No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Packet 2024-11-19 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, November 19, 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. Consideration by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board of establishing itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project on Game Farm Road, located immediately east of the existing Cornell soccer fields. The proposal involves constructing new field hockey facilities in two phases, with phase one including the conversion of the existing grass practice field into a synthetic turf field along with construction of a new driveway, formalized parking area, pedestrian amenities, and two small support facilities (a 1,700 +/- square foot restroom/team room building, and a 480 +/- square foot press box). The project also includes new lighting, landscaping, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. Phase two involves the construction of a clubhouse for the field hockey team, with locker rooms, meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms, lounge, toilets, showers, and indoor synthetic turf training space. Phase two is projected to be constructed within five years of the athletic field installation. The project is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio, Applicant/Agent. 2. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a personal wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79. The proposal involves the construction of a 138' +/- monopole tower with 9 antennas, two equipment cabinets, a generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50' +/- chain link fenced area. The project is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Planning Board issued a negative determination of environmental significance for the project on October 29, 2024. S. Roberts WC Land, LLC, Owner; Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent. 3. Persons to be heard. 4. Approval of Minutes. 5. Other Business. 6. Adjournment. C.J. Randall Director of Planning 607-273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY 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 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Chris Balestra, Senior Planner DATE: November 12, 2024 RE: SEQR Lead Agency Declaration of Intent – Cornell Game Farm Rd Field Hockey Field Enclosed please find materials related to the proposed Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project on Game Farm Road, located immediately east of the existing Cornell soccer fields at the Game Farm Road Athletic Complex (also referenced as the Ellis Hollow Athletic Complex). The proposal involves constructing new field hockey facilities in two phases, with phase one including the conversion of the existing natural grass practice field (McGovern Field 3) into a synthetic turf field along with construction of a new driveway, formalized parking area, pedestrian amenities, and two small support facilities (a 1,700 +/- square foot restroom/team room building, and a 480 +/- square foot press box). Phase two involves the construction of a clubhouse for the field hockey team, with locker rooms, meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms, lounge, toilets, showers, and indoor synthetic turf training space. Phase two is projected to be constructed within five years of the athletic field installation. The project also includes new lighting, landscaping, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. The attachments include: 1. Draft resolution – Town of Ithaca Planning Board declare intent to be Lead Agency in environmental review. 2. Email from Planning Board member Liz Bageant. 3. Letter from Frank Rossi to City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board re: Meinig Fieldhouse project. 4. Memo from the Town Conservation Board’s Environmental Review Committee, dated November 8, 2024. 5. Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Site Plan Report dated October 3, 2024. 6. Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field drawings dated September 27, 2024. 7. 2015 Cornell Game Farm Road Master Plan (recently discovered on Cornell’s website) The project will encompass three parcels located within the Low Density Residential Zone (LDR) in the Town of Ithaca. The proposed field hockey field use is permitted in the LDR Zone, following Site Plan and Special Permit approval by the Planning Board. The project a is a Type I Action under the State 2 Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Planning Board members can expect the applicant to give an overview of the proposal at the meeting on November 19th. The purpose of the meeting is for the Planning Board to declare their intent to be the Lead Agency in the environmental review of the project and to give feedback to the applicant related to the project (pursuant to Town Code § 270-185 B – sketch plan review). If the Board declares themselves the Lead Agency on November 19th, then the next step in the process is for Planning staff to send a Lead Agency concurrence letter (with the EAF and application materials) to all involved agencies to start the official 30-day timeframe for agencies to respond. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions regarding this proposal by phone at 273-1721, extension 121, or by email at cbalestra@townithacany.gov. Cc: Elisabete Godden, Project Manager, Cornell University, Facilities and Campus Services Kimberly Michaels, Director of Landscape Architects, TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio Leslie Schill, Director of Campus Planning, Cornell University, Office of the University Architect PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Lead Agency – Declaration of Intent Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project Tax Parcel No.’s 62.-2-4, 62.-2-5, 62.-2-6 Game Farm Road Town of Ithaca Planning Board November 19, 2024 WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting on November 19, 2024, considered a Sketch Plan for the proposed Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project on Game Farm Road, located immediately east of the existing Cornell soccer fields at the Game Farm Road Athletic Complex (also referenced as the Ellis Hollow Athletic Complex). The proposal involves constructing new field hockey facilities in two phases, with phase one including the conversion of the existing natural grass practice field (McGovern Field 3) into a synthetic turf field along with construction of a new driveway, formalized parking area, pedestrian amenities, and two small support facilities (a 1,700 +/- square foot restroom/team room building, and a 480 +/- square foot press box). Phase two involves the construction of a clubhouse for the field hockey team, with locker rooms, meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms, lounge, toilets, showers, and indoor synthetic turf training space. Phase two is projected to be constructed within five years of the athletic field installation. The project also includes new lighting, landscaping, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio, Applicant/Agent; 2. The proposed project, which requires Site Plan approval and Special Permit by the Planning Board, 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 regarding Environmental Quality Review, because the proposal involves an activity, other than the construction of residential facilities, that involves the physical