with a minimum of four passes of appropriate construction equipment, as indicated below, noting
however that re-compaction should be terminated if the subgrades exhibit signs of pumping or
disturbance. Fine-grained bearing level soils should be excavated with a smooth edge bucket and not
recompacted.
Subgrade materials disturbed because of excavation, excessive or inappropriate compaction, and/or
insufficient dewatering operations (as judged by the Geotechnical Engineer) should be removed and
replaced with compacted structural fill (or suitable alternate). If soft, unstable, or unsuitable material is
encountered at the subgrade, the unsuitable material should be over-excavated and backfilled with
compacted structural fill (or suitable alternate), and the subgrade compacted until firm and stable.
Given the sensitivity to disturbance due to moisture and traffic, soil subgrade preparation for footings
may include placement of a 3 in. minimum thickness of Lean Concrete immediately following
excavation. Excavations should be then backfilled as soon as practical.
15
Care should be taken to prevent surface water from collecting on exposed soil subgrades. Worker and
equipment traffic on bearing surfaces and subgrades should be minimized.
If subgrade protection difficulties are encountered due to water or inclement weather, various
approaches can be utilized:
Leave subgrades high until immediately before forming and concreting to minimize the time the
subgrade is exposed.
Over excavate footings by 6 in. using a smooth edged bucket, and backfill to the design bearing
elevation with a lean concrete mud mat.
Soil bearing surfaces below completed foundations must be protected against freezing before and after
foundation construction. If construction occurs during freezing weather, footings should be sufficiently
backfilled as soon as possible after they are constructed. Alternatively, insulating blankets, heating, or
other means may be used for protection against freezing.
5.7 BACKFILLING
Backfilling of footings, slabs, foundation walls, and underslab utilities will be necessary. Lean concrete
mud mats are recommended to be placed beneath footing subgrades as described herein. Compacted
structural fill and suitable Common Fill (as judged by the Geotechnical Engineer) may be used for
backfilling. Compacted structural fill should be used for filling within the building area, except where
lean concrete is required, unless otherwise accepted by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Compacted soil fills should be placed in lift thicknesses not exceeding 10 in. in loose measure.
Compaction equipment should consist of walk-behind vibratory rollers imparting a dynamic force of at
least 5,000 lbs. In confined areas, hand-guided equipment such as a large vibratory plate compactor
should be used, and the loose lift thickness should not exceed 8 in. A minimum of four to six systematic
passes of the compaction equipment should be used to compact each lift. Cobbles or boulders having a
size exceeding 2/3 of the loose lift thickness should be removed prior to compaction.
Recommended compaction requirements are as follows (and make reference to percentages of the
maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D1557):
Location Minimum Compaction Requirements
Beneath and around footings, 95%
and beneath slabs-on-grade
Parking, roadways 92% deeper than 3 ft below finished grade
and sidewalks 95% within 3 ft below finished grade
Level landscaped areas Per Landscape Architect Requirements
16
5.8 BACKFILL MATERIALS
5.8.1 Granular Fill / Structural Fill
Granular Fill should consist of uncontaminated, natural, bank-run sand and gravel, free of organic
material, snow, ice, debris, or other unsuitable materials and should be well-graded within the following
limits:
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size
Percent Finer
by Weight
3 in. 100
No. 4 30-80
No. 40 10-50
No. 200 0-8
5.8.2 Common Fill
Common Fill (Ordinary Fill) shall consist of mineral soil free from organic materials, loam, wood, ice,
cinders, asphalt, concrete, trash and other objectionable materials. Common Fill shall not contain
stones larger than 6 inches in largest diameter and shall have a maximum of 80 percent passing the No.
40 sieve and a maximum of 30 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. It should not contain broken concrete,
masonry rubble or other similar materials and shall have physical properties such that it can be readily
spread and compacted during filling. Snow, ice and frozen soil shall not be permitted.
5.8.3 Base Stone for Turf Field
The base stone below the synthetic turf field should meet the gradation requirements of AASHTO No. 57
stone. Crushed stone shall consist of natural, angular, crusher run material, and shall be double-washed
at the source site prior to import to remove fine grained soils prior to use on the project.
Sieve Size
Percent Finer
by Weight
1 ½ in. 100
1 in. 95-100
½ in. 25-60
No. 4 0-10
No. 8 0 - 5
5.8.4 (Free Draining) Finishing Stone
Free Draining Finishing Stone shall be utilized to fill minor depressions in the existing base as part of the
regrading process. This material shall be inert, angular crushed rock derived from a stone quarry that is
hard, durable, and free of deleterious materials and shall not consist of natural or crushed sand.
Materials that break up when alternately frozen and thawed or wetted and dried shall not be used. The
Free Draining Finishing Stone layer shall be uniformly blended according to the gradation requirements
for the respective stone sizes for the following (1/2-in. maximum particle size):
17
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size
Percent Finer
by Weight
1/2 in. 100
3/8 in. 85-100
No. 4 60-90
No. 8 35-75
No. 16 10-55
No. 30 0-40
No. 60 0-15
No. 100 0-8
No. 200 0-2
The material shall also meet the Los Angeles Abrasion Test AASHTO T96 of not more than 45% loss and
the Sodium Sulfate Soundness AASHTO T104 of not more than 12%.
5.8.5 Lean Concrete
Lean Concrete should have a minimum design compressive strength (f’c) of 2,000 psi.
5.9 EARTHWORK DURING FREEZING WEATHER
Precautions should be taken if work occurs while temperatures are below freezing. Frozen soil or soil
containing snow or ice should not be used as compacted fill. Placement of compacted fills should not be
conducted when air temperatures are low enough (approximately 30 degrees F., or below) to cause
freezing of the moisture in the fill during or before placement. Similarly, lean concrete and concrete
placed during freezing temperatures should be protected using insulating blankets, tenting and heating, or
other means until the concrete has achieved the design compressive strength.
Backfill materials should not be placed on water, snow, ice, or frozen soil. Backfill should not be allowed
to freeze prior to compaction. At the end of each day's operations, the last lift of backfill, after
compaction, should be rolled by a smooth-wheeled roller to eliminate ridges of uncompacted soil. Silty
and clayey soils are susceptible to disturbance by freezing, especially in the presence of water and
traffic.
5.10 REUSE OF EXCAVATED MATERIALS
Given the proposed construction and nature of the on-site soils to be excavated, large scale on-site re-
use of excavated materials is not anticipated to be logistically or economically advantageous. On-site
reuse of the more granular soils, to the extent possible, is encouraged. Due to high fines content of site
soils, excavated material will not be suitable for reuse as select backfill but may be suitable for reuse as
Common Fill for raise in grade in landscaped areas if it can be successfully placed and compacted. If
soils cannot be reused on site or elsewhere on the campus (e.g., can the silty, clayey soils be used
elsewhere in landscaping areas or in a stockpile), an allowance for off-site disposition should be carried
in the project budget.
5.11 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
The recommendations contained in this report are based on known and reasonably-predictable
behavior of properly engineered and constructed foundations and other facilities.
18
We recommend that an engineer or technician, qualified by training and experience, perform field
observations of the geotechnical aspects of construction summarized below. Given our familiarity with
the recommendations herein and the site conditions, we strongly recommend that an engineer or
technician from Haley & Aldrich observe the work indicated below to mitigate the potential for
contractor claims, facilitate expedient resolution of geotechnical items that arise during construction,
and to mitigate the overall project costs.
Activities requiring Special Inspection by a New York State Professional Engineer per the Building Code
are:
excavation and removal of unsuitable foundation and slab bearing materials;
preparation of foundation and slab bearing surfaces;
Other activities that may be completed by a qualified Testing Agency:
vibration monitoring (if required);
confirm that backfill materials conform to project plans and specifications; and
placement and compaction of Structural Fill (including field compaction control testing).
5.12 REVIEW OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
We recommend that Haley & Aldrich be provided the opportunity for a review of the
drawings and specifications to confirm that the recommendations in this report were interpreted and
implemented as intended.
19
6. Limitations
This report has been prepared for specific application to the Cornell Indoor Sports and Recreation
Center project on the Ithaca, New York campus of Cornell University, and is intended for the exclusive
use of the project team in connection with the geotechnical aspects of this project only. In the event
that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project occur, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless they are reviewed and
modified or verified in writing by Haley & Aldrich.
The conclusions and recommendations are based in part upon data obtained from the referenced
explorations and sampling on the dates indicated herein. The nature and extent of potential variations
between the explorations and samples may not become evident until construction. If variations are
observed during additional site investigation studies or construction, it may be necessary to re-evaluate
and modify or verify the conclusions and recommendations in writing.
The data, recommendations, and conclusions provided in this report are based solely on the scope of
work conducted by Haley & Aldrich and the sources of information referenced herein. This work was
undertaken in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice common to the
local area.
Recommendations presented in this report for foundation and floor drainage, moisture protection,
waterproofing, and vapor intrusion address only the conventional geotechnical engineering related
aspects of design and construction and are not intended to provide an environment that would prohibit
infestation of mold or other biological pollutants. Our work scope did not include the development of
criteria or procedures to minimize the risk of mold or other biological pollutant infestations in or near
any structure.
APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET
42°26'46"N, 76°28'30"W
FIGURE 1MAP SOURCE: USGS
0204866_000_LOCUS HALEYALDRICH\LREEDFEBRUARY 2024
SITE COORDINATES:
PROJECT LOCUS
CORNELL INDOOR SPORTS & RECREATION CENTER
544 CAMPUS ROAD
ITHACA, NEW YORK
@A
@A @A @A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
!?!?
!?
!?!?
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PROPOSED
FIELDHOUSE CONSTRUCTION
CAMPUS ROAD
TOWER ROAD MANN DRIVEMANNCORNELL UNIV
S Y N C H R O T R O N D R I V E
KITEHILLDRIVEWING DRIVEARBORETUM ROAD
HA-10
HA-2 HA-6 (OW)HA-3
HA-4
HA-9
HA-7
HA-5
HA-8
HA-1
LEGEND
@A TEST BORING
!?INFILTRATION TEST
0 150 300
SCALE IN FEET
NOTES
1. ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
2. TEST BORINGS PERFORMED BY NOTHNAGLE DRILLING BETWEEN
11 AND 13 DECEMBER 2023 UNDER THE TECHNICAL OBSERVATION OF
H & A OF NEW YORK. OW INDICATES OBSERVATION WELL INSTALLED
IN COMPLETED BOREHOLE.
3. INFILTRATION TESTS PERFORMED BY NOTHNAGLE DRILLING BETWEEN
22 AND 23 JANUARY 2024 UNDER THE TECHNICAL OBSERVATION OF
H & A OF NEW YORK.
3. PROPOSED LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION ARE FROM DRAWING L2-01
"LAYOUT PLAN" BY SASAKI DATED 22 DECEMBER 2023.
4. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: ESRI
ROBINSON ALUMNI FIELDS
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
ITHICA, NEW YORK
SITE AND SUBSURFACE
EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN
FIGURE 2FEBRUARY 2024
GIS FILE PATH: \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0204866\GIS\204866_CORNELL.aprx - USER: gwilde - LAST SAVED: 2/1/2024 6:58 PMB-2/A B-1
B-4
B-3
B-5/A
3. INFILTRATION TESTS PERFORMED BY NOTHNAGLE DRILLING
BETWEEN 22 AND 23 JANUARY 2024 UNDER THE TECHNICAL
OBSERVATION OF H & A OF NEW YORK.
4. PROPOSED LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION ARE FROM DRAWING L2-01
"LAYOUT PLAN" BY SASAKI DATED 22 DECEMBER 2023.
5. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: ESRI
APPENDIX A
Logs of Previous Explorations
7
Graphic from boring report, 2018, provided by Rich Gallagher.
LEGEND ANDNOTESC100SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'04.19.2024DAHOBB1183528020.00 (TGM #E22-09)DAH04.19.2024DAHOBBDAH1183528020.00 (TGM #E22-09)
EXISTINGCONDITIONSPLANC101SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'04.19.2024DAHOBB1183528020.00 (TGM #E22-09)DAH
EROSION ANDSEDIMENT CONTROLPLANCONSTRUCTION PHASEC102 ASealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'04.19.2024DAHOBB1183528020.00 (TGM #E22-09)DAH
EROSION ANDSEDIMENT CONTROLPLANSTABILIZATION PHASEC102 BSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'04.19.2024DAHOBB1183528020.00 (TGM #E22-09)DAH
Indoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Field HockeyUTILITYDEMOLITIONPLANC103SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'04.19.2024DAHOBB1183528020.00 (TGM #E22-09)DAH
UTILITYPLANC104SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'04.19.2024DAHOBB1183528020.00 (TGM #E22-09)DAH
DRAINAGEPLANC105SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'04.19.2024DAHOBB1183528020.00 (TGM #E22-09)DAH
UTILITYDETAILSC201SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'04.19.2024DAHOBB1183528020.00 (TGM #E22-09)DAH
UTILITYDETAILSC202STORMWATERMANAGMENTPRACTICE:BIORETENTIONFILTERPROJECT ID: SPDESNYR-XXXXXXMUST BE MAINTAINED INACCORDANCE WITH O&M PLAN. DO NOT REMOVE OR ALTER.STORMWATERMANAGMENTPRACTICE:HYDRODYNAMICSEPARATORPROJECT ID: SPDESNYR-XXXXXXMUST BE MAINTAINED INACCORDANCE WITH O&M PLAN. DO NOT REMOVE OR ALTER.STORMWATERMANAGMENTPRACTICE:BELOW GRADEDETENTION SYSTEMPROJECT ID: SPDESNYR-XXXXXXMUST BE MAINTAINED INACCORDANCE WITH O&M PLAN. DO NOT REMOVE OR ALTER. FOR MAINTENANCE CALL 1.800.33
8
.11
2
2 www.ContechES.comTMCl
ean water starts here®BBFLOWAASealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'04.19.2024DAHOBB1183528020.00 (TGM #E22-09)DAH
ESCDETAILSC203···SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'04.19.2024DAHOBB1183528020.00 (TGM #E22-09)DAH
UTILITYPROFILESC301SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'04.19.2024DAHOBB1183528020.00 (TGM #E22-09)DAH
EXISTING WALLPROTECT INPLACE, TYP.EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED, TYP.R&S GRANITE CURB, TYP.R&D CONCRETE PAVEMENT &UNDERLYING SLAB, TYP.R&D SYNTHETIC TURF, INFILL,ELASTIC LAYER. R&S DRAINAGESTONE FOR LATER USER&D GRASS LAWN, TYP.R&D GRAVEL, TYP,P&S LIGHT POLE,FIXTURE, ANDFOUNDATIONR&D CHAIN-LINK FENCE, TYP.R&S SCOREBOARD,R&D SCOREBOARD SUPPORT POLES,FRAMING AND FOOTINGSP&S ELECTRIC ANDTRANSFORMERP&S ABOVE-GROUNDTANK AND PUMPR&S MONUMENTR&S BENCHP&S UTILITY VAULTSR&D ASPHALTPAVEMENT, TYP.R&D CHAIN-LINKFENCE, TYP.R&D CHAIN-LINKFENCE, TYP.R&D CHAIN-LINK FENCE, TYP.SAWCUT PAVEMENT, TYP.SAWCUT PAVEMENT, TYP.P&S CONCRETE SEATWALLSAWCUT PAVEMENT, TYP.SAWCUT PAVEMENT, TYP.SAWCUT PAVEMENT, TYP.R&S EXISTING BOLLARDLIGHTS AND DELIVER TOCLIENT, TYP.R&S BLEACHERSR&D EXISTING LIGHT POLEAND FOUNDATION, TYP.R&D FLUSH 12"CONCRETE CURB, TYP.R&S GRANITE CURB, TYP.DO NOT DISTURB EXISTINGSTORMWATER PRACTICELIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF WORKTOWN OF ITHACACITY OF ITHACAMUNICIPAL BOUNDARYSITE PROTECTION &REMOVALS PLANL1-01CLEAR AND GRUB. REMOVETOPSOIL AND STORE FORREUSEREMOVE EXISTING TREEREMOVE AND DISPOSEGRAVELPROTECT EXISTING UTILITYSTRUCTUREREMOVE & DISPOSESAWCUT PAVEMENTREMOVE & SALVAGE EXISTINGBOLLARD LIGHT ANDFOUNDATIONREMOVE AND DISPOSECONCRETE PAVEMENT &UNDERLYING SLABLEGENDDESCRIPTIONSYMBOLSABBREVIATIONDESCRIPTIONGENERALTYPTYPICALR&DREMOVE AND DISPOSER&SREMOVE AND SALVAGEP&SPROTECT AND SUPPORTREMOVE & SALVAGE SITEFEATUREREMOVE AND DISPOSEARTIFICIAL TURF SYSTEMREMOVE AND DISPOSE ASPHALTPAVEMENT & UNDERLYING SLABPROTECT & SUPPORT SITEFEATUREPLANTED AREA TO REMAINLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)MUNICIPAL BOUNDARYREMOVE & DEMOLISH EXISTINGLIGHT POLE AND FOUNDATIONREMOVE & SALVAGESILT LOG, REFER TO CIVILDRAWINGSPROTECT AND SUPPORTCONCRETE PAVEMENTSITE PREPARATION & REMOVALS NOTES:1.ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED TOTHEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION, UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTINGBUILDINGS, PAVEMENT, ANDABOVE/UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES THAT ARENOT BEING DEMOLISHED.3.DAMAGE TO AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE LIMIT OFWORK CAUSED BY WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACTSHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NOADDITIONAL COST.4.STAGING AND INSTALLATION SHOULD TAKEPLACE ONLY WITHIN THE LIMIT OF WORK ASDEFINED ON THE DRAWINGS AND ADJACENTASPHALT OR CONCRETE AREAS AS NEEDED. NOSTAGING SHALL TAKE PLACE IN ADJACENTPLANTING AREAS. COORDINATE STAGING AREASWITH OWNER.5.REMOVE ALL EXISTING CONSTRUCTIONSNECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE WORKAS DEPICTED ON THE DRAWINGS.6.IN ALL AREAS DESIGNATED FOR TYPICAL(NON-HAND EXCAVATED) PAVING REMOVAL,REMOVE EXISTING MATERIAL TO A MIN. DEPTHOF 10 INCHES/250MM BELOW EXISTING GRADEOR TO BOTTOM OF EXISTING BASE AGGREGATE,WHICHEVER IS DEEPER.7.PROTECT ALL EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL FROMDAMAGE AND ALL PLANTING SOIL FROMCONTAMINATION DURING CONSTRUCTION.8.IF EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPING IS FOUND,REMOVE IRRIGATION HEADS,VALVES, LATERALSAND MAINLINES AS NECESSARY. CAP END OFUNDISTURBED MAINLINES AND LATERALS.ENSURE SYSTEM REMAINS OPERATIONAL TOEXISTING PLANTING AREAS NOT WITH INDISTURBED AREA. RESTORE CONNECTIONS AFTERCONSTRUCTION COMPLETION.9.PRESERVE AND PROTECT ALL EXISTING SITEFURNISHINGS OR HARDSCAPE TO REMAIN.REMOVE ALL FURNISHINGS AS IDENTIFIED ONDEMOLITION PLAN, INCLUDING ANY FOUNDATIONOR OTHER FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH THEFURNISHING.10.NECESSARY DISCONNECTS AND ALTERATIONS TOEXISTING MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMSSHALL BE INCLUDED AS NEEDED. PATCH ASREQUIRED ALL CONSTRUCTIONS TO REMAIN INACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS.11.ALL REMOVALS AND SALVAGE, UNLESSSPECIFICALLY NOTED OR REQUESTED BY THEOWNER, SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THECONTRACTOR.12.VERIFY WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TOREMOVAL, ANY ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE ITEMSNOT ANNOTATED ON THE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGSTHAT NEED TO BE REMOVED TO COMPLETESCOPE OF WORK.13.ALL STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS AND HARDSCAPEELEMENTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN FIELDUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THE CONTRACTORSHALL REINSTALL ALL TEMPORARILY REMOVEDFURNISHINGS TO THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATION ANDPLACEMENT IN FIELD EXISTING CONDITION,UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.14.ALL ROOTS FOUND BELOW PAVING TO BEREMOVED SHALL BE CUT AND REMOVED AMINIMUM OF FOUR INCHES/100 MILLIMETERBELOW THE DEPTH OF EXCAVATION OR AT THEEDGE OF THE LIMIT OF WORK. ALL ROOTPRUNING TO BE PERFORMED BY CERTIFIEDARBORIST.15.ALL SURFACES CALLED FOR SANDBLASTING TO BEREVIEWED IN MOCKUP FIRST WITH LANDSCAPEARCHITECT.16.ALL SURFACES CALLED FOR REPAINTING TO BESTRIPPED, CONCRETE SANDBLASTED, METALSTRIPPED, BEFORE PRIMING AND REPAINTING.17.ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED TO BE CUT AT BASE,STUMP TO BE GRINDED, AND ANY ROOTS LARGERTHAN 2 INCHES/50 MILLIMETER IN DIA. WITHIN A5 FOOT/1.5 METER RADIUS OF THE CENTER OFTHE TRUNK TO BE REMOVED.18.THE LIMIT OF WORK LINE FOR THE AREA TO BECLEARED AND GRUBBED SHALL BE THE SAME ASTHE LIMIT OF WORK LINE NECESSARY FORGRADING PURPOSES, I.E., THE GRADING LIMITSAROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROJECT AREA.19.THE DISPOSAL OF ALL DEMOLISHED MATERIALS ISTHE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR ANDMUST BE OFF-SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALLFEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL MUNICIPALREQUIREMENTS.20.REMOVE AND RESET ALL REGULATORY SIGNAGEPER CITY REQUIREMENTS.21.ANY DAMAGED UTILITIES MUST BE RETURNED TOPRE-DAMAGED CONDITION, OR BETTER.22.ALL EXISTING WATER SERVICES SHALL BE SHUTOFF AND CAPPED AT THE WATER MAIN. EXISTINGSERVICE LINES, VALVES, AND VALVE BOXESSHALL BE REMOVED.23.SEE CIVIL SERIES DRAWINGS FOR UTILITYINFRASTRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED. THISDRAWING IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVEREPRESENTATION OF ALL SITE ITEMS TO BEREMOVED OR PROTECTED. ANY ADDITIONALSERVICES LOCATED DURING CONSTRUCTION NOTINDICATED TO REMAIN SHALL ALSO BE BROUGHTTO IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE SITEARCHITECT.24.ALL STREET LIGHTING AND TRAFFIC SIGNALCONDUITS SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE AND BEPROTECTED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ANYDAMAGE TO THESE CONDUITS SHALL BEREPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR.Plot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L1-01_SITE PROTECTION & REMOVALS PLAN.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'
ALUMNI FIELD PARKING LOTINDOOR SPORTS &RECREATION CENTERFFE 878.33PARKING LOTCHARLES F. BERMAN FIELDWEILLHALLFIELD EL. 875ALUMNI FIELD+/- 382'26.00'20.00'29.50'
26.00'20.00'+/- 225'
11.33'
20.00'ACCESS FROMCAMPUS ROADACCESS FROMTOWER ROADVEHICULAR ACCESS TO FIELDACCESS FROMTOWER ROADVEHICULAR ACCESSVIA ROLL UP DOORACCESS FROMCAMPUS ROADFLUSH CURBMOUNTABLECURB20.80'
50.68'HYDRANTHYDRANT20.00'LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF WORKTOWN OF ITHACACITY OF ITHACAMUNICIPAL BOUNDARYLIMIT OF WORKSYMBOLSDESCRIPTIONLEGENDFIRE APPARATUS ACCESSFIRE ACCESS ROUTESL1-02Plot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L1-02_FIRE ACCESS ROUTES.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'
ALUMNI FIELD PARKING LOTINDOOR SPORTS &RECREATION CENTERFFE 878.33PARKING LOTCHARLES F. BERMAN FIELDWEILLHALLFIELD EL. 875ALUMNI FIELDALUMNI FIELD PARKING LOTINDOOR SPORTS &RECREATION CENTERFFE 878.33PARKING LOTCHARLES F. BERMAN FIELDWEILLHALLFIELD EL. 875ALUMNI FIELDALUMNI FIELD PARKING LOTINDOOR SPORTS &RECREATION CENTERFFE 878.33PARKING LOTCHARLES F. BERMAN FIELDWEILLHALLFIELD EL. 875ALUMNI FIELDALUMNI FIELD PARKING LOTINDOOR SPORTS &RECREATION CENTERFFE 878.33PARKING LOTCHARLES F. BERMAN FIELDWEILLHALLFIELD EL. 875ALUMNI FIELDALUMNI FIELD PARKING LOTINDOOR SPORTS &RECREATION CENTERFFE 878.33PARKING LOTCHARLES F. BERMAN FIELDWEILLHALLFIELD EL. 875ALUMNI FIELD360.00, TYP.15.00,TYP.LOCATION TO BE VIFLOCATION TO BE VIFLOCATION TO BE VIFR3.00'R3.00'R20.0
0
'R12.00'R
1
2
.
