Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Packet 2024-09-17 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, September 17, 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 (by raising hand icon) 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. Consider establishing the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as Lead Agency in the environmental review for the proposed Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The proposal involves consolidating four parcels and constructing six (6) five-story apartment buildings, containing up to 650 units/800 beds in studio, one bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. This is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer, Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC, Agent. 2. Persons to be heard. 3. Approval of Minutes. 4. Other Business. 5. Adjournment. C.J. Randall Director of Planning 607-273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY CHRISTINE 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. 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner DATE: September 9, 2024 RE: Maplewood Phase II – Establish Lead Agency, Begin SEQRA Enclosed please find the following attachments related to the Maplewood Phase II project: 1. Supplemental application materials, dated August 26, 2024 2. Draft resolution establishing the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as Lead Agency in the Maplewood Phase II environmental review 3. A copy of the Lead Agency concurrence letter to Involved Agencies, and agency responses 4. Draft Full EAF Parts 1-3 for initial review and discussion 5. Memos from the Code Enforcement & Engineering Departments – fire access, SWPPP, utilities Supplemental materials Planning Board members requested more information about bird-safe windows, potential visual impacts of rooftop mechanical equipment, and additional architectural renderings at the August 6, 2024, Planning Board meeting. Planning staff asked the applicant to provide additional views from other public viewsheds along Pine Tree Road and NYS Route 366 in the visual assessment. Code Enforcement and Engineering staff asked the applicant to provide more information about the Maple Avenue street section and for more complete stormwater information, thus necessitating the preparation and submission of additional materials for the project. The supplemental application materials contain a cover letter dated 8-26-24, along with a revised plan set including landscape plan, utility profiles, drawings for the stormwater pollution protection plan (SWPPP), revised and new visual assessment drawings, precedent images, and other requested documents. The revised plan set is intended to replace the plan set previously distributed to the board (dated 7-19-2024). SEQRA As explained at the August 6th Planning Board meeting, this project is classified as a Type I Action, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR Part 617). As such, the project requires the completion of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) and a coordinated review amongst the agencies that have discretionary decision authority to approve certain aspects of the project. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board declared intent to be the Lead Agency in the environmental review of the project on August 6, 2024. The attachments include a letter officially notifying Involved Agencies of this intent and requesting concurrence with the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as Lead Agency. As of the date of this memo, the town has received three responses from Involved Agencies, which are attached. 2 The purpose of the September 17, 2024, Planning Board meeting is for the board to establish themselves as the Lead Agency in the environmental review process and to begin the environmental review. The board will need to pass a resolution (draft attached) to establish itself as the Lead Agency. Once established, the board must then begin to reasonably consider whether the project has the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact. To assist the board, the enclosures include a FEAF Part 1, submitted by the applicant, along with draft FEAF Parts 2 and 3, prepared by planning staff. Staff has highlighted sections of the draft FEAF Part 3 where more information may be needed or that may need additional discussion. Please feel free to contact me with any questions before the meeting at 273-1721 or by email at cbalestra@townithacany.gov. Att. Cc: Michele Palmer, Senior Associate, Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC Jeremy Thomas, Director, Cornell University Real Estate Department Scott Whitham, Principal, Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC PROPOSED RESOLUTION: SEQR – Establish Lead Agency Maplewood Phase II Development Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, 63.-2-7.1, 63.-2-7.3 Maple Avenue Town of Ithaca Planning Board, September 17, 2024 WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting on July 2, 2024, considered a Sketch Plan for the proposed Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The proposal involves consolidating four (4) parcels and constructing a community center and six (6) five-story apartment buildings, containing up to 650 units/800 beds in studio, one- bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. Site improvements and amenity spaces include an outdoor terrace, fitness and wellness spaces, landscaping, and lighting. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer, Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC, Agent; 2. The proposed project, which requires Site Plan approval and Special Permit by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and a rezoning to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) by the Town of Ithaca Town Board, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Parts 617.4 (b)(3) and (b)(5)(iii), respectively, as well as Town of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Code section 148-5B(2) as the project as proposed involves a zoning change and the construction of 250 or more residential units (30 or more per Town Code) that will be connected to existing community or public water and sewage systems; 3. At its meeting on August 6, 2024, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board proposed to establish itself as the Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above-referenced proposal. Potential Involved and Interested agencies were notified of its intent to serve as Lead Agency on August 7, 2024; 4. The Planning Board, on September 17, 2024, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, application materials, studies, and a narrative plan set titled “Maplewood Phase II Preliminary Site Plan Submission,” dated 07-19-2024, and supplemental materials and drawings, dated 08-26-2024, submitted by Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC as well as Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above- described proposal. September 3, 2024 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Attn: Christine Balestra 215 North Tioga St Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: Maplewood Phase II Project GID-001086 SEQR Lead Agency Coordination Response Letter City of Ithaca, Tompkins County Dear Ms. Balestra: The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has reviewed the Town of Ithaca Planning Board’s Notice of Intent to serve as SEQR Lead Agency for the above referenced project. According to the provided materials, the project consists of the construction of six (6) five-story residential buildings, a community center, stormwater facilities, site improvements, and 150 parking spaces located at 301 Maple Ave in the city of Ithaca, Tompkins County. Based upon the review of your inquiry, DEC offers the following comments: PROTECTION OF WATERS There are no waterbodies that appear on our regulatory maps at the location of the project you identified. Though a permit is not required, please note, however, the project sponsor is still responsible for ensuring that work shall not pollute any stream or waterbody. Care shall be taken to stabilize any disturbed areas promptly after construction, and all necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent contamination of the stream by silt, sediment, fuels, solvents, lubricants, or any other pollutant associated with the project. FRESHWATER WETLANDS The project site is not located near or within the regulated area of a NYS Freshwater Wetland, therefore, a Freshwater Wetlands Permit is not required. Please note, however, the project sponsor should contact town officials and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Auburn Field Office, at (315) 255- 8090 for any permitting they might require. Please also be aware that pursuant to the Clean Water Act, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the Department if a Section 404 Permit is required by the USACE for the placement of fill within waters of the United States. STATE-LISTED SPECIES No records of sensitive resources were identified by this review. The absence of data does not necessarily mean that rare or state-listed species, natural communities or other significant habitats do not exist on or adjacent to the proposed site. Rather, our files currently do not contain information which indicates their presence. For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted. We cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural communities. Depending on the nature of the project and the conditions at the project site, further RE: Maplewood Phase II Project Date: 9/3/2024 SEQR Lead Agency Coordination Response Letter Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County Page 2 of 2 information from on-site surveys or other sources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological resources. CULTURAL RESOURCES We have reviewed the statewide inventory of archaeological and historical resources maintained by the New York State Museum and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. These records indicate that the project is not located within an area considered sensitive with regard to archaeological resources. For more information, please visit the New York State Office of Historic Preservation website at http://www.nysparks.com/shpo/. STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (SPDES) Soil disturbances of one or more acres of land from construction activities must obtain permit coverage under the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (GP- 0-20-001) by submitting a Notice of Intent and developing & implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. For further information please consult with Brian Nicholson in DEC’s Division of Water at (315) 479-3430 or review the NYSDEC Stormwater webpage. For construction permits, if this site is within an MS4 area (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System), the stormwater plan must be reviewed and accepted by the municipality and the MS-4 Acceptance Form must be submitted to the Department. If the site is not within an MS4 area and other DEC permits are required, please contact the regional Division of Environmental Permits. In addition to transmitting the above comments, this letter also serves to confirm that we have no objection to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board assuming lead agency status for this project. Additionally, by copy of this letter, the Department is notifying Greystar of any potential permitting required for this project. Please contact this office if you have questions regarding the above information. Thank you. Sincerely, Melanie Kukko Environmental Analyst Division of Environmental Permits, Region 7 Telephone No. (315) 426-7482 cc: J. Stercho, R7 DEP B. Nicholson, R7 DOW COMMISSIONER Katherine Borgella DEPUTY COMMISSIONER M. Megan McDonald 121 E. Court St, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 | Phone: (607) 274-5560 | tompkinscountyny.gov/planning Creating and implementing plans that position Tompkins County communities to thrive. August 21, 2024 Chris Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Lead Agency Concurrence for Maplewood II Dear Ms. Balestra: As an involved agency, Tompkins County concurs with the designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to act as Lead Agency for the environmental review for the above-mentioned project under the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this review. Sincerely, Katherine Borgella, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability cc: Elizabeth Cameron, Director of Environmental Health, Tompkins County 1 Chris Balestra From:Scott Freyburger <sfreyburger@tompkins-co.org> Sent:Wednesday, August 21, 2024 11:38 AM To:Chris Balestra Cc:Elizabeth Cameron Subject:FW: Maplewood II - Lead Agency Concurrence Request Attachments:Maplewood II SEQR Lead Agency Response.pdf **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Chris, We at TCEH consent to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board serving as the Lead Agency for this project. We will need to review backflow and potentially other water system improvement plans before the project is constructed. Let me know if you have any questions. Scott Freyburger, P.E., M. Eng. Public Health Engineer From: Abigail B. Conner <aconner@tompkins-co.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 10:57 AM To: Elizabeth Cameron <lcameron@tompkins-co.org> Subject: Fw: Maplewood II - Lead Agency Concurrence Request Good morning Liz, Please see the attached letter that you have been cc'd on that was sent from our department regarding the Town of Ithaca Planning Board's intent to act as Lead Agency for the environmental review of the Maplewood II Project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Abigail Abigail Conner Environmental Planner Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability 121 E. Court St, Ithaca, NY 14850 607-274-5576 | aconner@tompkins-co.org From: Abigail B. Conner <aconner@tompkins-co.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 10:56 AM To: CBalestra@townithacany.gov <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: Maplewood II - Lead Agency Concurrence Request Good morning Chris, 2 Please see the attached response to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board’s intent to act as Lead Agency for the environmental review of Maplewood II. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Abigail Abigail Conner Environmental Planner Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability 121 E. Court St, Ithaca, NY 14850 607-274-5576 | aconner@tompkins-co.org From: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 10:51 AM To: Katie Borgella <KBORGELLA@tompkins-co.org>; Elizabeth Cameron <lcameron@tompkins-co.org>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Info.R7@dec.ny.gov; dglance@dec.ny.gov Cc: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; CJ Randall <cjrandall@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Fred Wilcox (fredwilcoxiii@gmail.com) <fredwilcoxiii@gmail.com> Subject: Maplewood II - Lead Agency Concurrence Request Good morning, Attached you’ll find a letter requesting concurrence with the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to act as the Lead Agency in the environmental review associated with the Maplewood II Project. Project materials are in the link below. Please let me know if you cannot open the link or the attached letter. MWII Materials - SEQR & Preliminary Site Plan The materials for this project are somewhat lengthy, but if you require a paper copy, then please let us know as soon as possible. Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Ryan Souls |Sr.Director,Development,Greystar Telephone:843-579-9400 E-Mail:ryan.souls@greystar.com Address:465 Meeting St.Ste 500 City/PO:Zip Code:State:Charleston SC 29403 Project Contact (if not same as sponsor;give name and title/role ): Michele Palmer,Senior Associate,Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture Telephone:607-280-6916 E-Mail:palmer@whithamdesign.com Address: 404 N Cayuga City/PO: Ithaca State:Zip Code: 14850NY Property Owner (if not same as sponsor ): Jeremy Thomas,Senior Director of Real Estate,Cornell University Telephone:607-266-7869 E-Mail:jt675@cornell.edu Address: 15 Thornwoood Drive City/PO:Zip Code:State:14850IthacaNY Page 1 of 13 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project and Setting Instructions for Completing Part 1 Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist , or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that must be answered either “Yes” or “No”. If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, complete the sub-questions that follow. If the answer to the initial question is “No”, proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the applicant or project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part lis accurate and complete. A. Project and Applicant/Sponsor Information. Name of Action or Project: Maplewood Phase II Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map ): 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY, 14850 Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need): The project is a stand alone expansion of the Maplewood student housing community and is oriented toward Cornell graduate students, similar to the residents of the adjacent community. The site is approximately 9 acres and six five-story residential buildings are proposed that will house approximately 615 units with 800 beds, primarily studios and one-bedroom apartments with a small percentage of two-bedroom. A one-story community center to serve residents will also be constructed. Approximately 160+/- parking spaces are proposed. Greystar, the operator of Maplewood Phase I, is positioned to blend Maplewood Phase I and Maplewood Phase II to create a larger Maplewood neighborhood which will share some services, including street connections, water service, and outdoor amenity space. 7/7/2024 (for all noted) NYS DEC - lead agency concurrence 7/7/2024 Tompkins County Planning Department- GML 239, lead agency concurrence Tompkins County Whole Health, lead agency concurrence Possible acceptance of utility extensions 2014 Town Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map However, the East Ithaca Recreation Trail serves the project site. Project is technically considered new, with its own review process and new PDZ language. 27* *(Indicated in application) * *Town sewer mains exist, but will be reconstructed to better serve project. 160+/-160+/- Michele A Palmer 7/19/2024 Senior Associate Whitham Planning Design Landscape Arcihtecture Criteria: Selected Map Area New York Nature Explorer http://www.dec.ny.gov/natureexplorer/ Maplewood II EAF Part 2/3 Common Name State Distribution Status Protection Status Conservation RankSubgroup Federal State Global Year Last Documente Animal: Dragonflies and Damselflies Midland Clubtail Dragonflies S3Historically Confirmed G51894 Gomphurus fraternus Mocha Emerald Dragonflies S2S3Historically Confirmed G51926 Somatochlora linearis Rapids Clubtail Dragonflies S3Historically Confirmed G3G4 Phanogomphus quadricolor Spine-crowned Clubtail Dragonflies S1Historically Confirmed G4 Hylogomphus abbreviatus Page 1 of 8/26/24 3:00 PM 2New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York Nature Explorer Common Name State Distribution Status Protection Status Conservation RankSubgroup Federal State Global Year Last Documente Tiger Spiketail Dragonflies S1Historically Confirmed G4 Cordulegaster erronea Plant: Flowering Plants Delicate Rabbit Tobacco Asters, Goldenrods and Daisies SHHistorically Confirmed G4G5T3?Endangered1919 Pseudognaphalium micradenium Three Birds Orchid Orchids S2Historically Confirmed G4?T4?Threatened1922 Triphora trianthophoros ssp. trianthophoros New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 8/26/24 3:00 PM Page 2 of 2 Note: Restricted plants and animals may also have also been documented in one or more of the Towns or Cities in which your user-defined area is located, but are not listed in these results. This application does not provide information at the level of Town or City on state-listed animals and on other sensitive animals and plants. A list of the restricted animals and plants documented at the corresponding county level can be obtained via the County link(s) on the original User Defined Search Results page. Any individual plant or animal on this county’s restricted list may or may not occur in this particular user-defined area. This list only includes records of rare species and significant natural communities from the databases of the NY Natural Heritage Program. This list is not a definitive statement about the presence or absence of all plants and animals, including rare or state-listed species, or of all significant natural communities. For most areas, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted, and this list should not be considered a substitute for on-site surveys. --Ua(0i‘.iBI-J1t‘4L1’ PrimeandotherImportantFarmlands---TompkinsCounty,NewYorkMaplewoodIiEAFPart2-3PrimeandotherImportantFarmlandsThistableliststhemapunitsinthesurveyareathatareconsideredimportantfarmlands.Importantfarmlandsconsistofprimefarmland,uniquefarmland,andfarmlandofstatewideorlocalimportance.Thislistdoesnotconstitutearecommendationforaparticularlanduse,Inanefforttoidentifytheextentandlocationofimportantfarmlands,theNaturalResourcesConservationService,incooperationwithotherinterestedFederal,State,andlocalgovernmentorganizations,hasinventoriedlandthatcanbeusedfortheproductionoftheNation’sfoodsupply.PrimefarmlandisofmajorimportanceinmeetingtheNation’sshort-andlong-rangeneedsforfoodandfiber.Becausethesupplyofhigh-qualityfarmlandislimited,theU.S.DepartmentofAgriculturerecognizesthatresponsiblelevelsofgovernment,aswellasindividuals,shouldencourageandfacilitatethewiseuseofourNation’sprimefarmland.Primefarmland,asdefinedbytheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,islandthathasthebestcombinationofphysicalandchemicalcharacteristicsforproducingfood,feed,forage,fiber,andoilseedcropsandisavailablefortheseuses.Itcouldbecultivatedland,pastureland,forestland,orotherland,butitisnoturbanorbuilt-uplandorwaterareas.Thesoilquality,growingseason,andmoisturesupplyarethoseneededforthesoiltoeconomicallyproducesustainedhighyieldsofcropswhenpropermanagement,includingwatermanagement,andacceptablefarmingmethodsareapplied.Ingeneral,primefarmlandhasanadequateanddependablesupplyofmoisturefromprecipitationorirrigation,afavorabletemperatureandgrowingseason,acceptableacidityoralkalinity,anacceptablesaltandsodiumcontent,andfewornorocks.Thewatersupplyisdependableandofadequatequality.Primefarmlandispermeabletowaterandair.Itisnotexcessivelyerodibleorsaturatedwithwaterforlongperiods,anditeitherisnotfrequentlyfloodedduringthegrowingseasonorisprotectedfromflooding.Sloperangesmainlyfrom0to6percent.MoredetailedinformationaboutthecriteriaforprimefarmlandisavailableatthelocalofficeoftheNaturalResourcesConservationService.Forsomeofthesoilsidentifiedinthetableasprimefarmland,measuresthatovercomeahazardorlimitation,suchasflooding,wetness,anddroughtiness,areneeded.Onsiteevaluationisneededtodeterminewhetherornotthehazardorlimitationhasbeenovercomebycorrectivemeasures,Arecenttrendinlanduseinsomeareashasbeenthelossofsomeprimefarmlandtoindustrialandurbanuses.Thelossofprimefarmlandtootherusesputspressureonmarginallands,whichgenerallyaremoreerodible,droughty,andlessproductiveandcannotbeeasilycultivated.USDANaturalResourcesWebSoilSurvey8/2612024ConservationServiceNationalcooperativeSoilSurveyPage1of2 