alteration of 10 acres (6 NYCRR 617.4 (b) (6) (i)), and parking for 100 vehicles (Town Code 148-5.C (3)); and 3. A Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, has been submitted by the applicant, along with a report containing a narrative and studies titled “Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field, Site Plan Review Application Report,” dated October 3, 2024, prepared by Fisher Associates, drawings titled “Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field, Cornell University,” dated 09-27-2024, prepared by Sasaki, and other materials; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed actions, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed Lead Agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department by December 19, 2024. ChrisBalestraFrom:LizBageantSent:Thursday,October31,20245:51AMTo:ChrisBalestraSubject:Artificialturfconsultant**wARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentHiChris,Itwasgreattoseeyouyesterday!Iwasthinkingabouttheideaofhiringaconsultanttosupportourdecision-makingaroundartificialturffields.YoumentionedFrankRossiyesterday,whoIthinkwouldbeusefultohearfrom(orreadhisreport).IalsothinkitwouldbehelpfulformeifwecouldfindsomeonewithexpertiseonPFAS,micro-plasticsandanyotherenvironmental/healthconcernsrelatedtoartificialturf.ThisfeelslikesuchatechnicalareaandthescienceisrapidlyevolvingandI’dappreciatehearingfromandbeingabletoaskquestionsofanexpertnotassociatedwiththeapplicantorthepublic.HappyThursday,Liz1 4(IThrneCALSCollegeofAgricultureIandLifeSciencesAugust29,2024CityofIthacaPlanningandDevelopmentBoard108E.GreenStIthaca,NY14850DearPlanningandDevelopmentBoard:IamawarethatthePlanningBoardiscurrentlyreviewinganewCornellfieldhouseprojectwithproposedsyntheticsurfacesandhasaskedformyinputontheproposal.Currently,thespaceispartiallyoccupiedbyanexistingsyntheticturffieldusedbywomen’svarsityFieldHockey,andanativesoil-basedfieldprimarilyusedbythemen’svarsitySprintFootballteaminthefallseason.Ecologically,duetolowlightlevels,thisfield’slocationmakesitverydifficulttoproducesafe,wear-tolerantnaturalgrasssurfacesunderexistingandprojectedhigh-usedemands.Syntheticturfsystemshaveadvantagesforusage,especiallyduringthespringsportsseason,thatsimplycannotbematchedbyanycurrentlyavailablenaturalgrasssystems.Balancingthevariouseconomic,social,andenvironmentalaspectsofnaturalandsyntheticsurfacesischallenging.Basingadecisiononasingleaspectofthetripartiterolethatplayingsurfacesmustsatisfywouldnotbewise.Thelackofavailableplayingsurfacesoncampuscreatesademandthatcannotbeachievedwithoutsyntheticsurfacesinthisclimate.Consideringcost,benefit,andenvironmentalconcerns,naturalgrasssystemscannotmeettheexpectedusedemandsofthesefieldsforspringsportsseasons,evenwithinvestmentsinthelatesttechnologyandnotconsideringenergyintensiveinputsofmowing,irrigation,andnutrientuse(wecurrentlymanagethefieldwithfewpesticides).Thelatesttechnologyisalsoveryexpensive,typicallyemployedonlybyprofessionalsportsteamsandmajorDivision1athleticsprogramsforcompetitionfieldsandinvolvesartificiallightingandtemperature-controlledrootzonesystemsusinghydronicsforheatingandcooling—practicesthatcomewithanassociatedenergyinputsandcarbonemissioncost.IsharetheconcernsofsomemembersofthepublicaboutthebroaderenvironmentalissuesofPFASandmicroplastics.AsforPFAS,thelatestresearchpapersindicatethateliminatingcrumbrubberinfillandswitchingtoplant-basedinfilladdressesmostofthoseconcerns.Whilethis wouldhavetheeffectoflimitingsomeuseoftheoutdoorfieldinthecoldestwintermonthsduetofreezing,Ihavestronglyrecommendedtotheprojectteamthattheyconsiderthischangeanddevelopbestpracticesformanagingnaturalin-fillsurfaces.Onmicroplastics,arecentEuropeanstudyindicatesthatappropriate,nature-basedsolutionsexisttopreventmicroplasticsinwaterfromleavingthesite.ThesepracticesareincludedinthesefacilityplansattheeasternpartofthesiteneartheMeinigFieldhouse.Theproject’scivilengineershavestatedthatallwaterfallingontheoutdoorsyntheticturffieldlocatedatalowerelevationtothewest,willeitherinfiltratethroughthefieldorcollectintheFrenchdrainsaroundtheperimeter.Suchrunoffwillbesubsequentlyheldinanundergroundwaterdetentionandfiltrationsystemthatwillremovesediments,includingmicroplastics,downtoaparticlesizeof0.212millimeters.Thisisadequatetopreventmovementofmicroplasticsofftheplayingsurfaceinstormwater.Iappreciateyourinterestinhearingmyperspectiveontheseprojects.WhileIalwaysprefernaturalgrassfields,Irecognizethechallengespresentedbyusageneeds,climateandmicroclimate.Isupporttheproposedprojectandfeelsyntheticturfwithplant-basedinfihlistheappropriatechoiceforthissite.Sincerely,FrankS.Rossi,Ph.D.TheRichardC.CallDirectorAgriculturalSciencesMajor To:Town of Ithaca Planning Board From:The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board -Environmental Review Committee Date:11/8/2024 RE:Cornell University Game Farm Road Field project In reviewing the proposed application for the Cornell University Game Farm Road Field project the Environmental Review Committee we acknowledge these publicly stated commitments. Cornell is a global leader in sustainability and climate change research,teaching and engagement.Our campuses are living laboratories for developing,testing and implementing solutions that address these most challenging issues.-https://sustainability.cornell.edu/ The Town of Ithaca is committed to being a leader in sustainability…recognizing there will be multiple benefits besides greenhouse gas reduction,including improved community health and economic vitality. -https://townithacany.gov/departments/sustainability/ The Environmental Assessment section E.3.Designated Public Resources documents that this project site is agriculture lands consisting of highly productive soils.How does distributing over 12 acres of highly productive soils inclusive of flattening,compacting,and covering with a plastic product demonstrate Cornell’s and the Town of Ithaca’s commitment to being leaders in sustainability? The applicant states on pages 13 and 37 of their report: ●The synthetic turf will be reused or recycled at the end of its useful life,which is typically 8-12 years after installation. ●The proposed synthetic turf installed at Game Farm Road will meet the requirements set forth in New York State Environmental Conservation Law,Section 27-3313(2). Concerned citizens and organizations including PEER state that artificial turf (plastic carpet)cannot currently be recycled.NYS Environmental Conservation Law,Section 27-3313 includes the requirement to describe the methods to be used to reuse or recycle discarded carpet;describe the methods to be used to manage or dispose of discarded carpet that cannot be recycled or reused. Is the applicant able to elaborate with necessary specifics on their statements?For example,what is the name of the waste disposal company they will be engaging;what methods do they use?Without specifics,these claims are ambitious and not real. We also share with this current applicant the same opinion shared with past applicants choosing to install a plastic carpet (synthetic turf)field. We acknowledge the concerns citizens have raised about the plastic carpet (artificial turf)installation in our community.Citizens'worries include:the impact on our local environment with the leaching of contaminants into our air,water,and soil;and,the impact on human health with the exposure to toxic material. There is a NYS Senate Bill S4693 in the NYS Senate Health Committee that is proposing an assessment