0
0
'R8.00'R5.00'R35.00'R28.00'R
3
.
0
0
'
R3.0
0
'LOCATIONTO BE VIFALIGN12.0012.0026.00
26.0020.00R10.00'9.766.00, TYP.9.8320.00S89° 45' 34.30"W115.02S89° 30' 53.06"E424.24LOCATIONTO BE VIFLOCATION TO BE VIFLOCATION TO BE VIFLOCATION TO BE VIFLOCATION TO BE VIFLOCATION TO BE VIFLOCATION TO BE VIFLOCATION TO BE VIFLOCATION TO BE VIFLOCATION TO BE VIFALIGN10.528.008.03
22.508.00R10
.
0
0
'182.688.00N0° 29' 38.63"E14.30 N0° 29' 42.52"E32.10N89° 41' 57.70"E192.99N85° 24' 33.61"E47.43N
3
5
°
4
7
'
5
6
.
1
3
"
E
24
.
3
1
S89° 34' 40.11"W66.9526.0094.6015.00
N0° 22' 38.59"E
306.70
68.03N81° 05' 49.46"E102.63L=12.41, R=8.00D=88.9062.9210.16
20.001.50, TYP.R8.00'LOCATIONTO BE VIFLOCATIONTO BE VIFLOCATIONTO BE VIFLOCATIONTO BE VIFLOCATIONTO BE VIFLOCATIONTO BE VIFN0° 01' 15.60"W
56.66N0° 38' 07.75"W
20.69N0° 16' 40.68"W
133.66
N0° 21' 09.68"W
129.53N0° 28' 58.95"E12.45N0° 13' 37.43"W
55.31ALIGN 8.00R
3
.
0
0
'20.00160.00105.00, TYP. (SPORTS LIGHT POLE)L=64.60,R=39.10D=94.66N:891674.73E:849185.88N:891654.45E:849180.20N:891653.72E:849178.35N:891574.87E:849179.52N:891652.37E:848903.95N:891684.47E:848904.23N:891285.01E:848900.78N:891244.92E:848942.00N:891245.94E:849134.99N:891249.73E:849182.27N:891241.36E:849182.21N:891259.87E:849182.33N:891231.19E:849182.14N:891275.75E:849283.72N:891241.85E:849297.24N:891230.03E:849317.71N:891234.23E:849352.70N:891240.58E:849505.68N:891236.66E:849515.53N:891256.38E:849529.75N:891256.87E:849596.69N:891263.44E:849604.65N:891318.75E:849604.43N:891460.73E:849603.74N:891534.33E:849603.38N:891594.39E:849603.09N:891615.07E:849602.86N:891671.73E:849602.84N:891536.12E:849392.26N:891537.86E:849184.16N:891331.20E:849604.54N:891557.24E:849378.84N:891522.91E:849416.5227.506.00
R5.00
'
R
3
.
0
0
'R5.00'4.00,TYP.N:891537.90E:849179.12N:891548.73E:849438.978.00
R
3
.
0
0
'
R
5
.
0
0
'8.330.50N:891269.57E:849554.74N:891278.45E:849539.366.00, TYP.1.50N:891243.44E:849533.7020
.
3
1N:891218.07E:849315.14N:891231.50E:849237.2516.21R8.00'R3.00'R4.93
'R2.00'
3.12
13.9655.4121.80LOCATIONTO BE VIFLOCATIONTO BE VIFN:891647.19E:849160.95N:891649.26E:848918.29N:891275.94E:848915.11N:891273.88E:849157.771.33, TYP.14.19R13.33'R13.33'N:891241.16E:849164.93N:891282.98E:849276.03N:891285.20E:849200.14N:891521.00E:849425.1112.00, TYP.N:891512.56E:849396.55R3.00'R
3
.
0
0
'
R
8
.
0
0
'LOCATION TO BE VIF10.00N:891650.92E:849199.63N:891629.22E:849234.472.
0
0
,
TY
P
.12.00, TYP.6.00, TYP.N:891616.16E:849262.02N:891633.12E:849227.48N:891612.91E:849263.64N:891597.06E:849296.18N:891593.14E:849303.17N:891590.27E:849308.29N:891572.42E:849336.1127.07N:891558.91E:849181.89N:891258.01E:848986.304.00,TYP.30.00, TYP.210.00, TYP.N0° 29' 06.94"E
136.49
S60° 46' 39.03"E242.37N89° 08' 45.21"E162.85S59° 59' 50.26"E23.64N:891247.80E:849321.247.00,
TYP.N:891224.73E:849288.4417.5020.00N:891267.62E:849278.883.466.
0
0
,
T
Y
P
.N:891267.84E:849267.141.50,TYP.N:891251.77E:849284.36R2.00'N:891274.18E:849219.22N:891271.75E:849220.28N:891257.14E:849204.7523.5620.0N:891259.74E:849270.78N:891252.40E:849254.71ALIGNLOCATIONTO BE VIFALIGNR3.00'R3.00'11.33 N:891505.70E:849583.409.0
0
8.0011.788.
0
0
ALIGNLOCATION TO BE VIFLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF WORKTOWN OF ITHACACITY OF ITHACAMUNICIPAL BOUNDARY5/4/2023 9:55:01 AMBEARING DISTANCE CENTERLINE (CL)LEGENDLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)DESCRIPTIONSYMBOLS694.56'N01°16'44"ER1'
-0
"5.00'RADIAL DIMENSIONLINEAR DIMENSIONARC LENGTH DIMENSIONABBREVIATIONDESCRIPTIONGENERALTYPTYPICALVIFVERIFY IN FIELDNNORTHEEASTSSOUTHWWESTO/CON CENTER1'-312"N:10541359.19E:3297858.87NORTHING/EASTING COORDINATESMUNICIPAL BOUNDARYLAYOUT PLANL2-01LAYOUT NOTES:1.VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, WALLS,ROADS AND CURBS AFFECTING LANDSCAPE SCOPEOF WORK WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND CIVILENGINEER'S DRAWINGS.2.VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL VAULTS, ELECTRICALDUCT BANKS, MANHOLES, CONDUIT AND PIPING,DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND OTHER UTILITIESWITH THE APPROPRIATE ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS.3.TAKE ALL DIMENSIONS FROM BACK OF CURB,WALL OR BUILDING OR TO CENTERLINE OFCOLUMNS OR TREES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.ALL MEASUREMENTS TO DESIGNATEDCENTERLINE(S).4.TAKE ALL DIMENSIONS PERPENDICULAR TO ANYREFERENCE LINE, WORK LINE, FACE OF BUILDING,FACE OF WALL, OR CENTERLINE.5.ALL DIMENSIONS TAKEN TO CENTERLINE OFBUILDING COLUMN SHALL MEAN THE FIRST ROWOF COLUMNS CLOSEST TO THE FACE OF THEBUILDING. SEE ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS FORCORRESPONDING COLUMN LINES.6.ALL ANGLES TO BE 90 DEGREES AND ALL LINESOF PAVING AND FENCING TO BE PARALLELUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. MAINTAINHORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT OF ADJACENTELEMENTS AS NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.7.REFERENCE TO NORTH REFERS TO TRUE NORTH,REFERENCE TO SCALE IS FOR FULL-SIZEDDRAWINGS ONLY. DO NOT SCALE FROM REDUCEDDRAWINGS.8.DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALESSHOWN ON DRAWINGS.9.NOTES AND DETAILS ON SPECIFIC DRAWINGSTAKE PRECEDENCE OVER GENERAL NOTES ANDTYPICAL DETAILS.10.DO NOT INSTALL ANY WORK ON STRUCTUREPRIOR TO REVIEW OF WATERPROOFING BYARCHITECT.11.ALL CONCRETE SLABS AND RAMP OR STEPFOOTINGS SHALL BE DOWELED INTO ABUTTINGWALLS, FOUNDATIONS AND FOOTINGS USINGBARS OF THE SAME SIZE AND SPACING UNLESSNOTED OTHERWISE. SEE JOINTING DETAILS.12.WHERE NOT SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS,SEE CIVIL ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS FOR ROADWAYCENTERLINES, BUILDING SETBACKS ANDBENCHMARKS.13.ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON AN ASSUMEDGRID SYSTEM. COORDINATES REFER TO THECENTER OF STRUCTURES UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED OR DETAILED.Plot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L2-01_LAYOUT PLAN-1.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'
ALUMNI FIELD PARKING LOTINDOOR SPORTS &RECREATION CENTERFFE 878.33PARKING LOTCHARLES F. BERMAN FIELDWEILLHALLFIELD EL. 875ALUMNI FIELDLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF WORKTOWN OF ITHACACITY OF ITHACAMUNICIPAL BOUNDARYF1F2F3F4ASPHALT PAVING, TYP.RIVERSTONE DRIPEDGE, TYP.STEEL EDGING, TYP.STABILIZEDSTONEDUSTPAVING, TYP.PRECAST CONCRETESEATING, TYP.CONCRETE PAVING,HEAVY-DUTY, TYPCONCRETE PAVING, TYP.CONCRETE PAVING,HEAVY-DUTY, TYPPRECAST CONCRETESEATING, TYPCONCRETE PAVINGHEAVY DUTY, TYP.PERIMETER CONCRETETURF CURBFLUSH GRANITECURBFLUSH GRANITECURBSYNTHETIC TURF FIELD6-FOOT FENCE AT SYNTHETICTURF PERIMETER CURBMULTI-PURPOSE TURFFIELD STRIPING, TYP.SEE SPECIFICATIONS30' HIGH END OF FIELDNETTING, TYP. SEESPECIFICATIONSSCOREBOARDSPORTS LIGHT POLE(F1,F2,F3,F4), TYP.42" BLACK VINYLCHAIN LINK FENCEHYDRANTHYDRANTHEAVY-DUTY CONCRETE PAD FOREXISTING DUMPSTERSBIKE RACK, TYP.PEDESTRIAN LIGHTPOLE, TYP. SEESPECIFICATIONSLIGHT POLEFOUNDATION - INPLANTING, TYP.BIKE RACK, TYP.EXISTING SPORTSLIGHTING TO REMAINSTABILIZED STONEDUSTPAVING, TYP.COLORED CONCRETEPAVING W/ SILICA CARBIDEMOUNTABLE GRANITECURBFLUSH GRANITECURBEXISTING CONCRETESEATWALL TO REMAINFIELD NET POSTPA-03FN-01FN-02FD-01FD-02SW-01PA-09EG-02EG-01PA-02SF-01PA-04PA-05PA-02SW-01EG-02PA-05SF-01EG-08PA-02EG-02PA-07PA-01FD-07SF-02PA-06FN-03SMOOTH CONCRETEPAVER BANDS, TYPAPPROXIMATE EXTENTS OFSNOWMELT SYSTEM, TYP. REFER TOMS1-01 FOR MORE DETAILSBOLLARD, TYP.PA-10COLORED CONCRETEPAVING W/ SILICA CARBIDEPA-04IN-KIND REPLACEMENT OFEXISTING ASPHALTPAVEMENT IN PARKING LOTIN-KIND REPLACEMENT OFEXISTING ASPHALTPAVEMENT IN THE ALUMNIFIELD PARKING LOTIN-KIND REPLACEMENT OFEXISTING CONCRETEPAVEMENT IN WALKWAYMATERIALS NOTES:1.TYPES OF MATERIALS ARE NOTED IN THE LEGEND.SEE DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR FINISHES.2.ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS AND LAYOUT SHALL BECOORDINATED WITH CIVIL DRAWINGS ANDARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION PACKAGESASPHALT PAVINGCONCRETE PAVING,HEAVY-DUTYCONCRETE PAVINGSTABILIZED STONEDUSTPAVINGLEGENDLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)PA-01PAVING ASSEMBLIESSYMBOL:DESCRIPTION:SEEL8-01PA-02PA-03PA-04PA-05PA-06COLORED CONCRETE PAVINGWITH SILICA CARBIDERIVERSTONE DRIP EDGEEXTENTS OF SNOW MELTSYSTEMSEEL8-02EDGE CONDITIONSSYMBOL:DESCRIPTION:GRANITE MOUNTABLE CURBGRANITE FLUSH CURBSTEEL EDGINGEG-01EG-02EG-08EXPANSION JOINTJT-01CONTROL JOINTSEATWALLSSYMBOL:DESCRIPTION:PRECAST CONCRETE SEATINGSW-01SEEL8-04SITE FURNISHINGSSYMBOL:DESCRIPTION:BIKE RACKSF-01SEEL8-04BOLLARDLIGHT POLE FOUNDATION - INPLANTINGSF-02MULTI-PURPOSE FIELDSYMBOL:DESCRIPTION:SYNTHETIC TURF FIELDFN-04FLAGPOLEFD-01SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETERCURBFD-02SEEL8-10SEEL8-11PA-09HEAVY-DUTY CONCRETE PADFOR EXISTING DUMPSTERSFENCING AND NETTINGSYMBOL:DESCRIPTION:42" BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINKFENCEFN-026-FOOT FENCE AT SYNTHETICTURF PERIMETER CURBFN-01MUNICIPAL BOUNDARYSCOREBOARDFD-07JT-03PA-07FIELD NET POSTFN-03PA-10SMOOTH CONCRETE PAVERBANDPAVING JOINTSSYMBOL:DESCRIPTION:SEEL8-01MATERIALS PLANL3-01Plot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L3-01_MATERIALS PLAN-1.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'
ALUMNI FIELD PARKING LOTINDOOR SPORTS &RECREATION CENTERFFE 878.33PARKING LOTCHARLES F. BERMAN FIELDWEILLHALLFIELD EL. 875ALUMNI FIELDFG 0.50%SG 0.50%20.00FG 875.55TOS: 875.33TSG: 874.6610.00FG: 875.10, TOS: 874.88, TSG: 873.21+ (875.70)(875.69)+(876.17)3.84%+ 877.45+ 878.10+ 878.25+ 878.02+ 877.65+ 877.25+ 877.903.33%1.5%0.50%+ 877.49+ 877.191.5%1.75%5 STAIRS+ 877.75877.70 ++ 877.65+ 877.321.75%+ 878.91+ 879.00+ 878.302.3%1%1.59%+ 875.491.75%1.
7
5
%1%+ 877.70+ 875.80+ 877.27+ 878.251.75%878.10+878.10+878.20++ 878.80+ 878.52878.10++877.651%+877.65+ 876.40+ 876.191.75%+ 877.45+ 877.451.
7
5
%+ 876.85877.95++ 878.85+ 878.851.5%1.5%+880.201.75%+ 878.25878.25 +++877.65+(TC 878.36)++ (BC 877.57)+ (BC 877.51)(878.26)TC 878.10BC 877.60+877.95+877.95+878.10+877.73+877.85+878.25+(878.20)++ 878.251.
5
%+(TC 878.70)++878.60(TC 880.10)+(TC 880.30)++879.55(879.70)++879.251.75%878.10 +878.10 ++++(879.28)+(BC 879.33)+1.75%875.30+(877.90)+878.15+(878.09)++ 875.25+ 877.71+ 877.47(878.15)+(878.16)++ 877.96+ 877.97+ 878.75+ 878.75880878(879.20)(879.25) +878877878878HPS 875.950.67%LPS 874.350.67%FG 874.30FG 874.15874.5+ LPFG 875.1020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.00875875+ 877.75877.75 +877.75 ++ 877.30+ 877.00(BC 877.70)(879.69)(878.96)RIM 877.82RIM 878.73+ 877.61+ 875.49+ 875.33+ 875.33RIM 878.02RIM 875.00RIM 874.35RIM 878.61RIM 878.87RIM 877.90LP/RIM 877.35RIM 877.40RIM 877.05RIM 874.40REFER TO C105 FOR UTILITYSTRUCTURE AND SYSTEMINFORMATIONRIM 878.35RIM 878.15(BC 876.87)+(BC 876.49)+(876.00)+(875.87)+(TC 876.89BC 876.54)+(TC 876.23BC 876.12)+8
6
.
0
°876.45876.396.0+ 876.19+ 876.33+ 876.101.0%+ 875.90+ 875.90LP 874.65+(879.13)+(879.06)+(879.05)+(879.22)+(879.22)+(878.87)+(879.29)1%1%+ 878.25+ 878.93+ 878.86+ 878.85+ 879.02+ 879.02+(879.29)+(879.17)+(879.42)879879
1.75%FG: 875.00, TOS: 874.78, TSG: 874.11FG 0.50%SG 0.50%FG: 875.20, TOS: 874.98, TSG: 873.31
FG: 875.30, TOS: 875.08, TSG: 873.41
FG: 875.40, TOS: 875.18, TSG: 873.51FG: 875.50, TOS: 875.28, TSG: 873.61FG: 875.55, TOS: 874.33, TSG: 873.66FG: 875.55, TOS: 874.33, TSG: 873.66FG: 875.50, TOS: 875.28, TSG: 873.61FG: 875.40, TOS: 875.18, TSG: 873.51FG: 875.30, TOS: 875.08, TSG: 873.41FG: 875.20, TOS: 874.98, TSG: 873.31FG: 875.10, TOS: 874.88, TSG: 873.21FG: 875.00, TOS: 874.78, TSG: 874.11
FG: 875.10, TOS: 874.88, TSG: 873.21
FG: 875.00, TOS: 874.78, TSG: 874.11
FG: 875.20, TOS: 874.98, TSG: 873.31
FG: 875.30, TOS: 875.08, TSG: 873.41
FG: 875.40, TOS: 875.18, TSG: 873.51FG: 875.50, TOS: 875.28, TSG: 873.61FG: 875.55, TOS: 874.33, TSG: 873.66FG: 875.55, TOS: 874.33, TSG: 873.66FG: 875.50, TOS: 875.28, TSG: 873.61FG: 875.40, TOS: 875.18, TSG: 873.51FG: 875.30, TOS: 875.08, TSG: 873.41FG: 875.20, TOS: 874.98, TSG: 873.31FG: 875.10, TOS: 874.88, TSG: 873.21FG: 875.00, TOS: 874.78, TSG: 874.11
FG 875.20FG 875.30FG 875.40FG 875.50FG 875.10FG 875.20FG 875.30FG 875.40FG 875.50FG 875.55TOS: 875.33TSG: 874.66FG 875.10FG 875.20FG 875.30FG 875.40FG 875.50FG 875.10FG 875.20FG 875.30FG 875.40FG 875.50877876875875874LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF WORKTOWN OF ITHACACITY OF ITHACAMUNICIPAL BOUNDARY5110.00TSBSVERIFY IN FIELDSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONSPOT ELEVATIONFINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONTOP AND BOTTOM OF STAIRCONTOUR MAJORCONTOUR MINORVIFFFETCBCTOP AND BOTTOM OF CURBTWBWTOP AND BOTTOM OF WALLHPLPSLOW POINT OF SWALEHIGH POINTCONTOUR/ELEVATIONEXISTINGGRADE BREAKRIM ELEVATIONRIM(5)UTILITY STRUCTURE, SEECIVIL DRAWINGSNOTE: "+" IDENTIFIES LOCATION REQUIRING SPOTELEVATION, TYP.LPLOW POINTHPSHIGH POINT OF SWALETRENCH DRAIN, SEE CIVILDRAWINGSFINISHED / FIELD GRADEFGTOP OF ELASTIC LAYERTELTOP OF STONETOSTOP OF SUBGRADETSGLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)MUNICIPAL BOUNDARYLEGENDGRADING NOTES:1.FOR EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY INCLUDING GRADES,UTILITIES, PROPERTY LINES, LIMITS OFROADWAYS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, EXISTINGTREES, ETC., REFER TO THE SURVEY.2.SAWCUT AND REMOVE ALL EXISTING PAVEMENTIN AREAS WHERE THE PROPOSED GRADES ARELESS THAN 1 INCH/25 MILLIMETER GREATERTHAN THE EXISTING GRADES.3.PATHWAY LONGITUDINAL SLOPES SHALL NOTEXCEED 5%. PATHWAY CROSS-SLOPES AND PLAZASLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 2% IN ANYDIRECTION. ADA RAMP LONGITUDINAL SLOPESHALL NOT EXCEED 8.3%. ALL PAVED AREASSHALL BE SLOPED TO DRAIN WITH A MINIMUMSLOPE OF 0.5%. PLANTED AREAS SHALL HAVE AMINIMUM SLOPE OF 2% AND A MAXIMUM SLOPEOF 33%. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFYENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT/OWNERIMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEENTHESE RULES AND GIVEN SPOT GRADES.4.ALL FINISHED GRADES SHALL PROVIDE FORNATURAL RUNOFF OF WATER WITHOUT LOWSPOTS OR POCKETS. SET FLOW LINESACCURATELY AND PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1% AND AMAXIMUM 3:1 (33%) GRADIENT UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.5.HOLD FINISHED GRADES INCLUDING THE MULCHLAYER FOR SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS1/4 INCH/7 MILLIMETER BELOW TOP OFADJACENT PAVEMENT, CURBS, OR HEADERSUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.6.GRADUALLY ROUND OFF TOPS AND TOES OF ALLPLANTED SLOPES TO PRODUCE A SMOOTH ANDNATURAL APPEARING TRANSITION BETWEENRELATIVELY LEVEL AREAS AND SLOPES.7.RETAIN A 1 FOOT/300 MILLIMETER MINSHOULDER (5% SLOPE OR LESS) ADJACENT TOALL WALKWAYS AND UTILITY TABS, UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.8.VERIFY ACCURACY OF ALL EXISTING GRADES ATAREAS TO REMAIN, PRIOR TO STARTINGCONSTRUCTION OF ADJUSTMENTIMPROVEMENTS. NOTIFY CLIENT AND DESIGNTEAM OF DISCREPANCIES.9.HOLD TOPS OF WALLS LEVEL UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE.10.COORDINATE ALL EXISTING MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, UTILITY BOXES, CLEANOUTS, VAULTS,FIRE HYDRANTS, ETC., TO MATCH NEW FINISHEDGRADES.11.IN FILL AREAS WHERE PROPOSED GRADES ARE 1TO 3 INCHES/25-75 MILLIMETER HIGHER THANTHE EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE PROPOSEDGRADES SHALL BE MET BY ADDING PAVEMENTOVERLAYS (1.5 INCH/40 MILLIMETER MAXIMUMTHICKNESS EACH LIFT) TO EXISTING PAVEMENT.12.SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURB SHALL NOTDEVIATE MORE THAN 18" IN 10 FEET AND SHALLNOT VARY FROM DESIGN GRADE BY MORE THAN18".13.SUBGRADE SHALL BE GRADED TO A TOLERANCEOF 14" FROM DESIGN GRADE WITHHYDRAULICALLY CONTROLLED LASER GRADINGAPPARATUS. THE GRADE SHALL NOT VARY MORETHAN 14" IN 10 FEET UNDER 10 FOOT STRAIGHTEDGE.14.PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF GEOTEXTILE FABRIC,PANEL DRAINS, AND DRAINAGE STONE, SIGNOFFFROM ARCHITECT IS REQUIRED ON SUBGRADEFOR COMPACTION, PLANARITY, AND DESIGNGRADE COMPLIANCE.15.DRAINAGE STONE SHALL BE FINE GRADED TO ATOLERANCE OF 18" FROM DESIGN GRADE AND NOTVARY MORE THAN 18" WHEN MEASURE UNDER A 10FOOT STRAIGHT EDGE.GRADING PLANL4-01Plot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L4-01_GRADING PLAN.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'
ALUMNI FIELD PARKING LOTINDOOR SPORTS &RECREATION CENTERFFE 878.33PARKING LOTCHARLES F. BERMAN FIELDWEILLHALLFIELD EL. 875ALUMNI FIELDLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF WORKTOWN OF ITHACACITY OF ITHACAMUNICIPAL BOUNDARYMAINTAIN EXISTING GRASS. DO NOTDISTURB STORMWATER PRACTICE(14) AG(14) AG(12) IS(6) BO(4) BO(2) BO(3) AO(5) UP(2) UP(3) AO(2) AO(6) BO(10) CN(3) AO(10) AA(11) MB(3) MB(6) MB(7) AL(8) AL(7) IR(1) IV2(37) PA(41) CS(51) CS(13) SK(51) SK(100)NFG(100)NFG(100)NFG(38) PA(47) MD(34) MD(22) AL(26) AL(11) IM(9) VDPLANTING NOTES:1.REFER TO L5-02, PLANTING SCHEDULE, FORLEGEND OF GROUNDCOVER AND PLANTSPECIES.2.PROVIDE MATCHING SIZES AND FORMS FOREACH SPECIES OF TREE INSTALLED ON GRID ORSPACED EQUALLY IN ROWS AS SHOWN ONDRAWINGS, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.3.PROVIDE MATCHING SIZES AND FORMS FOR ALLHEDGE PLANTINGS. SPACE EQUALLY(TRIANGULARLY) AS SHOWN.4.INSTALL ALL TREES A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET/1METER FROM BACK OF CURB, EDGE OF WALLOR PAVING.5.FORM MINIMUM 3 INCH/75 MILLIMETERWATERING BASIN AROUND ALL TREES NOTINSTALLED PAVED AREAS. FILL TREE RING WITHA 3 INCH/75 MILLIMETER LAYER OF MULCH.6.NO MULCH OR SOIL TO BE LEFT DIRECTLY ONROOT CROWN.7.REMOVE ALL GIRDLING ROOTS FROM NEW TREEMATERIAL.8.REMOVE TOP AND SIDES OF B&B TREES BURLAPAND WIRE FRAMES, REMOVE ANY EXCESS SOILFROM AROUND ROOT CROWNS.9.FOR BOXED TREES, REMOVE FOUR VERTICALSIDES OF BOX, LEAVING BOTTOM OF BOXINTACT IN TREE PIT.10.FOR BARE-ROOT OR MISSOURI GRAVEL TREES,FOLLOW CLIMATE CONTROLRECOMMENDATIONS OF SUPPLIER, SOAKHYDROGEL SPRAYED ROOTS FOR ONE HOURBEFORE PLANTING. SEE ROOT CROWN 1/2 INCH/13 MILLIMETERS ABOVE ADJACENT SOIL, ANDEVENLY SPREAD OUT ROOTS AND BACKFILL OFSOIL TO AVOID GROUPING OF ROOTS OR FINEROOTS, BUT RATHER RADIALLY ARRANGINGROOTS WITHIN TREE PIT.11.GENTLY LOOSEN OR CUTAWAY PLASTICCONTAINERS FROM CONTAINER STOCKPLANTINGS. FOR HIGHLY ROOT-BOUNDCONTAINERS, SHAVING ROOTS CUTTING FINEROOTS FOR THE OUTER 1/4 INCH/7MILLIMETER OF CONTAINER, FOR MILDLYROOT-BOUND CONTAINERS, HAND LOOSENBEFORE PLANTING.12.EACH LOCATION OF TREE SHALL BE STAKED ATAPPROXIMATE FINISH ELEVATION BYCONTRACTOR FOR REVIEW BY LANDSCAPEARCHITECT AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO FINALINSTALLATION. ALL TREES IN AREA SHALL BESTAKED FOR REFERENCE AND LIMITS OF PLANTBEDS AND PAVING CLEARLY MARKED AT AMINIMUM.13.PLANT NAMES ARE ABBREVIATED ON THEDRAWINGS. SEE PLANT LEGEND FOR KEY ANDCLASSIFICATION.14.ALL TREES TO HAVE A 3 INCH/75 MILLIMETERTHICK LAYER OF MULCH, AND SHRUB ORHERBACEOUS PLANTING AREAS TO RECEIVE 2INCH/50 MILLIMETER THICK LAYER OF MULCH,SEE SPECIFICATIONS.15.DO NOT PLANT GROUND COVERS, HEDGES, ORFLOWERING PLANTS WITHIN 3 FEET/1 METEROF ANY EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSEDHYDRANTS, PIV, FDC, DCDA, ETC.16.SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ANCHOR, TREECOLLARS, AND ADDITIONAL PRODUCTS ANDREQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR PLANTING.TREE PRUNING NOTES:1.ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN WITHIN THELANDSCAPE LIMIT OF WORK TO BE REVIEWEDBY A REGISTERED ARBORIST FOR HEALTH ANDSAFETY. THE ARBORIST WILL MAKERECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRUNING ANDREMOVING AS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT LONGTERM HEALTH AND SAFETY.2.A TREE PRUNING WORK PLAN WILL BESUBMITTED TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTFOR REVIEW. THIS WORK PLAN WILL BEDEVELOPED BY A REGISTERED ARBORIST, ANDWILL DESCRIBE THE SCOPE OF WORK TO BEUNDERTAKEN.3.ALL DEADWOOD, CROSSING BRANCHES, ANDSTRUCTURALLY COMPROMISED BRANCHES ANDTRUNKS SHALL BE REMOVED. ALL SUCKERS TOBE REMOVED. ALL DENSE CANOPIES INEXISTING TREES TO BE LIFTED ABOVE 8FEET/2.5 METER HIGH FOR TREES 6 INCH/150MILLIMETER DBH OR LARGER.4.ALL PRUNING TO BE DONE BY REGISTEREDARBORIST, FOLLOWING ISA BEST PRACTICESFOR BOTH SAFETY AND METHODS, ANSI 300.5.REMOVE OR CUT AT THE BASE ANY POSTS,FENCING OR OTHER MATERIALS THAT THETREE HAS GROWN AROUND. NOTIFYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF ANY FOREIGNOBJECT REMOVAL REQUIRES ADDITIONALDEMOLITION OF EXISTING TO REMAIN SITESTRUCTURES.PLANTING PLANL5-01LEGENDLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)MUNICIPAL BOUNDARYPlot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L5-01_PLANTING PLAN.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'