PrimeandotherImportantFarmlands-—TompkinsCounty,NewYorkMaplawoodIIEAFPart2-3Uniquefarmlandislandotherthanprimefarmlandthatisusedfortheproductionofspecifichigh-valuefoodandfibercrops,suchascitrus,treenuts,olives,cranberiles,andotherfruitsandvegetables.Ithasthespecialcombinationofsoilquality,growingseason,moisturesupply,temperature,humidity,airdrainage,elevation,andaspectneededforthesoiltoeconomicallyproducesustainablehighyieldsofthesecropswhenproperlymanaged.Thewatersupplyisdependableandofadequatequality.Nearnesstomarketsisanadditionalconsideration.Uniquefarmlandisnotbasedonnationalcriteria.Itcommonlyisinareaswherethereisaspecialmicroclimate,suchasthewinecountryinCalifornia.Insomeareas,landthatdoesnotmeetthecriteriaforprimeoruniquefarmlandisconsideredtobefarmlandofstatewideimportancefortheproductionoffood,feed,fiber,forage,andoilseedcrops.ThecriteriafordefininganddelineatingfarmlandofstatewideimportancearedeterminedbytheappropriateStateagencies.Generally,thislandincludesareasofsoilsthatnearlymeettherequirementsforprimefarmlandandthateconomicallyproducehighyieldsofcropswhentreatedandmanagedaccordingtoacceptablefarmingmethods.Someareasmayproduceashighayieldasprimefarmlandifconditionsarefavorable.FarmlandofstatewideimportancemayincludetractsoflandthathavebeendesignatedforagriculturebyStatelaw.Insomeareasthatarenotidentifiedashavingnationalorstatewideimportance,landisconsideredtobefarmlandoflocalimportancefortheproductionoffood,feed,fiber,forage,andoilseedcrops.Thisfarmlandisidentifiedbytheappropriatelocalagencies.Farmlandoflocalimportancemayincludetractsoflandthathavebeendesignatedforagriculturebylocalordinance.Report—PrimeandotherImportantFarmlandsLPrimeandotherImportantFarmlands—TompkinsCounty,NewYorkEMapSymbolMapUnitNameFarmlandClassificationArBArkportfinesandyloam,2to6percentslopesAllareasareprimefarmlandArCArkporlfinesandyloam,6to12percentslopesFarmlandofstatewideimportanceRkARhinebecksiltloam,0to2percentslopesPrimefarmlandifdrainedWrEWilliamsonveryfinesandyloam,2to6percentslopesAllareasareprimefarmlandDataSourceInformationSoilSurveyArea:TompkinsCounty,NewYorkSurveyAreaData:Version19,Sep5,2023usuiNaturalResources8/26/2024conservauonServicePage2of2WebSoilSurveyNationalcooperativeSoilSurvey .pL&0-a Page 1 of 10 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 - Identification of Potential Project Impacts Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could be affected by a proposed project or action. We recognize that the lead agency=s reviewer(s) will not necessarily be environmental professionals. So, the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that can be answered using the information found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. When Part 2 is completed, the lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity. If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Tips for completing Part 2: •Review all of the information provided in Part 1. •Review any application, maps, supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook. •Answer each of the 18 questions in Part 2. •If you answer “Yes” to a numbered question, please complete all the questions that follow in that section. •If you answer “No” to a numbered question, move on to the next numbered question. •Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact. •Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency checking the box “Moderate to large impact may occur.” •The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis. •If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact, it may help to review the sub-questions for the general question and consult the workbook. •When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity, that is, the Awhole action@. •Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts. •Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project. 1.Impact on Land Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of,† NO † YES the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1. D.1) If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 2. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3 feet.E2d 9 9 b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater.E2f 9 9 c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface. E2a 9 9 d. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons of natural material. D2a 9 9 e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. D1e 9 9 f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). D2e, D2q 9 9 g. The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area.B1i 9 9 h. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 9 9 Agency Use Only [If applicable] Project : Date : FEAF 2019 PLEASE SEE PART 3 FOR ANY ITEM CHECKED "YES" Maplewood II Residential Development TBD 4 4 4 4DRAFT Page 2 of 10 2.Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, † NO † YES minerals, fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2.g) If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, move on to Section 3. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Identify the specific land form(s) attached: ________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ E2g 9 9 b.The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a registered National Natural Landmark. Specific feature: _____________________________________________________ E3c 9 9 c.Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 9 9 3.Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water † NO † YES bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part 1. D.2, E.2.h) If “Yes”, answer questions a - l. If “No”, move on to Section 4. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may create a new water body.D2b, D1h 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water. D2b 9 9 c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from a wetland or water body. D2a 9 9 d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body. E2h 9 9 e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion, runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments. D2a, D2h 9 9 f.The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s) for withdrawal of water from surface water. D2c 9 9 g.The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s) for discharge of wastewater to surface water(s). D2d 9 9 h.The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. D2e 9 9 i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action. E2h 9 9 j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body. D2q, E2h 9 9 k.The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, wastewater treatment facilities. D1a, D2d 9 9 4 4 4DRAFT Page 3 of 10 l. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 9 9 4.Impact on groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or † NO † YES may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. (See Part 1. D.2.a, D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t) If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 5. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand on supplies from existing water supply wells. D2c 9 9 b. Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer. Cite Source: ________________________________________________________ D2c 9 9 c. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and sewer services. D1a, D2c 9 9 d. The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater.D2d, E2l 9 9 e. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations where groundwater is, or is suspected to be, contaminated. D2c, E1f, E1g, E1h 9 9 f. The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products over ground water or an aquifer. D2p, E2l 9 9 g. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources. E2h, D2q, E2l, D2c 9 9 h. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 5.Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding.† NO † YES (See Part 1. E.2) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, move on to Section 6. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway.E2i 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain.E2j 9 9 c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain.E2k 9 9 d. The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage patterns. D2b, D2e 9 9 e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding.D2b, E2i, E2j, E2k 9 9 f.If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action, is the dam in need of repair, or upgrade? E1e 9 9 4 4 4DRAFT Page 4 of 10 g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 9 9 6.Impacts on Air † NO † YES The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. (See Part 1. D.2.f., D.2.h, D.2.g) If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, move on to Section 7. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits, the action may also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels: i. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2) ii.More than 3.5 tons/year of nitrous oxide (N2O) iii. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon equivalent of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) iv. More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) v. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of hydrochloroflourocarbons (HFCs) emissions vi. 43 tons/year or more of methane D2g D2g D2g D2g D2g D2h 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 b. The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more of any one designated hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous air pollutants. D2g 9 9 c. The proposed action may require a state air registration, or may produce an emissions rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs. per hour, or may include a heat source capable of producing more than 10 million BTU=s per hour. D2f, D2g 9 9 d.The proposed action may reach 50% of any of the thresholds in “a” through “c”, above. D2g 9 9 e. The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. D2s 9 9 f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 7.Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1. E.2. m.-q.)† NO † YES If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 8. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a.The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. E2o 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any rare, threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federal government. E2o 9 9 c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of any species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. E2p 9 9 d. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any species of special concern and conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government. E2p 9 9 4 DRAFT Page 5 of 10 e. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect. E3c 9 9 f. The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any portion of a designated significant natural community. Source: ____________________________________________________________ E2n 9 9 g.The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging, or over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site.E2m 9 9 h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat. Habitat type & information source: ______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ E1b 9 9 i.Proposed action (commercial, industrial or recreational projects, only) involves use of herbicides or pesticides. D2q 9 9 j. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 8.Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1. E.3.a. and b.)† NO † YES If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 9. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System. E2c, E3b 9 9 b.The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc). E1a, Elb 9 9 c. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil profile of active agricultural land. E3b 9 9 d.The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10 acres if not within an Agricultural District. E1b, E3a 9 9 e. The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land management system. El a, E1b 9 9 f. The proposed action may result, directly or indirectly, in increased development potential or pressure on farmland. C2c, C3, D2c, D2d 9 9 g.The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland Protection Plan. C2c 9 9 h. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________9 9 4 4 Please See Part 3 DRAFT Page 6 of 10 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in † NO † YES sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part 1. E.1.a, E.1.b, E.3.h.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, go to Section 10. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource. E3h 9 9 b.The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination or significant screening of one or more officially designated scenic views. E3h, C2b 9 9 c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points: i. Seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ii. Year round E3h 9 9 9 9 d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is: i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work ii. Recreational or tourism based activities E3h E2q, E1c 9 9 9 9 e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource. E3h 9 9 f. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed project: 0-1/2 mile ½ -3 mile 3-5 mile 5+ mile D1a, E1a, D1f, D1g 9 9 g.Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological † NO † YES resource. (Part 1. E.3.e, f. and g.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 11. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur E3e 9 9 b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory. E3f 9 9 c. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory. Source: ____________________________________________________________ E3g 9 9 a.The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any buildings, archaeological site or district which is listed on the National or State Register of Historical Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4DRAFT Page 7 of 10 d. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 e.If any of the above (a-d) are answered “Moderate to large impact may occur”, continue with the following questions to help support conclusions in Part 3: i.The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part of the site or property. ii.The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property’s setting or integrity. iii.The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting. E3e, E3g, E3f E3e, E3f, E3g, E1a, E1b E3e, E3f, E3g, E3h, C2, C3 9 9 9 9 9 9 11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a † NO † YES reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. (See Part 1. C.2.c, E.1.c., E.2.q.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 12. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions, or “ecosystem services”, provided by an undeveloped area, including but not limited to stormwater storage, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat. D2e, E1b E2h, E2m, E2o, E2n, E2p 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource.C2a, E1c, C2c, E2q 9 9 c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area with few such resources. C2a, C2c E1c, E2q 9 9 d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by the community as an open space resource. C2c, E1c 9 9 e. Other impacts: _____________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 9 9 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical † NO † YES environmental area (CEA). (See Part 1. E.3.d) If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, go to Section 13. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. E3d 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. E3d 9 9 c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 4 4DRAFT Page 8 of 10 13. Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems.† NO † YES (See Part 1. D.2.j) If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, go to Section 14. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network.D2j 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or more vehicles. D2j 9 9 c. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access.D2j 9 9 d. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations.D2j 9 9 e.The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods.D2j 9 9 __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 14. Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy.† NO † YES (See Part 1. D.2.k) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 15. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation.D2k 9 9 b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a commercial or industrial use. D1f, D1q, D2k 9 9 c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity.D2k 9 9 d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when completed. D1g 9 9 e. Other Impacts: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. † NO † YES (See Part 1. D.2.m., n., and o.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, go to Section 16. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. D2m 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence, hospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home. D2m, E1d 9 9 c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day.D2o 9 9 f. Other impacts: 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Please See Part 3 Please See Part 3DRAFT Page 9 of 10 d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties.D2n 9 9 e. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing area conditions. D2n, E1a 9 9 f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 16. Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure † NO † YES to new or existing sources of contaminants. (See Part 1.D.2.q., E.1. d. f. g. and h.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - m. If “No”, go to Section 17. Relevant Part I Question(s) No,or small impact may cccur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed day care center, group home, nursing home or retirement community. E1d 9 9 b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation.E1g, E1h 9 9 c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation, or a completed environmental site remediation on, or adjacent to, the site of the proposed action. E1g, E1h 9 9 d.The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the property (e.g., easement or deed restriction). E1g, E1h 9 9 e. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health. E1g, E1h 9 9 f. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future generation, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the environment and human health. D2t 9 9 g. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste management facility. D2q, E1f 9 9 h. The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste.D2q, E1f 9 9 i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal, or processing, of solid waste. D2r, D2s 9 9 j. The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. E1f, E1g E1h 9 9 k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill site to adjacent off site structures. E1f, E1g 9 9 l. The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the project site. D2s, E1f, D2r 9 9 m. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 4 DRAFTPlease See Part 3 Page 10 of 10 17. Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. † NO † YES (See Part 1. C.1, C.2. and C.3.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, go to Section 18. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action’s land use components may be different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use pattern(s). C2, C3, D1a E1a, E1b 9 9 b. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%. C2 9 9 c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. C2, C2, C3 9 9 d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use plans. C2, C2 9 9 e. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure. C3, D1c, D1d, D1f, D1d, Elb 9 9 f. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development that will require new or expanded public infrastructure. C4, D2c, D2d D2j 9 9 g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g., residential or commercial development not included in the proposed action) C2a 9 9 h. Other: _____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 18. Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. † NO † YES (See Part 1. C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, proceed to Part 3. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. E3e, E3f, E3g 9 9 b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire) C4 9 9 c. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where there is a shortage of such housing. C2, C3, D1f D1g, E1a 9 9 d. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized or designated public resources. C2, E3 9 9 e. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character. C2, C3 9 9 f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. C2, C3 E1a, E1b E2g, E2h 9 9 g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 4 PRINT FULL FORM DRAFT DRAFTFull Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 - Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts and Determination of Significance Part 3 provides the reasons in support of the determination of significance. The lead agency must complete Part 3 for every question in Part 2 where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact. Based on the analysis in Part 3, the lead agency must decide whether to require an environmental impact statement to further assess the proposed action or whether available information is sufficient for the lead agency to conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. By completing the certification on the next page, the lead agency can complete its determination of significance. Reasons Supporting This Determination: To complete this section: •Identify the impact based on the Part 2 responses and describe its magnitude. Magnitude considers factors such as severity, size or extent of an impact. •Assess the importance of the impact. Importance relates to the geographic scope, duration, probability of the impact occurring, number of people affected by the impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to occur. •The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project changes. •Repeat this process for each Part 2 question where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact. •Provide the reason(s) why the impact may, or will not, result in a significant adverse environmental impact •For Conditional Negative Declarations identify the specific condition(s) imposed that will modify the proposed action so that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result. •Attach additional sheets, as needed. Determination of Significance - Type 1 and Unlisted Actions SEQR Status: † Type 1 † Unlisted Identify portions of EAF completed for this Project: † Part 1 † Part 2 † Part 3 Agency Use Only [IfApplicable] Project : Date : FEAF 2019 PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT 1 Initial draft for PB review – 9-17-2024 Part 3 – Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts & Determination of Significance Maplewood Phase II State Environmental Quality Review Full Environmental Assessment Form Action: Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, Rezoning to Planned Development Zone Location: Maple Avenue, Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, 63.