of the public health and environmental impacts'of the use of synthetic turf in indoor and outdoor settings as well as a 2018 NYS DOH fact sheet that provides information about health and safety issues related to this type of synthetic turf field. Page 1 of 2 While environmental benefits to plastic carpet such as saving water have been documented,not much attention has been given to artificial turf concerns.For example,the breakdown of the plastic carpet during use produces smaller pieces,including microplastics,that may be carried long distances by the wind,leach into water systems,storm drains,and contaminate the soil.And maintenance may require application of hazardous antimicrobials.https://www.turi.org/artificial-turf-2 It’s imperative that our actions reflect our commitments to being leaders in sustainability.At this time,we recommend not approving sketch plans. Respectfully submitted, Conservation Board Lori Brewer (chair) Frank Cantone James Hamilton Eva Hoffmann Michael Roberts Ingrid Zabel Lindsay Dombroskie Page 2 of 2 1Ficioc&iFrom:PollyParsons<prp66@cornell.edu>Sent:Tuesday,November12,202410:24AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningCc:NickiMooreSubject:SupportfortheConstructionoftheSyntheticTurfFieldonFarmRoad**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearTownPlanningBoardMembers,Ihopethismessagefindsyouwell.MynameisPollyParsons,andIamasophomoreonCornellUniversity’sVarsityFieldHockeyteam.IamwritingtoexpressmystrongsupportfortheproposedsyntheticturffieldonFarmRoad,andtoencourageyourconsiderationofthisessentialproject.Theconstructionofasyntheticturffieldwouldgreatlyenhancethefieldhockeyteams’experienceatCornellbyprovidingaconsistentandreliablesurfaceforpracticesandcompetition.Unlikenaturalgrass,whichbecomesunusableinpoorweatherconditionsandduringcoldermonths,asyntheticturffieldwouldensurethatathletes,includingmyselfandmyteammates,haveasafe,accessiblefieldthroughouttheentireseason.HavingaccesstothisnewturffieldonFarmRoadwouldbeinstrumentalinsupportingourhealth,well-being,andathleticdevelopment.Theconsistencyofpracticingonasyntheticsurfacewillalsoreducetheriskofinjuryandimprovethequalityofourtraining,allowingustothrivebothonthefieldandacademically.Thankyouforyourtimeandconsideration.YoursupportwouldbeinvaluableinmakingthisvisionarealityforCornell’sfieldhockeyprogramandthebroadercampuscommunity.Bestregards,PollyParsons1 Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Site Plan Review Application Report Cornell University Ithaca, NY October 3, 2024 This page has been intentionally left blank. Cultivating our gifts to create a legacy of infrastructure that improves quality of life. October 3, 2024 C.J. Randall, Director of Planning Department of Planning, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Site Plan Review for Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey field Dear Director Randall: Attached please find SEQR and site plan review materials for Cornell University’s proposed Field Hockey field on Game Farm Road. The proposed Field Hockey field will provide Cornell’s field hockey athletes a much-needed NCAA-compliant synthetic turf field. The project site is located between McGovern Soccer Fields and Game Farm Road. Included in this booklet is the following: Detailed Project Narrative FEAF Owner’s Authorization & Certification Form Vehicle Tracking Fire Access Diagram Lighting Cut Sheets Photometrics Report Environmental Sound Study Traffic and Parking Analysis Memo Geotechnical Report Phase I Reconaissance Addendum Survey G1-00 Site Plan C100 Legend and Notes C101 Existing Conditions Plan C102 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan C103 Utility and Demolition Plan C104 Utility Plan C105 Drainage Plan C201, C202 Utility Details C301 Utility Profiles L0-01 General Notes L1-01 Surface Protection and Removals L1-02 Fire Access Routes L2-01 Layout Plan L3-01 Materials Plan L4-01 Grading Plan L4-02 Field Grading and Drainage L5-01 Planting Plan L5-02 Planting Schedule L6-01 Site Lighting Plan L6-02 Field Lighting Plan L8-01, L8-02 Site Details L9-00 Planting Details L10-01, L10-02, L10-03 Field Details A1-00 Overall Site Plan A1-10 Construction Plan, RCP and Roof Plan A1-11 Construction Plan, RCP and Roof Plan (Alternate) A1-20 Construction Plan - Press Box and Team Shelters A2-10 Exterior Elevations and Sections A2-11 Exterior Elevations and Sections (Alternate) Separately, a technical drawing set, in 11x17 and full-size, is provided and includes: In addition, one full-size copy of the Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is provided under separate cover. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to call. We look forward to introducing the project to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board at the November 19 meeting. At that meeting we are hoping to have the Board declare its intent to act as Lead Agency pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Sincerely, Kimberly Michaels Director of Landscape Architecture 1001 W Seneca Street, Suite 201 • Ithaca, New York 14850 • 607.277.1400 • fisherassoc.com Sasaki Associates Project Architect and Landscape Architect Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio Project Municipal Approvals T.G. Miller, P.C. Project Civil Engineer R.F.S. Engineering Project Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Engineers Cavanaugh Tocci Audiovisual and Acoustics Project Consultants Table of Contents Project Narrative ..................................................................................................................7 Full Environmental Assessment Form .................................................................................17 Supplemental Information ..................................................................................................33 Impact on Land ...............................................................................................................35 Impact on Water ..............................................................................................................35 Impact on Air ..................................................................................................................35 Impact on Plants, Animals & Agriculture ..........................................................................35 Impact on Aesthetic Resources ........................................................................................35 Impact on Historic, Cultural and Archaeological Resources ..............................................36 Impact on Open Space & Recreation ...............................................................................36 Impact on Critical Environmental and Unique Natural Areas ..............................................36 Impact on Transportation .................................................................................................36 Impact on Energy ............................................................................................................37 Impacts from Sound, Odor & Light ..................................................................................37 Impact on Human Health .................................................................................................37 Impact on Growth & Character of Community ..................................................................38 Impacts from Construction ..............................................................................................38 Appendices ........................................................................................................................40 Owner’s Authorization and Certification Form Vehicle Tracking Fire Access Diagram Lighting Cut Sheets Photometrics Report Environmental Sound Study Geotechnical Report Phase I Reconnaissance Addendum Survey (2024) Technical Drawing Set (11x17) Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)(separate packet) (separate packet) This page has been intentionally left blank. 