NUP: LOW MOW NATIVE UPLAND SPECIES MIXCOMMONNAMECOMP. %BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMENOTESAT3%Asclepias tuberosaButterfly MilkweedFlowering PerennialAL2%Aster lateriflorusCalico AsterFlowering PerennialBC10%Bouteloua curtipendulaSideoats GrammaNative GrassCL3%Coreopsis lanceolataLanceleaf CoreopsisFlowering PerennialEV15%Elymus virginicusVirginia WildryeNative GrassHH3%Heliopsis helianthoidesWoodland SunflowerFlowering PerennialPT8%Pycanthemum tenuifoliumNarrowleaf MountainmintFlowering PerennialRH3%Rudbeckia hirtaBlack-eyed SusanFlowering PerennialSS60%Schizachyrium scopariumLittle BluestemNative GrassSN2%Solidago nemoralisGray GoldenrodFlowering PerennialSYMBOLCODEBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZECONTAINERQTYREMARKSTREESAOACER RUBRUM 'REDPOINTE'REDPOINTE RED MAPLE2.5" CAL.B&B11AGAMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA 'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE APPLE SERVICEBERRY8-10` HEIGHTB&B14CLUMP, SPECIMENBOBETULA PAPYRIFERA `OENCI`RENAISSANCE OASIS® PAPER BIRCH8-10` HEIGHTAS INDICATED18CNCERCIS CANADENSIS `NORTHERN STRAIN`NORTHERN STRAIN EASTERN REDBUD8-10` HEIGHTB&B10MULTI-STEM SPECIMENUPULMUS AMERICANA `PRINCETON`PRINCETON AMERICAN ELM2.5" CAL.B&B7SHRUBSAAARONIA ARBUTIFOLIA 'BRILLIANTISSIMA'BRILLIANT RED CHOKEBERRY#3POT10ALARONIA MELANOCARPA `UCONNAM165`LOW SCAPE MOUND® BLACK CHOKEBERRY#2POT63CSCORNUS SERICEA `ARCTIC FIRE`RED TWIG DOGWOOD#2POT92ISILEX GLABRA 'SHAMROCK'SHAMROCK INKBERRY HOLLY#2POT12IRILEX VERTICILLATA `RED SPRITE`RED SPRITE WINTERBERRY#7POT7IV2ILEX VERTICILLATA 'JIM DANDY'JIM DANDY WINTERBERRY#7POT1IMITEA VIRGINICA 'MERLOT'MERLOT SWEETSPIRE#2POT11MDMICROBIOTA DECUSSATASIBERIAN CARPET CYPRESS#3POT81MBMYRICA PENSYLVANICA 'BOBZAM'BOBEE™ NORTHERN BAYBERRY#7POT20SKSYRINGA PUBESCENS PATULA `MISS KIM`MISS KIM KOREAN LILAC#5POT64VDVIBURNUM X RHYTIDOPHYLLOIDES 'DARTS DUKE'DARTS DUKE LANTANAPHYLLUM VIBURNUM#5POT9PERENNIALSPAPOLYSTICHUM ACROSTICHOIDESCHRISTMAS FERN#1POT75SYMBOLCODEBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZECONTAINERSPACINGQTYREMARKSGROUND COVERSBMBIORETENTION MIXSTORMWATER MGMT PLANTS#1POT24" o.c.574JUNCUS EFFUSUS 25%, PANICUM VIRGATUM 'CAPEBREEZE' 30%, IRIS VERSICOLOR 25%, LOBELIACARDINALIS 20%CPCAREX PENSYLVANICAPENNSYLVANIA SEDGEPLUG10" o.c.3,022FMFOREBAY MIXSTORMWATER MGMT PLANTS#1POT24" o.c.569JUNCUS EFFUSUS 30%, CAREX FLACCA 'BLUE ZINGER'25%, ASTILBE JAPONICA 'DEUTCHLAND' 20%,CHELONE GLABRA 25%NUPLOW-MOW NATIVE UPLAND PLUGSNATIVE GRASS FLOWER MIX---PLUG12" o.c.12,43380% NATIVE GRASSES, 20% WILDFLOWERSTSTURFTYPE 1- CORNELL TURFGRASS SEED BLENDSEED35,604 SFTLTURF SEED LOW GROW MIXTYPE 2- LOW-GROW MIXSEED2,541 SFPLANT SCHEDULENFGNARCISSUS 'FEBRUARY GOLD'YELLOW DAFFODILTOPSIZEBULBRANDOM300HAND BROADCASTVT-09VT-07VT-08VT-01VT-02VT-03VT-05PLANTING SCHEDULEL5-02Plot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L5-02_PLANTING SCHEDULE.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'
LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF WORKTOWN OF ITHACACITY OF ITHACAMUNICIPAL BOUNDARY0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.30.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.30.50.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.41.21.11.30.40.20.20.10.20.40.51.11.50.70.40.20.20.40.30.40.20.20.20.20.20.20.40.30.40.20.20.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.10.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.51.11.53.12.33.11.71.20.60.40.50.81.52.32.51.20.80.90.91.10.91.10.90.90.50.60.90.91.20.81.11.01.00.70.50.40.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.20.20.10.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.30.40.50.50.50.30.30.30.30.30.30.50.40.50.30.30.30.30.30.30.40.40.50.30.20.30.20.20.30.20.30.40.30.30.20.20.20.30.40.50.81.92.22.51.02.42.12.20.90.61.21.52.63.21.70.61.02.12.42.71.62.92.21.60.70.71.72.12.91.32.82.32.11.11.01.10.40.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.40.70.80.30.10.00.00.00.10.10.30.91.41.51.31.31.61.41.10.60.71.31.31.41.11.51.21.30.70.61.01.21.41.11.31.31.20.80.40.40.91.11.01.10.90.80.70.90.80.91.01.11.31.91.91.81.21.61.51.71.11.42.73.30.82.81.30.50.92.02.63.51.53.62.21.40.60.61.52.13.61.33.52.41.91.21.92.21.20.70.30.20.10.20.10.10.10.20.51.82.20.60.20.10.00.00.10.10.41.12.32.32.51.52.42.31.40.60.82.02.12.50.92.52.11.90.80.61.52.22.61.32.72.32.21.00.40.51.32.22.82.42.22.42.22.22.52.62.22.32.72.41.40.90.60.80.70.91.83.24.24.02.91.30.60.20.20.40.71.81.41.50.50.30.20.20.30.51.51.41.70.60.40.41.52.42.61.20.70.50.30.50.40.50.30.30.72.02.51.10.30.10.00.00.10.10.30.71.42.32.92.92.71.40.80.40.61.21.73.22.43.21.71.20.50.51.11.63.12.93.22.31.50.70.30.41.01.83.51.93.53.13.02.52.83.42.73.03.32.51.30.50.40.51.01.32.63.34.11.70.90.50.20.10.10.10.20.40.40.40.20.10.10.10.10.20.40.30.40.20.20.20.83.30.92.31.81.41.11.21.01.21.01.21.32.32.62.50.80.10.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.40.71.31.20.80.30.20.10.10.20.41.31.21.30.40.20.10.10.20.31.01.21.40.60.30.20.10.10.20.41.51.73.02.41.81.10.81.52.02.01.40.60.40.30.51.12.12.90.83.71.30.50.20.20.10.10.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.71.63.02.62.92.92.42.91.12.92.22.01.21.70.81.80.70.10.10.00.00.10.40.70.70.40.30.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.30.20.30.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.50.72.22.51.40.40.30.40.60.60.40.20.20.30.81.82.33.60.00.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.71.82.23.03.12.73.71.53.62.11.71.32.43.02.30.70.10.00.00.00.00.10.61.82.10.50.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.82.62.41.40.40.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.51.21.30.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.51.21.00.81.71.51.60.50.40.62.02.40.90.30.10.00.00.10.20.62.12.50.80.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.31.43.12.81.30.50.20.00.10.61.61.90.50.10.10.00.00.10.30.92.43.52.10.60.10.00.00.00.10.31.33.01.91.20.50.10.00.10.40.70.70.30.10.00.00.00.10.30.81.80.11.90.50.10.00.00.10.20.93.02.61.40.40.10.10.40.60.60.30.10.00.00.00.10.30.92.43.52.10.60.10.00.00.10.10.31.62.21.20.30.10.10.51.41.60.50.10.10.00.00.10.20.62.12.50.80.20.10.00.00.00.10.21.01.41.00.30.10.10.51.92.40.80.20.10.00.00.10.10.71.82.10.40.10.10.00.00.10.10.50.60.60.30.10.20.72.33.12.00.60.10.00.00.10.20.50.70.80.30.10.00.00.00.10.10.60.80.70.30.10.20.71.70.92.10.70.10.00.00.10.20.40.60.60.20.10.00.00.00.10.21.22.01.30.30.10.30.82.12.72.30.80.10.00.00.10.20.61.31.40.40.10.00.00.00.10.10.41.72.11.30.30.10.20.62.12.71.20.30.10.00.00.10.10.62.12.50.60.20.10.00.00.10.31.33.22.41.50.60.20.10.62.02.40.60.20.10.00.00.10.20.82.53.31.60.40.10.00.00.10.21.12.60.91.10.40.10.10.51.01.00.40.10.00.00.00.10.30.82.01.52.00.60.10.00.00.10.31.23.22.41.50.60.20.10.40.60.60.30.10.00.00.10.30.92.23.12.10.60.10.00.00.10.10.41.62.11.30.30.10.10.51.01.10.50.10.00.00.00.10.20.72.43.01.30.30.10.00.00.00.10.21.12.01.30.30.10.10.51.92.40.80.20.10.00.00.10.10.62.12.40.60.20.10.00.00.10.10.50.80.70.30.10.20.62.02.61.40.40.10.00.00.10.20.61.11.20.30.10.00.00.00.10.10.40.60.60.30.10.30.81.92.32.40.80.20.00.00.10.20.40.60.50.30.10.00.00.10.20.71.51.20.40.10.20.71.70.92.20.70.10.00.00.10.20.50.91.00.30.10.00.00.00.00.10.31.12.31.60.40.10.20.72.22.92.10.60.10.00.00.10.10.62.02.30.60.20.10.00.00.10.20.72.52.41.90.60.20.10.51.92.40.80.20.10.00.00.10.20.62.12.61.00.30.10.00.00.10.20.92.60.91.40.60.20.10.51.41.60.50.10.10.00.00.10.30.92.23.12.30.70.10.00.00.10.21.12.72.11.60.70.20.10.40.60.60.30.10.00.00.00.10.20.71.70.81.70.60.10.00.00.00.10.51.82.31.70.40.10.10.40.70.80.40.10.00.00.00.10.30.82.43.42.00.60.10.00.00.10.21.02.41.70.40.10.10.41.62.00.70.20.10.00.00.10.10.62.02.40.70.20.10.00.00.10.10.61.11.00.40.10.10.41.72.31.10.30.10.00.00.10.10.61.51.70.50.10.10.00.00.00.10.40.60.60.30.10.20.72.02.42.60.90.20.00.00.00.10.20.40.70.70.30.10.00.00.00.10.10.51.11.00.40.10.20.61.50.72.30.80.20.10.00.00.10.20.40.70.70.30.10.00.00.00.10.20.92.41.70.40.10.20.72.02.42.60.90.20.00.00.00.10.10.61.61.80.50.10.10.00.00.00.10.51.72.41.80.50.10.10.41.82.31.10.30.10.00.00.10.10.52.02.40.80.20.10.00.00.10.21.02.72.21.70.80.40.40.61.91.72.00.70.40.20.20.20.30.61.51.81.91.00.40.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.40.81.82.42.41.80.80.50.20.10.10.10.10.10.51.72.10.70.20.10.00.00.10.30.82.33.22.20.60.10.00.00.10.20.92.60.91.50.80.81.92.43.70.33.62.52.10.80.40.61.52.43.61.73.53.02.21.00.30.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.41.32.52.71.61.82.72.51.20.40.20.10.10.10.20.40.70.70.30.10.10.00.00.10.20.71.60.71.70.60.10.00.00.10.20.72.42.52.00.80.81.82.22.71.62.62.32.01.00.60.81.62.32.92.32.52.52.21.00.40.20.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.40.30.40.20.20.30.41.11.92.11.71.72.11.91.10.40.30.20.20.40.40.50.40.30.20.10.10.00.00.10.30.92.22.92.30.70.10.00.00.00.10.31.12.41.70.50.50.80.81.00.91.31.41.51.41.21.41.51.41.51.11.10.90.80.70.40.40.40.70.70.30.30.51.01.01.20.91.10.90.90.60.40.50.50.60.70.70.60.50.50.50.70.90.91.10.91.10.80.70.40.20.10.00.00.10.20.62.02.51.00.30.10.00.00.10.20.71.61.30.50.20.20.20.40.40.81.52.32.92.32.62.72.31.30.60.50.30.30.50.61.01.52.11.50.60.30.61.72.12.91.12.82.22.00.80.30.20.10.20.20.20.20.10.20.31.02.12.42.62.02.82.21.50.50.20.10.00.00.10.10.61.92.30.60.20.10.00.00.10.10.40.60.60.40.20.10.10.20.20.51.42.43.61.93.53.12.31.10.40.30.30.40.81.41.62.82.41.70.50.20.51.31.93.51.43.52.31.80.70.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.30.82.02.83.51.43.72.41.60.50.20.10.00.00.10.50.80.90.30.10.00.00.00.10.10.40.80.70.40.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.51.51.81.91.10.50.30.30.30.61.32.02.90.93.41.90.50.20.10.10.20.41.51.41.70.60.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.40.91.81.71.60.70.50.30.10.10.00.00.10.40.50.50.30.10.00.00.10.20.62.01.60.50.10.10.00.00.10.10.10.20.40.50.60.40.30.30.40.50.71.42.52.92.71.41.00.20.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.40.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.50.50.60.80.80.50.10.10.00.00.10.40.91.00.50.10.10.00.00.10.31.02.31.80.50.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.70.71.41.00.60.80.90.61.00.50.30.10.10.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.41.52.01.00.20.10.00.00.00.10.41.82.40.80.20.10.00.00.00.20.82.52.62.10.80.30.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.60.81.32.32.21.60.50.30.20.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.41.52.21.40.40.10.00.00.00.10.10.51.82.41.60.40.10.00.00.00.10.20.72.20.71.50.60.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.40.71.42.21.12.72.20.80.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.20.61.72.22.91.10.20.10.00.00.10.20.71.72.22.71.00.20.10.00.00.10.20.92.52.42.00.80.30.10.10.10.10.10.30.50.91.92.12.72.02.61.10.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.30.92.71.00.20.10.00.00.10.20.51.30.92.40.90.20.10.00.00.10.10.31.12.31.80.50.20.10.20.20.40.50.91.20.91.52.11.81.90.90.50.10.10.00.00.00.10.20.71.82.32.91.10.20.10.00.00.10.20.61.92.52.60.80.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.72.11.70.50.20.10.30.70.91.72.22.01.00.60.40.40.50.20.10.10.00.00.00.10.10.41.62.31.40.40.10.10.00.00.10.10.41.62.31.20.40.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.40.80.70.40.30.40.81.61.72.52.81.70.50.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.10.61.92.41.10.20.10.00.00.00.10.10.41.41.70.90.50.30.30.20.20.20.20.20.20.40.30.40.20.20.20.20.20.20.30.30.40.30.20.20.20.20.20.30.40.40.50.40.40.40.51.22.12.42.72.92.30.50.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.61.72.11.00.20.10.00.00.10.20.51.01.21.11.00.90.90.70.70.50.60.80.81.00.91.00.80.80.60.50.80.91.11.01.11.00.90.70.50.71.01.01.10.91.21.00.90.60.51.02.32.12.51.41.00.20.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.41.72.51.30.30.10.00.00.00.10.10.41.22.32.62.42.22.72.21.30.60.81.82.22.61.62.72.21.80.80.61.42.22.92.22.62.52.21.10.61.02.12.42.71.72.92.21.50.60.40.50.60.40.60.50.20.10.10.00.00.10.20.61.82.52.60.80.20.10.00.00.10.10.31.12.43.13.41.93.52.41.40.60.71.92.43.60.33.62.41.90.70.61.32.23.52.13.42.82.11.00.50.92.02.63.51.73.62.11.40.50.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.20.61.40.92.71.00.20.10.00.00.00.10.10.30.51.11.91.81.50.50.30.20.20.40.61.91.71.90.60.40.20.20.30.51.31.61.80.90.40.20.20.20.40.71.71.41.40.50.30.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.61.52.12.81.10.20.10.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.50.40.20.10.10.10.10.20.50.40.50.20.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.40.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.40.40.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.41.62.31.90.50.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.31.62.31.10.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.30.91.00.50.10.00.00.00.10.20.30.30.20.10.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0F1F2F3F4F1F2F3F45/4/2023 9:55:01 AMSITE LIGHTING PLANL6-01Plot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L6-01_LIGHTING PLAN.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)MUNICIPAL BOUNDARYLEGENDSPORTS LIGHT POLE, MUSCO'LIGHT-STRUCTURE SYSTEM'F1-F2: 70' MOUNTING HEIGHTF3-F4: 80' MOUNTING HEIGHTSITE LIGHT POLE,BEGA POLE-TOP LUMINAIRE,14' MOUNTING HEIGHT11.8ILLUMINATION LEVEL(FOOTCANDLE)1" = 30'
LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF WORKTOWN OF ITHACACITY OF ITHACAMUNICIPAL BOUNDARYF1F2F3F40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.30.30.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.20.50.81.01.11.10.80.80.50.20.10.00.00.00.10.71.72.63.85.04.84.54.32.70.80.20.10.00.00.52.66.310.116.018.315.815.517.811.42.00.50.10.00.00.01.711.329.134.241.640.035.636.742.029.75.30.90.20.00.00.00.12.417.649.253.051.652.149.151.256.445.08.21.00.20.00.00.00.10.73.813.938.449.648.149.949.852.452.436.19.10.80.00.00.00.00.10.31.34.314.340.753.853.149.050.153.453.644.611.81.10.10.00.00.10.20.61.54.615.540.255.054.450.951.856.657.645.712.82.00.30.10.00.00.10.20.61.65.015.936.553.752.449.049.054.456.843.112.42.40.50.10.00.00.10.20.61.75.015.334.952.152.247.149.053.956.042.311.42.10.50.20.00.00.10.20.61.65.015.936.453.652.348.849.054.457.042.912.22.40.50.10.00.00.10.20.61.54.715.639.955.054.350.951.756.557.545.712.92.10.30.10.00.00.00.10.31.44.414.341.054.153.449.250.453.853.844.311.81.20.10.00.00.00.00.10.73.813.838.550.048.149.649.652.152.536.79.40.80.00.00.00.00.22.517.448.552.951.652.449.450.956.144.88.20.90.20.00.00.01.812.030.935.943.141.136.737.843.530.85.50.90.20.00.00.62.86.810.817.119.316.716.419.012.22.10.50.10.00.00.10.71.82.84.15.45.24.84.72.90.80.20.10.00.00.00.20.60.91.11.21.20.90.80.50.30.10.00.00.00.10.20.30.40.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0F1F2F3F45/4/2023 9:55:01 AMFIELD LIGHTING PLANL6-02Plot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L6-01_LIGHTING PLAN.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)MUNICIPAL BOUNDARYLEGENDSPORTS LIGHT POLE, MUSCO'LIGHT-STRUCTURE SYSTEM'F1-F2: 70' MOUNTING HEIGHTF3-F4: 80' MOUNTING HEIGHTSITE LIGHT POLE,BEGA POLE-TOP LUMINAIRE,14' MOUNTING HEIGHT11.8ILLUMINATION LEVEL(FOOTCANDLE)1" = 30'
B
C
A
UNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADECOMPACTED DENSEGRADED CRUSHED STONEBITUMINOUS CONCRETEBINDER COURSEAPPLY TACK COATBETWEEN LAYERS12" MIN.ABVEHICULAR1 1/2"2 1/2"C12"BITUMINOUS CONCRETEWEARING (SURFACE)COURSEAPPLY JOINT ADHESIVE TOALL TOP COURSE JOINTSFILTER FABRIC MIRAFI500X OR EQUIVALENT6"GRADED, GRANULAR,FREE-DRAINING CRUSHEDSTONE OR GRAVELAGGREGATE BASE COURSE1'COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBEDSUBGRADEREINFORCING BAR @ 12''O.C., BOTH DIRECTIONS. SEESPECIFICATIONS.3"3"SEE SPECIFICATIONS FORCONCRETE FINISH, TYP.34" DEEP SAWCUT JOINT, TYP.FILTER FABRIC MIRAFI500X OR EQUIVALENT6"6"1'-6"COMPACTED ORUNDISTURBEDSUBGRADEDRAINAGE STONEFILTER FABRIC1 12 " to 2" RIVER STONEPLANTING, TYP.14" THICK X 5" DEEPSTEEL EDGING, STAKED.SEE SPECIFICATIONS.BUILDING FACE, TYP.,SEE ARCH. DWGSDRAINAGE BOARD,SEE ARCH. DWGS6"6" PERFORATED PVCUNDERDRAIN PIPE, SEECIVIL DRAWINGSFILTER FABRICEQ.EQ.6"REINFORCED CAST IN PLACECONCRETE PAVING WITHINTEGRAL COLOR & EXPOSEDSILICA CARBIDE FINISH1'COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBEDSUBGRADE34" DEEP SAWCUT JOINT, TYP.WELDED WIRE FABRICREINFORCEMENT, W2.9xW2.9x6/6.SEE SPECIFICATIONS.GRADED, GRANULAR,FREE-DRAINING CRUSHEDSTONE OR GRAVELAGGREGATE BASE COURSEVARIES12"FLEXIBLE SEALANTBACKER RODCOMPRESSIBLEFILLER12" S.S. SLIP DOWEL, 30" O.C.CORE DRILL INTO EXISTINGCONCRETE, SET DOWEL WITHNON-SHRINK EPOXY.BELOW GRADECONDITION VARIESFINISH VARIES. SEESPECIFICATIONS.10"6"CAST-IN-PLACE REINFORCEDCONCRETE HAUNCH12"EXISTING CONCRETEEQ.EQ.COMPACTED ORUNDISTURBED SUBGRADEAGGREGATE BASE COURSEFILTER FABRICSTABILIZED STONEDUSTPAVINGNOTES1.INSTALLATION TO BECOMPLETED IN ACCORDANCEWITH MANUFACTURERSSPECIFICATIONS.6"3"14" THICK X 5" DEEP STEELEDGING WITH 18" DEEPSTAKEPLANTED AREADECOMPOSED GRANITE OR 38"OR 14" CRUSHED AGGREGATESCREENINGS5"6"COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBEDSUBGRADEGALVANIZED WELDED WIRE FABRICREINFORCEMENT, W2.9xW2.9x6/6.SEE SPECIFICATIONS.21