-2-7.1, 63.-2-7.3 Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Planning Board Involved Agency: Town of Ithaca Town Board Description: The project is the proposed Maplewood Phase II on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The project involves consolidating four (4) tax parcels and constructing a community center and six (6) five-story apartment buildings, containing up to 650 units/800 beds in studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. Site improvements and amenity spaces include an outdoor terrace, fitness and wellness spaces, landscaping, and lighting. The project is located in the Multiple Residence (MR) and High Density Residential (HDR) zoning districts of the town. The Town of Ithaca’s 2014 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map envisions a Traditional Neighborhood Development character area designation for this area of the town. To achieve a neighborhood development style that meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and complements the adjacent Maplewood I project, the applicants have proposed a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) for the project. This involves a re-zoning from the High Density Residential and Multiple Residence zoning designations to a PDZ, which is a Town Board action. Like the Maplewood Phase I project, the PDZ for Maplewood Phase II will include building design, height, and densities that are complementary to the surrounding area. Along with the re-zoning to a PDZ, the project also requires site plan approval and special permit by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. The project is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code - Environmental Quality Review, because it involves a zoning change and the construction of 250 or more residential units (30 or more per Town Code) that will be connected to existing community or public water and sewage systems (NYCRR 617.4 (b)(3) and (b)(5)(iii); Town Code Section 148-5.B(2)). The Town of Ithaca Planning Board reviewed a sketch plan for the Maplewood Phase II project on July 2, 2024. The board declared their intent to be the Lead Agency in the environmental review for the project on August 6, 2024. Having received no objections from involved agencies, the Planning Board established themselves as Lead Agency on September 17, 2024. 2 1. Impact on Land a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3 feet. e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides) – please see #3 and #5 below, impacts on surface area and flooding. Briefly describe the impact on land: The four parcels associated with the project (referred to as the “project site”) are bound on the north by Maple Avenue, with Cornell University-owned agricultural fields and the East Lawn Cemetery along the easternmost boundary, and the Cornell Maplewood Graduate and Professional Student Apartments on the south and westernmost boundary. There is a City of Ithaca-owned parcel that contains a city water tank located between the project site along Maple Avenue. The project site contains vacant land, Cornell agricultural plots, building foundations, paved drive lanes, paved and gravel parking areas, capped utilities from a former development, some large trees, and a variety of vegetation in various succession. Two of the four parcels that make up the project site contained single-family residences until 2020. The fourth and largest parcel contained the Maple Hill Apartment Complex (later known as Ithaca East), constructed in 1972, and operated by the Abbott family until October 2019. The complex consisted of 82 units in 11 apartment buildings, a small utility shed, and a garage/maintenance building, along with planters, roads, parking areas, playgrounds, and other residential features. The complex was closed and vacated by all tenants shortly after its closing. The current property owner (Cornell University) subsequently installed security fencing around the complex and, after Planning Board approval in February 2020, demolished the apartment complex and the two single-family residences, leaving the foundations, parking areas, and other structures that currently exist on the project site. The Full EAF Part 1, page 11, number E.2.a. indicates that the average depth to the water table on the project site is between 1.5 and 6.5 feet. Needs clarification - where is it less than 3 feet and how will that impact the land/project? [staff note: Town of Ithaca Engineering & Planning Department staff will review the Geotechnical Report supplied by the applicant, along with the SWPPP for the project. More information about this will be added to this section of the SEQR – it is not anticipated to create a significant adverse environmental impact] The application materials and the Full EAF Part 1, page 3, number D.1.e., note that the project will be constructed in one phase but will take more than one year to complete (27 months anticipated). Need more details (if available): anticipated volume in cubic yards and number of truckloads of material that will enter/leave the site per phase; where it will go as the project is developed; road use agreement subject to directive of Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent per Town Code Chapter 230. Sheets CMP 1- CMP 9 contain most of this information but more information is needed about the excavation materials, logistics, and timeline. All four parcels that make up the project site have been previously disturbed, the largest of which contained a multifamily residential development until 2019. More than half of the proposed Maplewood Phase II development will therefore be constructed over existing impervious surfaces. The submitted Phase I Environmental Assessment, prepared by Matrix Environmental Technologies, Inc., dated April 15, 2024, contains a full history of the project site. 3 3. Impact on Surface Water h. The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action. k. The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, wastewater treatment facilities. [clarify with Town Engineering] 5. Impact on Flooding d. The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage patterns. Briefly describe the impact on surface water and flooding: Waterbodies within or downstream of the site: The project site is 9.2+/- acres in size, currently consisting of 5.7+/- acres of lawn, planting beds, and woods, along with 3.5+/- acres of impervious surfaces (building foundations, parking areas, concrete, asphalt, gravel areas). The closest water body is Cascadilla Creek, located 600+/- feet north and east of the project site, along Pine Tree Road. The creek will be unaffected by the project. There is also a stream located south of Mitchell Street that drains into the Six Mile Creek watershed, which could be impacted by the project if stormwater management controls are not implemented. Based on information in the FEAF I, soil disturbance associated with construction and site development will be 9.57 acres. Given this extent of disturbance, the project is required to produce a Full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to include both temporary erosion controls and permanent stormwater management practices in conformance with the Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 228 and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) General Permit GP-0-2X-001. According to the SWPPP (revision date) submitted by the applicant team, the Maplewood Phase II stormwater will drain through the Maplewood Phase I stormwater collection system and into the municipal-owned system on Mitchell Street. The municipal system discharges to Six Mile Creek, which ultimately discharges into Cayuga Lake. There are otherwise no streams, wetlands, significant slopes, or Unique Natural Areas anywhere on or near the project site. None of the water bodies noted above will be directly impacted by the project [will any potential indirect impacts be mitigated with the proposed stormwater management practices noted below? to be determined] Soil Erosion, Water Quantity, Flooding, Water Quality: The project site has been previously disturbed and contains impervious surfaces associated with former development. The Maplewood Phase II project will result in an additional 2.3+/- acres of impervious surface. To mitigate soil erosion during construction, the applicant proposes installing temporary practices such as silt fences, sediment traps, temporary swales, check dams, and berms to capture runoff, along with a stabilized construction entrance and erosion control blankets. After construction, the disturbed areas will be seeded with locally appropriate seed mix to prevent soil damage, promote deep root growth, and provide permanent soil stabilization. The site will then be mulched and landscaped per the final approved landscape plan. 4 Permanent water quality practices include the installation of eight bioretention filters and three sand filters. The bioretention filter practices will provide water runoff reduction for the whole site, along with a portion of the water quality volume. The three sand filter practices will provide the remaining required water quality volume reduction. The practices will be installed to maintain sheet flow conditions on the site and to maintain pre-condition drainage patterns and peak discharge rates. Additionally, the project includes three below-grade stormwater detention systems to provide for the 1-, 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100- year storm events. These and other practices are described in the SWPPP that was submitted to the Town’s Engineering Department for their review and approval. The Engineering Department will provide comments in a memo relative to whether the submitted SWPPP adequately mitigates environmental impacts related to stormwater – this section may be modified and expanded. Town sewer mains exist but will be reconstructed to better serve project. More details from Town Engineering Department needed. 7. Impact on Plants and Animals j. Other impacts: Loss of vegetation associated with proposed development. Briefly describe the impact on plants and animals: The project includes some tree and vegetation removal, all of which is detailed on sheet C102, Demolition Plan. The largest trees to be removed are located near Maple Avenue, in the area where Building A will be located. These include a 48” Silver Maple, 36” Tulip, and 30” Austrian Pine. By contrast, the project will protect and preserve another 36” Tulip, 36” Silver Maple, 28” Butternut Hickory, and other existing site trees. The project also includes a robust landscaping plan that will consist of non-invasive large deciduous and coniferous trees, small deciduous and coniferous trees, deciduous shrubs, perennials, grasses, ferns, and ground covers. Based on the Demolition Plan (Sheet C102) dated 07-19-2024, site development will require the removal of vegetation including between 17 and 35 large trees (18”-48” DBH – there are 28 Hemlocks shown on the demolition plan without DBH labeled, so it’s unclear their size). Is not expected to create a significant adverse environmental impact There are no known threatened or endangered plant or animal species on the project site that would be affected by the project. According to the NYS DEC Nature Explorer Mapping program, the “Delicate Rabbit Tobacco” and “Three Birds Orchid” plants that have been historically confirmed on the site have not been documented since 1922. Similarly, there are four species of dragonfly that have been historically confirmed on the site, but not documented since 1926. Given this, and the prior site disturbance and development, it is highly unlikely that these plant and animal species are present on the project site. Based on the above information, impact on plants and animals identified in this section can be considered small in magnitude. 8. Impact on Agricultural Resources a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System. Briefly describe the impact on agricultural resources: The project site is not located within a Tompkins County designated, NYS-certified Agricultural District. However, one of the parcels along Maple 5 Avenue is currently utilized for Cornell agricultural and farm research. This parcel contains soils classified as Prime Farmland (Class II) and Farmland of Statewide Importance (Class III). The Town of Ithaca has an Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan that was adopted in November 2011. Map 9 in the Plan, titled “Farmland Targeted for Protection,” includes a category for “Cornell University and State-Owned Agricultural Research Land.” The parcel that is currently farmed is not included among those targeted for protection and is not considered a high priority to remain in agriculture. The conversion of this land from agriculture to development associated with the Maplewood Phase II project is not in conflict with the Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan. Based on the above information, impact on agricultural resources identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points (seasonally or year-round). d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work; and recreational of tourism based activities. f. There are similar projects visible within 0-1/2 mile of the proposed project – Maplewood I is adjacent. Briefly describe the impact on aesthetic resources: The Maplewood Phase II development will be situated along Maple Avenue, which is a town-owned public road. Even with proposed landscaping, the portion of the project along Maple Avenue will be seen year round. According to the visual assessment that was provided, the project will also be visible year round from a few points along NYS Route 366 and Pine Tree Road. Finally, it will be visible year round from Maplewood I development, which is immediately adjacent to the project site. The proposed development is in an area that is surrounded by development and other residential apartment complexes. Its view is not unique, and it is not near or within any identified scenic views noted below. The Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County have established Scenic Resources Inventories that identify significant views in the East Hill area. There are no designated scenic views or other identified scenic resources around the project site that would be impacted by the proposed development. Aesthetic and/or visual impacts are mainly limited to those traveling along Maple Avenue or from looking in the direction of the development from across Maple Avenue. Those traveling on Pine Tree Road will only view the development as they pass the Maple Avenue intersection; and those traveling along NYS Route 366 will see the development off in the distance across existing farm fields and through existing vegetation. Based on the above information, impact on aesthetic resources identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 10. Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources a. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any buildings, archaeological site or district which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. Briefly describe the impact on historic and archaeological resources: The application materials contain a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Matrix Environmental Technologies, 6 Inc., dated April 15, 2024, that includes a thorough history of the project site, with historical photographs and information about Mitchell Family Cemetery. The Mitchell Family Cemetery was identified as being eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places during the Maplewood Phase I review process. The cemetery is located at the northeast corner of the Maplewood Phase I project, which is adjacent to the Maplewood Phase II project. It has been preserved and protected by a permanent black metal fence that surrounds the cemetery. The applicant contacted the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (SHPO) to inquire if SHPO had any concerns about the proximity of the Maplewood Phase II development to the cemetery. SHPO responded with a letter, dated June 21, 2024 (included with project application materials), that recommended a construction protection plan for historic resources within 90 feet of proposed construction activities. The demolition, grading, and utility plans indicate construction disturbance within 90 feet of the cemetery. The demolition plan (sheet C102) shows an additional temporary construction fence surrounding the cemetery to protect it from any ground disturbance, equipment, or material storage or encroachment. The temporary fence is in addition to the existing permanent fence and another temporary construction fence located along the property boundary that encompasses the entire project site. Building G (new community center) will be located approximately 30 feet from the cemetery after construction. The proposed additional fencing should be enough to protect the cemetery, however this plan should be submitted and approved by SHPO before any building permits are issued for the project. There are no other buildings, structures, or sites of historical or archaeological importance on or near the project that will be impacted by the Maplewood Phase II development. Based on the above information and proposed mitigations, impact on historic and archaeological resources identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 13. Impact on Transportation e. The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods. f. Other impacts: Parking discrepancy noted between Traffic Impact Assessment and project plan set. Briefly describe the impact on transportation: The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment, prepared by Gordon T. Stansbury, P.E., P.T.O.E., GTS Consulting, dated June 7, 2024, that has evaluated the impact of the proposed Maplewood Phase II development on the existing roadway and multimodal systems. The assessment studied existing traffic volumes and data on several area roadways, and also utilized data from the Maplewood Phase I traffic study, which analyzed several other developments within a 2/3-mile radius that were constructed or were under construction at the time. The Traffic Impact Assessment includes an analysis of existing conditions, along with no-build and build scenarios. Data collection was taken during the academic year, when all schools (primary, secondary, and college) were in session. The collection includes separate heavy vehicle counts as well as pedestrian counts. According to the traffic assessment, the Maplewood Phase II project will generate approximately 21 entering/34 exiting new vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 39 entering/43 exiting new vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. 7 Level of Service (LOS) qualitatively describes a driver’s experience of the operating conditions of a roadway based on factors such as speed and number of vehicles using the road. The traffic assessment shows that nearly all study intersections currently operate and will continue to operate at vehicle LOS D or better, but that the LOS at all studied intersections would slightly decrease as a result of the Maplewood Phase II development. The decrease in service, mostly resulting in waiting times of an additional 2-5 seconds average delay, is not considered a significant adverse impact. Town of Ithaca Planning staff reviewed the traffic study that was previously submitted for the Maplewood Phase I development and compared the anticipated morning and evening peak hour traffic with the current actual morning and evening peak hour traffic counts. The traffic study for Maplewood I anticipated approximately 78 entering/68 exiting vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 55 entering/68 exiting vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. These estimates were significantly higher than the existing conditions (page 7 of the traffic assessment), which show that the existing Maplewood Phase I development only generate 24 trips entering/40 trips exiting during the morning peak hour; and 45 entering/50 exiting during evening peak hour. The Maplewood Phase II traffic impact assessment contains some interesting decreases in traffic counts on Maple Avenue, Mitchell Street, and Pine Tree Road between 2019 and 2022. It is possible that the Covid pandemic and result of more people working from home post-pandemic has decreased the traffic along these roads permanently…[not necessary to include in Part 3 EAF…but thought the data was interesting enough to note] Regarding the existing and proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and multimodal network, the project’s internal elements will include a system of sidewalks and connections throughout the site. Does each building include indoor bike storage? Along the frontage, the project will include a new sidewalk along Maple Avenue that will connect to the existing sidewalk in the City of Ithaca. There will be a multimodal path in the middle of the Maplewood Phase II project that will connect to the path to the East Ithaca Recreation Way to the south of the project site in the Maplewood I project. There will also be a crosswalk on Maple Avenue to improve the connection to the East Ithaca Recreation Way to the north of the project site. More discussion and data to include here - associated with Maple Avenue streetscape improvements, sidewalk connections, parking along Maple Avenue to replace any parking lost for RecWay, etc… As there will be an increase in the population, the project also includes an increase in the number of parking spaces on the site. The Traffic Impact Assessment indicates that the 925+/- bed project will generate a need for up to 202 parking spaces. It is noted that there is a discrepancy in the number of proposed parking spaces between the Traffic Impact Assessment page 10 ‘Parking Demands’ (178 proposed parking spaces) and the Landscaping Plan sheet L-200, revision date 8/23/2024 (160 spaces shown). This isn’t inherently a problem, considering the traffic assessment was based on an overestimation of the proposed parking spaces. Regardless, the proposed number of parking spaces is less than the estimated need. The Traffic Impact Assessment notes that the existing surface parking located in the Maplewood Phase I development is underutilized, with as many as 100 extra parking spaces available that could be used to meet parking demands in the Maplewood Phase II development by paid permit unbundled from rental charges. Additionally, shared parking creates opportunities for more compact development, more space for pedestrian circulation, or more open space and landscaping. 