7 Project Narrative 8 Project Narrative Project Summary Cornell University is proposing to construct facilities for varsity field hockey at their Game Farm Road lands utilized for athletics. Construction of the project is proposed in two phases. Phase one will provide Cornell’s field hockey athletes a much-needed, NCAA- compliant synthetic turf field. The field is proposed on the site of an existing lightly utilized grass athletic field next to two improved grass soccer fields known as McGovern Fields. Phase one will include a field hockey pitch, a new driveway, formalized parking, pedestrian amenities, and small support facilities. The support facilities include a four-restroom building and a press box building. An additional building (phase two) for field hockey is anticipated to move forward within five years of the athletic field installation. The building will be a single-story clubhouse facility to serve the field hockey team. The clubhouse will include team locker rooms, offices, meeting rooms, a physical therapy/training room, a lounge, toilets, showers, and an indoor training space. The indoor training space will have a synthetic turf floor surface that matches the turf used for the exterior field hockey field and will be used for field hockey practice during inclement weather. The proposed septic system, storm water management system, and electrical transformer included in the phase one construction will be sized to accommodate the needs of the future clubhouse. The enclosed documents and FEAF address the full project buildout (field and clubhouse). Project Purpose, Need, and Benefit The proposed facilities will provide a new home for Cornell field hockey, primarily varsity athletes, while also serving club and camp needs. Location The project site totals approximately 15.65 acres and is within three tax parcels in the Town of Ithaca (numbers 62.-2-6, 62.-2-5, and 62.-2-4). The limit of disturbance within the site is approximately 12.22 acres. The total acreage of the three parcels in which the project site sits is approximately 123 acres. These parcels are adjacent additional Game Farm Road and East Hill Plaza Cornell lands that comprise approximately 506 acres, per the County Assessment tax mapping. Project Narrative 9 Figure: Project Location Map Project Narrative Setting The proposed project site is situated next to McGovern soccer fields, adjacent to Game Farm Road, north of the NYSEG transmission lines, and south of the tree line along Cascadilla Creek. Cornell’s soccer fields are located west of the site; the Cascadilla Creek Unique Natural Area (see “Tompkins County Unique Natural Area” below) and the East Ithaca Recreation way trail are located north of the project site; NYSDEC-owned Reynolds Game Farm is located east across Game Farm Road in the Town of Dryden; and Ellis Hollow Road is due south of the site. Cornell’s Ithaca main campus is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the proposed project site. Relationship to University Master Plan Since the development of Cornell’s 2008 Campus Master Plan, the Game Farm Road area has been identified as a location for an athletics complex. McGovern soccer fields were developed there almost 20 years ago and in 2022 Cornell constructed a new baseball facility on the property. Cornell intends to slowly develop the Game Farm Road athletics complex, recognizing such development is dependent upon future funding, based on athletics program priorities and needs. Varsity field sports are envisioned to be prioritized for Game Farm Road, given their large footprints and, in some cases, specialized and/or limited use requirements. The proposed field hockey project is in line with these high-level goals. 10 Zoning The proposed field will be located within the Town of Ithaca LDR (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. Town of Ithaca: Low Density Residential (LDR) The project site is an allowed use with a special use permit in the LDR zone, as part of an institution of higher learning. It is anticipated that this project will require a height and area variance for the scoreboard. Both the phase one and phase two buildings will meet town height, setback, and lot coverage requirements. Tompkins County Unique Natural Area North of the project site lies the Cascadilla Woods and Fish Ponds Unique Natural Area (UNA-128). The field, earthwork, and other improvements will be constructed south of UNA-128, outside of the UNA boundary. All site disturbance will be greater than 100 feet from the creek, as required by the Town of Ithaca’s stream setback law. Additionally, the stormwater management design for the project will protect downstream water systems. No impacts to UNA-128 are anticipated as part of the proposed project. Tompkins County GML 239 Review The proposed project will require Tompkins County 239 Review, based on geographic location triggers for being within 500 feet of the following: the boundary of any city, village or town as well as from a county road. Project Narrative Figure: Tompkins County Natural Areas Viewer 11 Site Development Phase I will include the following: • Field hockey pitch with synthetic turf • 10,000 gallon water storage tank for field irrigation • Electronic scoreboard • Bleachers • Site lighting and athletic field lighting • Two camera poles • Fencing around athletic field • Two team dugouts • Two buildings: ○one 1,700 sq ft building with four single-user restrooms and team room located near the field entrance walkway ○one two-story 480 sq ft press box, located at the field center line • Paved two-lane driveway with roundabout (replacing gravel drive) • 120 parking spaces, including 6 ADA spaces (replacing informal parking area) • Accessible pedestrian circulation through the site; connecting all parking spaces with the existing and proposed fields Project Narrative Figure: Illustrated Site Plan 12 and buildings • 8 bicycle racks, providing 16 bicycle parking spaces • Native landscape plantings and trees to provide canopy cover to walkways and parking spaces Phase II will include the following: • One building (approximately 14,000 sq ft) south of the field that would house: offices and meeting rooms, team locker room, physical therapy/training room, lounge and a small indoor practice space with synthetic turf floor surface Fire/Emergency Access The project site will be accessible to fire and emergency vehicles from Game Farm Road. Fire and emergency access on the project site will be provided via a 22-foot-wide main access drive with roundabout, and a 20-foot hammerhead turnaround access. The Fire Apparatus Access Routes Plan is included in the technical drawing set, and the Vehicle Tracking Fire Access diagram is included in the appendix. Circulation The existing circulation is characterized by gravel pathways that connect parking to the existing McGovern soccer fields and building. Circulation to these