2"SEE SPECIFICATIONS FORCONCRETE FINISH, TYP.34" DEEP SAWCUT JOINT, TYP.GRADED, GRANULAR,FREE-DRAINING CRUSHEDSTONE OR GRAVELAGGREGATE BASE COURSEFILTER FABRIC MIRAFI500X OR EQUIVALENT8"NOTES1.CONCRETE PAVING SHALL BE LIGHT BROOM FINISH, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2.SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONCRETE JOINT REQUIREMENTS.COMPACTED ORUNDISTURBEDSUBGRADEPROCESSEDAGGREGATE BASECAST-IN-PLACECONCRETE PAVEMENT,TYP.PLANTED AREA WITH MULCH,TYP. SEE SPECIFICATIONS.8"#4 BARS @ 12" O.C.6"3" MIN.6"1'-6"COMPACTED ORUNDISTURBEDSUBGRADECOMPACTEDAGGREGATEBASEFILTER FABRIC1 12 " to 2" RIVER STONEPLANTING, TYP.14" THICK X 5" DEEPSTEEL EDGING, STAKED.SEE SPECIFICATIONS.BUILDING FACE, TYP.,SEE ARCH. DWGS6"1'VARIES12"FLEXIBLE SEALANTBACKER RODCOMPRESSIBLE FILLER12" S.S. SLIP DOWEL FIXED ATONE END 30" O.C.CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE BASEWITH FIBERMESH REINFORCINGBELOW GRADE CONDITION VARIESFINISH VARIES. SEE SPECIFICATIONS.NOTE:1.REFER TO LAYOUT PLANS FOR JOINTING TYPE, LAYOUT, ANDSPACING, TYP.VARIES12"FLEXIBLE SEALANTBACKER RODCOMPRESSIBLE FILLERADJACENT RIGID ELEMENTVARIES: WALL, CURB, FOOTING,OR OTHER, TYP.FINISH VARIES. SEE SPECIFICATIONS.NOTE:1.REFER TO LAYOUT PLANS FOR JOINTING TYPE, LAYOUT, ANDSPACING, TYP.2.EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE INSTALLED BETWEEN RIGIDSURFACES SUCH AS WALLS, CURBS, PAVINGS, AND FOOTINGS.SEE SPECIFICATIONS.NOTE:1.REFER TO LAYOUT PLANS FOR JOINTING TYPE, LAYOUT, ANDSPACING, TYP. SEE SPECIFICATIONS.SAW CUT JOINTJOINT DEPTH = 14 OF
DEPTH OF CONCRETE
SLAB, TYP.1/8", TYP.Indoor Sports and RecreationSITE DETAILS - PAVINGL8-01ASPHALT PAVINGPA-011" = 1'-0"CONCRETE PAVING - HEAVY-DUTYPA-021" = 1'-0"COLORED CONCRETE PAVING W/ SILICA CARBIDEPA-041" = 1'-0"STABILIZED STONEDUST PAVINGPA-051" = 1'-0"CONCRETE PAVINGPA-031" = 1'-0"SMOOTH CONCRETE PAVER BANDPA-101" = 1'-0"HEAVY-DUTY CONCRETE PAD FOR EXISTING DUMPSTERSPA-091" = 1'-0"RIVERSTONE DRIP EDGEPA-061" = 1'-0"RIVERSTONE DRIP EDGE WITH UNDERDRAINPA-071" = 1'-0"C.I.P CONCRETE AT EXISTING CONCRETE PAVINGPA-081" = 1'-0"DETAIL IN PROGRESS, PENDINGCOORDINATIONPlot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L8-01_SITE DETAILS.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'AS NOTEDEXPANSION JOINTJT-013" = 1'-0"EXPANSION JOINT AT VERTICAL ELEMENTJT-023" = 1'-0"CONTROL JOINTJT-033" = 1'-0"
HIGH USE LAWN SOILPREPARED SUBGRADEMEADOW/POVERTY SOILORSTRIPPED EXISTINGTOPSOIL/MEADOW SOIL,SEE SPECIFICATIONS2" DEPTH MULCH.4" FIBER REINFORCED UPPER,SEE SPECIFICATIONS14" THICK X 5" DEEP STEELEDGING, STAKED. SEESPECIFICATIONS.LAWN AREAPLANTING AREAHEAVY-DUTY CONCRETEPAVING WITH CONCRETEHAUNCH3"R
1
"NOTES:1. TOP OF MOUNTABLE CURB ELEVATION TO MATCH LINE AND GRADE OF EXISTING ADJACENTCURBS. SEE MATERIAL AND LAYOUT PLANS FOR ALIGNMENT AND EXTENTS.FLUSH10"1'-6"R1"GRANITE CURB, ALIGN FACESOF CURBSADJACENT EXISTINGASPHALT PAVEMENTEXPANSION JOINT12"10"6"44.4°AGGREGATE BASE COURSE11
2"
1'HEAVY-DUTY CONCRETEPAVING WITH CONCRETEHAUNCHNOTES:1. TOP OF CONCRETE MOUNTABLE CURB ELEVATION TO MATCH LINE AND GRADE OF EXISTINGADJACENT CONCRETE ROAD CURBS. SEE MATERIAL AND LAYOUT PLANS FOR ALIGNMENT ANDEXTENTS.FLUSH1'-6"ADJACENT EXISTINGASPHALT PAVEMENTSALVAGED OR NEW TYPE 'C'GRANITE CURBEXPANSION JOINT12"10"6"
1'AGGREGATE BASE COURSELEGENDNOTESA.REFER TO SPECIFICATION SECTION "321726 -TACTILE WARNING PAVERS" FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION.1.CAST IRON (UNPAINTED) DETECTABLE WARNINGPAVER, TYP.2.CURB, SEE PLANS FOR MATERIAL3.FLUSH CURB4.PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT, SEE1/L4-005.MORTAR SETTING BEDPLANTINGAREA213PLANSCALE:12" = 1'-0"2'-0" MIN.SECTIONSCALE:3" = 1'-0"1541"SECTIONSCALE:3" = 1'-0"1541"LEGENDNOTESA.REFER TO SPECIFICATION SECTION "321726 -TACTILE WARNING PAVERS" FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION.1.CAST IRON (UNPAINTED) DETECTABLE WARNINGPAVER, TYP.2.CURB, SEE PLANS FOR MATERIAL3.FLUSH CURB4.PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT, SEE1/L4-005.MORTAR SETTING BED2'-0"
MIN.PLANSCALE:12" = 1'-0"STREETPLANTINGAREAPLANTINGAREA13222'-0", TYP.6'-0"6"CAST IRON DETECTABLE WARNINGPLATE, TYP.CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETECOMPACTED AGGREGATE BASEAT FLUSH CONDITIONSOIL SUBGRADE SHALL BE PREPAREDIN ACCORDANCE WITH THEREQUIREMENTS OF THE EARTHWORKSPECIFICATION AND THEGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY.SET AGAINSTADJACENT SURFACE1'-4"
6"5"6"MIN.6"MIN.9"SALVAGED OR NEW TYPE 'C' GRANITECURB, SAWN TOP,SPLIT FACE, 4' MIN. LENGTH6 MIL POLYETHYLENE BOND BREAKERADJACENT TO CONCRETE3"
MIN.CONCRETE FOOTINGCOMPACTED SUBGRADEAGGREGATE BASE COURSENOTE: CAULK JOINTS EVERY 150' AND OTHER JOINTS <18" GAPVARIES, SEE PLAN3'-0" MIN.SLOPESLOPE
SLOPEDETECTABLE WARNINGPAVERSVARIESVARIES1:10 MAX1:10 MAX1:12 MAX
SITE DETAILS - EDGECONDITIONSL8-02GRANITE MOUNTABLE CURBEG-011" = 1'-0"GRANITE FLUSH CURBEG-021" = 1'-0"CAST IRON FLUSH WARNING PAVEREG-071" = 1'-0"STEEL EDGINGEG-081' = 1'-0"GRANITE CURBEG-031" = 1'-0"TACTILE WARNING PAVERS ON RADIUSEG-041/2" = 1'-0"TACTILE WARNING PAVERSEG-051/2" = 1'-0"DROP CURBEG-066" = 1'-0"Plot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L8-01_SITE DETAILS.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'AS NOTED
2" DEPTH COMPOSTED BARK MULCH,KEEP FREE OF TRUNKS / STEMSSET CROWN OF ROOTBALL 1"ABOVE FINISHED SOIL GRADEREMOVE ROPES, WIRES, &NON-BIODEGRADABLE MATERIALSFROM ROOTBALL, LOOSEN ROOTBOUND ROOTBALLS OF CONTAINERGROWN SHRUBSLCLCNOTE:1.PRUNE BROKEN BRANCHES.HAND WATER IN ALLSHRUBS AFTER PLANTING.DRAINAGE SAND, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGSFOR DRAINAGE DETAILS AND TYPESPREPARED SUBGRADE1'PLANTING BED SOILHORTICULTURAL SUBSOIL2'VARIESVARIES2" DEPTH LEAF MULCH.DO NOT COVER STEMSOR FOLIAGEREMOVE CONTAINERAND LOOSEN ROOTBALLSPREPARED SUBGRADEDRAINAGE SAND, SEE CIVILDRAWINGS FOR DRAINAGE DETAILSAND TYPES1'1'PLANTING BED SOILHORTICULTURAL SUBSOILFINISHED GRADESODDED LAWNDRAINAGE SAND, SEE CIVILDRAWINGS FOR DRAINAGEDETAILS AND TYPESPREPARED SUBGRADEPLANTING BED SOILHORTICULTURAL SUBSOIL1'1'6060
60`A'`A'`A'`B'PLANT SPACING (`A')6 IN. O.C.8 IN. O.C.10 IN. O.C.12 IN. O.C.15 IN. O.C.18 IN. O.C.24 IN. O.C.30 IN. O.C.26 IN. O.C.21 IN. O.C.16 IN. O.C.13 IN. O.C.10-1/2 IN. O.C.8-1/2 IN. O.C.7 IN. O.C.5 IN. O.C.ROW SPACING (`B')EXTENT OF PLANTING PIT2"-3" DEEP LOAM WATERING BERM @EDGE OF ROOTBALL, REMOVE AFTERONE YEAR3'MULCH RINGPLAN2" DEPTH MULCH, DO NOT APPLYMULCH TO ROOT FLARE OF TREE(3) 2"X4"X10' STAKES DRIVEN MIN24" INTO UNDISTURBED GRADEOUTSIDE ROOTBALL3'MULCH RINGSECTION120°WOOD STAKES SPACED EQUALLYAROUND TREE (3 PER TREE)TREEROOTBALLEXTENT OF MULCH RING.DO NOT APPLY MULCH TOROOT FLARE OF TREE18'-0"GUY WIRE (3 PER TREE)PREPARED SUBGRADE OR STRUCTURE6"ALLSIDESCUT AND REMOVE BURLAP ANDCOMPLETELY REMOVE WIREBASKET ANDNON-BIODEGRADABLE MATERIALSFROM ROOTBALLNOTE:1.SET TREE TRUNK PLUMB VERTICAL.2.MULCH SHALL NOT COVER BASE OF TREE TRUNK.3.PRUNE BROKEN, CROSSING OR RUBBING BRANCHES.4.REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR STAKING INFORMATION.COMPACTEDHORTICULTURAL SUBSOILSET TREE FLARE AT FINISHEDGRADE OF SOILTREE WATERING STAKES, SEEIRRIGATION DRAWINGS1'2'DEPENDS ON ROOTBALL SIZE, TYP.PLANTING BED SOILHOSEARBORTIE, FIXED TO WOOD POSTHORTICULTURAL SUBSOIL, DEPTHDEPENDS ON ROOTBALL SIZE, TYP.CUT AND REMOVE BURLAPAND COMPLETELY REMOVEWIRE BASKET3' DIA. MULCH (NO MULCHAROUND TRUNK BASE)CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVEEXCESS FILL FROM TOP OFTRUNK. SET CROWN OF ROOTBALL 2" HIGHER THANFINISHED GRADE.TREES ARE TO BE PRUNED TOMAINTAIN UNDERSTORY.COMPACTED SOIL PEDESTALTO PREVENT SETTLING WITHTREES > 2.5" CALIPER TRUNKSCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOMOF HOLEROOTBALL3' DIA. MULCH (NO MULCHAROUND TRUNK BASE)VARIES, SEE PLANSNO GROUNDCOVEROVER ROOT BALLNOTE:1.TREE TRUNK TO BE PLUMB VERTICAL.2.MULCH SHALL NOT COVER BASE OF TREE TRUNK OR GROUND COVER.3.ALL TREES TO BE STAKED PER TREE STAKING DETAIL.PLANSECTIONPREPARED SUBGRADE ORSTRUCTUREPLANTING BED SOILARBORTIE, FIXED TO WOOD POSTWOOD STAKES (3 PER TREE)SP-04PLANTING SOIL, SEE PLANSPREPARED SUBGRADE ORSTRUCTUREARBORTIE, FIXED TO WOOD POSTROOTBALLSOIL SAUCER120°2" DEPTH MULCH, DO NOT APPLYMULCH TO ROOT FLARE OF TREETREEARBORTIE GUY (3 PER TREE)PLANEXTENT OF PLANTING PIT5'-1114"ALLSIDESPLANT PIT=3X ROOT BALL DIAMETERSECTIONCUT AND REMOVE BURLAPAND COMPLETELY REMOVEWIRE BASKET ANDNON-BIODEGRADABLEMATERIALS FROM ROOTBALLWOOD STAKES (3 PER TREE)WOOD STAKES(3 PER TREE)NOTE:1.SET TREE TRUNK PLUMB VERTICAL.2.MULCH SHALL NOT COVER BASE OF TREE TRUNK.3.FOLLOW MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS FOR ARBORTIE INSTALLATION.4.PRUNE BROKEN, CROSSING OR RUBBING BRANCHES.5.REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR STAKING INFORMATION.PLANTING BED SOIL1'HORTICULTURAL SUBSOIL, DEPTHDEPENDS ON ROOTBALL SIZE, TYP.MEADOW SOILNO-MOW FESCUE ANDPERENNIALS; SEEPLANTING PLAN1'-0"SCARIFY SUBGRADEPREPARED SUBGRADE;SEE SPECIFICATIONSPERFORATED PIPE WITHFILTER FABRIC SOCK (ASREQUIRED)SAND DRAINAGELAYER (ASREQUIRED)4"-6"PLACE MIN 2" MULCH OVERSLOPE, TAKING CARE NOT TOBURY PLANTSPLANT SHRUBS AND LARGERPLANTS AT SLOPE ANGLE,ROUGHEN ROOTBALLS TOIMPROVE CONTACT W/ SOIL.REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FORSLOPE REINFORCEMENT FORSLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1PLANTING SOILPLACE & COMPACT FILL IN 6"LIFTS, CREATING BENCHES TOSTABILIZE PLANTING BED SOIL4'NOTES:1.SET TREE TRUNK PLUMB VERTICAL.2.MULCH SHALL NOT COVER BASE OF TREE TRUNK.3.PRUNE BROKEN, CROSSING OR RUBBING BRANCHES.4.REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR STAKING INFORMATION.3'-0"PREPARED SUBGRADETREE WATERING STAKES, SEEIRRIGATION DRAWINGSPLANTING SOIL (AS NEEDED); DONOT BURY THE TREE FLARE. SETFLARE OF TREE AT TOP OF SANDBASED STRUCTURAL SOILTREE GRATECUT AND REMOVE TOP ALL BURLAP ANDCOMPLETELY REMOVE WIRE BASKET ANDNON-BIODEGRADABLE MATERIALS FROMROOTBALLCOMPACTEDHORTICULTURAL SUBSOIL212"1'2"MIN.CU STRUCTURAL SOILPRECAST CONCRETE PAVERSDRAINAGE SANDWASHED AASHTO #57 STONE6"6"SITE DETAILS - PLANTINGL8-03SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTINGVT-011" = 1'-0"SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING - ON SLOPEVT-021" = 1'-0"PERENIAL AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTINGVT-031" = 1'-0"SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER TRIANGULATION LAYOUTVT-041" = 1'-0"SODDED LAWNVT-051" = 1'-0"MEADOWVT-061' = 1'-0"DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTINGVT-071/2" = 1'-0"MULTI STEM TREE PLANTINGVT-081/2" = 1'-0"CONFIER TREE PLANTINGVT-091/2" = 1'-0"PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREE AT CONCRETE PAVEMENTVT-101/2" = 1'-0"Plot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L8-01_SITE DETAILS.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'AS NOTED
NOTES1.BIKE RACK 'DOWNTOWN' BY DERO2.TO BE INSTALLED PLUMB VERTICAL3.FOLLOW MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATION FOR SPACING2'-6"2'-8"
10"PLANSECTIONCORE DRILLEDCONCRETE FOOTING2 38"AA1SECTION A-A1POLE BASE DIMS VARYREFER TO PLANS1"LIGHT POLEBASE PLATECOVERANCHOR BOLTSREINFORCEDCONCRETEFOUNDATION,(REFER TO GSSERIES DRAWINGS)ELECTRICALCONDUITUNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTEDSUBGRADECAST-IN-PLACECONCRETE CAP.BONDING AGENTSHALL BE APPLIEDTO CONCRETEFOUNDATION PRIORTO INSTALLATIONOF "CAP" POUR.PREPARE EXPOSEDANCHOR BOLTS TOPROMOTEBONDING WITHCONCRETE CAP6x6 W2.0 xW2.0 REINF.CLAMPGROUND CABLESURFACEVARIES, SEEPLANSNOTES1.CONTRACTOR SHALL USE CAMPUSSTANDARD BLUE LIGHT PHONE MODEL ANDMANUFACTURER. SEE CAMPUS STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS.2.REFER TO MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONSFOR INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS.4'-0"1'-6"(4) 5#VERTICAL(3) #4 STIRRUPS@ANCHOR BOLTLOCATION, @3O.C.(2) #4STIRRUPS @12"O.C.#3 TIES @8"O.C.(4) 34" DIA X 26"HOT DIPGALVANIZEDVARIES, SEEMATERIALS PLANPLANELEVATIONSECTION6'SITE DETAILS - FURNISHINGSL8-04BIKE RACK ANCHORSF-011" = 1'-0"LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION - IN PLANTINGSF-021" = 1'-0"BLUE LIGHT PHONESF-031/2" = 1'-0"PRECAST CONCRETE BENCHSW-01N.T.S.Plot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L8-01_SITE DETAILS.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'AS NOTED
11.SYNTHETIC TURF FIBER WITH RUBBER/SAND INFILL2.PERFORMANCE SHOCK PAD3.TOP DRAINAGE STONE: 1"4.DYNAMIC BASE DRAINAGE STONE: 10.5" - 12"DEPTH (SEE GRADING PLANS)5.PANEL DRAIN6.GEOTEXTILE FABRICA.FG: FINISHED GRADE (TOP OF TOP FIBER)B.TEL: TOP OF E-LAYERC.TOS: TOP OF DRAINAGE STONED.TSG: TOP OF SUBGRADEE.SEE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SYNTHETICTURF FIELD SYSTEM.LEGENDNOTES34562UNDISTURBED SUBGRADECOMPACTED AGGREGATE6"HDPE OUTLETGRAVEL BEDDINGADS DRAINAGE BASINSQUARE CAST IRON GRATEH-10 LOADING. ADACOMPLIANTSEE DRAINAGE PLAN
12" SUMP 6"DIAMETER NOTED IN PLANRESTRICTOR PLATEWHERE REQUIRED1LEGEND1.PUBLIC ADDRESS & SCOREBOARD SECTION2.SYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEM3.SET E-LAYER FLUSH WITH CONCRETE CASING4.REMOVABLE ALUMINUM COVER WITH SYNTHETIC TURFSYSTEM PANEL, SET FLUSH TO TOP OF TURF5.SPORTSFIELD SPECIALTIES COMBOX 3500 (30" X 18")6.OPEN BOTTOM DRAIN TO STONE7.CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE ENCASEMENT8.DRAINAGE PIPE OVERFLOW TO STONE234671'-212"111
4"61
2"1'-212"2'NOTESA.INSTALL BOX PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.B.PROVIDE ALL CONDUIT AND ELEC/COMM BOXES PERAUDIOVISUAL PLANS.C.WHERE BOTH ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATION ORDATA SHARE A BOX, INSTALL CODE COMPLIANTSEPARATION BARRIER BETWEEN SYSTEM TYPES.D.BOXES SHALL BE INSTALLED FLUSH WITH TOP OF TURF.E.BOTTOM OF BOXES TO HAVE 2" WASHED STONE BASE.IN CASES WHERE BOXES ARE WITHIN TEN FEET OFDRAIN OR NOT WITHIN WELL-DRAINED SUBSTRATE,PROVIDE CONCRETE BOTTOM AND PIPE CONNECTIONTO DRAIN.F.ALL CONDUITS SHALL EXTEND 4" ABOVE TOP OFWASHED STONE BASE MATERIAL.G.ALL CABLES AND CONDUCTORS SHALL BE FULLYPROTECTED WITH RIGID CONDUIT OR FLEX-TIGHTCONDUIT.954910711.JUNCTION BOX1.1.NEMA TYPE 3R, WALLMOUNTED HINGE COVER BOX(8"D X 14"W X 16"H)1.2.14GA GALVANIZED STEEL,BLACK1.3.HINGED GASKETED DOOR1.4.GASKETED HINGED ACCESSCOVER AT BOTTOM FOR CABLEPASS THROUGH1.5.WALL MOUNTED FEET.2.UNISTRUT3.CONCRETE TURF CURBNOTES:1.MOUNT JUNCTION BOX TOUNISTRUT.2.CONDUITS TO RUN FROM HANDHOLE TO JUNCTION BOX.3.EACH LOCATION TO INCLUDEDOUBLE DUPLEX OUTLET ANDACCOMMODATIONS FOR OITLEGEND24FIELD DETAILSL8-10Plot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L8-10_FIELD DETAILS.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'AS NOTEDSYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEMFD-013' = 1'-0"AREA DRAIN AT SYNTHETIC LANDSCAPE TURFFD-041' = 1'-0"ELECTRICAL & COMMUNICATIONS BOXFD-051' = 1'-0"JUNCTION BOX AT FENCEFD-061' = 1'-0"SCOREBOARDFD-076" = 1'-0"DRAIN CLEANOUT - SYNTHETIC TURF FIELDFD-031' = 1'-0"14"2.00' (24")1.2"W x 1"W CONCRETE NOTCH2.SYNTHETIC TURF3.DRAINAGE STONE4.GEOTEXTILE FABRIC5.SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CONCRETE CURB6.4 #4 BAR HORIZONAL CONTINUOUS REINFORCING; 8" LAP7.#4 TIE @ 8' ON CENTER8.6"D COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE9.COMPACTED SUBGRADE10.ADJACENT SURFACE, VARIESLEGEND8567129A.NOTCH IN CONCRETE: 1"D X 2"WB.TOP OF CONCRETE NOTECH ELEVATIONSHOULD BE SET BASED ON SYNTHETIC TURFINFILL DEPTHC.TOP OF STONE TO BE FLUSH WITH TOP OFCONCRETE NOTCH. 1" BELOW FINISHEDGRADE.D.TOP OF INFILL LAYER TO BE FLUSH WITHTOP OF CURBNOTES4312"1"SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURBFD-021" = 1'-0"
Plot Date: 4/12/2024File: G:\28020.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\24_0415 PERMIT SET\L8-10_FIELD DETAILS.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:04.19.2024SC, TS, JPAR, TS, SCAGDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183528020.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com04/19/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITIndoor Sports and RecreationCenter & Multi-Purpose FieldTower RoadIthaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 20'FLAG POLESCALE: NTS1.ADJACENT PLANTING OR PAVING2.SYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEM3.PERIMETER TURF CURB4.60" NET POST EMBEDDMENT5.#4 HOOPS @ 12" O.C.6.CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETEFOOTING7.(6) VERTICAL #8 BARS8.6" DIA X 30' TALL FIELD NETTINGPOSTA.SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR NETTINGDETAILSB.SEE LAYOUT & MATERIALS PLANFOR NET POST SPACING.C.CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRMFOUNDATION SIZE WITHMANUFACTURER.617854LEGENDNOTES3'7'-0"
6'-0"
5'-0"14"3212"57PLAN - FOOTINGFIELD NET POSTSCALE: 1"=1'-0"16'
6'2'66617D5SECTIONELEVATION1.FENCE POST2.SYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEM3.SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURB X/LX-XX4.ADJACENT PLANTING OR PAVING (SEE MATERIALSAND GRADING PLANS)5.DENSE GRADED AGGREGATE BASE6.TOP, BOTTOM, AND MID RAIL.7.VINYL COATED CHAIN LINK FABRIC8.WINDSCREEN9.12" HIGH CHAIN LINK PAD WITH RIGID BACKING10.(4) #4 CONTINUOUS THROUGH CURB; 8" LAP11.#4 TIE @ 8' ON CENTERLEGENDNOTESA.SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR FENCE MESH MATERIAL.B.FRONT OF FENCE POST TO ALIGN WITH FRONT OF NET POST.C.TOP OF FENCE FABRIC SHALL BE SET 12" BELOW TOP RAIL OF FENCE.D.CORE FENCE POST INTO CONCRETE CURB EVERY 8' OC. PROVIDESCORING JOINT IN CURBING AT EACH POST AND EXPANSION JOINTEVERY 3RD POST OR 24'.E.CHAIN LINK FABRIC AND WINDSCREEN ON FIELD SIDE OF FENCE.F.12" PAD SHOULD BE MOUNTED AT BOTTOM OF FENCE SET 1" ABOVETOP OF CURB. REFER TO DRAWINGS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS.814"2.00' (24")31052413"101'-9"119FENCE AT SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURBSCALE: 1"=1'-0"BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCESCALE: NTSFN-03FN-02FN-01FN-04FIELD DETAILS -FENCING AND NETTINGL8-11
1
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner
DATE: May 13, 2024
RE: Revisions to Town of Ithaca Official Map– Recommendation to the Town Board
Enclosed please find a revised Town of Ithaca Official Map that illustrates the state, county, local, and
private roads in the Town of Ithaca, along with state and town parks/trails, potential future road
connections, and municipal boundaries. Also attached is a list of all new roads, updated road
information, new trails, and other information since the last Official Map update (2020). The project is
scheduled for consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board at the May 21, 2024, Planning
Board meeting.