8 The project includes the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management plan (TDM) to mitigate any potential impacts related to the lack of parking for the project. The TDM plan includes unbundled parking (separating the cost of parking from the cost of rent), multimodal pathways (mentioned above), increased public transit opportunities (mentioned below), coordination with area bikeshare and carshare programs, and other programs intended to promote alternative modes of travel. The applicant team has already contacted the Ithaca Carshare and Ithaca Bikeshare program coordinators to explore options to expand services, which already exist in the area. The Planning Board should consider requiring the applicant team to commit to implementing the list of TDM strategies that are recommended on page 9 of the traffic assessment. Regarding public transit service and access, the area currently contains many designated transit stops for the Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) bus service along Maple Avenue, including at least two that are located within ¼ mile of the project. Maple Avenue is well served by TCAT routes 10, 30, 32, 43, 51, and 82. The applicant team has contacted TCAT to explore the idea of creating an additional bus stop along Maple Avenue to serve the residents of the proposed development. In terms of sight distance for the project (the length of a road that a driver can see clearly), the traffic assessment notes that there is “more than adequate sight distance available looking in both directions along Maple Avenue from the proposed site driveways.” However, the sight distance listed for Maple Avenue, turning left, is very close to the maximum distance required by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO requires 445 of clear sight distance, whereas the available sight distance is 445 feet. More discussion and information needed. Not sure if mitigation should be proposed relative to this issue, but applicant/town should be careful with locating landscaping and vegetation along this area – 5 feet isn’t a lot of distance and can easily be blocked by landscaping. Overall, the Traffic Impact Assessment that was submitted is thorough and indicates that there will not be a significant impact on transportation associated with the Maplewood Phase II development. 14. Impact on Energy d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when completed. e. Other impacts: Project must comply with Town of Ithaca Energy Code Supplement. Briefly describe the impact on energy: The Maplewood Phase II development will involve approximately 410,000 square feet of building area when completed. The application materials indicate that the project will comply with the Town of Ithaca Energy Code Supplement. The project will utilize 100% electric energy usage for heating and cooling via air source heat pump systems, and hot water via electric hybrid heat pump technology. The project will also incorporate high-efficiency, LED lighting, electric Energy Star-rated appliances, electric vehicle charging stations, and designated roof areas on the buildings for future solar panels. (It is unclear if the applicant has contacted NYSEG to see if the utility has concerns about the connection of such a large project to the electric grid – more information needed.) These and other measures, like purchasing materials with a low carbon footprint, and sourcing local, sustainable, and/or reclaimed and recycled building materials will serve to minimize adverse environmental impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions to the maximum extent practicable. 9 15. Impact on Noise and Light a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. f. Other impacts: The project includes lighting that must comply with the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 173, Outdoor Lighting. Briefly describe the impact on noise and light: The project will create noise and vibration impacts from equipment, construction vehicles, worker traffic, and delivery vehicles. These impacts will be temporary and will cease once the project is completed. Noise levels caused by construction activities will vary depending on the phase of construction. To mitigate noise impacts to adjacent and nearby residences, noise-producing construction-related activities on the project site will be limited to the hours of 7am to 4pm, Monday – Friday, and from 7am to 4pm Saturday and Sundays “as needed.” The project includes 78 street and pedestrian light poles, 16- to 20-feet tall, located throughout the site. According to the lighting schedule shown on the landscaping plan (sheet L-200), proposed site lighting will match the lighting that exists in the Maplewood Phase I project. [Staff will research proposed color temperature – should be consistent with what was agreed/provided in Maplewood I]. Any proposed outdoor lighting will be required to comply with the provisions of Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 173, Outdoor Lighting. The Code contains provisions related to glare and dark-sky compliancy. Proposed outdoor light fixture details (cut sheets) will need to be submitted as part of the site plan submission to ensure compliance with the Town’s Outdoor Lighting Law and a photometric plan will also need to be reviewed by the Planning Board to ensure light trespass to neighboring properties is minimized. Based on the above information, impact on noise and light identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 18. Consistency with Community Character b. The proposed action may create demand for additional community services (e.g., schools, police, and fire) e. Proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character. Briefly describe the impact on community character: The project will create a demand for additional police and fire service and could potentially create a slight demand for additional school service. These services appear to be adequate to serve the project. Do the project plans currently meet the requirements of Section 503 or Appendix D of the 2020 New York State Fire Code for Fire Department Access Roads, Aerial Fire Apparatus Access Roads, for projects having more than 200 dwelling units? However, it is not confirmed whether the specific site layout elements (emergency/fire aerial access, road widths, separation distances between buildings, number, and location of fire hydrants, etc.) will comply with NYS Fire & Building Code provisions. The applicant will need approval for these elements from the Town of Ithaca Director of Code Enforcement (Town of Ithaca Fire Marshall), in consultation with the Ithaca Fire Department. The character of the existing neighborhood along Maple Avenue and surrounding the project site is a mix of residential apartment complexes and industrial/institutional structures of varying heights, architectural styles and building massing, along with a Cornell educational research farm plot and field on the north side of Maple Avenue. The East Lawn Cemetery is immediately east of the project, with East Hill Plaza commercial area a little more than ¼ mile east of the project. As such, there is no predominant architectural character. 10 However, the application materials note that the “architecture and landscape will seamlessly blend to reinforce connectivity and community,” and that the “façade design implements strategies to relate the new buildings with the scale of the Phase I residences.” The Phase I residential buildings are four stories tall, with building lengths along Maple Avenue that are around 200+/- linear feet (particularly the building immediately adjacent to the proposed Building A). The building massing and scale is broken up via balconies and a brick façade that is extended out from the buildings and up from the first floor to the third floor of the buildings in two areas. Additionally, the buildings have horizontal siding. The proposed Phase II buildings are five stories tall, with vertical fiber cement board siding that could perceptually make the buildings look taller. The proposed buildings are around 250+/- linear feet long, with massing only broken up by small sections of glass and pops of color. Building A will have the most impact, as it is the most prominent building along the public frontage on Maple Avenue. For discussion by the Planning Board: To truly create a “seamless connection that relates to the building scale of Maplewood Phase I,” the applicant should (could?) (must?) consider the following architectural interventions to break up building mass, particularly of Building A: 1. Incorporate a top-floor step back. A step back on Building A will make the building height blend better with the adjacent Maplewood I building along Maple Avenue. 2. Mimic some of the architectural vernacular of the Phase I buildings by extending the proposed stone base out from and up three floors in two sections of the proposed buildings. 3. Horizontal fiber cement boards instead of vertical. Vertical boards enhance the perception of height, potentially making the five story buildings look even taller. 4. Add balconies to a certain depth to add more variegation along the frontage of the buildings to reduce mass. As noted in #9 above (Impact on Aesthetic Resources), there are no scenic resources identified in the Town of Ithaca Scenic Resource Inventory or Tompkins County Scenic Resource Inventory that will be impacted by the proposed development. The development will be very visible from Maple Avenue, the East Lawn Cemetery, Maplewood Phase I, and in the Cornell fields across Maple Avenue. However, any visual impacts of the project will be mitigated by the proposed varied landscaping throughout the project and along all sides of the project. Visual impacts could also be mitigated along Maple Avenue by implementing some of the architectural strategies noted above. These specific mitigation measures, along with other site elements such as signage and lighting, should be further reviewed and evaluated by the Planning Board as part of the site plan review process. DRAFTUpon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, plus this additional support information and considering both the magnitude and importance of each identified potential impact, it is the conclusion of the as lead agency that: † A. This project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. † B. Although this project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, that impact will be avoided or substantially mitigated because of the following conditions which will be required by the lead agency: There will, therefore, be no significant adverse impacts from the project as conditioned, and, therefore, this conditioned negative declaration is issued. A conditioned negative declaration may be used only for UNLISTED actions (see 6 NYCRR 617.7(d)). † C. This Project may result in one or more significant adverse impacts on the environment, and an environmental impact statement must be prepared to further assess the impact(s) and possible mitigation and to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce those impacts. Accordingly, this positive declaration is issued. Name of Action: Name of Lead Agency: Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Title of Responsible Officer: Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Date: Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer) Date: For Further Information: Contact Person: Address: Telephone Number: E-mail: For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a copy of this Notice is sent to: Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located (e.g., Town / City / Village of) Other involved agencies (if any) Applicant (if any) Environmental Notice Bulletin: http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/enb.html Page 2 of 2 (staff will check appropriate box after PB makes determination) DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Stormwater, Sanitary Sewer, Potable Water, Roads, Parks, and Trails 114 Seven Mile Drive, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 ENGINEERING@TOWNITHACANY.GOV PHONE: 607.273.1656 FAX: 607.272.6076 www.townithacany.gov DATE: 7/25/2024 TO: Matt Sledjeski, P.E. , City of Ithaca DPW Water & Sewer Division Scott Gibson, Assistant Superintendent of City of Ithaca DPW FROM: David O’Shea, P.E. , Director of Engineering Emily Rodger, Civil Engineer CC: David Herrick, P.E., T.G. Miller PC Owen Barden, P.E., T.G. Miller PC RE: Maplewood II Sewer Capacity Cornell University is proposing a new 615 unit (800 bed) collegiate housing project on Maple Avenue within the Town of Ithaca. A portion of the site contained the former East Hill Apartments. It is anticipated that the average loading will be 75 gpd/bed. This computes to the following flows: • Average flow: 60,000 gpd; 42 gpm • Peak flow (4.0 peaking factor): 168 gpm Can you please review the following items and provide a “will serve” letter if there is sufficient capacity: • Flume/meter sizing • Interceptor capacity from the Town/City boundary to the treatment plant • Plant Capacity If there are items that cannot handle the additional flow, please let us know as soon as possible. DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Stormwater, Sanitary Sewer, Potable Water, Roads, Parks, and Trails 114 Seven Mile Drive, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 ENGINEERING@TOWNITHACANY.GOV PHONE: 607.273.1656 FAX: 607.272.6076 www.townithacany.gov DATE: 09/09/2024 TO: Michele Palmer, P.L.A., WPDLA, PLLC CC: David Herrick, P.E, T.G. Miller PC Owen Barden, P.E, T.G. Miller PC FROM: David O’Shea, P.E. Director of Engineering Emily Rodgers, Civil Engineer Joe Slater, Director of Public Works/Highway Superintendent RE: Maplewood Phase II We have reviewed the materials submitted by the applicant for the Planning Board meeting scheduled for September 17, 2024. We offer the following comments. General Please ensure all plans that are submitted correspond to each other. The planting plan and civil set currently do not. Road Right of Way (ROW) 1. Any utilities that will be buried within the ROW will require review and approval. 2. Please provide additional details and grades for all proposed sidewalks and/or trails within the ROW showing their compliance with ADA requirements. 3. All proposed sidewalks/trails within the ROW must meet the recommended AASHTO buffer to travel lane. 4. Please provide additional details showing that improvements to the midblock crosswalk will be in conformance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the NY MUTCD Supplement, and Federal Highway Administration recommendations. Provide stopping sight distance diagrams showing compliance. RRFBs are preference over a raised crosswalk. The crosswalk shall also be illuminated. 5. Numerous curb cuts are proposed for this project. Please provide stopping sight distance diagrams with proposed site improvements and landscaping shown. Please ensure two traffic is analyzed at all locations as the entrances will not be one way during construction. 6. Temporary fencing cannot be installed within the ROW. Terminate temporary fencing at the ROW boundary. At exit and entrance gates, sufficient distance from the edge of travel lane needs to be provided for a vehicle to exit the roadway perpendicular to the gate. 7. The plans indicate that numerous roadways signs are to be removed and reinstalled. These signs need to be reviewed to determine if temporary signs need to be installed during construction. 8. A permanent signage plan for proposed signs within the ROW with details will need to be provided during permitting for review and approval. 9. Please provide a work zone traffic control plan and with sign locations in the plan set. 10. Please provide the estimated number of truck trips, as defined within the Code of the Town of Ithaca, throughout the life of the project. A Roadway Use Agreement may be required based on the estimate. 11. Any additional bus stops should be constructed outside of the ROW or outside of the travel lane. 12. Correspondence between various people have proposed widening Maple Ave. at building A to meet fire apparatus requirements. If widened/realigned, the curb shall maintain a linear face. A detailed plan needs to be provided for review. 13. Three parking spots for East Ithaca Recreation Way on Maple Avenue will be removed for the creation of a driveway. To compensate the community, it is recommended that the applicant install a small parking area on the north side of Maple Avenue adjacent to the trail entrance. 14. If the applicant is proposing to dedicate streetlights, additional information needs to be provided: a. Make and model b. Conformance with Town of Ithaca Street Light Policy Sanitary Sewer 1. The City of Ithaca has issued a Will Serve letter indicating there is sufficient capacity within the infrastructure they own and/or manage. 2. The sewer main between the meter pit and Vine 05 does not have sufficient capacity to convey the additional load from this project. 3. Currently there is an unused sewer line located along Maple Avenue. If the line will not be utilized, it should be removed by the applicant. 4. The water tank drain shall not be connected to the sanitary sewer. 5. The proposed modification to the existing Town of Ithaca sewer main at the Maplewood I and Maplewood II property line will require concept and location approval and dedication approval by the Town Board. This will need to be constructed and dedicated prior to issuance of a building permit. Additional information needs to be provided. 6. An in-depth review of the private system will not begin until plans and fee are submitted for external plumbing permit approval. Some general comments: a. Applicant will need to perform pressure testing of all mains, laterals, and manholes. This testing will need to be witnessed by the Town of Ithaca. b. The applicant will need to clarify where the cleanout associated with the building drain and building sewer is located. c. Changes of direction require the installation of cleanouts prior to the first change in direction. Potable Water 1. The applicant is proposing to extend their water service from Maple Wood I into the project parcel. A note should be added to the consolidation survey stating: “A private potable water service is shared between parcels. The Tompkins County Whole Health and Town of Ithaca must be notified prior to any change in ownership between the parcels that results in a non-common owner.” 2. Please coordinate with the Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Department and Bolton Point on design, inspection, and permitting requirements. Stormwater A general review of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was conducted. A full technical review will occur prior to the preliminary site plan review. 1. Please update the SWPPP to include/clarify the following items: a. General Permit Number you are seeking coverage under. b. It appears that you are seeking to utilize “redevelopment” design criteria. Please outline which criteria you are utilizing per watershed. c. I believe you may be claiming impervious surface as existing that was previously removed. Please update the SWPPP to indicate if so and to identify that the surface was not removed greater than 5 years ago. 2. There appears to be a discrepancy between the mapping and the narrative regarding the proposed impervious surface amounts. 3. Please clarify why the post water shed is larger. 4. Some of the soil on the site are A soils. RRv minimum requirements should not be utilized in these locations. 5. Please update the narrative tables to indicate which watershed the practices are in regarding the WQv and RRv tables. 6. Please update the SWPPP to indicate the hydraulic soil group of each identified soil and associated soil name abbreviation. I do not believe an A/C/D soil group exists. 7. Please update the receiving water body to the South End of Cayuga Lake. 8. Please provide infiltration testing in accordance with Appendix D. 9. Please provide information on the proposed plantings for the bioretention filters. 10. Please provide stage storage data indicating the pretreatment volume and total basin volume per bioretention filter. 11. Per the NYS Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediments Control, sediment traps shall not be located closer than 20’ to a building. Numerous design criteria are not outlined on the plan set for each trap. A sediment trap cannot be used beyond one construction season. 12. Please provide calculations showing that the catch basins have been reviewed to determine they can adequately capture the large storm events so the water is conveyed as designed. 13. Please review plans to ensure all diversions structures are called out and detailed appropriately. 14. Existing conditions watershed 4 appears to be missing from Vol II. 15. Please update the ESC plans to include the following notes: a. Contractor is responsible for adding ESC controls downslope from any disturbance that is not directed to a sediment basin. b. All material laydown/storage areas shall be a stabilized surface. 16. Please update the Vol. I narrative regarding fill sites. If the fill site is within an MS4, the MS4 must approve the site and sign onto the SWPPP. Review of Maplewood 2 Fire apparatus access: 1. Based on the measurements provided for all buildings on site, confirmation with section 507.5.1 cannot be confirmed. Please provide dimensions around the entire building to the hydrant. a. 507.5.1 Where required. Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. Exceptions: 1.For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 2.For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 2. Building A has a FDC located on the side of the building that is opposite Maple Ave. The FDC connections for all buildings should be located on the side where fire fighting capabilities are to be provided for the building. 3. All fire hydrants need to be within 100’ of all Fire Department Connections (FDC). The current plan identifies fire hydrants within a certain proximity of the FDC’s but a distance could not be confirmed. Please provide distances in order to confirm the fire hydrants are within 100’ of the FDC’s. 4. A planting plan needs to be provided. During a presentation at the Town of Ithaca Planning Committee Maple Ave. appeared to have tress planted along the side that would have fire fighting capabilities. This would not be allowed as the trees would be an obstruction in accordance with section D105.4 of the NYS Fire Code. a. 507.5.1 Where required. Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. Exceptions: 1.For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 2.For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). Review of Maplewood 2 Fire apparatus access: 5. The fire apparatus access roads need to be provided with remoteness in accordance with section D106.3 of the NYSFC. Please provide documentation showing how the remote aspect is being accomplished. a. D106.3 Remoteness. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. 6. The fire apparatus access point of connection into Maplewood 1 cannot exceed a 10% grade, in accordance with D103.2 of the NYSFC. Please provide information to confirm that the grade does not exceed 10%. a. D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent in grade. Exception: Grades steeper than 10 percent as approved by the fire code official. 7. The Maplewood 1 fire apparatus access that is looking to be utilized appears to not comply with section D105.2 for ariel fire apparatus access roads, which requires a fire apparatus access road to be 26 feet in the immediate vicinity of the building. We will need to confirm that the existing fire apparatus access road in Maplewood phase 1 is 26 feet in the immediate vicinity of the buildings. a. D105.2 Width. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. 8. Building A is proposing to use the Maple Ave. as a fire apparatus access. Maple Ave. is only 20 feet in width and does not meet the minimum width of 26 feet for a fire apparatus access road as required by D105.2. a. Since the public road is proposed to be used a fire apparatus access for firefighting capabilities, how will Maple Ave. be controlled when it is actively used for firefighting capabilities? Will Cornell EHS control the road and assist the fire department? 