facilities and the proposed field hockey facility will be improved by offering paved, formalized parking spaces and accessible, paved pedestrian connections from the parking spaces to the McGovern fields and new field hockey field. Project Narrative Figure: Site Circulation and ADA Parking Diagram 13 Parking The proposed plan includes 120 car parking spaces and two bus parking pull-off spaces. This will accommodate the field hockey team for practice and competition as well as both women’s and men’s soccer parking for practices, even if all three fields are in use simultaneously. Landscape Natural landscape spaces around the access drive and walkways will include meadow grasses, grass swales, and a mix of deciduous shade trees, evergreens, and flowering trees. Proposed trees will offer canopy cover to parking lots and walkways, while groundcovers will provide visual seasonal interest to visitors and support green infrastructure practices proposed on the site to manage stormwater runoff. A strong emphasis will be placed on using native, non-invasive plant material. One pine tree (4” DBH) will be removed as part of the construction of this project. The project includes tree plantings adjacent to the parking area and will result in a net addition of trees to the site. Please refer to the planting plan and schedule within the technical drawing set for more information on planting species, quantities, and locations. Site Materials All pedestrian walkways are proposed to be asphalt or concrete, with a minimum eight-foot width. The entrance walkway and fire apparatus turnaround space will be specified for heavy-duty paving to support fire truck access. The driveway and parking spaces will be asphalt. Other site materials include a black vinyl chain link fence with pedestrian and vehicular swing gates along the field hockey field and 30-foot-high netting located at the north and south ends of the field hockey field, behind the goals. The field hockey field is proposed as synthetic turf. Synthetic turf is the required standard for NCAA competitive field hockey playing surfaces. All eighty-one (81) Collegiate Division 1 Field Hockey programs in the United States play on synthetic turf. All global field hockey international competitions are played on Hockey Turf which is a synthetic turf or textile surface designed to have the quality and performance characteristics required to allow the game of hockey to be played. The varsity field hockey field will be composed of a synthetic turf system designed to comply with NCAA requirements for field hockey competition, and an irrigation system meant to wet the field prior to play. The cross section of the proposed synthetic turf includes stone base, porous asphalt, pad, and 1/2” dense tufted fibers; and will not not include rubber, sand, or infill of any kind. This material for the field is required by NCAA. The synthetic turf will be reused or recycled at the end of its useful life, which is typically 8-12 years after installation. Lighting The competition venue will include athletic field lighting. Four 70’ tall light poles are proposed. The fixtures will have sharp cut off features to ensure light stays on the field and will have a color temperature of LED 5,700K – 75 CRI, per NCAA requirements for play and recording. This is standard for athletic field lighting because warmer color temperatures, (such as 3,000K), make it harder for athletes to see the ball. This lighting design is required per NCAA and promotes safety and playability. Lighting for pedestrians will include twenty-two 20-foot pole-mounted fixtures. The fixtures will be dark sky compliant with color a temperature of 3,000K. Site lighting levels have been designed for safety and security connecting primary pedestrian paths to the facilities and parking areas. Light from these fixtures will not spill off-property. Photometric plans, models, and cut sheets for the lighting are provided in the appendices and drawing set. Signage The project will seek a variance for signs at this site. Project Narrative 14 Energy The project will have limited energy needs. It will comply with the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement. Site Utilities Existing Conditions NYSEG electric service is available along Game Farm Road and service is presently extended to the McGovern Fields soccer facility. Additionally, NYSEG overhead transmission lines form a utility corridor with a 225’ wide easement that bisects the project parcel, south of the proposed limits of disturbance for the proposed project. Potable water for domestic, field irrigation, and fire protection uses is supplied from the Cornell University Zone 3 storage and distribution system. An existing 8-inch water main extends from Ellis Hollow Road to the McGovern Fields. This main also serves the facilities at the baseball field. Current system static pressure at McGovern Fields is approximately 95 psi. Sanitary sewage generated by the current McGovern Fields Soccer Building is disposed of using an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS). This septic system was designed and permitted for a daily loading of 260 gallons. Given the limited capacity of this OWTS, adding sewage loads for proposed project plumbing fixtures is not being considered. Proposed Improvements The new electrical service for the Field Hockey venue will be a 300A, 480/277V, 3PH, 4W underground service. A new 500kVA exterior pad mounted transformer furnished by NYSEG will be provided to serve the facility. Two five-inch conduits from a new riser pole on Game Farm Road will connect to the pad-mount transformer. Telecommunications services will be extended to the Field Hockey venue from the existing soccer facility. Services will include multi-pair copper and fiber optic cable. Two concrete-encased, four-inch conduits will be routed underground with telecommunications services from the existing duct bank system at the soccer facility. Potable water for domestic, fire protection, and field hockey field watering purposes will be supplied from the Cornell University Zone 3 distribution grid. Approximately 835 feet of new 8-inch diameter piping will be extended from the existing main located adjacent to the west end of the McGovern soccer building and will terminate at the south end of the proposed field near the intersection of the emergency access path and the new parking lot/drive. A 6” main will then be extended from the proposed 8” main to the proposed restroom building mechanical room. The future water service for the phase II building will be able to be connected to the proposed 8” main. All new water mains and fittings greater than 6-inch diameter will be butt-fused HDPE (ductile iron pipe size). One fire hydrant will be provided and located at the end of the new 8-inch water main however, the final location of the fire hydrant will be coordinated with the Town Code Enforcement Officer. The distribution main will be protected from the Field Hockey watering system with an approved backflow prevention assembly. Sanitary sewage collected from the plumbing fixtures within both the proposed restroom building and the phase II building will be directed to a new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) consisting of a 3,500-gallon septic tank and mound absorption bed. Effluent from the septic tank will be lifted to the absorption bed using a 1.5-2-HP duplex effluent pump station. The wet well capacity of the pump