New York State Town Law § 270 authorizes a town board to establish an Official Map of the Town,
outside the limits of any incorporated city or village, showing the streets, highways and parks laid out,
adopted, and established by law. New York State Town Law § 273 authorizes a town board, whenever
and as often as it may deem it for the public interest, to change or add to the Official Map of the Town
to lay out new streets, highways, drainage systems or parks. Among other things, a town board must
refer proposed changes or additions to their planning board for a recommendation.
The Town of Ithaca Official Map has been periodically updated throughout the years, beginning in 1968
and most recently in 2020. As indicated above, the Planning Board’s role is to review the Map and
provide a recommendation to the Town Board. The Planning Board may request additional revisions in
their recommendation. Among the attachments is a draft resolution of recommendation for the
Planning Board to consider.
Dan Thaete, Director of Engineering, and Ben Coakley, GIS Analyst, will be present at the May 21st
meeting to answer questions related to the Official Map. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions before the meeting at 273-1721 or by email at cbalestra@townithacany.gov.
Att.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Proposed
Changes to Official Map
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
May 21, 2024
WHEREAS:
1. Section 270 of NYS Town Law authorizes the Town Board to establish an official map
of that part of the town outside the limits of any incorporated city or village showing the
streets, highways and parks theretofore laid out, and may also show drainage systems;
2. The current Official Map of the Town of Ithaca was last updated in 2020;
3. Section 273 of NYS Town Law authorizes the Town Board to change or add to the
Official Map of the Town so as to lay out new streets, highways, drainage systems or
parks, and any such change or addition to the Official Map must be referred to the
Planning Board for a report thereon;
4. The Director of Engineering has prepared a draft proposed revised Official Map for 2024
showing the current and proposed streets, highways, and parks in the Town of Ithaca,
which represents changes from the 2020 Official Map;
5. The Town of Ithaca Town Board discussed the draft revised Official Map, as described
above, at its meeting on May 13, 2024, and referred the proposed changes to the Planning
Board for a report and recommendation; and
6. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board reviewed the draft Official Map and held a public
hearing on the draft Official Map at its meeting on May 21, 2024;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby
recommends that the Town Board adopt the proposed revised Official Map with the changes
shown on the 2024 draft.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Updates for the 2024 version of the official town map
Add roads:
Acer Dr (Cornell)
Amabel Rd & Amabel Ln (private)
Walters Way (private) (454 long from Elm St Ext centerline per Final Site Plan)
Power Plant Way (private)
Update roads:
Larissa Lane Phase 3 is now Town-owned, not private.
Crest Ln stops at end of pavement, and does not include the turn to the north (use County data)
The Town por on of Pennsylvania Ave ends at the end of the pavement. The remaining
approximately 143 feet is private.
Indian Creek Rd stops at Happy Ln – the Town-owned por on to the east is not a Town highway
Remove future approved road in Holochuck development
Add label for Remington Rd W (partly in Town)
Many miscellaneous road geometry updates, inherited from County GIS data
Add Gateway Trail
Update to new hydrology data
Add all ponds over 1 acre
Remove intermi ent unnamed streams
Update Town road widths from 2021 Local Highway Inventory for most roads. Add missing widths for
Sunnyview Ln and Remington Rd W.
City
of
Ithaca
Town of Danby
Town of NewfieldTown of EnfieldTown of Ulysses
Village
of
Cayuga
Heights
Town
of
Lansing
Village of
Lansing
Town of DrydenBeebe
Ithaca
Reservoir
Cayuga
Lake
Lake
EastIthacaNaturePreserve
WesthavenPreserve
GlensidePreserve
Pine TreeWildlifePreserve
SalemPark
TareytonPark
HungerfordHeightsPark
EasternHeightsPark
Tudor
GrandviewPark
VincenzoIacovelliPark
Northview Park
Troy Park
Saunders Park
Coddington RoadCommunity Center
Compton Park(undeveloped)
Saponi Park(undeveloped)
TuteloPark
West HillPark
Woolf Park(undeveloped)
East Shore Park
Park
Allan H. TremanState Marine Park
Buttermilk Falls
State Park
Robert H. Treman
State Park Bla
ck
D
iamond
T
ra
i
l
ForestHomePark
Culver Road
Preserve
Undeveloped park
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
am
o
n
d
T
r
a
i
l
Warren RdBrandywine DrSalem DrElm St Ext Wa
l
n
u
t
S
tBurleighCampbell AveCoddington RdV
e
t
e
r
a
n
s
Sesame
St
Mitchell StWe
t
l
a
n
d
Maize Dr
Rachel Carson TrlI nlet Rd Energy DrE
a
s
t
S
h
o
re
D
r
Sien
a
Dr
Floral AveSanctuary Dr
Dickman
Cir Forest Home DrComfort Rd
Tudor Rd
Tibet Dr Grant Egbert
Blvd E
Mazza
R
d
Juniper Dr Dr yden Rd
Arbor
e
t
u
m Hal
c
yon Hill Rd
Rapt
o
r
Rd
Hudson StSummerhill LnHopkins PlDanby RdLisa LnDu
b
o
i
s
R
d
Trum
a
n
s
b
u
rg Rd
Regency Ln
S chic k el Rd
Comsto
c
k
Kno ll Dr
T
a
u
g
h
a
n
n
o
c
k
B
lv
d
Teet
e
r
Rd
Lisa Pl
Joey Ln Helios CirPennsylvania Ave Ext
Winston Ct
Jessup Rd
Spruce WayMann Dr Shagbark LnHarris B Dates
Dr Ext
Alumni
Cir E Sylvan LnLena StSlat
e
r
v
i
lle Rd
Indian Creek Rd
Hansha w Rd
S ynch r ot r on
Ithaca Beer DrSnyder Hill Rd
Maggie Ln Bookbank RdKendall Ave
B irch wood Dr
Cyp r ess Ct
Bir c hwood Dr N
Campu
sCente
rWay
Medi
cago
D
r
Winthrop Dr
Hackberry Ln
Pearsall Pl Tareyton DrRocky Ln
Textor
Summerhi l l Plz
St ra wberry
Grove Pl
Discovery DrSugarbush LnEldridge
Cir
Worth St
Ellis Hollow Rd
N Cayuga StRenwick DrEastern Hei
g
h
t
s
D
r
Williams Sandra PlSky-VueRdSalem DrHonness Ln Ga l lus Rd
Alison DrJa
m
e
s
L
n
Deerfield
Pl
AveBlackstonePar
k
LnPl
e
a
san
t
Gr
o
v
e
RdProgram HouseNilo DrHayts Rd
Texas Ln
Ext
Lois LnTau
r
u
s
Dr
Wiedmaier CtCucurb it Dr
Dove DrHarwickRdParvo DrCal
d
w
e
ll
King
R
d
WIvy Crest Tulip Tree DrPoole Rd
Bundy Rd
Vera CirCollegeBellaVistaCir Towerview DrTower Rd
Vine StTuber
D
r
B ur r ow Dr
Five Mile Dr Woodgate LnGrove Rd
Roat St
Hasbrouck Cir
Coni
f
er DrAm
b
e
r
L
n
LaGrandCtT r iticum Dr
Peacht
ree Ln Homestead TerButtermilk
Falls Rd W
College Cir LnMcIntyre Pl
Sharlene RdOrchard StVista LnWin
n
e
r
s
C
i
r
Coy Gle
n
Rd
Bre
w
e
r
y
Ln
Scholarly Way
Con i f er Ln
Burns WayChristopher Ln
Ter
racev
iewHappy LnRose Hi ll Rd
College
Cir Dr Hungerford Hill RdCrest Ln
Landmark DrP
a
lm
Rd
Southwoods
D
r
Homestead
Wil
d
f
l
o
w
e
r
D
rConcord PlLevine CirEvergreen Ln
Eastw
o
o
d
Ave
Stone Quarry RdFidler Rd Pi
n
e
T
r
e
e
RdCampus Rd
Rosecomb Rd
Pheasant
L
nWinston DrByway
Conifer
Swanson DrWesthaven RdSpencer RdPenn
s
y
l
vania
Ave
E Stat
e
S
t
R
a
c
h
e
l
C
a
r
s
o
n
Mcgee Rd Mecklenbur g Rd
G rant Egbert B lvd
Candlew y ck Re
n
wi
c
k
Pl
Saun
d
e
r
s
R
dAs
t
e
r
L
n
Sunnyview Ln
Ecology Dr
Kings Way
Helen’s Wa y
Sand Bank RdWes tview Ln
Holly Creek View Dr Heights RdFair w a y Dr
Whitetail
D
r Hosta DrBostwick Rd Judd Falls RdKay StWeepingWillow Cir
Penny Ln
Felis Dr
Ma
rcy Ct
Culver Rd
Sycamore Dr
Enfield Falls Rd
F arrier Rd
Teton Ct
Maplewood Dr
Max’s Dr
Bella Vista DrMcGowan Woods Rd
Nort h view Lexington DrH
i
llc
r
e
s
t
D
r
Butter
m
i
l
k
Falls Rd
E
T ower
Apple BlossomArrowwood Dr
Perry LnNort
hview Rd Crisp Apple DrSimsbury Dr
Glenside
Crad it Farm Dr
Palustris
Sa
ran
a
c
W
ay
Gray Rd
John St
Maple Ave
Haller BlvdD rew Rd Sain
t
Cath
e
r
i
n
e
Cir
West Haven DrChas
e
L
n Rich RdW atertower RdConservatory DrOld Gorge Rd
F
a
rm
P
o
n
d
R
d
Ridgec
rest RdChristopher
Updike RdLarisa Ln Burns RdO rcha rd Hi ll Rd
King Rd E
Compton Rd
Inlet Valley Calkins RdBluegrass LnWoolf Ln
Flora Brown DrLyceum Dr
Irade l l Rd
Arbo r etum Rd
Hi
c
k
o
r
y
Pl Pineview TerRd W Joanne DrHi
l
l
C
i
r
Dr
Summ
e
r
h
i
l
l
DrClover LnCi
r Briarwood DrPinewood PlMuriel StDrWing DrR
d
Solidago RdGame Farm RdH
a
r
r
i
s
B
D
a
t
e
s
D
r
West
H
i
l
l
C
i
rHopkins RdDr
Gle
n
R
d
Cir
Valley View RdRdLongview DrLnWay Seven Mile DrTownline RdElmira RdKing Rd WCir
Skyline Dr
CirBirdseyeCo
d
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
R
dRenwick
La
k
e
S
tEast Shore DrSapsucker Woods RdWarren RdCirForest Home Dr
Dr
P
lWay 109
110
110M
115
119
120
121
122
123
128
137
139
140
141
172
172
173
174
177
179Jessie LnTheWay
Rd
DrSheeld RdTroy RdArboretu
m
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
R
d
Sand Bank Rd
Wycko
R
dWest Hill DrLn Sheeld RdW
h
ite
t
a
i
l
D
r Blackstone AveDrElm St Ext109
121
119
179
123
137
172
Co
d
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
R
dWalters WayAmabel RdAmabel LnAcer
D
rRemington Rd WPower
P
lan
t
Way
Williams Brook
Pleasant G ro v e B r ook
Fall C r eek
Lic
k
B
rook
Fall Creek
Cayuga InletCo
y
G
l
e
n
Si
x
M
i
l
e
C
ree
k
Six
M
i
l
e
C
reek
Cascadilla CreekIndian CreekCliff Park Brook
Enfield Creek Bu
t
t
e
rm
i
l
k
C
r
e
e
k Six
Mi
le
CreekRenwick Broo
k
TOWN OF ITHACA
2024 OFFICIAL MAP
0 1 2½Miles
Town Trails and Walkways
Roads
Other Municipalities
Cornell University*
Ithaca College*
State Highways
Private*
Tompkins County
Town of Ithaca
Town Parks (undeveloped)
Town Preserves
Parks and Trails
Town Parks
*Roads shown are not necessarily representative of town highway standards but recognized
as established access routes.
Road Width in feet
Alison Dr 24
Amber Ln 22
Apple Blossom Ln 22
Aster Ln 20
Birchwood Dr 20
Birchwood Dr N 22
Blackstone Ave 22
Brandywine Dr 22
Briarwood Dr 22
Bundy Rd 20 to 28
Burleigh Dr 22
Burns Way 20
Buttermilk Falls Rd E 24
Buttermilk Falls Rd W 24
Caldwell Rd 20 to 22
Calkins Rd 20
Campbell Ave 22
Chase Ln 24
Christopher Cir 21
Christopher Ln 22
Clover Ln 20
Compton Rd 22
Concord Pl 22
Conifer Dr 28
Coy Glen Rd 21
Crest Ln 19
Culver Rd 21
Deerfield Pl 22
Dove Dr 22
Drew Rd 21
Eastern Heights Dr 22
Eldridge Cir 24
Elm St Ext 22
Evergreen Ln 20
Fairway Dr 20
Fidler Rd 20
Forest Home Dr 20
Glenside Rd 16
Gray Rd 21
Grove Pl 21
Grove Rd 21
Hackberry Ln 23
Halcyon Hill Rd 12
Haller Blvd 20
Happy Ln 22
Harris B Dates Dr 28
Harris B Dates Dr Ext 22
Harwick Rd 23
Helen's Way 12
Hickory Pl 20
Holly Creek Ln 20
Homestead Cir 26
Honness Ln 28
Hopkins Pl 20
Hopkins Rd 22
Indian Creek Rd 20
Joanne Dr 24
John St 21
Judd Falls Rd 20 to 24
Juniper Dr 20
Kay St 20
Kendall Ave 20
King Rd W 22
Kings Way 20
Landmark Dr 18
Larisa Ln 20
LaGrand Ct 22
Lexington Dr 20 to 21
Lisa Ln 20
Lisa Pl 24
Lois Ln 20 to 24
Longview Dr 24
Maple Ave 20
Maplewood Dr 21
Marcy Ct 23
Road Width in feet
Max's Dr 21
McIntyre Pl 18
Muriel St 22
N Cayuga St 24
Northview Rd 23
Northview Rd W 23
Old Gorge Rd 28
Orchard Hill Rd 21
Orchard St 21
Park Ln 22
Peachtree Ln 22
Pearsall Pl 14
Pennsylvania Ave 22
Penny Ln 24
Perry Ln 24
Pheasant Ln 23
Pineview Ter 22
Pinewood Pl 21
Poole Rd 22
Regency Ln 21
Renwick Dr 21
Renwick Heights Rd 21
Renwick Pl 14
Rich Rd 22
Ridgecrest Rd 22
Roat St 20
Rose Hill Rd 22
Salem Dr
22
Sanctuary Dr
22 to 30
Sand Bank Rd
22
Sandra Pl
22
Sapsucker Woods Rd
22
Saranac Way
22
Saunders Rd
23
Schickel Rd
24
Sesame St
22
Seven Mile Dr
22
Sharlene Rd
21
Siena Drive
22
Simsbury Dr
20
Sky-Vue Rd
22
Snyder Hill Rd
22
Southwoods Dr
22
Spruce Way
28
Saint Catherine Cir
20
Stone Quarry Rd 24
Strawberry Hill Cir 23
Sugarbush Ln 22
Summerhill Ln 22
Sycamore Dr 22
Tareyton Dr 22
Terraceview Dr 22
Teton Ct 24
Texas Ln Ext 20
Towerview Dr 20
Townline Rd 22
Tudor Rd 22
Updike Rd 20
Valley View Rd 21
Vera Cir 21
Vista Ln 22
West Hill Dr 28
Westhaven Rd 21
Westview Ln 22
Whitetail Dr 23 to 24
Wildflower Dr 23
Williams Glen Rd 21
Winners Cir 23
Winston Dr 22
Winthrop Dr 28
Woodgate Ln 20
Woolf Ln 21
Wyckoff Rd 20
Official map of the Town of Ithaca effective
XXXXXX XX, 2024. Adopted by the Town Board
on XXXXXXX XX, 2024.
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
Pavement width is not representative of Town right of way widths.
137
Town Road Pavement Widths
State Parks/Land
Boundaries
Municipal BoundariesApproved Future Roads
Remington Rd W 20
Sunnyview Ln 22
PB 2024-03-19 (Filed 5/2) Pg. 1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
March 19, 2024
Draft Minutes
Present: Caitlin Cameron, Vice Chair; Ariel Casper, Cindy Kaufman, Liz Bageant, Bill Arms
and Kelda McGurk Absent: Fred Wilcox, Chair
CJ Randall, Director of Planning; Christine Balestra, Senior Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for
the Town; David O’Shea, Senior Civil Engineer; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement;
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
Ms. Cameron opened the meeting at 6:30p.m.
Mr. Arms noted for the record that he lives on the same block as the applicant for the Copman
two-lot subdivision proposal, but he did not feel he had a conflict of interest.
Item 1 Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for a proposed two -lot
subdivision, located at 210/212 Forest Home Drive within the Medium Density Residential
Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the property so the main residence at 210 Fo rest Home
Drive and the carriage house at 212 Forest Home Drive are on separate tax parcels. Linda
Copman, Owner/Applicant.
Johan Dulfer, Berkshire Hathaway Home Services Heritage Realty, Agent, gave an overview of
the request, saying that the two parcels were separately owned and then consolidated in the
1990’s when owned by the same person. The applicant would like to return it to the same
previously existing two parcels, live at 212 Forest Home Dr., and market 210 Forest Home Dr.
for sale.
The Board had questions regarding the three parking spaces in front of the property that are
designated “private parking” and the references to a shared driveway and parking for both
parcels.