9. It is not clear if traffic calming devices are proposed to be installed for his project. Please confirm if traffic calming devices are being installed. If the devises are being installed, please identify where they will be located and provide a cross section to confirm compliance with section 503.4.1 of the NYSFC. a. 503.4.1 Traffic calming devices. i. Traffic calming devices shall be prohibited unless approved by the fire code official. 10. Turning radius have not been identified on the drawings, please provide the radius on the drawings for the fire apparatus access roads to confirm compliance with section 503.2.3 of the NYSFC. a. 503.2.4 Turning radius. The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be determined by the fire code official. Review of Maplewood 2 Fire apparatus access: 11. Will gates, barricades or bollards be installed on any of the fire apparatus access roads? If these items are implemented, please provide details and documentation on placement and what is being proposed to confirm compliance with section 503.5 of the NYSFC. a. 503.2.4 Turning radius. The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be determined by the fire code official. 12. Some fire hydrant locations do not appear to comply with the clear width requirements of section D103.1 and figure D103.1 of the NYSFC. Fire hydrants are required to have clear access around them (20’ on each side of the hydrant) along the roadway. This would seem to apply to buildings F, E, D, and G. 13. Some areas of the fire apparatus access road appear to be using a mountable curbing? Please provide a cross section of the mountable curbing and indicate, on the drawings, where the mountable curbing will be utilized to confirm access for emergency vehicles. 14. Some areas, between building B and C, seem to show a dark line. Could you identify where the parking area stops, where the fire apparatus access road/trail begins 15. The Ithaca Fire Department has indicated that the hose length provided on the plans is not acceptable at its current proposal and needs to be within 150 feet. 16. During a Planning Committee meeting there were buildings shown as storage for bicycles, electric bicycles, etc. The buildings are not shown on the site plan submitted and need to be identified to confirm locations and conformance with the NYSFC. 17. The spacing of the fire hydrants does not appear to be specified. Please note that hydrants should be spaced between 400-450 feet maximum from each other. Section 7.2.1 identifies Review of Maplewood 2 Fire apparatus access: that the Authority Having Jurisdiction approves the spacing and hydrant location. The specified distance is based on typical firefighting operations. 18. Based on conversation I have had with other departments; it may sound as if the fire mains may be separated from the potable water system. The current drawings indicate that they are a combine’s water system. Please clarify if the systems will be combined or separate. ABFEDCGSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTION3/29/2024 12:00:00 PM Cornell - MaplewoodPhase 2Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850SCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONC301E24-09AS SHOWN07/08/2024IFD ACCESS PLAN Greystar Maplewood Phase II Phone: 607.272.1290 Email: admin@whithamdesign.com 404 North Cayuga Street, Ithaca NY 14850 1 August 26, 2024 CJ Randall Director of Planning The Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Maplewood Phase II – Updates for Preliminary Site Plan Review with Town of Ithaca Planning Board Dear CJ and all, On behalf of the project team, please find the updated submission materials attached for the Maplewood Phase II proposed project. We understand that the Town’s SEQR review process begins on September 17, 2024, with the Town’s assumption of Lead Agency. As previously submitted, the project proposes a redevelopment of the former East Hill Apartments with new construction of apartment units for graduate and professional students at Cornell. This development will be an extension of the existing Maplewood Phase I site, and it is proposed that a new PDZ be created for Phase II to include the project area. Residents will share amenities and open spaces with the existing Maplewood project. Maplewood Phase II proposes approximately 800 new beds, spread among approximately 650 new units between six new residential buildings and a community center. The project is accessible from Maple Avenue and via a new street connection from the existing Maplewood Phase I project. The project team is composed of: • Greystar Development East, LLC – Sponsor/Developer • CBT – Architects • GTS Consulting – Traffic Engineers • T.G. Miller, P.C. – Project Civil Engineers • Whitham Planning & Design – Landscape Architects, Approvals & Project Coordinators This submission is intended to provide an update on the progress of design and planning for this project. The materials included in this submission are as follows: • Updated Project Narrative • Architectural Updates o Updates to the 3D renderings along Maple Avenue o Additional views for farther away context o Description of bird-safe glass at window walls o Additional information highlighting mechanical equipment o Updated floorplans with revised site plan • Civil Updates o Drawings submitted with the SWPPP • Landscape Architectural Updates o Updated Site Plan We look forward to our further conversation with the Planning Board and Town staff. Please let us know if there are any questions. Sincerely, Greystar Maplewood Phase II Phone: 607.272.1290 Email: admin@whithamdesign.com 404 North Cayuga Street, Ithaca NY 14850 2 Michele A Palmer RLA, ASLA, LEED GA Senior Associate Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC Greystar Maplewood Phase II Phone: 607.272.1290 Email: admin@whithamdesign.com 404 North Cayuga Street, Ithaca NY 14850 3 Project Narrative Updates Bicycle Safety Pedestrian and bicycle safety have been topics of discussion. The National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO) has guidelines for bicycle safety in urban situations. The proposed through connection from Maple Avenue to Lena Street at Maplewood II most closely matches the conditions where a “Bicycle Boulevard” apply. The safety measures for bicyclists include the expectation of low traffic volumes, posting low-speed limits, pavement markings, including ‘sharrows’ and signage to alert drivers that they are on a designated bikeway. The traffic study performed by GTS indicates there will be low traffic volumes based on counts taken at Maplewood I. As part of the project design, ‘sharrows’ are depicted and additional pavement markings and signage will be incorporated as described in the guide. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ Fire Access Ongoing conversations are underway with Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement & Zoning, and the IFD. At this point, there are details of access that are being worked out and it is believed that workable solutions can be reached. Alternative Transportation Conversations will continue with TCAT but no commitment has been reached as to buses traveling through the one-way loop. Since the construction of the project is several years in the future, it is likely conversations will continue for some time. Ithaca BikeShare and CarShare Greystar has committed to providing one space for an Ithaca CarShare vehicle and designated Ithaca BikeShare parking. Locations are under discussion. Stormwater The SWPPP has been submitted for Town review. C101EXISTING CONDITIONSPLANE24-09AS SHOWN07-19-2024SCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSION C102DEMOLITIONPLANSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONE24-09AS SHOWN07-19-202408/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION ABCFEDGTSTSTT STT C103UTILITY PLANSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONE24-09AS SHOWN07-19-202408/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION ABCFEDGC104E24-09AS SHOWNGRADINGPLANSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSION07-19-202408/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION ABCFEDGTSTSTT STT C105DRAINAGEPLANE24-09AS SHOWN07-19-2024SCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSION08/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION C105ASTORM STRUCTURETABLESE24-09AS SHOWN07-19-2024SCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSION08/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION BCDEFGAC106E24-09AS SHOWNESC PLAN:MOBILIZATIONSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSION07-19-202408/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION BCDEFGAC107E24-09AS SHOWNESC PLAN:BUILDING D,E,GSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSION07-19-202408/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION ABCDEFGC108E24-09AS SHOWNESC PLAN:BUILDING A,B,C,FSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSION07-19-202408/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION ABCFEDGC109E24-09AS SHOWNESC PLAN:STABILIZATION PHASESCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSION07-19-202408/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION SCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONC201DETAILSE24-09AS SHOWNUTILITY07-19-202408/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION SCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONC202DETAILSE24-09AS SHOWNSTORMSTORMWATERMANAGMENTPRACTICE:BIORETENTIONFILTERPROJECT 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.07-19-202408/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION SCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONC203DETAILSE24-09AS SHOWN····ESC6" PERFORATED HDPERISER PIPETOP OFEMBANKMENTCONCRETE ANCHOR BLOCK ANDTIE ROD FOR HDPE BENDTEMPORARY NO. 2STONE BACKFILL TOTOP OF RISER PIPEEXISTING STORM SYSTEMTEMPORARY DIVERSIONSTRUCTURE WHERESHOWNNORMAL LOWPOOL6" HDPE PIPE. CONNECT TODIVERSION STRUCTURE ORCONNECT TO EXISTING STORMSYSTEM WITH FITTINGSAND/OR STRUCTURES ASNEEDEDEXISTING STORM PIPE···07-19-202408/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION SCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONWATERPROFILESC301E24-09AS SHOWN08-06-202408/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION SCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONWATERPROFILESC302E24-09AS SHOWN08-06-202408/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION SCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONC303E24-09AS SHOWN08-06-2024SANITARYPROFILES08/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION SCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONSTORMPROFILESC304E24-09AS SHOWN08-06-202408/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION SCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONSTORMPROFILESC305E24-09AS SHOWN08-06-202408/16/24TOWN SWPPP SUBMISSION SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II COMMUNITY OF 800 COMMUNITY OF 800+ COMMUNITY OF 1,672+ Isolated Ownership Scenario The Greystar Advantage SITE PLANNING APPROACH SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE ORGANIZATION - ESTABLISH CONNECTIONS N BORDERLAND OPPORTUNITYMULTI-US E P A T H East Ithaca Recreational Trail Network East Ithaca Recreational Trail Network SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE ORGANIZATION - LANDSCAPE INFORMS SITE COMPOSITIONS N Multi-Use Paths Vehicular SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE ORGANIZATION - BUILDING COMMUNITY N Visual connections between community spaces EXISTING COMMUNITY CENTER PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II BUILDING MASSING INDENT MIDDLE (SHALLOWER STUDIOS) CARVE A SOCIAL SPINE INTO CENTER SHEAR BARS AND ERODE CORNERS SIMPLE RECTANGLE 250’ 53’ SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II EXTERIOR MATERIALS INSPIRATION - RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS STONE VENEER INSPIRED BY LOCAL GORGES • NATURAL STONE BASE GROUNDS THE BUILDING ON THE SLOPING SITE (COOLER NATURAL COLORS) • RECTANGULAR STONE REFERENCES THE LINEAR QUALITY OF NATURAL STONE GORGES FIBER CEMENT INSPIRED BY LOCAL FORESTS • FOREST TONES/TEXTURES (LIGHTER, WARMER NATURAL COLORS, EMPHASIZE VERTICALITY) • CEMENT PANELS AND TRIM IN A VARIETY OF COLORS AND WIDTHS SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II EXTERIOR MATERIALS INSPIRATION - COMMUNITY BUILDING POPS OF COLOR CELEBRATE COMMUNITY • VIBRANCE, CONTRAST, NATURAL BOLD EARTH COLORS • GLASS, FIBER CEMENT PANELS, EXPOSED MASS TIMBER COMPLEMENTED BY NATURAL STONE • WAYFINDING CAMPUS PRECEDENT - NOYES COMMUNITY CENTER SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II VIEW FROM PHASE 1 N A B C G D E F SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II VIEW OF CENTRAL GREEN FACING NORTH N A B C G D E F SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II VIEW OF CENTRAL GREEN FACING SOUTH TOWARDS PHASE 1 N A B C G D E F SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II VIEW HEADING WESTBOUND ON MAPLE AVE N A B C G D E F SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II VIEW FROM CROSSWALK ON MAPLE LOOKING SOUTH N A B C G D E F SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II VIEW OF WATER TANK FROM MAPLE AVE N A B C G D E F SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II VIEW HEADING EAST ON MAPLE AVE N A B C G D E F SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II BUILDING A BUILDING BBUILDING CBUILDING DBUILDING GBLDG FUNEXCAVATED BUILDING ABOVE BLDG EUNEXCAVATED BUILDING ABOVE 0' 30' 60' 90' A B C D E F G SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS # DATE DESCRIPTION DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES.STATUSSEALKEY PLANGENERAL NOTES & LEGENDS1" = 30'-0"8/26/2024 9:40:02 AMxA101 GROUND FLOOR SITE PLAN 249007 Cornell - Maplewood Phase 2 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 07-26-2024 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESSSITE PLAN - GROUND FLOOR BUILDING A ROOF BUILDING B ROOFBUILDING C ROOFBUILDING D ROOFBUILDING FBUILDING EROOF ROOF BUILDING GROOF BELO W 0' 30' 60' 90' SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS # DATE DESCRIPTION 1" = 30'-0"7/17/2024 6:51:27 PMA103 SPR TYPICAL FLOOR SITE PLAN 249007 Cornell - Maplewood Phase 2 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 07-19-2024 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUBMISSION 1" = 30'-0"1 Combined Top Floor / Roof Plans ASPHALT PAVING LANDSCAPE LEGEND ROOM LEGEND PAVERS CONCRETE PAVING LAWN MEADOW PLANT BED MULCH PATH BIO-INFILTRATION BASIN 0 BEDROOM UNIT 2 BEDROOM UNIT STUDY / AMENITY LEASING / MAIL MECH. / BOH 1 BEDROOM UNIT SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II BUILDING G RO O F BELO W BUILDING A BUILDING BBUILDING CBUILDING DBUILDING FBUILDING E0' 30' 60' 90' A B C D E F G SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS # DATE DESCRIPTION DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES.STATUSSEALKEY PLANGENERAL NOTES & LEGENDS1" = 30'-0"8/26/2024 9:40:08 AMxA102 TYPICAL FLOOR SITE PLAN 249007 Cornell - Maplewood Phase 2 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 07-26-2024 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESSSITE PLAN - TYPICAL FLOOR BUILDING A ROOF BUILDING B ROOFBUILDING C ROOFBUILDING D ROOFBUILDING FBUILDING EROOF ROOF BUILDING GROOF BELO W 0' 30' 60' 90' SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS # DATE DESCRIPTION 1" = 30'-0"7/17/2024 6:51:27 PMA103 SPR TYPICAL FLOOR SITE PLAN 249007 Cornell - Maplewood Phase 2 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 07-19-2024 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUBMISSION 1" = 30'-0"1 Combined Top Floor / Roof Plans ASPHALT PAVING LANDSCAPE LEGEND ROOM LEGEND PAVERS CONCRETE PAVING LAWN MEADOW PLANT BED MULCH PATH BIO-INFILTRATION BASIN 0 BEDROOM UNIT 2 BEDROOM UNIT STUDY / AMENITY LEASING / MAIL MECH. / BOH 1 BEDROOM UNIT SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II BUILDING A ROOF BUILDING B ROOFBUILDING C ROOFBUILDING D ROOFBUILDING FBUILDING EROOF ROOF BUILDING GROOF BELO W 0' 30' 60' 90' A B C D E F G SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS # DATE DESCRIPTION DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES.STATUSSEALKEY PLANGENERAL NOTES & LEGENDS1" = 30'-0"8/26/2024 12:38:47 PMxA103 TOP FLOOR SITE PLAN 249007 Cornell - Maplewood Phase 2 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 07-26-2024 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESSSITE PLAN - TOP FLOOR BUILDING A ROOF BUILDING B ROOFBUILDING C ROOFBUILDING D ROOFBUILDING FBUILDING EROOF ROOF BUILDING GROOF BELO W 0' 30' 60' 90' SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS # DATE DESCRIPTION 1" = 30'-0"7/17/2024 6:51:27 PMA103 SPR TYPICAL FLOOR SITE PLAN 249007 Cornell - Maplewood Phase 2 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 07-19-2024 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUBMISSION 1" = 30'-0"1 Combined Top Floor / Roof Plans ASPHALT PAVING LANDSCAPE LEGEND ROOM LEGEND PAVERS CONCRETE PAVING LAWN MEADOW PLANT BED MULCH PATH BIO-INFILTRATION BASIN 0 BEDROOM UNIT 2 BEDROOM UNIT STUDY / AMENITY LEASING / MAIL MECH. / BOH 1 BEDROOM UNIT SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II RECYCLING(12x24)BIKE STORAGE (20x30) A B F E D C G EXPANSION AREA WATER TANK T TTTT TMITCHELL FAMILY CEMETERY BIKE STORAGE (20x30) COMPACTO R (16x35) N 0'30'60'90' PO 1 249007 142 East State Street Suite B Ithaca NY 14850 SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS #DATE DESCRIPTION 249007 Cornell - Maplewood Phase 2 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 08-15-2024 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUBMISSION L-200 LANDSCAPE PLAN 1"=30'8/23/2024 4:49:09 PMPO 3 CD 1 CK 3 PO 1 QR 5 QR 5 AR 5 AR 2 LQ 5 PN 1 PN 1 ARC 3 QMU 1 PO 1 RM 1 JC 1 AL 3 PO 2 CKT 3 AMA 3 CC 3 JC 2 CCA 5 CC 3 CCA 5 QMU 1 ALL 5 AL 3 ALL 3 CK 3 AC 4 CKT 5 CGL 1 OV 5 AS 3 CO 4 AL 1 AL 1CCA 4 PRS 4 RM 1 AS 2 PRU 1 JV 5 TON 3 TA 1 QA 1 AL 1 LT 1 CO 3 CKT 3 CHV 1 LIGHTING SCHEDULE KEY TYPE MANUFACTURE R MODEL QTY*UNIT SPACING NOTE STREET & PEDESTRIAN LIGHT POLES CYCLONE LIGHTING LEVANTO - CLE17T4x-FGC-3-20W-4K; 20' POLE; BLACK POWDER COATED 78 EA ~80' O.C.MATCH MAPLEWOOD I *ALL QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING QUANTITIES NECESSARY TO PERFORM WORK PO 3 SEED SCHEDULE KEY TYPE DESCRIPTION QTY*UNIT NOTE STABILIZATION SEED MIX PER ACRE SEE E&SC NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS LAWN MIX PER ACRE MEADOW SEED MIX 1 PER ACRE MEADOW SEED MIX 2 PER ACRE MEADOW SEED MIX 3 PER ACRE *ALL QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING QUANTITIES NECESSARY TO PERFORM WORK MATERIALS SCHEDULE KEY MATERIAL QTY*UNIT NOTE ASPHALT PAVING (VEHICULAR)SF SEE CIVIL ASPHALT PAVING (PEDESTRIAN) SF SEE CIVIL CONCRETE PAVING SF SEE CIVIL LAWN SF SEE SEED SCHEDULE PLANT BED / NATURALIZE SF MULCH BED, PLANTED W/ NATIVE SHRUBS. SEE PLANT LIST MEADOW SF SEE SEED SCHEDULE BIOINFILTRATION BASIN SF SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. PLANT W/ NATIVE SHRUBS. SEE PLANT LIST SEAT WALL / RETAINING WALL SFF QUARRY BLOCK, LOCALLY SOURCES, SUBMIT MATERIAL FOR APPROVAL, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS MULCH PATH SF RUSTIC MULCH PATH/TRAIL, UN-PLANTED PAVERS SF SUBMIT PAVER MATERIALS FOR APPROVAL STAIR N/A SEE GRADING PLANS, SEE DETAILS CHAIN-LINK FENCE LF REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE EXISITING FENCE ON PROPERTY LINE SECURITY FENCE LF COATED BLACK CHAIN-LINK SECURITY FENCE, OR APPROVED EQUAL *ALL QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING QUANTITIES NECESSARY TO PERFORM WORK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 55 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 77 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 IO 3 LT 2 CC 1 APN 3 AS 1 LT 1 AS 2 IO 1 AS 5 BNH 3 CCA 5 CC 3 CCA 1 CM 5 IO 2 IO 3 CCA 3 JV 6 TON 5 PS 3 CAT 4 CK 1 AC 1 AC 1 RM 1 QR 5 ACA 5 AMA 3 CD 3 JC 1 TA 1 CAT 2 CM 1 JC 2 CAT 5 CGL 1 CM 2 GB 1 CGL 1 CHV 2 GB 1 CHV 1 GB 1 GB 1 CKT 6 GB 1 RM 1 AMA 1 GB 1 CKT 3 GB 1 CHV 3TA 2 CC 1 CM 1 BNH 1 TA 1 BNH 1 CK 2 CM 1 CC 5 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 3 TA 1 CK 1 CK 4 OV 5 NS 1 5 5 10 10 10 GB 1 CHV 2 8/23/2024 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN BUILDING A ROOF BUILDING B ROOFBUILDING C ROOFBUILDING D ROOFBUILDING FBUILDING EROOF ROOF BUILDING GROOF BELO W 0' 30' 60' 90' SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS # DATE DESCRIPTION 1" = 30'-0"7/17/2024 6:51:27 PMA103 SPR TYPICAL FLOOR SITE PLAN 249007 Cornell - Maplewood Phase 2 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 07-19-2024 PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSION 1" = 30'-0"1 Combined Top Floor / Roof Plans SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II BUILDING G 117'-11"13'-7" 117'-0"11'-8"BUILDING D 95'-6"18'-0"140'-7"57'-4"BUILDING E 87'-7"11'-0" 18'-0"137'-6"57'-4"MAPLE AVE PHASE I TOWNHOMES BUILDING C 98'-7"18'-0"137'-6"57'-4"68'-6"18'-0" 9'-1"57'-4"BUILDING F 148'-7"22'-6" MAPLEAVE PHASE I TOWNHOMES BUILDING B 16'-6"105'-6"57'-4"22'-1" BUILDING A 49'-1"57'-4"MAPLEAVE PHASE I APARTMENTS 135'-6"18'-0"95'-6" BUILDING A 57'-4"A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G N N N N 0' 15' 30' 50' EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND GLAZING (STOREFRONT AND VINYL WINDOWS) FIBER CEMENT STONE SYMBOLS LEGEND INFLECTION POINT SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS # DATE DESCRIPTION 1" = 30'-0"7/17/2024 6:52:48 PMA230 SITE ELEVATIONS FACING WEST, NORTH 249007 Cornell - Maplewood Phase 2 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 07-19-2024 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUBMISSION BUILDING G 117'-11"13'-7" 117'-0"11'-8"BUILDING D 95'-6"18'-0"140'-7"57'-4"BUILDING E 87'-7"11'-0" 18'-0"137'-6"57'-4"MAPLE AVE PHASE I TOWNHOMES BUILDING C 98'-7"18'-0"137'-6"57'-4"68'-6"18'-0" 9'-1"57'-4"BUILDING F 148'-7"22'-6" MAPLEAVE PHASE I TOWNHOMES BUILDING B 16'-6"105'-6"57'-4"22'-1" BUILDING A 49'-1"57'-4"MAPLEAVE PHASE I APARTMENTS 135'-6"18'-0"95'-6" BUILDING A 57'-4"A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G N N N N 0' 15' 30' 50' EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND GLAZING (STOREFRONT AND VINYL WINDOWS) FIBER CEMENT STONE SYMBOLS LEGEND INFLECTION POINT SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS # DATE DESCRIPTION 1" = 30'-0"7/17/2024 6:52:48 PMA230 SITE ELEVATIONS FACING WEST, NORTH 249007 Cornell - Maplewood Phase 2 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 07-19-2024 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUBMISSION BUILDING G 117'-11"13'-7" 117'-0"11'-8"BUILDING D 95'-6"18'-0"140'-7"57'-4"BUILDING E 87'-7"11'-0" 18'-0"137'-6"57'-4"MAPLE AVE PHASE I TOWNHOMES BUILDING C 98'-7"18'-0"137'-6"57'-4"68'-6"18'-0" 9'-1"57'-4"BUILDING F 148'-7"22'-6" MAPLEAVE PHASE I TOWNHOMES BUILDING B 16'-6"105'-6"57'-4"22'-1" BUILDING A 49'-1"57'-4"MAPLEAVE PHASE I APARTMENTS 135'-6"18'-0"95'-6" BUILDING A 57'-4"A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G N N N N 0' 15' 30' 50' EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND GLAZING (STOREFRONT AND VINYL WINDOWS) FIBER CEMENT STONE SYMBOLS LEGEND INFLECTION POINT SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS # DATE DESCRIPTION 1" = 30'-0"7/17/2024 6:52:48 PMA230 SITE ELEVATIONS FACING WEST, NORTH 249007 Cornell - Maplewood Phase 2 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 07-19-2024 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUBMISSION BUILDING ELEVATIONS SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II BUILDING G 117'-11"13'-7" 117'-0"11'-8"BUILDING D 95'-6"18'-0"140'-7"57'-4"BUILDING E 87'-7"11'-0" 18'-0"137'-6"57'-4"MAPLE AVE PHASE I TOWNHOMES BUILDING C 98'-7"18'-0"137'-6"57'-4"68'-6"18'-0" 9'-1"57'-4"BUILDING F 148'-7"22'-6" MAPLEAVE PHASE I TOWNHOMES BUILDING B 16'-6"105'-6"57'-4"22'-1" BUILDING A 49'-1"57'-4"MAPLEAVE PHASE I APARTMENTS 135'-6"18'-0"95'-6" BUILDING A 57'-4"A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G N N N N 0' 15' 30' 50' EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND GLAZING (STOREFRONT AND VINYL WINDOWS) FIBER CEMENT STONE SYMBOLS LEGEND INFLECTION POINT SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS # DATE DESCRIPTION 1" = 30'-0"7/17/2024 6:52:48 PMA230 SITE ELEVATIONS FACING WEST, NORTH 249007 Cornell - Maplewood Phase 2 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 07-19-2024 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUBMISSION BUILDING B 137'-6"7'-1"57'-4"88'-1"11'-2"57'-4"PHASE I TOWNHOMES 137'-6"10'-6"57'-4"BUILDING F MAPLEAVE 69'-7"3'-11"57'-4"PHASE I TOWNHOMES BUILDING C 95'-6"18'-0"140'-7"57'-4"PHASE I BUILDING A 137'-6"18'-0"98'-7"57'-4"BUILDING E 57'-4"54'-5" BUILDING F 57'-4"54'-5" A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G N N N N BUILDING D 98'-7"18'-0"137'-6"57'-4"66'-0"13'-5" BUILDING G 62'-7" PHASE I COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDING E 95'-6"18'-0"140'-7"57'-4"MAPLE AVE 0' 15' 30' 50' EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND GLAZING (STOREFRONT AND VINYL WINDOWS) FIBER CEMENT STONE SYMBOLS LEGEND INFLECTION POINT SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS # DATE DESCRIPTION 1" = 30'-0"7/17/2024 6:53:24 PMA231 SITE ELEVATIONS FACING EAST 249007 Cornell - Maplewood Phase 2 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 07-19-2024 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUBMISSION BUILDING G 117'-11"13'-7" 117'-0"11'-8"BUILDING D 95'-6"18'-0"140'-7"57'-4"BUILDING E 87'-7"11'-0" 18'-0"137'-6"57'-4"MAPLE AVE PHASE I TOWNHOMES BUILDING C 98'-7"18'-0"137'-6"57'-4"68'-6"18'-0" 9'-1"57'-4"BUILDING F 148'-7"22'-6" MAPLEAVE PHASE I TOWNHOMES BUILDING B 16'-6"105'-6"57'-4"22'-1" BUILDING A 49'-1"57'-4"MAPLEAVE PHASE I APARTMENTS 135'-6"18'-0"95'-6" BUILDING A 57'-4"A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G N N N N 0' 15' 30' 50' EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND GLAZING (STOREFRONT AND VINYL WINDOWS) FIBER CEMENT STONE SYMBOLS LEGEND INFLECTION POINT SCALE DATE ISSUEDPROJECT # REVISIONS # DATE DESCRIPTION 1" = 30'-0"7/17/2024 6:52:48 PMA230 SITE ELEVATIONS FACING WEST, NORTH 249007 Cornell - Maplewood Phase 2 301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 07-19-2024 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUBMISSION BUILDING ELEVATIONS SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II VIEW FROM CORNER OF VETERANS PLACE AND MAPLE AVE N SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II VIEW HEADING EASTBOUND ON MAPLE AVE AT MAPLEWOOD PHASE 1 N SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II VIEW FROM MAPLE AVE. AND PINE TREE ROAD INTERSECTION N SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II VIEW FROM PINE TREE ROAD N SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II VIEW FROM ROUTE 366 N SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II BIRD SAFE GLASS DEPLOYMENT All window-wall facades found at the study lounges, building entryways, and the community center will use bird safe glass. This will be done with a film or frit. FRIT PATTERN FILM SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT VISIBILITY FROM PHASE 1 The parapets on the buildings conceal the majority of the mechanical equipment on the roofs. The top of some equipment is only visible when viewed at a considerable distance from the buildings. SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II MAPLE AVE STREET SECTION - PHASE 1 EXISTING SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II MAPLE AVE STREET SECTION - PHASE 2 EXISTING SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION06-11-2024 MAPLEWOOD II SITE CONTEXT PLANNING BOARD SPR08-26-2024 MAPLEWOOD II MAPLE AVE STREET SECTION - PHASE 2 PROPOSED PB 2024-07-02 (Filed 08/08) Pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD July 2, 2024 MINUTES Present: Fred Wilcox, Chair; Ariel Casper, Cindy Kaufman, Caitlin Cameron, Liz Bageant, and Bill Arms Absent: Kelda McGurk CJ Randall, Director and Christine Balestra, Senior Planner, Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; David O’Shea, Engineering; Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Officer; and Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk Mr. Wilcox opened the meeting at 6:32 p.m. • 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. Mr. Wilcox stated that in reviewing the materials for the meeting, including public comments and written news articles, it seems that there’s some misinformation floating around. He went on to say that he wanted to try to clear the air before we begin. The Planning Board’s duty, responsibility, job tonight, is to provide comments to the City of Ithaca’s Planning Board for use in making an environmental determination. The Town Planning Board is not approving anything tonight. Approval may or may not come later, depending upon the environmental review process. The Town is an involved agency in the environmental review. One person has suggested that the Planning Board should make a positive declaration of environmental significance. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board can't do that. We are not the lead agency in the environmental review. Some of you may be surprised to learn that the Zoning Board in the Town of Ithaca is also an involved agency just as much as the Planning Board. If it gets to that point, they will have to PB 2024-07-02 (Filed 08/08) Pg. 2 vote on granting variances for height and possibly for lot coverage. Our job tonight is to prepare a letter to the City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board. This is not a public hearing. The public will not be given a chance to speak tonight. The Town has received extensive comments over the course of this project; and certainly, within the last couple of days; and we have all of those available to us tonight. Mr. Wilcox invited Ms. Michaels to begin her presentation. Kimberly Michaels – stated that she had a presentation that walks through the environmental impacts on land and water, and she would like to walk the Board through that. She added that she had read through Ms. Balestra’s draft letter and used it as a starting point for the discussion. There were some questions that she had, and she provided some information about some of those. Ms. Michaels introduced the applicant team, starting with David Harrick from TG Miller available for specific stormwater questions; Trey Sasser from Sasaki Associates, civil engineer who has designed the artificial turf fields and has been designing fields for over 20 years and can speak about the technical aspects of the project; Jay Peters, Risk Management Consultant, who has a background in environmental science and can talk about some of the concerns the public has brought forward as well as speak to some of the misinformation that is out there; and Alicia Farmer, landscape architect from Fisher Associates. . Mr. Wilcox canvassed the Board with options on how to proceed. The Board could restrict comments to the proposed development activity within the Town of Ithaca. We can comment about the entire project, or we can restrict our comments to the artificial turf portion in the Town of Ithaca. We can choose which environmental issues we want to comment on, or we can choose not to comment at all. Mr. Arms responded, saying that given the comments we've had, he thought it might be more appropriate to look at the project as a whole. Mr. Wilcox responded that his thinking was that the only purpose is to provide comments to the City of Ithaca to assist them in making the final determination of environmental significance. The Board can certainly provide them with comments about the portion of the project in the City, but Fred thought it might be more beneficial to concentrate on the portion of the project in Town. He added that there seems to be some confusion about what exactly is being proposed. Mr. Wilcox clarified, saying the proposal is an artificial turf field that will replace an existing artificial turf field. The documentation says “new,” but it is replacing an existing one. Then there is an artificial turf field proposed inside a new fieldhouse. The only portion of the project in the Town of Ithaca is a portion of the enclosed fieldhouse. He said he was not trying to short circuit the discussion but trying to focus it on what he perceived as being most important for the Board to comment on. He asked for the Board’s PB 2024-07-02 (Filed 08/08) Pg. 3 opinion, because how the Board proceeds will affect how much of the applicant’s presentation the Board will want to see. Ms. Bageant stated that conceptually what Mr. Wilcox said makes sense, but her understanding is that the Board is providing a recommendation to the City on the project as a whole, not just the Town’s corner. Mr. Wilcox responded that it is up to this Board and added that the Zoning Board is just as much an involved agency as the Planning Board, and they chose not to provide any comments. Ms. Bageant responded that on principle, she was more comfortable evaluating the project as a whole but would defer to the majority of the Board. Mr. Wilcox said that Mr. Arms has essentially stated he would like to look at the whole project. Ms. Kaufman stated she would like to look at the whole project. Ms. Cameron stated that she would like to look at the whole project, because at past meetings, the Board has looked at and asked questions about the whole project. Mr. Wilcox said the consensus is to look at the project as a whole and have the presentation, but he pointed out that there seems to be some confusion, based on the comments received, about the fields and noted that there is one outdoor field and one indoor field being proposed. Many of the comments have treated the project as if there is a single field and the environmental impacts are the same for both. He said that in his mind, the potential environmental impacts of an indoor field and an outdoor field are different. Kim Michaels, Fisher Associates, Landscape Architect Presentation Ms. Michaels began with the question of why artificial turf is necessary, noting that turf is the only option that meets the durability requirements for the Cornell programming, including all the performance and safety parameters. It is projected that 4,470 students will be able to use this new facility, and she showed the athletics' schedules for the campus. She went on to say that the existing natural grass field can be scheduled for use three hours a day in the fall because of the condition of the grass and the rigor it goes through being used. The artificial turf, in contrast, can have activities scheduled 17 hours a day all year long. The benefits associated with that in terms of what it brings to the program and the student body are obvious there. She mentioned that a lot of comments that have been submitted talked about the growing season in Ithaca and how natural grass works great if it is maintained properly. But the grass needs to grow and to recover from the rigorous use; and here in Ithaca, grass does not actively grow from October through March. Our growing season is May through September, which does not align with the school year. Ms. Michaels then made statements about the environmental assessment form: PB 2024-07-02 (Filed 08/08) Pg. 4 Impacts on the land. All excavated materials will remain on site and the site is previously developed with no geological features present. Stormwater. There are no surface water features on site. There is a storm water mitigation design in the documents and a full SWPPP will be submitted that will comply with New York State DEC regulations. It is being designed to remove particulates from the project. The site is not in a flood zone and not near a water body. Emissions. The project will not generate any emissions other than during the 16-month construction period, and dust control measures will be used. Plants and Animals. The site is a previously disturbed site with an existing artificial turf field and a natural grass field. Sixty trees will be planted associated with the project and 18 existing trees will be removed for a net addition of 42 trees. There will be meadow grasses, a rain garden and native trees and shrubs. The red tailed hawk's favorite nesting poles will be maintained throughout the project and the applicant team is actively working with the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, who submitted a letter stating that they are not concerned about the safety of the hawks due to this project. Agricultural Resources. The site is not in or adjacent to an agricultural resource and there are not scenic resources or locally defined scenic resources adjacent to the site. Building Materials. It is not a historical site, and the closest building is 350 feet to the north. The materials will be appropriate to campus structures. Open Space and Recreation. The site is currently used for open space and recreation and the project will increase that usage. Energy Use. The project will comply with NYS Energy Code and the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement. Transportation. There will be new pedestrian paths and amenities and bicycle parking spaces. Fire Safety. The City of Ithaca Fire Department has approved the access plan. Noise and Light. Exterior light will be LED and dark sky compliant. Interior lighting will be LED, and occupancy based. Construction Impacts. Projected to be approximately 16 months long at its highest point with a maximum of 80 workers at its height. A logistics plan is in the packet of information. Human Health. This was the topic people were asking about, and she asked Mr. Peters to take over the presentation. PB 2024-07-02 (Filed 08/08) Pg. 5 Mr. Peters stated: “I ama Human Health Risk Assessor with a degree in toxicology from Northeastern University and a master's degree in environmental health from Tufts University and in this profession for 30 years, working on contaminated sites across United States. It is my job to evaluate contamination in soil groundwater, surface water and so forth to determine if conditions are safe for people and the environment and adhere to NYS rules and regulations and I have used that same approach to evaluate synthetic turf from a scientific perspective and really try to resolve the question of whether artificial turf is safe. When we consider a risk assessment, whether it be evaluating soil in an industrial property or a residential yard, or whether the groundwater is safe to drink, we start by asking what are the chemicals that are even present, and we get that by collecting samples and analyzing those in accredited labs. In the case of synthetic turf, we know is that the blades are made out of polyethylene and the infill, if it's crumb rubber, is made out of recycled tires. There is a lot of information on the composition of crumb rubber and some of those chemicals can produce cancer and others can produce other kinds of health effects. Then we look at how someone would be exposed to those and whether it’s a natural or synthetic field, there is a lot of intense body contact, so dermal contact and chemicals absorbed through the skin and/or inhaled in the dust particles that become airborne. Then you have to ask whether those chemicals are actually available for a biological interaction, called bioavailability. He used the example of a grapefruit, saying that the sugar and vitamin C are bioavailable, but the fibrous part is not. There have been a lot of studies that have specifically looked at whether the chemicals in crumb rubber are bioavailable and concluded is that only minute fractions of those chemicals are actually bioavailable and using the results of those studies, researchers have been able to estimate the health risks. The conclusion is that that the exposure does not contribute enough to cause a health risk. These conclusions are being evaluated against US EPA guidelines for what is considered an acceptable risk. If the crumb rubber was on a contaminated property, we would conclude that the crumb rubber didn't pose a hazard that required cleaning up. Therefore, we can be pretty sure that crumb rubber isn't a problem. The EPA recently did a study where they measured blood and urine of athletes before and after they played on synthetic turf fields and what they found is there was no difference in the metal concentrations or other indicators of any exposure to anything in crumb rubber or anything else in the turf field system, before and after they played. That is very conclusive evidence that people are not exposed to whatever chemicals are in those systems.” Mr. Peters went on to say “There has been a lot of discussion regarding artificial turf and PFAS. “Turf is made with a fluorinated polymer and to understand the significance of that; PFAS are carbon chains that have a lot of Florine atoms stuck on the material and that makes them very resistant, almost impossible, to breakdown in your body or in the environment. That is the concern, that they are here forever. There are polymers, and that is basically what's in plastic, and then there are non-polymers, which are basically, coating. These nonpolymers are the ones that environmental agencies are PB 2024-07-02 (Filed 08/08) Pg. 6 concerned about. These are coatings that can make things non-stick, waterproof, and stainproof. It's used in many, many things; aircraft, fire suppression foam, personal care products such as sunscreen and bug spray, and many pesticides. The leaching into the soil and then into our bodies is the concern. The PFAS used in artificial turf is considered inert. It is used in sutures; it is used in Europe for food packaging, so whatever is in there does not leach out.” He explained some other testing mechanisms on plastics with PFASs in them. Mr. Peters went on to say that synthetic turf tested right from the manufacturer has lower levels of certain compound levels that are much, much lower than what exists as a background condition in soil. He explained that there have been tests on soils taken from natural turf and out of a random backyard that found PFAS in every sample, including remote locations. It is present in rainwater and therefore soil and because it doesn't break down, it is found everywhere, even remote states. That isn't to say that is good; it's not great that we have PFAS in our environment everywhere, but samples of artificial turf from the environment have PFAS in them. Ms. Michaels took over again, continuing the presentation by noting that the project is consistent with the community character and then went through the draft timeline. Board Discussion Mr. Arms said he believes what has been said is that these fields can be made out of recycled or new materials but there is no commitment to the percentage of recycled/new materials given and there is no commitment to what will happen at the end of its life. A letter submitted stated that the College is committing to the turf being appropriately reused or recycled at the end of their life. Ms. Michaels responded that the proposed synthetic fields can be recycled, and Cornell is committed to sending them to be recycled. She said she doesn’t know how to refute statements that say these recycling centers do not exist. Our design consultants have spoken to recycling centers who do this. They will take the infill out, extract that, and they can either reuse that again in a replacement field or they can recycle it. Mr. Wilcox responded that we should be careful about commitments for something 10 years down the road and the current field cannot be recycled because it is made of different stuff. Ms. Michaels agreed and said that Cornell has demonstrated a commitment to recycling when the facilities to do so are available. Mr. Arms said these questions basically come from a letter written by the Town’s Conservation Bboard which points out that Cornell by and large is a good citizen when it comes to environmental matters and suggested that this might be an area in which they could lead the community. He said that he is comfortable with those two points and would like to put that in our letter; to ask Cornell to commit to using recycled material and a recycling plan. PB 2024-07-02 (Filed 08/08) Pg. 7 Ms. Michaels stated that the crumb material is recycled, but there are other components to the turf field that may not be recycled, and she was not sure that all materials can be made by recycled pieces. Ms. Kaufman asked about the alternatives to synthetic turf that have been suggested in many comments. Mr. Wilcox asked if she was asking about the indoor field also, because the inside field would have to be dirt or synthetic. He again stated that the indoor and outdoor fields will have different environmental impacts as far as rain fall and runoff where indoor fields will not have that. There isn’t much of a choice, without unlimited funds, for an indoor natural field. Ms. Brock noted that there has been information submitted that real turf can be used inside. She suggested the Planning Board ask the applicant if that was possible. Ms. Kaufman responded that she would focus on the outside field and asked Ms. Michaels to speak to those suggestions, although she noted that those alternatives seemed to be from drier or different climates than here. Ms. Michaels said that those “look at what Arizona did” or “look what they do over here”, and “when managed correctly this is perfectly reasonable request.” comments were given to her, but there is nothing that is going to meet the needs of 17 hours a day use in this climate. Natural grass needs time and rest to grow. Those other places are in different climates and who knows what the intensity of use is. Ms. Balestra stated that she watched the June 25, 2024, City Planning & Development Board meeting, and they asked and suggested that the applicant speak with Frank Rossi at Cornell, who is the College’s turf expert and is involved in managing some of the athletic turf they have. Ms. Michaels stated that the applicant team are reaching out to him and will get some comments from him. That said, there is not a natural turf field out there right now that is able to be used 3 hours a day in the fall, even with Mr. Rossy and his team managing it. Ms. Cameron asked about PFAS, and if the product being proposed includes PFAS in the product. Ms. Michaels responded, “absolutely not” and asked Mr. Peters to expand on that. Mr. Peters stated that it likely has fluorinated polymer because that is used to strengthen the blades of artificial “grass” but no the non-polymers or PFAS are not added to the artificial turf, so there is no reason to believe they would be there. Ms. Cameron