station will be sized to accommodate the differential volume between the maximum day loading and the metered daily discharge to the absorption system. The mound absorption system will be located along the south side of the proposed parking facility. The OWTS is sized using the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC) Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment Systems and will accommodate a projected maximum daily load of 2,300 GPD. This loading rate accounts for spectators, athletes, officials, and venue staff using the restrooms at the rate of 5 gallons/person/day. A loading rate of 20 gallons/person/day will be applied to the population of athletes anticipated to use the shower facilities in the phase II building. Due to the maximum daily loading rate of the OWTS being greater than 1,000 GPD, a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (SPDES) permit from the NYSDEC, as well as an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System construction permit from the Tompkins County Health Department (TCHD), will be obtained. A Sanitary Sewer Exemption request must be submitted to and approved by the Town of Ithaca prior to issuance of either the TCHD construction permit or NYSDEC SPDES permit. With respect Project Narrative 15 to the Sanitary Sewer Exemption, the exemption justifications submitted by Cornell University in 2022 for the Booth Baseball Field are equally applicable, if not more so, to the proposed Field Hockey Field project. As such, Cornell University will prepare a formal request to the Town Board seeking approval of the exemption and will provide the Town Engineering Staff with additional information specific to this site. Site Stormwater Management Existing Conditions Presently, stormwater runoff from the project site is collected and conveyed to multiple outfall locations along Cascadilla Creek by a system of swales, drainage inlets, and pipes. There are two existing wet ponds located at the north end of the site that function as stormwater management practices. These ponds were constructed as part of the original McGovern soccer fields project and are intended to provide both water quality treatment and detention. The geotechnical investigation that was performed in support of the McGovern Soccer Fields project reported that onsite soils are predominantly silt mixed with clay and trace amounts of sand. Percolation testing was also performed as part of the investigation and indicated poor soil permeability. The topography throughout the site is relatively flat and does not exceed 4-5% slope. The project site is not located within a floodplain. Proposed Improvements Stormwater Stormwater drainage improvements in support of the proposed synthetic turf field, buildings, and parking/drive areas will include a system of drainage inlets, manholes, underdrains, roof leader connections, and swales. Drainage patterns will remain consistent with the existing conditions to the maximum extent possible. Discharge rates will be controlled in order to reduce, or, at a minimum, match existing rates. Permanent stormwater management practices will be used to meet stormwater regulations. Total soil disturbance will be greater than 1 acre and therefore the project will be required to prepare a Full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the NYSDEC’s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity as well as the Town of Ithaca stormwater regulations. The SWPPP will include requirements for temporary erosion and sediment control practices to be installed and maintained during construction, and contain additional requirements for the construction, operation, and maintenance of permanent practices. Obtaining permit coverage for stormwater discharges under the general permit will require submission to the NYSDEC of a Notice-of-Intent along with an MS4 SWPPP Acceptance Form approved by the Town of Ithaca Stormwater Management Officer. All water falling on the synthetic turf field hockey field will infiltrate through the field. To provide enhanced particle removal, the stormwater runoff originating from the proposed synthetic turf field hockey field will be conveyed to a proprietary stormwater filter practice. The filter practice uses a series of high surface area membrane filter cartridges capable of removing physical particulates of 0.025 mm or larger. Runoff from the site will be conveyed to an extended detention shallow wetland (EDSW) designed to provide detention storage for the 1% chance storm event. To ensure stormwater quality treatment, two vegetated bioretention filters will fulfill the required Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv) and a portion of the Water Quality Volume (WQv) while the EDSW will provide the remainder of the WQv. To provide enhanced particle removal, the stormwater runoff originating from the proposed synthetic turf field will be conveyed to a proprietary stormwater filter practice. The filter practice uses a series of high surface area membrane filter cartridges capable of removing physical particulates of 0.025 mm or larger. Additionally, two existing stormwater wet ponds previously constructed at the north end of the fields will be replaced with the new EDSW. The stormwater detention and treatment capacity inherent in those two ponds will be replicated in the EDSW. Stormwater discharge from the EDSW will be directed to Cascadilla Creek via the western existing overland drainage course, while the eastern drainage course will be discontinued. Discharge rates from the site will be controlled using an outlet control structure to match the existing rates. The stormwater management practices have been sized to mitigate all phases of the project and adhere to the requirements outlined in the 2015 NYSDEC stormwater design manual. Refer to the project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for detailed watershed analysis and practice design computations. Project Narrative Figure: Stormwater Management Diagram 16 Project Narrative 17 Full Environmental Assessment Form FEAF 2019 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 1is accurate and complete. A.Project and Applicant/Sponsor Information. Name of Action or Project: Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map): Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need): Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO:State:Zip Code: Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO:State:Zip Code: Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO:State:Zip Code: Page 1 of 13 Cornell Field Hockey field On the west side of Game Farm Road,between the road and McGovern Fields;Town Parcel #62.-2-6 and #62.