Mr. Dulfer responded that it is his understanding that the parking spots are on the parcel itself
and legally non-conforming and permitted due to the lot line running to the center of the road,
but it is in the public right-of-way and not considered off street parking.
He has been discussing options with Mr. Moseley and a shared driveway had been included in
the variance request to the Zoning Board; but that has since been removed, as the plan has
changed to remove a small tree and make an independent driveway for the parcel.
The Board discussed the proposed subdivision lines and the existing fencing that crosses parcel
boundaries. Mr. Dulfer noted that the fence will be moved so that it is only on the one parcel.
PB 2024-03-19 (Filed 5/2) Pg. 2
The Board discussed the need for an encroachment license with the Town for the snow fencing
and arbor which encroach into the right-of-way. The arbor has been in place for many years and
the trees and perpetual maintenance of them were required as a buffe r as part of a previously
granted ZBA variance to allow the solar panels in the front yard. The road salt was killing the
trees and the applicant put up the snow fencing to shield the tree roots from road salt.
Mr. Arms noted that he has lived in the neighborhood for decades and houses are very old and
pre-date zoning, so parking in front of homes has always been done and does not concern him.
It was noted that Forest Home is a designated NYS Historical District, but this is a subdivision
request, not a development request, and therefore historical elements do not come into play.
SEQR Determination
PB Resolution 2024-010: SEQR
Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval
Copman 2-Lot Subdivision
210/212 Forest Home Drive
Tax Parcel 66.-2-13
Whereas:
1. The proposal is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for a two -
lot subdivision, located at 210/212 Forest Home Drive, Medium Density Residential Zone.
The proposal involves subdividing the property so the main residence at 210 Fo rest Home
Drive and the carriage house at 212 Forest Home Drive are on separate tax parcels. The
property was once separate parcels that were consolidated in 1990. No development is
proposed. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
is subject to environmental review. Linda Copman, Owner/Applicant; Johan Dulfer ,
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Heritage Realty, Agent,
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in
the environmental review with respect to the project,
3. The Planning Board on March 19, 2024, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative, a
subdivision plat titled “Subdivision Plat of Lands at No. 210 & 212 Forest Home Drive,
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by Ian M. Sheive, License d Land
Surveyor, Sheive Land Surveying, dated 7/25/2013 and last revised 03/19/24, and other
application materials, and
4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; now, therefore be it
Resolved:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law
PB 2024-03-19 (Filed 5/2) Pg. 3
and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced
action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in
the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Stateme nt will not be required.
Moved: Ariel Casper Seconded: Elizabeth Bageant
Vote: ayes – Casper, Arms, Bageant, Kaufman, Cameron, and McGurk
Public Hearing
Ms. Cameron opened the public hearing at 7:00p.m.; there was no one wishing to speak, and the
hearing was closed.
Determination
The draft resolution was revised to remove the reference to a shared driveway, revised dates of
submitted materials, and a condition added requiring the encroachment agreement with the
Town.
PB Resolution 2024-011: Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval
Copman 2-Lot Subdivision
210/212 Forest Home Drive
Tax Parcel 66.-2-13
Whereas:
1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for a two-lot
subdivision, located at 210/212 Forest Home Drive, Medium Density Residential Zone.
The proposal involves subdividing the property so the main residence at 210 Forest
Home Drive and the carriage house at 212 Forest Home Drive are on separate tax parcels.
The property was once separate parcels that were consolidated in 1990. No development
is proposed. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act and is subject to environmental review. Linda Copman, Owner/Applicant; Johan
Dulfer, Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Heritage Realty, Agent,
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as lead agency
in the environmental review with respect to the project, has on March 19, 2024, made a
negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and
accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff,
3. The Planning Board, on March 19, 2024, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
narrative, a subdivision plat titled “Subdivision Plat of Lands at No. 210 & 212 Forest
Home Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by Ian Sheive,
Licensed Land Surveyor, Sheive Land Surveying, dated 7/25/2013 and last revised
03/19/24, and other application materials, and
PB 2024-03-19 (Filed 5/2) Pg. 4
4. Per the Inter-governmental Agreement between the Town of Ithaca and the Tompkins
County Planning and Sustainability Department, dated August 3, 2004, residential
subdivisions of fewer than 5 lots, all of which comply with local zoning standards and
Tompkins County Sanitary Code requirements, and do not involve new local roads or
streets directly accessing a State or county road, are of local, rather than inter -community
or county-wide concern, and are therefore not subject to referral to the Tompkins County
Planning and Sustainability Department under New York State General Municipal Law,
Article 12-B, §§239-l, -m, and -n; now, therefore be it
Resolved:
1. That the Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver would result in a
significant alteration of neither the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies
enunciated or implied by the Town Board; and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed Copman 2-Lot Subdivision, as shown on the plans noted in Whereas #3 above,
subject to the following conditions:
a. Receipt of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals,
b. Submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and
three dark lined prints of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins
County Clerk Office; and submission of a copy of the receipt of filing to the Town of
Ithaca Planning Department,
c. Prior to signing of the plat by the Chairperson of the Planning Board, entry into an
encroachment license with the Town to allow encroachment of the plastic deer fence
and arbor into the Forest Home Drive right-of way, and
d. A new water service shall be installed to 212 Forest Home Drive within six months of
filing the subdivision plat in the Tompkins County Clerk’s Office, or prior to a
transfer of ownership of either parcel, whichever comes first.
Moved: Ariel Casper Seconded: Cindy Kaufman
Vote: ayes – Casper, Arms, Bageant, Kaufman, Cameron, and McGurk
Item 2 Persons to be Heard
Yayoi Koizumi, Zero Waste Ithaca, spoke saying that she was concerned about the lack of
transparency in the decision making process regarding the Board’s negative declaration of
environmental significance for the Cornell Fieldhouse project.
Ms. Koizumi referenced the apparent disappearance from the new agenda packet of the negative
PB 2024-03-19 (Filed 5/2) Pg. 5
determination, saying that the Board appears to have made it without ample public scrutiny or
thorough consideration given the significant concerns surrounding synthetic turfs and the
potential environmental and health impacts as well as life cycle considerations.
She said the negative declaration decision, presumably made after the people who spoke against
the turf left the previous meeting, with the YouTube video of the meeting showing no decision
making process on the determination and the agenda packet uploaded on February 21st with
SEQR comments has disappeared from the new agenda packet.
Ms. Koizumi thanked Ms. Kaufman for questioning the safety of artificial turf and noted that the
Conservation Board had also sent a letter expressing concerns.
Ms. Koizumi’s second comment concerned Mr. Wilcox’s responses to their comments at the last
meeting, saying that while the speakers respect the perspectives shared by board members, they
believe it is crucial to recognize the importance of considering health impacts regardless of
jurisdictional boundaries and the community's well-being should always be a priority, with
decisions made by Planning Board reflecting a commitment to safeguarding the public health
and environment by taking into account public opi nion, scientific evidence on the synthetic turf
chemicals and adopting precautionary principles.
Her third comment was a response to Mr. Arm’s comment, saying that while they appreciate his
perspective, they believe it is essential to acknowledge the validity of concerns raised regarding
synthetic turf rather than dismissing these concerns as emotiona l and they urge decision makers
to engage with them and review the extensive research available to them to ensure the wellbeing
of those affected are going to be considered.
Bethany Ojalehto Mays, speaking about her comments made at a prior meeting, saying she was
confused also about that meeting because the agenda item for the Cornell Field had been pulled,
but we were allowed to speak. Then the next day, a letter, signed by Chairman Wilcox was sent
to the City of Ithaca Planning Board stating that a unanimous negative declaration of
environmental significance had been made by the Town’s Planning Board. She said she would
really appreciate it if this could be explained.
Ms. Randall responded, saying that the letter being referenced from the Town to the City is a
letter stating that the Town agrees and concurs with the City’s Planning Board to act as Lead
Agency in the environmental review and we are not aware of any negat ive declaration being
made.
Ms. Ojalehto Mays read directly from the letter dated February 20th to the City.
“The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met on February 20, 2024, to make a
recommendation to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board on whether the
Cornell Meinig Fieldhouse project could have the potential for at least one significant
adverse environmental impact. Planning Board members were unanimous in their
opinion that the project did not rise to the level of potential significant adverse
environmental impact and thus recommend that the lead agency issue a negative
PB 2024-03-19 (Filed 5/2) Pg. 6
declaration of environmental significance.”
She said this is why we are confused as people and board members expressed concerns about the
impacts.
Ms. Balestra responded that the letter Ms. Ojalehto Mays just read was a draft letter that was in
the packet that was sent to members and posted to the web prior to staff finding out just before
the meeting started that the item was being pulled. The letter was not signed by the Chair, not
sent, and was drafted by staff. There has been no official determination on the level of
environmental significance of this project.
Mr. Casper stated that our open transparency is the root of your issue here because staff is so
transparent that they post everything that will be discussed at a meeting and you then have access
to it, because this board and our staff does our job so well and documents are available even if
they become null and void, so the accusation that we are not transparent does not sit right with
him.
Ms. Ojalehto Mays responded that she did not make that accusation and thanked everyone for the
explanation and details, saying this has been very helpful, and it was interesting that drafts were
produced prior to a meeting, but that is another question for another time, but this had been
helpful, and she did not want to accuse anyone of a lack of transparency.
Ms. Bageant said she does understand how this can be very confusing to the public because
drafts are prepared, so no offense taken, but it is very valuable to her at least, to have staff
putting together drafts for the board to consider rather than having to attempt to compose them
during the meeting. She said she would like the public to understand that the drafts are discussed
and can be and often are changed, but having the framework is extremely helpful.
Mr. Arms asked about the Town’s ability to consider environmental impacts outside of the Town
boundaries.
Ms. Brock responded that for site plan, the board can only consider what is in the Town; for
environmental review, the board can make comments about impacts of the whole project, but the
City has been made the Lead Agency as most of the project is in the City of Ithaca. The Town
can submit comments to the Lead Agency for their consideration in making the determination.
Ms. Rosa added a final comment regarding transparency, saying that the packets are located
online on the town website, under Current Agendas, until after the meeting, when they are
moved to the Planning Board folder under Packets by year, and the State LGS1 retention is 6-
years, but the Town chooses to keep the documents permanently. They do not “disappear” but
are rather filed in the appropriate location, accessible to the public forever.
Ms. Bageant added that the public can always call the Town Clerk if they have any issue locating
a public document.
Ms. Ojalehto Mays thanked the Board for the thorough response and explanation and
PB 2024-03-19 (Filed 5/2) Pg. 7
apologized if the accusation of not be transparent was felt and unfounded.
Item 3 Approval of Minutes
February 6, 2024, and February 24, 2024 minutes were moved for approval by Mr. Casper,
seconded by Ms. Bageant; unanimous.
Item 4 Other Business
Ms. Randall reported that the Town is working with the Town of Lansing to provide a joint
training on May 13th at 6pm on Site Plan and Area Variances.
Ms. Balestra reported that there are no actions for the April 2nd meeting.
Motion made by Ms. Cameron to cancel the April 2, 2024, meeting; seconded by Ms. Kaufman,
unanimous.
Ms. Kaufman asked about getting an expert to come in to help the board understand the issues
around artificial turf versus the maintenance and upkeep of grass turf. She said she is
overwhelmed by the amount of information out there.
Discussion followed, with members saying they would like to be informed, but also to know
when and where in the SEQR the board is supposed to consider this type of information.
Ms. Balestra referenced The SEQR Handbook as well as the environmental assessment forms.
Ms. Randall cautioned about third-party or independent expertise being brought in because,
hypothetically, an applicant could present one version of “expert data” and the public or others
present another version of “expert data.” It is the board’s responsibility to evaluate the different
opinions and decide.
Ms. Brock added that she does not really encourage doing independent research because
everything used to make your determination should be in the official record; something that has
been submitted or that you have submitted yourself to staff so they can provide it to the public.
Ms. Randall noted that there are topical fact sheets available from the DEC.
Discussion followed with members concerned that that stance would limit them from becoming
informed about aspects of projects they are not familiar with, while sometimes they may have
personal expertise in an area and not need additional information.
Members felt trying to submit information they have accessed in time for the packet mailout
would be problematic and a topic may not even be apparent until the packet is received.
Mr. Arms said we should be encouraged to do our own research and come to meetings prepared ,
noting that when the Ithaca College field was under consideration, the applicant submitted
extracts of fact sheets and he read the full fact sheet.
Ms. Brock reiterated that the information members are basing their decisions upon should be
PB 2024-03-19 (Filed 5/2) Pg. 8
available to everyone and decisions must be based on information in the public record.
Different scenarios of issues that could make members want to research more were discussed,
with Ms. Brock bringing it back to the artificial turf, saying that under SEQR, the environmental
effects can be considered by this board to then make comments to the City’s Planning and
Development Board to weigh in their determination as Lead Agency on the SEQR determination.
The meeting was adjourned upon motion by Mr. Casper, seconded by Ms. Bageant; unanimous.
Submitted by
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
PB 2024-05-7 (Filed5/9) Pg. 1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
May 7, 2024
Draft Minutes
Present: Caitlin Cameron, Vice Chair, Ariel Casper, Cindy Kaufman, Liz Bageant, Bill Arms,
and Kelda McGurk Absent: Fred Wilcox
CJ Randall, Director of Planning, Christine Balestra, Senior Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for
the Town; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; and Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
Ms. Cameron opened the meeting at 7:00p.m.
Agenda Item 1 Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the Soil
Factory, a Project of Weave Community, located at 142 Ithaca Beer Drive within the Light
Industrial Zone and Inlet Valley Center Overlay District. The project involves establishing
soil research test gardens on the site, along wi th multi-disciplinary meeting, workshop, and
event spaces classified as Community Workshop and Place of Assembly uses in the existing
buildings. Site improvements include delineating bicycle, vehicle, pedestrian circulation,
and parking areas. There are no proposed exterior changes to the existing buildings. This is
a Type II Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is not subject to
environmental review. Greentree Ithaca, LLC, Owner; Neil Schill, Applicant/Agent.
Overview
Mr. Schill, agent, and Mr. Gaunt, property owner, gave an overview of the project, saying that it
is a place for artists, scientists, and community members to get together and learn and participate
in a wide variety of activities. They said they were very excited to be part of the concept of the
Inlet Valley Overlay District.
The Board had questions about the parking layout and the safety of those entering and exiting the
warehouse. The Board discussed different mitigation options.
Mr. Gaunt stated that they had enlisted Claudia Brenner, architect, for planning the layout of the
site, including the parking and they have as wide a space as possible between the warehouse and
the parking lot travel lanes. They might consider using bollards or other options to clearly
delineate the driving lane and the entrance way.
He added that one part of the request is for fewer parking spaces than are required by Town Code
but they may add a few back in once the spaces are delineated.
Public Hearing
Ms. Cameron opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak, and the hearing was
closed.
Discussion/Determination
PB 2024-05-7 (Filed5/9) Pg. 2
The Board discussed noise issues, noting the comment received by a neighbor expressing
concerns, and the applicant assured the Board that their patrons now fully understand the
parameters of the Town’s noise ordinance and they want to be good neighbors, and the issue that
prompted the noise complaint to the Town will not happen again .
He added that they do have an unwritten agreement with the neighboring business that they can
use their parking lot during non-business hours.
Ms. Bageant stated that she didn’t have any concerns about parking or the size of the spaces ,
adding that, in terms of the Planning Board’s need to allow parking in the required front yard, the
nature of the site and the use lends itself to parking in the front, as it doesn’t really look like a
front yard.
Ms. Kaufman asked the applicant if they would consider a 5-foot pedestrian walkway along the
front of the building, instead of a 3ft walkway. She also suggested that something be done to
enhance the looks of the warehouse, such as adding a mural.
Staff explained that the town has a mural law, and they would work with the applicants to see if
that was a possibility they were interested in pursuing.
Mr. Moseley explained the need for specific driving lane widths to accommodate fire truck
access in the case of emergency. Right now, there is just under 20-feet between the warehouse
and the loading dock, and the applicant is proposing at least 3 feet for pedestrian access. If you
expand the front access to 5 feet or add bollards, you will reduce the driving lane which could
restrict emergency access. Mr. Gaunt asked for more information regarding Mr. Moseley’s
comment about emergency access.
Mr. Moseley stated that they could work with the Fire Department on the bollard options and any
concerns they may have.
Mr. Arms said it is great to see this idea and although the buildings are not ideal, it is a great
concept. He asked how big events would be – how many people would be expected to attend
events. Mr. Schill responded that they have a maximum of 49 people at events.
Ms. Cameron said she was comfortable with the ideas expressed and agreed that the front yard
on this property is not really a front yard.
Mr. McGurk asked if the lighting outside is enough to be safe for people walking outside.
Mr. Gaunt said there are additional lights around the building that are not currently used. There
is a light at each end and around the exterior of the warehouse as well as lights at each
entrance/exit door that would come on when the door is opened, as well as outside lights around
the perimeter. He said that right now, many of the fixtures do not have bulbs in them because he
doesn’t like light pollution either.
PB 2024-05-7 (Filed5/9) Pg. 3
Ms. Balestra noted that the Town has a lighting ordinance focused on reducing light pollution,
but the lighting that exists were considered existing, non-conforming lights that could be used if
they were not changing it. If they were to pursue additional lighting or changes to the existing
lighting, they would need to meet the requirements in the Town Code, Outdoor Lighting,
Chapter 173.
PB Resolution 2024 - 012: Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval
The Soil Factory – A Project of Weave Community
142 Ithaca Beer Drive
Tax Parcels 33.-3-2.3 & 33.-3-2.5
Whereas:
1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the Soil
Factory, a Project of Weave Community, located at 142 Ithaca Beer Drive within the Light
Industrial Zone and Inlet Valley Center Overlay District. The project involves establishing
soil research test gardens on the site, along with multi -disciplinary meeting, workshop, and
event spaces classified as Community Workshop and Place of Assembly use s in the existing
buildings. Site improvements include delineating bicycle, vehicle, pedestrian circulation, and
parking areas. There are no proposed exterior changes to the existing buildings. Greentree
Ithaca, LLC, Owner; Neil Schill, Applicant/Agent,
2. This is a Type II Action, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.5(c)(18) of the regulations of the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, as the action constitutes a “reuse of a residential or
commercial structure, or of a structure containing mixed residential and commercial uses,
where the residential or commercial use is a permitted use under the applicable zoning law or
ordinance, including permitted by special use permit, and the action does not meet or exceeds
any of the thresholds in section 617.4 of this Part ,” and thus, approval of the site plan is not
subject to review under SEQR,
3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on May 7, 2024, has reviewed, and accepted as
adequate an undated narrative, a Basis of Design report prepared by Hallam ICS, dated
08/09/2022 (revised 06/12/2023), site plans titled “The Soil Factory, 142 Ithac a Beer Drive,
Ithaca, NY14850,” including Sheets C1 and C2, prepared by Claudia Brenner, dated 04 -02-
2024, and other application materials, and
4. Project plans, and related information, were duly delivered to the Tompkins County Planning
and Sustainability Department per New York State General Municipal Law §§239 -l et seq.,
and such Department responded in a April 24, 2024, letter from Katherine Borgella,
Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, pursuant to §§239-l, -m, and -n of the New
York State General Municipal Law, determining that the proposed action will have no
significant county-wide or inter-community impact; now, therefore be it
Resolved:
PB 2024-05-7 (Filed5/9) Pg. 4
1. The Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined
from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alt eration of neither
the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board,
2. The Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
modifications to the Soil Factory, a Project of Weave Community, as described in the items
noted in Whereas # 3 above, subject to the following condition:
a. Before issuance of a building permit, submission of proof of right to access Ithaca Beer
Drive (unimproved road), satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town,
3. Pursuant to Section 270-227 (A) (2) and (3) of the Town Code, the Planning Board hereby
authorizes a 9% reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the project, finding
that the reduction in the required number of parking spaces will not adversely affect traffic
flow on the project site, will leave adequate parking for all of the reasonably anticipated uses
or occupancies in the project, and will not otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of
the community,
4. Pursuant to Section 270-227 (A) (4) of the Town Code, the Planning Board hereby authorizes
a reduction in the standard 180 square foot parking space size, to no less than 162 square
feet, finding that the reduction will not cause any adverse effects on the project, on the
surrounding properties, or on the neighborhood, and
5. Pursuant to Section 270-227.B (2) and (3) of the Town Code, the Planning Board hereby
authorizes the placement of parking in the required front yard of the project site, finding that:
a. The particular use, nature, or location of the proposed project or building, requires that
parking be in one of such yards,
b. It is not practicable to limit parking to areas outside the required yard,
c. Parking in such yard does not significantly adversely affect adjacent properties or the
character of the neighborhood, and
d. No such parking will occur in any buffer areas.
Moved: Ariel Casper Seconded: Bill Arms
Votes: ayes – Cameron, Casper, Arms, McGurk, Kaufman and Bageant
Item 2 Other Business
Ms. Balestra reviewed the next meeting’s agenda.
Meeting was adjourned upon a motion by Mr. Casper, seconded by Mr. Arms; unanimous.
Submitted by
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
ATTACHMENT 1 – PB minutes 5-21-24
Written comments submitted to the Ithaca Town Planning Board
Regarding Cornell’s proposal for Meinig Field House
May 21, 2024
bethany ojalehto mays
Dear Town Planning Board Members;
I am a mother and citizen of Ithaca. I have a PhD in Psychology specializing in environmental
decision-making, and worked as an Assistant Professor of Human Development at Cornell before
leaving to engage more directly with the climate crisis.
Thank you for serving on this Board, and thank you for considering this written comment.
Responding to the climate crisis requires wise decision-making for future generations. You are on
the frontlines. As a Planning Board, the decisions you make will transform the composition of our
soil, land, water, and determine carbon emissions for years to come. It is not an exaggeration to say
that our fate lies partly in your hands. I offer this comment with gratitude to you for taking on this
responsibility.
There are significant climate concerns about Cornell’s proposed Meinig Field House and artificial
turf fields. I will address those concerns in other spoken and written comments. For today’s
comment, I want to focus on Cornell’s evaluation of the health and environmental impacts of
artificial turf specifically.
In their Meinig Field House Packet, Cornell included an “informational letter” from the consulting
firm Haley & Aldrich that claimed to provide a summary of research on the health and ecological
impacts of artificial turf. It was not a scientific review, but a one-sided report that relied heavily on
industry reports that were not peer-reviewed scientific articles (as implied) and contained a
number of concerning misunderstandings. Those points are detailed below, but first I want to speak
to the dimensions of debate.
THE DIMENSIONS OF THE “DEBATE”
Planning Boards are often presented with what appear to be two sides of a debate: one from
industry and one from concerned citizens and scientists. We can step back and ask: who benefits
from each narrative in this debate? The artificial turf industry has the goal of maximizing their
profits; they present evidence that artificial turf is safe. Concerned citizens and scientists have the
goal of maximizing the common good; they present evidence that artificial turf has significant
health and ecological harms. How do we weigh these two narratives?
Artificial turf companies are businesses. Haley & Aldrich is a business. They are hired by companies
to compile research reviews that will help those firms make more money. We have no reason to
expect that the artificial turf industry sees a transparent or precautionary approach to health,
ecological, and climate impacts of artificial turf as benefiting their bottom line. Any research review
from industry should be interpreted with a precautionary awareness that the review may be biased
toward their own profit.
I join many others in speaking up as a concerned citizen and scientist. I offer this research and
public comment as a volunteer. I make no money from this work. I have nothing at stake personally,
except how much I care about stewarding lands, waters, and ecosystems that support wellbeing for
all living beings. Thus, any research review that you receive from me may be “biased:” I am biased
towards a precautionary principle to protecting human and ecological health from irreversible
consequences, and I am biased toward actions and decisions that will preserve a habitable planet.
Not all debates are genuine, and not all information is equal. Some information is designed to make
more money for fossil fuels. That should be called out as disinformation, as the recent US
Congressional Report on Big Oil’s disinformation highlights. Big Oil has undertaken a decades-long
campaign designed to skew our understanding of the climate costs of fossil fuels, often through
misinformation masked as “science.” Artificial turf is part of Big Oil: it is a fossil fuel product. As
outlined below, I respectfully offer that Cornell’s current campaign to present artificial turf as safe
and harmless is another instance of Big Oil’s misinformation masked as “science.”