said then do artificial turf installations contribute to PFAS? Where are they coming from? Mr. Peters responded that it is in ground water because it is coming out of ground water, septic systems, industries that are using it, surface water coming from wastewater treatment plants and air from manufacturing plants and all over the soil because it is in the air and the rainwater. PB 2024-07-02 (Filed 08/08) Pg. 8 Ms. Cameron said that it is her understanding that State legislation has been passed that will go into effect in 2026. Ms. Brock responded that the legislation says that no artificial turf sold or offered for sale can contain or be treated by PFAS for any purposes. Ms. Cameron asked if the proposed turf meets that legislation and Mr. Peters responded that it does. Ms. Cameron asked about the procedural aspect of that, in that it has been passed, but is not in effect now, adding that there is pending legislation that bans artificial turf that has not been passed as of this moment. Can the Board consider those now? Ms. Brock responded that there are thousands of bills introduced and a small percentage is usually passed and then a fraction of those are actually signed into legislation, so in terms of legislation, unless it is actually adopted and signed into law, you should not be basing your decisions upon that. This law that is being talked about does have an effective date at the end of this year, but it covers more than just PFAS and it has a number of other things that have to happen along with it. She added that a public comment regarding PFAS states that PFAS are in the turf before being installed, and she was not saying the comment was true or false, but the applicant said it is not added. The comment said PFAS is needed for some of the machinery, so it may not be intentionally added to the plastic blades, but PFAS is on the machinery that is making the blades and ends up contaminating the blades. Ms. Brock asked Mr. Peters to state if that is accurate and whether the turf will contain any PFAS from the manufacturing process, whether added intentionally or not, when Cornell receives the artificial turf before any exposure to the natural environment. Mr. Peters said he can’t speak to the manufacturing process but turf being sent to the University can be tested prior to installation to see if there are any PFAS and that is something that is being asked now by some. Ms. Bageant suggested that be added to the Board’s letter to the City. Ms. Cameon responded that that may not be valuable as the PFAS are in the environment also. Ms. Bageant said she would not suggest testing for a zero level, but getting a level would be informative. Mr. Casper spoke to that comment about PFAS being present in the environment from other sources: Is there any stormwater filtering options at a higher standard that can be implemented to address that? Ms. Michaels responded that it is going to be outside and subject to the environment and not as a result of this project and the environmental challenge for us all is how to filter these forever chemicals. She added that Mr. Herrick could maybe add more. David Herrick, TG Miller, spoke, saying that the stormwater approach is consistent with DEC and Town requirements as in every other project. This is a new paradigm, trying to filter to this PB 2024-07-02 (Filed 08/08) Pg. 9 extent. These particles are nano-millimeters, and they are not regulated by the DEC, but to the extent that we can, we are using geotextile practices to help filter to the extent we can. Ms. Michaels noted microplastics that are used in clothing that we wear and the detergents we wash them in. Ms. Casper responded that he is well aware of everything that contributes but you are asking the public to embrace yet another source that is outside and will contribute more and maybe the college could step up and do something about that. Ms. Michaels responded that they are not asking the public to embrace it, but they are asking this group to weigh the environmental impacts against the benefits of it and it is not illegal. Artificial turf is allowed, and it is easy to lose focus on what the conversation should be, especially when we all want to be environmentally responsible, and the public is very passionate, so the Board is in a tough place. Ms. Bageant said that many of the comments are some sort of “we think this should be illegal” and this is not the legislative body that should be hearing these impassioned speeches as much as the state legislators who have that purview, and she encourage the public to reach out to their state legislators. We are not a body that can do that or make a decision that this cannot happen because it should be illegal when it is not. Mr. Wilcox added that this is not a popularity contest either; elected officials are a popularity entity. The Planning Board does not function that way; it doesn’t matter that you have thousands of signatures on a petition; it doesn’t matter that there are 500 that say no and 1 that says yes; we operate under the rules and regulations set by either or all the Town, State and Federal governments. Mr. Arms added that we have received comments from the applicant saying artificial turf are completely safe and materials from the public that say they are not, and I have read many, many of the comments and materials; some obviously slanted and others that are incomplete or evasive or not substantiated or distinctly rhetorical. So, after looking at the Conservation Board’s suggested DOH report with a complete bibliography and the EPA and CDA report, it is not definitive with a yes or a no as to health issues. All three did end up saying there were no health issues. He noted that the chemicals are on the natural turf also and there were no particular results pointing to artificial turf being worse. He said he noticed the City came to the same conclusion, but he wanted the public to know that we do read their comments and the materials. Ms. Brock noted that the DEC has circulated some operational guidance for wastewater treatment plants and industrial users. Mr. Wilcox noted that we have not talked about what the alternative could be and if it is natural turf, no one has talked about it, or the chemicals used on natural turf and their environmental impacts. PB 2024-07-02 (Filed 08/08) Pg. 10 Mr. Arms responded, saying the Conservation Board’s list did cite two papers which he read, and he was astonished at how badly natural grass came out in the testing. Ms. Cameron asked about the bird strike question and if there is a concern and are there any treatments on the glass in the project. Ms. Michaels responded that the materials indicate there will be a “bird friendly” film and there is an alternate bid specification for “bird friendly glass” so it is being considered. The Lab of Ornithology has guidelines, and it is a good practice for Cornell to follow those. Ms. Cameron asked about the trees, and if there is any possibility of keeping some and if not, why they are not being replaced in kind. Ms. Michaels responded that the red oaks being removed are small and they will not survive, and they are being replaced with different species because of the overall campus plan and the goal of diversifying the species throughout campus as there have been recent decimating diseases that impacted campus and so diversifying is the goal. Mr. Wilcox referred to the draft letter, and the question is whether this Board feels that any particular impact rises to the level of a significant adverse impact and if anyone is at that point as it relates to trees, stormwater, etc. The Board did not feel that any particular impact rose to the level of a significant adverse environmental impact. He turned to the artificial turf issue, and said he has the sense that the Board would like to add a comment about testing the turf prior to installation for PFAS. Ms. Cameron said she was asking the question but didn’t think it rose to a commitment being required. Ms. Kaufman said she thought there should be more information on alternative natural turf being looked at. Mr. Casper said that the applicants did a beautiful job on the building design. Mr. Wilcox stated for the public, there is an expectation that Cornell will come back to the Town to build a women’s field hockey facility out on East Hill and that that will come at some point in the future, and this discussion is probably going to happen again as the NCAA has stated that field hockey should be played on artificial turf. Ms. Brock went through the City’s SEQR Part 3 form and noted some minor changes that should be brought to their attention. Ms. Balestra said she would add the comments related to artificial turf and then the Board can review the revised letter at the next meeting. That said, there will only be 4 members at the next meeting, and she asked if the Board was comfortable with that. Ms. Bageant said if we are confident that there will be a quorum, and there doesn’t seem to be much disagreement on what we have said tonight, then that should be fine. PB 2024-07-02 (Filed 08/08) Pg. 11 • Sketch Plan Review for the proposed Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The proposal involves consolidating four parcels and constructing 6 five-story apartment buildings, containing up to 650 units/800 beds in studio, one bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project is proposed to include some small retail, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and a community center. This is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer, Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC, Agent. The Project representatives gave a presentation depicting the project. ▪ The project is targeted to graduate professional students. ▪ Located adjacent to Maplewood 1, but a different design. ▪ Six residential buildings and one community center with low parking ratio. ▪ Study lounges at the main entrance of each building. ▪ Cornell retains ownership with a long-term ground lease with Greystar. ▪ A redevelopment site and an anticipated Planned Development Zone ▪ Will connect the Ithaca Recreational Trail by a multi-modal path with the public welcome to use also. ▪ Fossil fuel free. ▪ 25% lot coverage with buildings, leaving 75% as open space with a large lawn in front of the community center. ▪ Taller buildings laid out to maximize views and a network of pedestrian walkways. ▪ Looped roadway. ▪ Future submissions of SWPPP, SEQR, Energy certification, and drawings. Board Comments (*some audio issues) Mr. Wilcox stated that three curb cuts bothered him for potential sight issues. He also said he would like something done to the staging area that still exists after Maplewood I and he does not want that used for Maplewood II. Ms. Kaufman asked if there were lessons learned from Maplewood I that will transfer to this one. She said she was not on the Board at that time but heard there was a lot of input from this Board. Mr. Wilcox said there was a lot of push and pull, and this one will not be seen as much, but understands the comment. Mr. Arms asked about the East Hill Plaza development that was in the Cornell Long-Term Plan. The representatives stated that the idea of a massive mixed-use development did not work out and the University goal is to focus on the plaza as it exists. There have been major maintenance projects done there and the gas station is still planned but not submitted yet. Ms. Bageant asked about the intersection as it relates to safety and if there are plans to deal with PB 2024-07-02 (Filed 08/08) Pg. 12 that. It should be on the radar for this project. Right now, residents of Maplewood I are cutting through the parking lot and down steps to get to the bus stop. She said she likes the density and asked why they are not modifying the existing PDZ rather than making a new one. Ms. Randall responded that this is a separate parcel, and some PDZ design standards would not transfer to this new site. Ms. Bageant asked about housing for families and that need, and the applicant responded that families tend to like single-family houses, and they are aware of the need, but this is not marketed to that demographic. Audio failed – some discussion on transportation needs and access to TCAT and carshare models. Those concerns and possible conditions can be discussed during the site plan phase. Ms. Brock noted that the tentative schedule does not list the need to adopt the local law for the Planned Development Zone and issues that may be associated with infrastructure needs. There is a statement that an Environmental Impact Statement may not be needed if information is submitted proactively, but the key is that a negative determination of environmental significance, know as SEQR determination, will be the process for that, not whether or what documents or studies are submitted. The applicant group thanked the Board for their time and comments. • Persons to be heard (*audio issues continue) (Written comments submitted at the meeting or after posting of the official mailout packet and 24 hours after the meeting can be found in the updated packet online and will be filed permanently with the project folder along with any other comments received after the post meeting deadline.) Mr. Wilcox stated that generally there are no time limitations but asked people to stay on topic and not be repetitive or you will be interrupted. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Bruce and Doug Brittain addressed the Board regarding the realignment of Cradit Farm Rd. and went through a handout detailing the timeline of the approvals and issuance of certificates of occupancy and other issues they have with the way the Memorandum of Agreement was not fulfilled and then discarded. They felt the Town Board usurped the Planning Board’s authority and the conditions set by the Planning Board should have been upheld. Mr. Wilcox asked what they expect from this Board other than as a sounding board because we have no enforcement powers. He said he looked at the letter from Supervisor Howe and Ms. Holmes puts the matter to rest. Mr. Bruce Brittain said he was concerned about the takeaway for Cornell in that they can now think that the Planning Board can condition whatever they want, and they can go to the Town Board and get it waived. Mr. Wilcox said he would be happy to discuss this, but not tonight, as we are approaching 3 PB 2024-07-02 (Filed 08/08) Pg. 13 hours. Yayoi Koizumi, Zero Waste Ithaca, addressed concerns about artificial turf and referenced the multiple comments and documents that have been submitted regarding the turf. She spoke at length about the supposed recycling of plastics and referred the Board to the peer-reviewed studies and references submitted. She said the Board’s decision will have far reaching implications and urged them to not allow synthetic turf without a full environmental impact statement. Mr. Wilcox responded that the Board has received the written comments and read them. Ms. Koizumi went on to say that we should not expose our young people and others to these toxic chemicals and again referred to the studies and reports detailing the harm they cause. Mr. Wilcox interrupted, saying that this Board has made a reasoned decision, and she can disagree with that decision, but that doesn’t make us wrong and stated that she had 30 seconds more. Ms. Koizumi responded that she thought they were going to be allowed to speak without time constraints. Mr. Wilcox responded that he also said he could interrupt, and this is not a public hearing, but an opportunity to speak, and her purpose tonight seems to be to criticize us and he gave her 30 more seconds to speak. Ms. Koizumi continued, saying that another concern are the impacts on birds, regardless of what the Lab of Ornithology has stated, there have been peer-reviewed studies on the harmful effect to birds and wildlife….she was muted and Mr. Wilcox told her that her time was up. Bethany Mays spoke, saying that she was disappointed that they were not allowed to speak prior to the decision. She gave her credentials and spoke about her concerns about the Planning Board relying heavily on the Haley and Aldridge consultants’ report and the City heavily relied upon the same report. She felt that if public comments should be actively taken into account and cited in the public Record and she was concerned that there has been a misperception on the part of some board members that the public comments do not rely upon peer-reviewed scientific evidence and the lack of discussion about microplastics shedding from these fields which is in addition to the PFAS issue. Ms. Mays then read a portion of the letter from Mr. Rossi and noted that the Haley Aldrige report represents a conflict of interest. Their own bibliography states “his risk assessment has the goal of quote using his results to negotiate better outcomes for his clients” and “known by his clients for identifying alternative approaches for managing contamination that not only better align with their end goals but often save them money end.” …. Mr. Wilcox muted the speaker and stated that the Board received her written comments, just like we received comments from people in favor of the project. He reiterated that the Board may not have publicly referenced her specific comments, but that didn't mean that they haven't been distributed, read, and considered by members of the Planning Board. PB 2024-07-02 (Filed 08/08) Pg. 14 Amina Mohamed spoke, saying that she is a CU PhD student in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. She spoke to natural fields being far better on avian biodiversity over artificial turf and microplastic toxins. She also commented on the increased temperature generated by artificial turf and concerns with climate change and adding forever chemicals to the environment. She felt that Cornell’s disregard for environmental responsibility is consistently disappointing and urged the Board to prioritize a comprehensive environmental impact assessment for this project. Anna G spoke, saying that she has studied artificial turf in depth this past year and she is a parent of a sports player, so she is not anti-sports, but the information from these conferences and research is very alarming. She expressed concerns about the consultants distorting the science and just this night, the consultant said there are no PFAS and that PVDFs are inert and that there is no turf that is recycled but of course there is. She noted that the study referenced by Mr. Arms relied on a study that did not look at PFAS and was a sample study of convenience based on 13 kids that happened to be playing on the field for a few hours and they put a disclaimer on that study. The EPA has just reduced the threshold and these consultants are misrepresenting science. We are in a climate emergency and these petrochemicals are causing it and should not be allowed. Tracy Stewart, Medway, MA spoke, saying that they voted down a synthetic turf replacement this past spring and she has led the fight against synthetic turf for more than 12 years. She quoted Nancy Gilbert, Board of Health, Amherst, who said, “as a public healthy professional, I rely on the precautionary principle … if a product is suspected of a risk to public health, proactive action should be taken even before there is scientific proof of that risk.” She said that firefighters in Nantucket said no to artificial turf in their community after finding that their protective suits contain high levels of PFAS and there are lawsuits happening against the manufacturers of them. She highlighted various projects in MA that have been cancelled and noted that recycling doesn’t happen and there is a dangerous pileup of artificial turf and dumping grounds in Philadelphia. Eliza Solamon, former student and now resident, stated that she had been one of three students attending in person this evening expecting to speak after the presentation, but her companion had to leave for work, so she was now on zoom. She stated that the system of leaving public comments till the end is frankly undemocratic and may serve to chill speech which I think we've all seen this week from the Supreme Court how quickly that can lead to silencing and frankly fascism so I'm disappointed that that is the practice. Ms. Solamon went on to say that for the past 4 years she has experienced near constant construction projects fumes and debris at Cornell as they modernize to appeal to students and donors under the guise of sustainability. Both the Town and City of Ithaca and Cornell have ongoing commitments to sustainability and the architect behind this project touts their sustainability efforts, yet when it comes to these artificial fields, they are not holding to them. She echoed the other comments regarding health threats to athletes and the environment shown in peer-reviewed studies, communities across the country considering legislation to ban artificial turf, and approving this use is anti-science and anti- human. She said she was at a loss for words if we have resorted to “it’s not illegal” as a basis for allowing this. Jessicaspoke,sayingthereisPFASinallartificialturf,andshehopedtheBoardfollowsthescienceanddoesn’tlistentothepersontonightwhosaidthatitcamefromtherainandsheencouragedtheBoardtoreadandtalktoexperts.Shenotedthat3MDuPontarecurrentlyinlitigationaboutPFASandthescientistwhoseresearchhasbeencoveredupbythemandwhodidastudyshowingwhatPFASdoestothesystemandeveryratdied.MicroplasticsarcendingupinourbodieswithlinkstoadversehealtheffectsanditisclearwearelivinginatimewherewemustcommittolessPFAS.Shesaidthefleldhouseisareallybeautifulbuildingandastunningdesign,buttheissueistheartificialturfandshereadfromtheFisherAssociateswebsite,wordsabouttheircommitmenttosustainability,theirdeepunderstandingofenvironmentalgoalsandlessonslearnedtomakeoursocietymoreresilientandsoforthandaskedMs.Michaelshowartificialturfandacresandacresofplasticgrassismindfulofthehumanenvironmentrelationshipshetoutsorhowitmakessenseinaclimatecrisis.ThisiswhatyouaretellingCornellandIthacaisrightatthistime.Mr.WilcoxnotedthatJessicawasthelastspeakerandstatedthatthecommentsareappreciated.ThePlanningBoardmadeitsdecisionwithregardtotheenvironmentalreviewandourcommentstotheCity.ShouldtheCitycompleteitsenvironmentalreviewwithanegativedeclarationofenvironmentalsignificance,thenboththeCityandtheTownPlanningBoardswillconsidersiteplanapproval,andheretheywillhaveaspecialpermitandtherewillbeassociatedpublichearings.Headdedthatithasbeenhislegacyfor30yearsonthisPlanningBoardnottohavetimelimitsbutgivenwhatIheardtonight,don’tbesurprisedifthereisathreeminutetimelimitenforcedforfutureapprovalssincewehavecompletedourenvironmentalreviewandforwardedourcommentstotheCity.HenotedthatthepublichadatleasttwoopportunitiestospeakontheMeinigFieldhouseprojectandtherehavebeenmanywrittencomments,sonooneshouldsaythatthepublichasnothadachancetobeheard.Themeetingwasadjournedat10pmuponmotionbyMr.Wilcox,secondedbyMs.Bageant;unanimous.SubmitbPauleRosa,TwnClerkPB2024-07-02(Filed08/08)Pg.15 PB 2024-07-16 (Filed8/12) Pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD July 16, 2024 Minutes Present: Caitlin Cameron, Vice Chair; Members Cindy Kaufman, Liz Bageant, Bill Arms Absent: Fred Wilcox, Ariel Casper, and Kelda McGurk CJ Randall, Director and Christine Balestra, Senior Planner, Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; David O’Shea, Engineering; Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Officer; and Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk Ms. Cameron opened the meeting at 6:32p.m. 1. Persons to be Heard – Ms. Cameron announced that this was the time for comments not related to items on the agenda. There was no one wishing to speak. 