I have heard it said that concerned citizens and scientists are biased because they are “advocates”
for the common good. That’s accurate as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. We must also
acknowledge that industry is biased: they are advocates for their own profit. Everyone is biased
because everyone has a perspective. Just as it is impossible to take a photograph without adopting a
perspective, it is impossible to ask a question and find an answer without introducing a
perspective: and that includes scientists. With that in mind, we should acknowledge that every
research project and every building proposal is biased because it introduces a perspective. The
question is: is it biased toward the common good?
There are many cases in which it is smart to be biased. For instance, it is smart to be biased toward
survival. I hope our Town Planning Board is biased toward protecting a habitable ecosystem where
all of us can survive and thrive. On that note, I highly recommend that Town Planning Board
members watch the expert panel of scientists and advocates who presented on artificial and natural
turf at Zero Waste Ithaca’s recent webinar, and read the 2023 Sierra Club’s Public Health Risks of
Artificial Turfs submitted to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. It reflects many of the
same problems which I now turn to outline with the Haley & Aldrich research review below.
MISINFORMATION: The information letter by Haley & Aldrich is not sound science
I was disappointed to see Cornell’s information letter from Haley & Aldrich. The letter claims to
provide a “summary of recently published studies and reports that evaluate the safety (health and
environmental risks) of using synthetic turf athletic fields.” Instead, it presents exclusively pro-
industry research findings to the exclusion of the rest of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This
one-sided summary of research is designed to be comforting rather than informative. I list
significant problems and questions below.
(1) The letter is transparently pro-industry. Despite its claim to "summarize” the evidence, the letter
does not provide a balanced summary of the evidence or evaluation of competing findings, as you
would expect from any scientific review (see appendix). It does not review any of the research
showing negative health and ecological impacts of artificial turf. As a basic measure of scientific
rigor, one would expect a review to survey the relevant literature, address conflicting findings, and
evaluate their merits, rather than presenting a cherry-picked selection of studies that say only one
thing.
(2) The letter contradicts its own standard of evidence. After pointing out the need to rely on peer
reviewed scientific literature and claiming that “peer reviewed scientific studies were used to
support the conclusions developed in this memorandum,” the authors of the letter then go on to
contradict their own advice by relying heavily on two industry reports that were not peer-reviewed
scientific articles, and a set of test results from Labosport that are not peer-reviewed.
(3) Industry reports are presented on par with peer-reviewed scientific research. The letter
approvingly cites reports authored by consulting firms and industry (TetraTech, TRC Companies)
and treats them as reliable research, despite the fact that those reports were not peer-reviewed
scientific articles. The report by TetraTech was reviewed by another consulting firm (the Horsley
Witen Group), but this does not amount to peer-reviewed scientific research. Furthermore, the
testing results presented from Labosport International are results from a single lab, not a scientific
research program. Research conducted by and for the synthetic turf industry should not be
considered on par with peer-reviewed scientific articles, in part because industry has a profit
motive in undertaking research.
(4) The informational letter does not address the climate costs of artificial turf. Natural grass fields
absorb CO2 and produce oxygen, whereas artificial turf fields do exactly the opposite, emitting CO2,
methane, and other greenhouse gases. Any institution that claims to care about carbon emissions
should not be replacing natural grass fields with artificial turf fields that will intensify emissions
while polluting the environment for decades to come. This is exactly the kind of land use pattern
and resource consumption that is destroying our climate and our ecosystems, pushing us past
multiple planetary boundaries at once.
(5) The informational letter presents arguments based on background contamination that is not
credible. The informational letter implies that PFAS found in artificial turf are unproblematic
because the levels are “negligible” compared to background levels in soil:
“Evaluation of the PFAS detected in the Tetratech (2021) and TRC (2022) studies [note:
neither of which are peer-reviewed scientific articles] indicate that fewer PFAS compounds
were detected in synthetic turf, and at lower concentrations, than those that are present as
a background condition in soil.”
This is not a credible argument. It is simply wrong to argue that because the soil is already so
contaminated, further contamination doesn’t matter. First, this would only be the case if PFAS
pollution followed a surprising nonlinear dose-response relationship where once you reached a
certain level of pollution, nothing else above that mattered for the relevant outcome measures
(health or environmental). That’s not how pollution works. We have every reason to expect that
more pollution will be more harmful, both for humans and the environment.
Second, this argument is circular, and it is designed to deny accountability for both past and future
pollution. Current levels of background soil contamination are so high precisely because the
industry hasn’t been regulated. Aldrich & Haley appear to see that as evidence for why industry
shouldn’t be regulated going forward. Quite the opposite. High levels of contamination in soil and
water provide urgent evidence for the need to start regulating industry now.
(6) The report contains a recycling claim that requires further evidence: "During the field replacement
process, the existing turf will be recycled." In a 2021 Massachusetts hearing, synturf industry
industry representative Mark Curran admitted that not a single artificial turf field has been recycled
to date. Likewise, the CEO of Re-Match Turf Recycling said in 2020 that “there is no synthetic turf
recycling plant in America yet.” A 2023 Beyond Plastics Report found that Exxon Mobil’s claims to
engage in “advanced chemical recycling” of plastic waste including artificial turf is toxic,
unregulated, and unlikely to constitute recycling. If Cornell believes their artificial turf will be one of
the first examples of successful recycling, then they should detail exactly what their plan is for
“recycling” the turf, backing this up with transparent information on how and where the recycling
will happen.
(7) I have significant reservations and questions about the informational letter’s presentation and
interpretation of testing results for metals and toxins based in part on industry reports.
First, all reported tests use screening levels for direct contact and protection of groundwater. These
are not the relevant thresholds if you're concerned about ingestion or absorption of these materials
into the human body (which have more stringent thresholds).
Second, the informational letter presents findings that artificial turf contains many heavy metals
and toxins, including lead and PFAS, but dismisses these as unlikely to cause harm because they are
below the chosen screening levels. The truth is, no known level of exposure to lead or PFAS is safe.
The EPA recently announced that no known levels of PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ are safe, and the EPA
sets the maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) for lead at zero: “EPA has set this level based
on the best available science which shows there is no safe level of exposure to lead. The fact that
there is no safe level of exposure underscores the fact that any action to reduce exposures can have
impacts on lives and livelihoods.” The Town and City Planning Boards have the opportunity to take
action now to reduce exposures by saying no to artificial turf.
Third, the informational letter acknowledges that some of the metals and toxins did in fact exceed
screening limits for direct contact and/or protection of groundwater (including cobalt, zinc,
benzo(a)pyrene, and aniline). However, they then argued that these are “not harmful” because the
“EPA (2019) concluded that only 3% of the metal concentrations reported in the crumb rubber
samples are available for exposure.” Is it common practice to argue that the screening levels are not
themselves useful, but should instead be transformed by an exposure factor? Without careful
justification for this additional step, the reasoning appears post hoc. Screening levels for direct
contact and groundwater contamination should be respected.
(8) The report sets a deceptively high bar for proof of risk combined with highly tailored language –
exactly as Big Tobacco did for decades. The informational letter states that over 100 peer-reviewed
scientific studies have been conducted on health risks associated with crumb rubber turf fields, and
then states: “We are not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific studies which draw an association
between adverse health effects and use of crumb rubber.”
This statement is either inaccurate, intentionally misleading, or sets the wrong standard for proof.
It is simply inaccurate to state that no study has reported significant health risks of tire crumb infill.
Many empirical studies have highlighted risks based on toxicity results, potential accidental
ingestion, ecotoxicology, animal experiments, and limited human epidemiology (see Appendix B).
Assuming the consultants are aware of these studies, their statement can only be interpreted as
setting a deceptively high bar for proof of risk. It is exceptionally hard to demonstrate a significant
association between a specific toxin and adverse health effects in humans (and it may require that
people actively suffer the consequences in order to be studied). That does not invalidate the many
other data sources that can and should be used to assess potential health risks of artificial turf, as
cited above.
The consultants appear to be replicating a strategy that Big Tobacco employed for decades. First,
they ask us to assume that artificial turf is safe until proven otherwise. There is strong evidence to
assume that it’s unsafe until proven otherwise – but the industry has shifted the burden of proof
onto the public while their product continues to generate profit. Second, Haley & Aldrich present a
deceptively high bar for proof of health risks. For decades, Big Tobacco sowed doubt about the
conclusiveness of links between smoking and cancer, arguing that there was no “causal proof” for
the association. They were right, but their standard of evidence was dead wrong. It was only in
1996 – 32 years after the US Surgeon General declared cigarettes a cancer hazard – that the first
definitive scientific proof of the causal mechanism linking smoking to lung cancer was published.
Decades before that proof, the US Surgeon General acted on the basis of evidence from animal
experiments, statistical associations, and toxicology results that demonstrated consistent patterns
(not absolute proof). As well-known local scientist Sandra Steingraber concludes in her book Living
Downstream: for 32 years, the public was “protected from a now-proven danger by those who had
the courage to act on partial evidence” (p. xxii).
Finally, this statement is highly tailored by focusing only on artificial turf risks associated with
crumb rubber while excluding those associated with nanoplastics, microplastics, and thermal risks,
among others. It is problematic that the informational letter fails to acknowledge the many studies
raising significant concerns about health effects of crumb rubber across these multiple factors.
CONCLUSION
There are a number of other claims presented in the Haley & Aldrich letter that call for deeper
analysis. I trust that other public commenters will speak to those issues. Here, I will simply note
that I have concerns about the methodological soundness of studies cited by Haley & Aldrich; and
the problematic framing of statements implying that synthetic turf fields are nearly universally
accepted, when in fact there is active policy debate in many countries and many bodies do prohibit
the use of artificial turf.
As a separate note, Cornell should make a decision now about whether they plan to use either
recycled crumb rubber or virgin synthetic rubber for infill, given that these require different
analyses (p. 24, Haley & Aldrich packet).
I am disappointed that Cornell's understanding of artificial turf is so heavily reliant on industry
viewpoints rather than a broad overview of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. If Cornell is
acting in good faith and wants to understand the health and ecological impacts of artificial turf, they
should ask scientists for a review instead of a consulting firm that has worked for BP.
I urge the Town Planning Board to (1) issue a positive declaration on environmental review, and
(2) not to grant what Cornell calls a “tiny change” for segmentation. These projects are not
independent, because Cornell’s decisions about siting of turf fields at one site impact other sites.
Namely, if Cornell decides the field hockey field will be converted at Tower Road, then it will
require siting elsewhere on Game Farm Road. This is a unified issue and we would all benefit from
treating it as such.
Thank you kindly for your attention and consideration.
Sincerely,
bethany ojalehto mays
FOR MORE RESEARCH ON ARTIFICIAL TURF:
Sierra Club Loma Prieta. Public Health Risks of Artificial Turf. Submitted to the President Ellenberg
and Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. November 29, 2023.
De Haan, William P., Rocío Quintana, César Vilas, Andrés Cózar, Miquel Canals, Oriol Uviedo, and
Anna Sanchez-Vidal. The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of
Aquatic Environments. Environmental Pollution 334 (2023): 122094.
Persellin, Ketura. New Studies Show PFAS in Artificial Grass Blades and Backing. Environmental
Working Group. October 29, 2019.
Barnes, M. R., & Watkins, E. (2023). “Nothing Beats Nature”: Park Visitor Preferences for Natural
Turfgrass and Artificial Turf: A Case Study. HortScience, 58(4), 453-45.
https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/journals/hortsci/58/4/article-p453.xml
Kalam Khandoker, T., Yusufzai, A. O., Ahmad, S., & Stephen, H. Artificial Turf on Urban Landscapes:
An Overview. In World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2023 (pp. 740-754).
Liu, Z., & Jim, C. Y. (2021). Playing on natural or artificial turf sports field? Assessing heat stress of
children, young athletes, and adults in Hong Kong. Sustainable Cities and Society, 75, 103271.
Jim, C. Y. (2017). Intense summer heat fluxes in artificial turf harm people and environment.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 561-576.
https://ceh.org/latest/press-releases/new-testing-reveals-high-levels-of-toxic-pfas-in-artificial-
turf/
APPENDIX A:
PARTIAL SELECTION OF STUDIES CITING BLEYER & KEEGAN 2018
This selection of studies illustrates how an unbiased scientific review would treat competing
sources of evidence, in contrast to the one-dimensional report provided by Haley & Aldrich.
How circular is your tyre: Experiences with extended producer responsibility from a circular
economy perspective:
"Despite this apparent success, there has been a recent backlash against recycled rubber and the
EPR system in response to public concerns over the human and environmental health impacts of
artificial sports fields made with recycled rubber granulate (Zembla, 2016). This led to a
government inquiry on the topic and a series of reports were commissioned. In line with recent
academic research (Bleyer and Keegan, 2018; Peterson et al., 2018), and evaluations of the
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA, 2017), the Dutch government report on human health has
found no evidence of cancer risks related to artificial turf fields made with recycled rubber (RIVM,
2017). However, other government reports evidenced important environmental impacts, especially
for aquatic life (STOWA, 2018; Verschoor et al., 2018). This demonstrates the complexities of a
circular system, which aim to narrow, slow, shrink, and close material cycles, but do so in ways that
do not affect human and environmental health. This is often complicated, especially when dealing
with complex recycling processes and materials containing a mixture of often unknown or toxic
chemicals. This complexity poses the main obstacle to tyre management in the Netherlands .
Health impacts of artificial turf: Toxicity studies, challenges, and future directions:
“In 2014, a professional soccer coach released anecdotal evidence to suggest that artificial turf
exposure could be causing cancer in soccer players, particularly goalies, causing a media frenzy on
artificial turf and cancer risk (Bleyer, 2017). Although multiple athletes and coaches have blamed
crumb rubber on incidents of cancer, the human epidemiology evidence for an association is scant
and preliminary. In response to the soccer coach's claims, an investigation of incidences of cancer
among skilled female college soccer players in Washington compared to other residents of the state
found no significant association (Washington State Department of Health, 2017). However, this
study was limited to a single university and did not include most female soccer players in the state.
An investigation of the association between turf field density and incidences of cancer in counties in
California also found no significant association (Bleyer and Keegan, 2018). A 2022 simulation of
cancer risk in children due to PAH exposure from rubber playground surfaces estimated a ten times
higher risk compared to soil surfaces (Tarafdar et al., 2020). No human epidemiology studies on
artificial turf or crumb rubber have investigated any endpoints other than cancer.
Skoczyńska, E., Leonards, P. E., Llompart, M., & De Boer, J. (2021). Analysis of recycled rubber:
Development of an analytical method and determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and
heterocyclic aromatic compounds in rubber matrices. Chemosphere, 276, 130076.
Recycled crumb rubber (CR) is rich in compounds with unrecognized toxic potency; Mats
purchased in Dutch shops exceed the EU limits for articles placed on the market for use by the
public. The obtained results stress the need for expanding the list of target compounds analyzed in
crumb rubber." Most of the studies investigating the composition of CR, or the chemicals available
for exposure through release into air or water, concentrate only on “standard” pollutants like heavy
metals, PAHs confined to the 16 EPA-PAHs (US Environmental Protection Agency) or 8 carcinogenic
PAHs (as defined in entry 50 to Annex XVII to REACH (European Chemicals Agency, 2012)),
phthalates, bisphenol-A and benzothiazole (BTZ). CR research generally does not include
compounds belonging to the group of additives and vulcanization agents. Vulcanization
accelerators, like inter alia 2-methylthiobenzothiazole and 2-morpholinobenzothiazole,
benzothiophene, dibenzothiophenes and other sulfur containing PAHs (PASHs), have been detected
in urban runoff (Hüffer et al., 2019; Kumata et al., 2002; Zeng et al., 2004) but were not analyzed in
CR. Also other rubber-specific compounds like sulfenamides (Ema et al., 2007), aromatic amines
(Bolognesi and Moretto, 2014) and other toxic rubber additives have until now not been listed
among the target organic compounds analyzed in CR. Recently, Schneider et al. (2020) analyzed a
group of substances suggested by tire manufacturers based on sector-specific knowledge” and
Celeiro et al. (2020) analyzed a large group of plasticizers, antioxidants and vulcanization agents in
CR. Previously, Perkins et al. (2019) reported 306 chemicals identified in CR, from which 197 met
the carcinogenicity criteria set in their computational toxicology analysis…The obtained results
stress the need for expanding the list of target compounds analyzed in crumb rubber.
APPENDIX B
STUDIES REPORTING HEALTH RISKS FROM CRUMB RUBBER ARTIFICIAL TURF
Graça, C. A., Rocha, F., Gomes, F. O., Rocha, M. R., Homem, V., Alves, A., & Ratola, N. (2022). Presence
of metals and metalloids in crumb rubber used as infill of worldwide synthetic turf pitches:
Exposure and risk assessment. Chemosphere, 299, 134379.
“A multi-pathway human exposure study was also performed, and the risk assessment
shows non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks from accidental crumb rubber ingestion
(with Cr and Pb as major contributors) above the acceptable values for all the receptors
except adult bystanders, with a higher significance to younger individuals. These results
bring a different perspective regarding most of the studies reporting low risks related with
exposure to metals in crumb rubber.”
Skoczyńska, E., Leonards, P. E., Llompart, M., & De Boer, J. (2021). Analysis of recycled rubber:
Development of an analytical method and determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and
heterocyclic aromatic compounds in rubber matrices. Chemosphere, 276, 130076.
“Recycled crumb rubber (CR) is rich in compounds with unrecognized toxic potency; Mats
purchased in Dutch shops exceed the EU limits for articles placed on the market for use by
the public. The obtained results stress the need for expanding the list of target compounds
analyzed in crumb rubber."
Health impacts of artificial turf: Toxicity studies, challenges, and future directions
Many communities around the country are undergoing contentious battles over the installation of
artificial turf. Opponents are concerned about exposure to hazardous chemicals leaching from the
crumb rubber cushioning fill made of recycled tires, the plastic carpet, and other synthetic
components. Numerous studies have shown that chemicals identified in artificial turf, including
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), are known carcinogens, neurotoxicants, mutagens, and endocrine disruptors. However, few
studies have looked directly at health outcomes of exposure to these chemicals in the context of
artificial turf. Ecotoxicology studies in invertebrates exposed to crumb rubber have identified risks
to organisms whose habitats have been contaminated by artificial turf. Chicken eggs injected with
crumb rubber leachate also showed impaired development and endocrine disruption. The only
human epidemiology studies conducted related to artificial turf have been highly limited in design,
focusing on cancer incidence. In addition, government agencies have begun their own risk
assessment studies to aid community decisions. Additional studies in in vitro and in vivo
translational models, ecotoxicological systems, and human epidemiology are strongly needed to
consider exposure from both field use and runoff, components other than crumb rubber, sensitive
windows of development, and additional physiological endpoints. Identification of potential health
effects from exposures due to spending time at artificial turf fields and adjacent environments that
may be contaminated by runoff will aid in risk assessment and community decision making on the
use of artificial turf.
Attachment 2 – 5-21-24 PB Minutes
Spoken Comment to the Town Planning Board
Regarding Cornell’s proposal for Meinig Field House
May 21, 2024
This issue matters a lot to our earth and our children, the stakes are high, and I value your time. I
know you know that the decisions made here will have consequences for generations to come.
I’m bethany ojalehto mays. I am a mother and a citizen of Ithaca, like you. Thanks for serving on this
Board. I have a PhD in Psychology, specializing in environmental decision-making, and worked as
an Assistant Professor of Human Development at Cornell before leaving to engage more directly
with the climate crisis. 41
I submitted a written comment where I noted that Cornell’s information letter claims to provide a
“scientific review” on the impacts of artificial turf but is unscientific.
But you can read about those scientific points in my written comment. I’d like to speak to common
sense dimensions of this problem, problems which the artificial turf industry concedes. Everyone in
this room agrees on these points. You don’t need to read a single scientific article to appreciate
these four big picture concerns:
1) Artificial turf is a petroleum-based product. It comes from fossil fuels. I don’t need to state
the obvious: fossil fuels are imperiling life on this planet. We are all trying to reduce fossil
fuel use. Why would Cornell knowingly give millions of dollars to the fossil fuel industry to
pump more fossil fuels out of the ground, transform them into plastics through highly toxic
manufacturing plants, and truck them to Ithaca using yet more fossil fuels? When they have
beautiful grass fields already.
2) Artificial turf is plastic. New York State is working hard to eliminate plastics. We banned
plastic bags. Now we are working to pass legislation reducing plastic packaging because “As
long as the legislature fails to act, plastic polluters will continue harming our health, climate,
and environment on the backs of the everyday taxpayers demanding progress.” said Judith
Enck, president of Beyond Plastics and former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
regional administrator.. At this very moment, Cornell has a “Beyond Waste” campaign
claiming to reduce plastics on campus. If all of us are working so hard to reduce plastic, then
why on earth would Cornell convert several beautiful grass fields by paving them
with…plastic?
3) Artificial turf is a carbon emissions problem. Organic grass turf is alive: it absorbs CO2 and
releases oxygen, making it a carbon sink. Artificial turf is dead fossil fuels: it releases
methane and CO2 while trapping heat, and then ends up in a landfill generating more
climate-change causing emissions for decades to come. Why does Cornell want to increase
their carbon emissions with artificial turf, rather than nurturing carbon sinks with organic
grass lawns? Are they going to factor in all these increased emissions to their campus
footprint and climate action plan?
4) The artificial turf industry concedes that their turfs shed a huge volume of material into the
environment. Haley & Aldrich’s letter notes this but rather than acknowledging pollution is
a problem, they claim that it’s no big deal because the heavy metals and toxins present in
those materials “won’t leach into the environment at hazardous levels.” That claim is
misleading. But even if it were accurate – even if the materials were biologically unavailable
and all the toxins stayed in the materials where they “belonged” – since when is it okay to
release 1-5 tons of infill waste into the environment – per field – every year – and claim
that’s fine? That’s an average of 20 tons every 8 years per field (32:11). Seriously? We get
fined if we throw one plastic water bottle along the side of the road. But Big Oil could be
allowed to release many tons of plastic and infill materials every year into Ithaca’s soil and
water, and that pollution is “no problem?”
a) I don’t want little bits of artificial turf and tire crumb in my drinking water, no
matter how “safe” the industry claims it is. Do you?
To close, I request that you grant a positive environmental declaration, and that you do not grant
what Cornell calls a “tiny change” for segmentation. These projects are not independent, because
Cornell’s decisions about siting of turf fields at one site impact other sites. This is a unified issue and
we would all benefit to treat it as such.
I appreciate that the decisions we are being asked to make today will have tremendous
consequences for the beings who live here for generations to come. I hope Cornell cares as deeply
about our climate and our health as we do.
ATTACHMENT 1 - PB minutes 5-21-24
Written comments submitted to the Ithaca Town Planning Board
Regarding Cornell's proposal for Meinig Field House
May 21, 2024
bethany ojalehto mays
Dear Town Planning Board Members;
I am a mother and citizen of Ithaca. I have a PhD in Psychology specializing in environmental
decision-making,and worked as an Assistant Professor of Human Development at Cornell before
leaving to engage more directly with the climate crisis.
Thank you for serving on this Board,and thank you for considering this written comment.
Responding to the climate crisis requires wise decision-making for future generations.You are on
the frontlines.As a Planning Board,the decisions you make will transform the composition of our
soil,land,water,and determine carbon emissions for years to come. It is not an exaggeration to say
that our fate lies partly in your hands. I offer this comment with gratitude to you for taking on this
responsibility.
There are significant climate concerns about Cornell's proposed Meinig Field House and artificial
turf fields. I will address those concerns in other spoken and written comments. For today's
comment, I want to focus on Cornell's evaluation of the health and environmental impacts of
artificial turf specifically.
In their Meinig Field House Packet, Cornell included an"informational letter"from the consulting
firm Haley&Aldrich that claimed to provide a summary of research on the health and ecological
impacts of artificial turf. It was not a scientific review,but a one-sided report that relied heavily on
industry reports that were not peer-reviewed scientific articles (as implied) and contained a
number of concerning misunderstandings.Those points are detailed below,but first I want to speak
to the dimensions of debate.
THE DIMENSIONS OF THE"DEBATE"
Planning Boards are often presented with what appear to be two sides of a debate: one from
industry and one from concerned citizens and scientists.We can step back and ask: who benefits
from each narrative in this debate?The artificial turf industry has the goal of maximizing their
profits;they present evidence that artificial turf is safe. Concerned citizens and scientists have the
goal of maximizing the common good; they present evidence that artificial turf has significant
health and ecological harms. How do we weigh these two narratives?
Artificial turf companies are businesses. Haley&Aldrich is a business.They are hired by companies
to compile research reviews that will help those firms make more money. We have no reason to
expect that the artificial turf industry sees a transparent or precautionary approach to health,
ecological,and climate impacts of artificial turf as benefiting their bottom line.Any research review
from industry should be interpreted with a precautionary awareness that the review may be biased
toward their own profit.
I join many others in speaking up as a concerned citizen and scientist. I offer this research and
public comment as a volunteer. I make no money from this work. I have nothing at stake personally,
except how much I care about stewarding lands,waters,and ecosystems that support wellbeing for
all living beings.Thus,any research review that you receive from me may be"biased:" I am biased
towards a precautionary principle to protecting human and ecological health from irreversible
consequences,and I am biased toward actions and decisions that will preserve a habitable planet.
Not all debates are genuine,and not all information is equal. Some information is designed to make
more money for fossil fuels.That should be called out as disinformation,as the recent US
Congressional Report on Big Oil's disinformation highlights. Big Oil has undertaken a decades-long
campaign designed to skew our understanding of the climate costs of fossil fuels,often through
misinformation masked as"science."Artificial turf is part of Big Oil: it is a fossil fuel product.As
outlined below, I respectfully offer that Cornell's current campaign to present artificial turf as safe
and harmless is another instance of Big Oil's misinformation masked as"science."
I have heard it said that concerned citizens and scientists are biased because they are"advocates"
for the common good.That's accurate as far as it goes,but it doesn't go far enough.We must also
acknowledge that industry is biased:they are advocates for their own profit. Everyone is biased
because everyone has a perspective.Just as it is impossible to take a photograph without adopting a
perspective,it is impossible to ask a question and find an answer without introducing a
perspective: and that includes scientists.With that in mind,we should acknowledge that every
research project and every building proposal is biased because it introduces a perspective.The
question is: is it biased toward the common good?
There are many cases in which it is smart to be biased. For instance,it is smart to be biased toward
survival. I hope our Town Planning Board is biased toward protecting a habitable ecosystem where
all of us can survive and thrive. On that note, I highly recommend that Town Planning Board
members watch the expert panel of scientists and advocates who presented on artificial and natural
turf at Zero Waste Ithaca's recent webinar,and read the 2023 Sierra Club's Public Health Risks of
Artificial Turfs submitted to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. It reflects many of the
same problems which I now turn to outline with the Haley&Aldrich research review below.
MISINFORMATION: The information letter by Haley&Aldrich is not sound science
I was disappointed to see Cornell's information letter from Haley&Aldrich.The letter claims to
provide a"summary of recently published studies and reports that evaluate the safety(health and
environmental risks) of using synthetic turf athletic fields." Instead,it presents exclusively pro-
industry research findings to the exclusion of the rest of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.This
one-sided summary of research is designed to be comforting rather than informative. I list
significant problems and questions below.
(1) The letter is transparently pro-industry. Despite its claim to "summarize"the evidence,the letter
does not provide a balanced summary of the evidence or evaluation of competing findings,as you
would expect from any scientific review (see appendix). It does not review any of the research
showing negative health and ecological impacts of artificial turf.As a basic measure of scientific
rigor,one would expect a review to survey the relevant literature,address conflicting findings,and
evaluate their merits,rather than presenting a cherry-picked selection of studies that say only one
thing.
(2) The letter contradicts its own standard of evidence.After pointing out the need to rely on peer
reviewed scientific literature and claiming that"peer reviewed scientific studies were used to
support the conclusions developed in this memorandum,"the authors of the letter then go on to
contradict their own advice by relying heavily on two industry reports that were not peer-reviewed
scientific articles,and a set of test results from Labosport that are not peer-reviewed.
(3) Industry reports are presented on par with peer-reviewed scientific research. The letter
approvingly cites reports authored by consulting firms and industry(TetraTech,TRC Companies)
and treats them as reliable research,despite the fact that those reports were not peer-reviewed
scientific articles.The report by TetraTech was reviewed by another consulting firm (the Horsley
Witen Group),but this does not amount to peer-reviewed scientific research. Furthermore,the
testing results presented from Labosport International are results from a single lab,not a scientific
research program. Research conducted by and for the synthetic turf industry should not be
considered on par with peer-reviewed scientific articles,in part because industry has a profit
motive in undertaking research.
(4) The informational letter does not address the climate costs of artificial turf. Natural grass fields
absorb CO2 and produce oxygen,whereas artificial turf fields do exactly the opposite, emitting CO2,
methane,and other greenhouse gases.Any institution that claims to care about carbon emissions
should not be replacing natural grass fields with artificial turf fields that will intensify emissions
while polluting the environment for decades to come.This is exactly the kind of land use pattern
and resource consumption that is destroying our climate and our ecosystems,pushing us past
multiple planetary boundaries at once.
(5) The informational letter presents arguments based on background contamination that is not
credible. The informational letter implies that PFAS found in artificial turf are unproblematic
because the levels are"negligible"compared to background levels in soil:
"Evaluation of the PFAS detected in the Tetratech (2021) and TRC (2022) studies [note:
neither of which are peer-reviewed scientific articles] indicate that fewer PFAS compounds
were detected in synthetic turf,and at lower concentrations,than those that are present as
a background condition in soil."
This is not a credible argument. It is simply wrong to argue that because the soil is already so
contaminated,further contamination doesn't matter. First,this would only be the case if PFAS
pollution followed a surprising nonlinear dose-response relationship where once you reached a
certain level of pollution,nothing else above that mattered for the relevant outcome measures
(health or environmental).That's not how pollution works.We have every reason to expect that
more pollution will be more harmful,both for humans and the environment.
Second,this argument is circular,and it is designed to deny accountability for both past and future
pollution. Current levels of background soil contamination are so high precisely because the
industry hasn't been regulated.Aldrich&Haley appear to see that as evidence for why industry
shouldn't be regulated going forward. Quite the opposite. High levels of contamination in soil and
water provide urgent evidence for the need to start regulating industry now.
(6) The report contains a recycling claim that requires further evidence: "During the field replacement
process, the existing turf will be recycled."In a 2021 Massachusetts hearing,synturf industry
industry representative Mark Curran admitted that not a single artificial turf field has been recycled
to date. Likewise,the CEO of Re-Match Turf Recycling said in 2020 that"there is no synthetic turf
recycling plant in America yet."A 2023 Beyond Plastics Report found that Exxon Mobil's claims to
engage in"advanced chemical recycling"of plastic waste including artificial turf is toxic,
unregulated,and unlikely to constitute recycling. If Cornell believes their artificial turf will be one of
the first examples of successful recycling,then they should detail exactly what their plan is for
"recycling"the turf,backing this up with transparent information on how and where the recycling
will happen.
(7) 1 have significant reservations and questions about the informational letter's presentation and
interpretation of testing results for metals and toxins based in part on industry reports.
First,all reported tests use screening levels for direct contact and protection of groundwater.These
are not the relevant thresholds if you're concerned about ingestion or absorption of these materials
into the human body(which have more stringent thresholds).
Second,the informational letter presents findings that artificial turf contains many heavy metals
and toxins,including lead and PFAS,but dismisses these as unlikely to cause harm because they are
below the chosen screening levels.The truth is,no known level of exposure to lead or PFAS is safe.
The EPA recently announced that no known levels of PFAS'forever chemicals'are safe,and the EPA
sets the maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) for lead at zero: "EPA has set this level based
on the best available science which shows there is no safe level of exposure to lead.The fact that
there is no safe level of exposure underscores the fact that any action to reduce exposures can have
impacts on lives and livelihoods."The Town and City Planning Boards have the opportunity to take
action now to reduce exposures by saying no to artificial turf.
Third,the informational letter acknowledges that some of the metals and toxins did in fact exceed
screening limits for direct contact and/or protection of groundwater (including cobalt,zinc,
benzo(a)pyrene,and aniline). However,they then argued that these are"not harmful"because the
"EPA (2019) concluded that only 3%of the metal concentrations reported in the crumb rubber
samples are available for exposure." Is it common practice to argue that the screening levels are not
themselves useful,but should instead be transformed by an exposure factor?Without careful
justification for this additional step,the reasoning appears post hoc. Screening levels for direct
contact and groundwater contamination should be respected.
(8) The report sets a deceptively high bar for proof of risk combined with highly tailored language-
exactly as Big Tobacco did for decades. The informational letter states that over 100 peer-reviewed
scientific studies have been conducted on health risks associated with crumb rubber turf fields,and
then states: "We are not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific studies which draw an association
between adverse health effects and use of crumb rubber."
This statement is either inaccurate,intentionally misleading,or sets the wrong standard for proof.
It is simply inaccurate to state that no study has reported significant health risks of tire crumb infill.
Many empirical studies have highlighted risks based on toxicity results,potential accidental
ingestion, ecotoxicology,animal experiments,and limited human epidemiology(see Appendix B).
Assuming the consultants are aware of these studies,their statement can only be interpreted as
setting a deceptively high bar for proof of risk. It is exceptionally hard to demonstrate a significant
association between a specific toxin and adverse health effects in humans (and it may require that
people actively suffer the consequences in order to be studied).That does not invalidate the many
other data sources that can and should be used to assess potential health risks of artificial turf,as
cited above.
The consultants appear to be replicating a strategy that Big Tobacco employed for decades. First,
they ask us to assume that artificial turf is safe until proven otherwise.There is strong evidence to
assume that it's unsafe until proven otherwise-but the industry has shifted the burden of proof
onto the public while their product continues to generate profit. Second, Haley&Aldrich present a
deceptively high bar for proof of health risks. For decades, Big Tobacco sowed doubt about the
conclusiveness of links between smoking and cancer,arguing that there was no"causal proof'for
the association.They were right,but their standard of evidence was dead wrong. It was only in
1996 - 32 years after the US Surgeon General declared cigarettes a cancer hazard-that the first
definitive scientific proof of the causal mechanism linking smoking to lung cancer was published.
Decades before that proof,the US Surgeon General acted on the basis of evidence from animal
experiments,statistical associations,and toxicology results that demonstrated consistent patterns
(not absolute proof).As well-known local scientist Sandra Steingraber concludes in her book Living
Downstream: for 32 years,the public was"protected from a now-proven danger by those who had
the courage to act on partial evidence" (p.xxii).
Finally,this statement is highly tailored by focusing only on artificial turf risks associated with
crumb rubber while excluding those associated with nanoplastics,microplastics,and thermal risks,
among others. It is problematic that the informational letter fails to acknowledge the many studies
raising significant concerns about health effects of crumb rubber across these multiple factors.
CONCLUSION
There are a number of other claims presented in the Haley&Aldrich letter that call for deeper
analysis. I trust that other public commenters will speak to those issues.Here,I will simply note
that I have concerns about the methodological soundness of studies cited by Haley&Aldrich; and
the problematic framing of statements implying that synthetic turf fields are nearly universally
accepted,when in fact there is active policy debate in many countries and many bodies do prohibit
the use of artificial turf.
As a separate note, Cornell should make a decision now about whether they plan to use either
recycled crumb rubber or virgin synthetic rubber for infill,given that these require different
analyses (p. 24, Haley&Aldrich packet).
I am disappointed that Cornell's understanding of artificial turf is so heavily reliant on industry
viewpoints rather than a broad overview of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.If Cornell is
acting in good faith and wants to understand the health and ecological impacts of artificial turf,they
should ask scientists for a review instead of a consulting firm that has worked for BP.
I urge the Town Planning Board to (1) issue a positive declaration on environmental review,and
(2) not to grant what Cornell calls a"tiny change"for segmentation.These projects are not
independent,because Cornell's decisions about siting of turf fields at one site impact other sites.
Namely,if Cornell decides the field hockey field will be converted at Tower Road,then it will
require siting elsewhere on Game Farm Road.This is a unified issue and we would all benefit from
treating it as such.
Thank you kindly for your attention and consideration.
Sincerely,
Bethany ojalehto mays
FOR MORE RESEARCH ON ARTIFICIAL TURF:
Sierra Club Loma Prieta. Public Health Risks of Artificial Turf.Submitted to the President Ellenberg
and Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.November 29,2023.
De Haan,William P., Rocio Quintana, Cesar Vilas,Andres C6zar, Miquel Canals, Oriol Uviedo,and
Anna Sanchez-Vidal.The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of
Aquatic Environments. Environmental Pollution 334 (2023): 122094.
Persellin, Ketura. New Studies Show PFAS in Artificial Grass Blades and Backing. Environmental
Working Group. October 29, 2019.
Barnes, M.R.,&Watkins,E. (2023)."Nothing Beats Nature": Park Visitor Preferences for Natural
Turfgrass and Artificial Turf:A Case Study. HortScience, 58(4),45345.
https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view[journals/hortsci/58/4/article-p453.xml
Kalam Khandoker,T.,Yusufzai,A. 0.,Ahmad,S.,&Stephen, H.Artificial Turf on Urban Landscapes:
An Overview.In World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2023 (pp. 740-754).
Liu,Z.,&Jim, C.Y. (2021). Playing on natural or artificial turf sports field?Assessing heat stress of
children,young athletes,and adults in Hong Kong,Sustainable Cities and Society, 75, 103271.
Jim, C.Y. (2017). Intense summer heat fluxes in artificial turf harm people and environment.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 561-576.
https://ceh.org/latest/press-releases/new-testing-reveals-high-levels-of-toxic-pfas-in-artificial-
turf/
APPENDIX A:
PARTIAL SELECTION OF STUDIES CITING BLEYER&KEEGAN 2018
This selection of studies illustrates how an unbiased scientific review would treat competing
sources of evidence,in contrast to the one-dimensional report provided by Haley&Aldrich.
How circular is your tyre: periences with extended producer responsibility from a circular
economy perspective:
"Despite this apparent success,there has been a recent backlash against recycled rubber and the
EPR system in response to public concerns over the human and environmental health impacts of
artificial sports fields made with recycled rubber granulate (Zembla,2016).This led to a
government inquiry on the topic and a series of reports were commissioned. In line with recent
academic research (Bleyer and Keegan,2018; Peterson et al., 2018),and evaluations of the
European Chemicals Agency(ECHA, 2017),the Dutch government report on human health has
found no evidence of cancer risks related to artificial turf fields made with recycled rubber(RIVM.
2017).However,other government reports evidenced important environmental impacts,especially
for aquatic life (STOWA, 2018;Verschoor et al., 2018).This demonstrates the complexities of a
circular system,which aim to narrow,slow,shrink,and close material cycles,but do so in ways that
do not affect human and environmental health.This is often complicated,especially when dealing
with complex recycling processes and materials containing a mixture of often unknown or toxic
chemicals.This complexity poses the main obstacle to tyre management in the Netherlands.
Health impacts of artificial turf: Toxicity studies,challenges,and future directions:
"In 2014,a professional soccer coach released anecdotal evidence to suggest that artificial turf
exposure could be causing cancer in soccer players,particularly goalies,causing a media frenzy on
artificial turf and cancer risk(Bleyer, 2017).Although multiple athletes and coaches have blamed
crumb rubber on incidents of cancer,the human epidemiology evidence for an association is scant
and preliminary.In response to the soccer coach's claims,an investigation of incidences of cancer
among skilled female college soccer players in Washington compared to other residents of the state
found no significant association (Washington State Department of Health, 2017).However,this
study was limited to a single university and did not include most female soccer players in the state.
An investigation of the association between turf field density and incidences of cancer in counties in
California also found no significant association (Bleyer and Keegan, 2018).A 2022 simulation of
cancer risk in children due to PAH exposure from rubber playground surfaces estimated a ten times
higher risk compared to soil surfaces (Tarafdar et al., 2020). No human epidemiology studies on
artificial turf or crumb rubber have investigated any endpoints other than cancer.
Skoczynska,E., Leonards, P. E., Llompart, M.,&De Boer,J. (2021).Analysis of recycled rubber:
Development of an analytical method and determination of polyvclic aromatic hydrocarbons and
heterocyclic aromatic compounds in rubber matrices. Chemosphere, 276, 130076.
Recycled crumb rubber(CR) is rich in compounds with unrecognized toxic potency; Mats
purchased in Dutch shops exceed the EU limits for articles placed on the market for use by the
public.The obtained results stress the need for expanding the list of target compounds analyzed in
crumb rubber." Most of the studies investigating the composition of CR,or the chemicals available
for exposure through release into air or water,concentrate only on"standard"pollutants like heavy
metals, PAHs confined to the 16 EPA-PAHs (US Environmental Protection Agency) or 8 carcinogenic
PAHs (as defined in entry 50 to Annex XVII to REACH (European Chemicals Agency, 2012)),
phthalates,bisphenol-A and benzothiazole (BTZ). CR research generally does not include
compounds belonging to the group of additives and vulcanization agents.Vulcanization
accelerators,like inter alia 2-methylthiobenzothiazole and 2-morpholinobenzothiazole,
benzothiophene,dibenzothiophenes and other sulfur containing PAHs (PASHs),have been detected
in urban runoff(Huffer et al., 2019; Kumata et al., 2002; Zeng et al., 2004) but were not analyzed in
CR.Also other rubber-specific compounds like sulfenamides (Ema et al., 2007),aromatic amines
(Bolognese and Moretto, 2014) and other toxic rubber additives have until now not been listed
among the target organic compounds analyzed in CR.Recently,Schneider et al. (2020) analyzed a
group of substances suggested by tire manufacturers based on sector-specific knowledge"and
Celeiro et al. (2020) analyzed a large group of plasticizers,antioxidants and vulcanization agents in
CR. Previously, Perkins et al. (2019) reported 306 chemicals identified in CR,from which 197 met
the carcinogenicity criteria set in their computational toxicology analysis...The obtained results
stress the need for expanding the list of target compounds analyzed in crumb rubber.
APPENDIX B
STUDIES REPORTING HEALTH RISKS FROM CRUMB RUBBER ARTIFICIAL TURF
Grata, C.A., Rocha, F., Gomes, F. 0., Rocha, M. R., Homem,V.,Alves,A.,&Ratola, N. (2022). Presence
of metals and metalloids in crumb rubber used as infill of worldwide synthetic turf pitches:
Exposure and risk assessment. Chemosphere, 299, 134379.
"A multi-pathway human exposure study was also performed,and the risk assessment
shows non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks from accidental crumb rubber ingestion
(with Cr and Pb as major contributors) above the acceptable values for all the receptors
except adult bystanders,with a higher significance to younger individuals.These results
bring a different perspective regarding most of the studies reporting low risks related with
exposure to metals in crumb rubber."
Skoczynska,E., Leonards, P. E., Llompart, M.,&De Boer,J. (2021).Analysis of recycled rubber:
Development of an analytical method and determination of polyvclic aromatic hydrocarbons and
heterocyclic aromatic compounds in rubber matrices. Chemosphere, 276, 130076.
"Recycled crumb rubber(CR) is rich in compounds with unrecognized toxic potency; Mats
purchased in Dutch shops exceed the EU limits for articles placed on the market for use by
the public.The obtained results stress the need for expanding the list of target compounds
analyzed in crumb rubber."
Health impacts of artificial turf: Toxicity studies, challenges,and future directions
Many communities around the country are undergoing contentious battles over the installation of
artificial turf. Opponents are concerned about exposure to hazardous chemicals leaching from the
crumb rubber cushioning fill made of recycled tires,the plastic carpet,and other synthetic
components. Numerous studies have shown that chemicals identified in artificial turf,including
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),phthalates,and per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS),are known carcinogens,neurotoxicants,mutagens,and endocrine disruptors.However,few
studies have looked directly at health outcomes of exposure to these chemicals in the context of
artificial turf. Ecotoxicology studies in invertebrates exposed to crumb rubber have identified risks
to organisms whose habitats have been contaminated by artificial turf. Chicken eggs injected with
crumb rubber leachate also showed impaired development and endocrine disruption.The only
human epidemiology studies conducted related to artificial turf have been highly limited in design,
focusing on cancer incidence.In addition,government agencies have begun their own risk
assessment studies to aid community decisions.Additional studies in in vitro and in vivo
translational models,ecotoxicological systems,and human epidemiology are strongly needed to
consider exposure from both field use and runoff,components other than crumb rubber,sensitive
windows of development,and additional physiological endpoints. Identification of potential health
effects from exposures due to spending time at artificial turf fields and adjacent environments that
may be contaminated by runoff will aid in risk assessment and community decision making on the
use of artificial turf.
Attachment 2 — 5-21-24 PB Minutes
Spoken Comment to the Town Planning Board
Regarding Cornell's proposal for Meinig Field House
May 21, 2024
This issue matters a lot to our earth and our children,the stakes are high,and I value your time. I
know you know that the decisions made here will have consequences for generations to come.
I'm bethany ojalehto mays. I am a mother and a citizen of Ithaca,like you.Thanks for serving on this
Board. I have a PhD in Psychology,specializing in environmental decision-making,and worked as
an Assistant Professor of Human Development at Cornell before leaving to engage more directly
with the climate crisis.41
I submitted a written comment where I noted that Cornell's information letter claims to provide a
"scientific review"on the impacts of artificial turf but is unscientific.
But you can read about those scientific points in my written comment. I'd like to speak to common
sense dimensions of this problem,problems which the artificial turf industry concedes. Everyone in
this room agrees on these points.You don't need to read a single scientific article to appreciate
these four big picture concerns:
1) Artificial turf is a petroleum-based product. It comes from fossil fuels. I don't need to state
the obvious: fossil fuels are imperiling life on this planet.We are all trying to reduce fossil
fuel use.Why would Cornell knowingly give millions of dollars to the fossil fuel industry to
pump more fossil fuels out of the ground,transform them into plastics through highly toxic
manufacturing plants,and truck them to Ithaca using yet more fossil fuels?When they have
beautiful grass fields already.
2) Artificial turf is plastic. New York State is working hard to eliminate plastics.We banned
plastic bags. Now we are working to pass legislation reducing plastic packaging because"As
long as the legislature fails to act,plastic polluters will continue harming our health,climate,
and environment on the backs of the everyday taxpayers demanding progress."said Judith
Enck,president of Beyond Plastics and former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
regional administrator..At this very moment, Cornell has a"Beyond Waste"campaign
claiming to reduce plastics on campus. If all of us are working so hard to reduce plastic,then
why on earth would Cornell convert several beautiful grass fields by paving them
with...plastic?
3) Artificial turf is a carbon emissions problem. Organic grass turf is alive: it absorbs CO2 and
releases oxygen,making it a carbon sink.Artificial turf is dead fossil fuels: it releases
methane and CO2 while trapping heat,and then ends up in a landfill generating more
climate-change causing emissions for decades to come.Why does Cornell want to increase
their carbon emissions with artificial turf,rather than nurturing carbon sinks with organic
grass lawns?Are they going to factor in all these increased emissions to their campus
footprint and climate action plan?
4) The artificial turf industry concedes that their turfs shed a huge volume of material into the
environment. Haley&Aldrich's letter notes this but rather than acknowledging pollution is
a problem,they claim that it's no big deal because the heavy metals and toxins present in
those materials"won't leach into the environment at hazardous levels."That claim is
misleading. But even if it were accurate-even if the materials were biologically unavailable
and all the toxins stayed in the materials where they"belonged"-since when is it okay to
release 1-5 tons of infill waste into the environment-per field-every year-and claim
that's fine?That's an average of 20 tons every 8 years field (32:11). Seriously?We get
fined if we throw one plastic water bottle along the side of the road. But Big Oil could be
allowed to release many tons of plastic and infill materials every year into Ithaca's soil and
water,and that pollution is"no problem?"
a) I don't want little bits of artificial turf and tire crumb in my drinking water,no
matter how"safe"the industry claims it is. Do you?
To close, I request that you grant a positive environmental declaration,and that you do not grant
what Cornell calls a"tiny change"for segmentation.These projects are not independent,because
Cornell's decisions about siting of turf fields at one site impact other sites.This is a unified issue and
we would all benefit to treat it as such.
I appreciate that the decisions we are being asked to make today will have tremendous
consequences for the beings who live here for generations to come. I hope Cornell cares as deeply
about our climate and our health as we do.