2. Continue discussion of State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) comment letter from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to the City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board 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. Ms. Cameron reminded the audience that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is the Lead Agency in the environmental review and the Town, as an involved agency, is reviewing comments that we will be sending to them regarding the environmental impact determination. The majority of the project is in the City of Ithaca and that is why they are the Lead Agency. She asked the Board if there were any outstanding questions, comments or concerns or edits to the draft letter that have come from all of the comments and conversations received thus far. Members stated they would like to hear public comments first. Ms. Cameron asked Ms. Michaels if there was any additional or new information she had for the Board. Ms. Michaels responded that she had just received the latest public comments and hasn’t read through them yet, but she would be available to answer questions. PB 2024-07-16 (Filed8/12) Pg. 2 Mr. Arms asked about the NYS Carpet Law that the Board discussed at the last meeting, and he did not see that in the draft letter. Ms. Brock responded that she drafted wording to address that, and that her wording could be added to the draft comment letter before the Board. She read her proposed wording “Require that all artificial turf materials be tested for and demonstrated to be free from all PFAS before the materials are received. This is consistent with revisions to New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Section 27- 3313, which goes into effect on December 28, 2024, and prohibits on and after December 31, 2026, all carpet, including artificial turf, sold or offered for sale in the state, from containing or being treated with PFAS substances for any purpose.” This adds a substantive requirement and an explanation that this is consistent with the law. Ms. Bageant said she had spent a lot of time thinking about the last meeting and the information given then and afterwards and the presentations from multiple sides of the issue. Each party that has provided information has been understandably advocating for a specific outcome and they've provided the Board with a lot of information, but the Board are not necessarily experts. She noted that she didn’t have a PhD in chemistry or toxicology or whatever it would take for her to really understand the science. She suggested that the Board bear in mind that everyone sharing information is advocating, they are not neutral parties. Ms. Bageant went on to say that the Board may not be experts, but they are stewards of this process and thinking about that has led her to conclude that she would be most comfortable if the Board recommended that the City find a positive declaration of environmental significance because that opens the door for a full environmental impact evaluation process. She added that she is not saying that the information provided contains lies on either side, but rather that the Board must keep in mind that everyone is advocating for their opinion or stance. The Board discussed this at the last meeting and settled that, but, now, she was more comfortable moving in the direction of a positive declaration to enable a full review. Ms. Kaufman said she did not think she would get any more clarity on the topic because there is so much information out there, but she agrees with Ms. Bageant’s statement. She added that in her opinion, this field might be ok, but Cornell is planning many more and she didn’t want this decision to send a message that the next 8 or 9 fields can be artificial. She felt that a combination of artificial and natural turf, say 1 artificial to 3 natural is the way she is thinking about the future. Mr. Arms stated that he has had a lot of experience reading technical literature and statistics and he spent about two days reading up on this and noted the ones he trusted at the last meeting. He said it will take a lot for him to change his mind and he is not advocating for further study. He said this has gone far enough and that the Board should be moving ahead. Ms. Cameron opened the meeting to public comment, noting that this was not an item that required a public hearing, but the Board was giving the public another opportunity to speak. That said, given the number of people, she set a 3 minute limit and asked that people do not read or repeat the same information they submitted in written format, that the Board has seen and read. (Written comments submitted at the meeting or after posting of the official mailout packet and 24 hours after the PB 2024-07-16 (Filed8/12) Pg. 3 meeting can be found in the updated packet online and will be filed permanently with the project folder along with any other comments received after the post meeting deadline.) Bethany Mays spoke, saying that she wanted to make 3 points. 1. Inaudible – but referenced something she had submitted. 2. She referred to a letter she submitted asking that the Board reconsider their decision of July 2nd. The letter now has over 80 signatures supporting it, including a former EPA Regional Director and it is very clear that the weight of evidence is sufficient to require a positive declaration of environmental significance. The questions are too important not to address. 3. She spoke to Mr. Arms’ statements, saying that we have reached the tipping point in the science and the regulatory action around PFAS and that is only one concern, microplastics are another incredible concern. After the Ithaca College artificial turf was approved there were new guidelines issued by the EPA and maximum contaminant levels and the summary suggests that one or more artificial turf fields could contribute enough storm water PFAS contamination to require municipal water systems to begin filtering PFAS to meet the new monitoring regulations. Ms. Mays closed saying that she felt the public comments received by this Board outline significant concerns that would be well addressed by a positive declaration. She added that she attended Cornell on an athletic scholarship and ran on those toxic fields, and she supports the athletes but not compromising on their health and the health of the community. Cheryl, Emily Jernigan, and Amina Mohamed read directly from a submitted letter from Emeritus Professor McBride who is a soil chemist. Joe Wilson spoke saying that he lives in Ellis Hollow and attended Cornell Athletics as well as coached football, lacrosse, and baseball at the high school division one and division three levels for several years as well as serving in elected and appointed public office. He also practiced law in California for 16 years and has been on the Dryden Planning Board for the past 8 years. He stated that the documents and information the Board has received from the applicant and the public raised serious questions about the significance of the negative impacts of installing artificial turf fields. Under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process, the information by opponents and proponents, at face value, put the impacts as moderate to large; long-term and irreversible; and the likelihood of the impacts at probably to inevitable. That makes the impacts “significant”, and this should receive a positive declaration of environmental significance triggering a full environmental impact statement (EIS). The process for an EIS outlines the impacted areas and will provide a baseline for understanding the potential consequences and the consultants can be chosen by the Board rather than either side of the issue and at Cornell’s expense. Yayoi Koizumi, Zero Waste Ithaca, spoke saying that previously she heard that public comments were lacking scientific evidence or peer review and now we are told there are too many studies. She went through various studies and comments that have been submitted that raise serious concerns about pollution from both the manufacturing and disposal of synthetic turf. PB 2024-07-16 (Filed8/12) Pg. 4 Ms. Koizumi said her group and the public are concerned that the suggestion is to use recycled synthetic turf that have even more toxins than virgin plastics, and the promotion of recycling artificial turf which often results in more pollution by either dumping turf to reusing in other ways which are significant sources of microplastic pollution. She stated that the recommendation to test the synthetic turf for PFAS is inadequate and they are not the only toxic substance in the turf. There are thousands of other chemicals and heavy metals that haven’t been discussed here but were discussed in the webinar was sent to the Board. She added that it is imperative that any testing be conducted by an independent agency and not by Cornell or synthetic turf companies to avoid conflicts of interest. Ms. Koizumi said that labeling these measures in the draft SEQR form as environmentally friendly and climate sustainable alternative is not only hypocritical but also a clear example of greenwashing these recommendations and makes her seriously wonder if the Board thoroughly reviewed the public comments and detailed evidence provided; and that the Board’s actions suggest a disregard for the substantial evidence presented. Alisa, Mothers Out Front Tompkins, spoke, saying that she opposes the artificial turf fields and the forever chemicals PFAS that can cause serious health effects. All tests have shown artificial turf contains PFAS and the Board should not accept Cornell’s assertion that their fields will be safe. She said she did calculations that show almost 9,000 students will be exposed to these harmful chemicals during the academic year and if the studies are even partially accurate, the harm is staggering and she wondered if the parents and students would be told about these risks similar to tobacco warnings and given the choice of playing on them. She then said that the lifespan of the field given the high usage will be far less than what they are saying thus necessitating the turf being discarded and entering the waste stream. Alisa then asked if Cornell has calculated the cost of replacing and disposing of the turf more frequently but more importantly if they are mindful of the moral responsibility for the health of its students and the surrounding community. She said she has so far seen little evidence to suggest that. She closed by saying that it is up to the Planning Board to take its time to become informed on all of the implications of artificial turf before even considering whether to give Cornell the go-ahead on this project. Margaret McCaslin, Mothers Out Front, said she was a science and environmental educator who has worked with Cornell Center for Environmental Research Statewide, Cornell Cooperative Extension and the local and statewide health department on various concerns around public health and environmental protection who lives in the town. She said she strongly supported environmental and health protections, and she was reluctant to make statements that might undermine respect for our environmental and public health systems, however there are two key factors that Cornell is ignoring in their claims of meeting the letter of regulations while actually violating the spirit of what are meant to be protective measures. The first factor was the time lag between changes that occur in the relevant sciences and the time lag in best practices between those changes and when regulations get revised and updated. The second factor related to the ways regulations get written or revised saying that companies successfully prevent the best science or best practices from being the basis for regulations and guidelines to maximize their profits rather than maximizing human and environmental health. This happens when industry groups PB 2024-07-16 (Filed8/12) Pg. 5 directly lobby state and federal regulatory bodies and then when there is a revolving door between industries and regulatory bodies where the staff of some agencies build more loyalty to their previous and/or subsequent employers than to the public good. She used the example of labeling of foods “organic” or approved use of vinyl food packaging that harms human health; Cornell can say they are meeting the Federal or State guidelines, but that is very different from saying they are meeting or following the current best practices or most recent science. Laura Schneider spoke, saying that she is a certified industrial hygienist and a small business owner here in town and she would suggest that people consider a risk-based approach. We are looking at artificial turf and natural options and either way it goes, it is a wonderful research opportunity for Cornell and could be great PR effort for the University, the town and the county if artificial turf is used and we start a monitoring program to monitor the environmental effects of the leachate. There will be a whole system of best practices to do environmental monitoring year round and over the course of the life of the field and human monitoring of the athletes and people who could be exposed during use of the artificial turf field. It would add costs, but there is a severe lack of data in this area and that's something the CDC and the EPA state clearly on their websites. There just isn't enough information to really know what the long-term effects are and what the indirect effects are, and this would be an opportunity to get that data. She added that there was nothing in the documents about any decommissioning plan or removal of the turf fields. There were no more people wishing to speak and the public comment period was closed. Ms. Cameron brought the discussion back to the Board. Board Discussion Ms. Cameron said she heard one question in there, and paraphrased asking the applicant what the plans are for the deconstruction and removal of the artificial turf. Ms. Michaels said that was in the June submission and that stated that the fields will have rubber and sand infill and will be recycled at the end of their lifespan, which is approximately 8 to 10 years. During the field removal process, the infill will be extracted and either reused in the replacement field or recycled at a turf processing facility. At the facility, any remaining the sand and rubber infill are extracted, separated and recycled to use as infill for future field options. As for the field itself, the green carpet part, it will include either repurposing it for use in another sports facility or converting it to mixed polymer plastic products. The project has identified two places in Pennsylvania that do this and that is the commitment that Cornell is making; to reuse what they can and send the rest to one of these facilities that does a combination of repurposing and recycling. In the June submission packet, a further explanation of what happened to the synthetic turf when it was being replaced because the public comments are saying it cannot be done, and so we provided real examples of what Cornell has done in the past. When the field is replaced, the infrastructure stays, and the pad underneath can be used even longer than the turf carpet. Ms. Cameron summarized saying that she understood that at the point, the Board had recommended a negative determination but added requests to explore natural alternatives and if using artificial turf, that PB 2024-07-16 (Filed8/12) Pg. 6 the applicants commit to recycling 100% of the turf and submit materials for that end of life span and to also test all artificial turf materials for PFAS before they are accepted or used. Ms. Balestra asked the Board if they agreed with the new draft, which depended upon whether the recommendation is in support of a positive or negative declaration of significant environmental impact or a neutral stance. Ms. Cameron asked if those prior revisions and requests made the Board comfortable with the negative declaration and if the answer is no, then we need to reopen the question. Ms. Kaufman asked Ms. Brock to restate the request for the testing of artificial turf materials and asked that the third party testing requirement be added to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Ms. Bageant said that she is struggling with making a negative determination because this is topic of rapidly evolving science and the EPA and the State has recently changed their guidelines and so anything we say here is based on bits and pieces of what we have heard and read and that science may have changed. She said she would be more comfortable getting more information through the EIS process as that would be the most recent and up to date information. She said she would also like to make our conditions as strong as we possibly can. Ms. Cameron responded, saying that this Board is not the Lead Agency, and she asked Ms. Brock if we state a recommendation for a positive declaration, would we need to back that up with certain information. Ms. Brock responded that the Board would state in the letter to the City that the recommendation is based upon information and for the reasons stated in Mr McBride’s letter, if the Board felt that letter encompassed and enumerated all the issues that concern you and refer specifically to anything else that isn’t in that letter. She said the draft letter does set out the SEQR standards, and the Board can then make the recommendations if a negative declaration is made. Mr. Arms said he wanted to respond to the public comments, saying that the implication was made that we don’t listen to them. He said that even though we may not cite certain people, reports, or comments, we do listen, and he prefers the written comments so he can look through them and go to their cited reports. He gave some examples of the comments that have been made that he picked up on, such as clearly lobbyist opinions, and we don’t need to be told that, we know that. That said, the question is not whether or not there is pollution, but how much and how bad it is. Mr. Arms said that he doesn’t feel we have been given enough hard evidence to change the negative declaration. Ms. Bageant said she preferred suggesting a positive declaration, but list conditions we would like to see if the Lead Agency makes a negative declaration. Ms. Kaufman said that there is no question that synthetic turf has environmental contamination but there are also benefits to a synthetic turf field and it is a question of how much is in use in any particular community. In this case, it is on central campus and there are a lot of benefits to its use, especially given the increase in usage under rainy or muddy conditions, and she felt a negative determination was appropriate. Synthetic fields used in tandem with natural turf is a compromise until we have better technology. PB 2024-07-16 (Filed8/12) Pg. 7 She added that that should not be taken as a blanket approval of more synthetic fields, and she would be looking at each project independently. Ms. Cameron noted that she has been considering that that one of the fields is replacing a current artificial field and the other is inside, and there is State legislation that is not enacted yet, but, pending; and so, these questions are being raised at many levels and that raises doubt as to what level of impact we are at. She said it sounds like we have two for a negative declaration, which means we have the potential of not being able to reach a consensus for a majority of the whole to change the recommendation. Ms. Brock said the Board could change the letter to say that a consensus was not reached, but we do have the following recommendations. Ms. Bageant said she was uncomfortable making a decision with only four members present and she would rather discuss this at the next meeting when more members were present. Mr. Arms said he preferred to move ahead, with the concept of revising the letter to say a consensus was not met, but the Board had the following concerns and recommendations for conditions if a negative declaration was made. Discussion followed, with the suggestion that the letter be phrased that a consensus was not reached; adding the suggestion of a condition regarding independent testing be done and show due diligence in exploring other natural turf options rather than making a generic statement that alternatives were looked at; and reference all of the public comments and material that have been submitted for the City’s use. Ms. Bageant had a concern that the research on alternatives should not be used to say artificial turf is appropriate on future fields. Ms. Balestra noted that there are no plans submitted that indicate additional artificial turf fields in the future. Discussion followed, and the Board suggested some language changes to the draft letter to reflect a revised statement about other natural turf alternatives. Ms. Balestra and Ms. Brock suggested “explore other natural turf alternatives that could reduce or eliminate artificial turf while meeting the applicants’ goals of year round use.” The Board agreed with that revision. Discussion turned to other concerns, such as other microplastics and adding a statement that all microplastics should be considered in weighing the impact. Ms. Brock said Dr. McBride’s letter said microplastics could migrate offsite by wind or runoff. She asked Ms. Michaels if the under-field drainage treatment system could capture microplastics. Ms. Michaels said microplastics are very, very tiny and are on every single thing, such as our clothes. Ms. Brock said she is asking about just this project’s impacts, and we are not looking at everything else in the world Ms.Michaelssaidthestormwatersystemwouldnotfiltertothatlevel.Ms.Brockaskedifitispossibletodesignasystemtodoso.Ms.Michaelssaidthatshedidnotknow,andthestormwatermanagementsystemmeetsNYSDECguidelines.Ms.Brocksaidregardlessofcurrentguidelines,thequestioniswhetherthereisapotentialforasignificantadverseenvironmentalimpact.ThatistheonlystandardthePlanningBoardcanlookatforitsrecommendationtotheCity.Theansweriswedonotknowifastormwatersystemcouldcapturemicroplastics.Ms.CameronsuggestedreferencingtheletterbyMr.McBride,whichlistsconcernsthatshouldbeconsideredintheirdetermination.Mr.Armsthoughttheconcernswerecoveredinotherstatementsintheletter.Hesaidifwelisteverythingitwouldbeoverwhelming;concreteisverybad;PFASaretheconcernmostprevalenthere.TheBoardwasinfavorofmovingforwardwiththeletterasamended.Substantivechangesincludedarevisedstatement:“AmajorityoftheTownofIthacaPlanningBoardwasnotabletoagreeonarecommendationtotheCityonwhetherornottheprojecthasthepotentialforsignificantadverseenvironmentalimpact.However,theBoardaskstheLeadAgencytocarefullyconsiderthefollowing...”commentsintheirreviewoftheFullEnvironmentalAssessmentForm(FEAF)associatedwiththeproject...”followedbythelistofitems1-7.MotionmadebyLizBageant,secondedbyCindyKaufmantoapprovetheletterasamended,unanimous.3.ApprovalofMinutes-MotionmadebyMs.Bageant,secondedbyMr.ArmstoapprovetheminutesofMay21,2024;unanimous.4.OtherBusiness—Ms.RandallintroducedthenewPlanner,NickQuilty-KovalandMs.Balestrapreviewedthenextmeetingagenda.ThemeetingwasadjourneduponamotionbyMs.Cameron,secondedbyMr.Arms;unanimous.PauletteRosa,TownClerkPB2024-07-16(Filed8/12)Pg.8