-2-5 Cornell University is proposing to construct facilities for varsity field hockey at their Game Farm Road lands utilized for athletics.Construction of the project is proposed in two phases.Phase one will provide Cornell’s field hockey athletes a much-needed,NCAA-compliant synthetic turf field.The field is proposed on the site of an existing lightly utilized grass athletic field next to two improved grass soccer fields known as McGovern Fields.Phase one will include a field hockey pitch,a new driveway,formalized parking, pedestrian amenities,and small support facilities.The support facilities include a four-restroom building and a press box building. An additional building (phase two)for field hockey is anticipated to move forward within five years of the athletic field installation.The building will be a single-story clubhouse facility to serve the field hockey team.The clubhouse will include team locker rooms,offices,meeting rooms,a physical therapy/training room,a lounge,toilets,showers,and an indoor training space.The indoor training space will have a synthetic turf floor surface that matches the turf used for the exterior field hockey field and will be used for field hockey practice during inclement weather. The proposed septic system,storm water management system,and electrical transformer included in the phase one construction will be sized to accommodate the needs of the future clubhouse.The enclosed documents and FEAF address the full project buildout (field and clubhouse). Kimberly Michaels 607.227.1400 kmichaels@fisherassoc.com 1001 W.Seneca Street,Suite 201 Ithaca NY 14850 Elisabete Godden,Project Manager 607.255.2478 egodden@cornell.edu 102 Humphries Service Building Ithaca NY 14853 Cornell University Ithaca NY 14850 B.Government Approvals B.Government Approvals, Funding, or Sponsorship. (“Funding” includes grants, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s) Required Application Date (Actual or projected) a.City Council, Town Board,9 Yes 9 No or Village Board of Trustees b. City, Town or Village 9 Yes 9 No Planning Board or Commission c. City, Town or 9 Yes 9 No Village Zoning Board of Appeals d.Other local agencies 9 Yes 9 No e. County agencies 9 Yes 9 No f. Regional agencies 9 Yes 9 No g.State agencies 9 Yes 9 No h. Federal agencies 9 Yes 9 No i. Coastal Resources. i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway?9 Yes 9 No ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program?9 Yes 9 No iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area?9 Yes 9 No C.Planning and Zoning C.1. Planning and zoning actions. Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of a plan, local law, ordinance, rule or regulation be the 9 Yes 9 No only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? •If Yes, complete sections C, F and G. •If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1 C.2. Adopted land use plans. a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site 9 Yes 9 No where the proposed action would be located? If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action 9 Yes 9 No would be located? b.Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway;9 Yes 9 No Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan; or other?) If Yes, identify the plan(s): _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan,9 Yes 9 No or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? If Yes, identify the plan(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 13 (Future Land Use designation is "campus") Town Board: Sewer Exemption Town Planning Board: SEQR, Site Plan Approval, Special Use Permit ZBA: Sign Variance TCHD OWTS Construction Permit; Tompkins County GML 239M Review NYSDEC: Stormwater Permit; OWTS SPDES Permit C.3. Zoning a.Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance.9 Yes 9 No If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b.Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit?9 Yes 9 No c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action?9 Yes 9 No If Yes, i.What is the proposed new zoning for the site? ___________________________________________________________________ C.4. Existing community services. a. In what school district is the project site located? ________________________________________________________________ b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ c.Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ d.What parks serve the project site? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ D.Project Details D.1. Proposed and Potential Development a.What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include all components)? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b.a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action?_____________ acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed?_____________ acres c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor?_____________ acres c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use?9 Yes 9 No i.If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g., acres, miles, housing units, square feet)? % ____________________ Units: ____________________ d.Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision?9 Yes 9 No If Yes, i.Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed?9 Yes 9 No iii.Number of lots proposed? ________ iv.Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum __________ Maximum __________ e.Will the proposed action be constructed in multiple phases?9 Yes 9 No i.If No, anticipated period of construction: _____ months ii.If Yes: •Total number of phases anticipated _____ •Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) _____ month _____ year •Anticipated completion date of final phase _____ month _____year •Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases: _______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 13 LDR -Low Density Residential Ithaca City School District Cornell Campus Police,Tompkins County Sheriff Ithaca Fire District #1,Bangs Ambulance East Hill Recreation Way Recreational -Field Hockey Field 15.65 12.22 506 2 3 2025 tbd tbd It is anticipated that within five years,the phase two building could move forward. If so,it would likely take 12-18 months to complete.The infrastructure proposed for phase I is sized to accommodate phase II. f. Does the project include new residential uses?9 Yes 9 No If Yes, show numbers of units proposed. One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family (four or more) Initial Phase ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________ At completion of all phases ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________ g. Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)?9 Yes 9 No If Yes, i. Total number of structures ___________ ii.Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: ________height; ________width; and _______ length iii.Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: ______________________ square feet h. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any 9 Yes 9 No liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage? If Yes, i.Purpose of the impoundment: ________________________________________________________________________________ ii.If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: 9 Ground water 9 Surface water streams 9 Other specify: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv.Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: ____________ million gallons; surface area: ____________ acres v.Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: ________ height; _______ length vi.Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g., earth fill, rock, wood, concrete): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ D.2. Project Operations a. Does the proposed action include any excavation, mining, or dredging, during construction, operations, or both? 9 Yes 9 No (Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) If Yes: i .What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? _______________________________________________________________ ii.How much material (including rock, earth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site? •Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ____________________________________________ •Over what duration of time? ____________________________________________________ iii.Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv.Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? 9 Yes 9 No If yes, describe. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ v.What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _____________________________________acres vi.What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? _______________________________ acres vii.What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feet viii.Will the excavation require blasting?9 Yes 9 No ix.Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: _____________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment 9 Yes 9 No into any existing wetland, waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area? If Yes: i.Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name, water index number, wetland map number or geographic description): ______________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 13 3 20'-0"97'-0"165'-0" 14,400 Stormwater detention and treatment N/A N/A 1.0 0.72 5'-14'375' Traditional construction techniques associated with the installation of a compacted earth fill embankment for stormwater mitigation ii.Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland, e.g. excavation,fill, placement of structures, or alteration of channels,banks and shorelines.Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Will the proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments?Yes 9 No If Yes,describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________ iv.Will the proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: ___________________________________________________________ •expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion:________________________________________ •purpose of proposed removal (e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control, boat access): ____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •proposed method of plant removal: ________________________________________________________________________ •if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify product(s): _________________________________________________ v.Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ c.Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i.Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: __________________________ gallons/day ii.Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Name of district or service area: _________________________________________________________________________ •Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal?9 Yes 9 No •Is the project site in the existing district?9 Yes 9 No •Is expansion of the district needed?9 Yes 9 No •Do existing lines serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No iii.Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •Source(s) of supply for the district: ________________________________________________________________________ iv.Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No If, Yes: •Applicant/sponsor for new district: ________________________________________________________________________ •Date application submitted or anticipated: __________________________________________________________________ •Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: _______________________________________________________________ v.If a public water supply will not be used, describe plans to provide water supply for the project: ___________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vi.If water supply will be from wells (public or private),what is the maximum pumping capacity: _______ gallons/minute. d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i.Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: _______________ gallons/day ii.Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of each): __________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: _____________________________________________________________ •Name of district: ______________________________________________________________________________________ •Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project?9 Yes 9 No •Is the project site in the existing district?9 Yes 9 No •Is expansion of the district needed?9 Yes 9 No Page 5 of 13 950 Domestic consumption only) Cornell University Water System (NYSDEC Permit #: 7-5030-00008/00007) A new 8" HDPE water main will be connected to the existing system located at the McGovern Soccer Building and extended to the project. Fall Creek via the Cornell University Water Filtration Plant N/A N/A N/A A public water supply will be used for the proposed project. N/A 950 Sanitary wastewater N/A N/A •Do existing sewer lines serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No •Will a line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ____________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv.Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Applicant/sponsor for new district: ____________________________________________________________________ •Date application submitted or anticipated: _______________________________________________________________ •What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? __________________________________________________ v.If public facilities will not be used, describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposed receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge or describe subsurface disposal plans): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vi.Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ e.Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point 9 Yes 9 No sources (i.e. ditches, pipes, swales, curbs, gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater) or non-point source (i.e. sheet flow) during construction or post construction? If Yes: i.How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel? _____ Square feet or _____ acres (impervious surface) _____ Square feet or _____ acres (parcel size) ii.Describe types of new point sources. __________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e. on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties, groundwater, on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ •If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: ________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties?9 Yes 9 No iv.Does the proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater?9 Yes 9 No f.Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site,one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel 9 Yes 9 No combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations? If Yes, identify: i.Mobile sources during project operations (e.g., heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Stationary sources during construction (e.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Stationary sources during operations (e.g., process emissions, large boilers, electric generation) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ g.Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above), require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit,9 Yes 9 No or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit? If Yes: i.Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet 9 Yes 9 No ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year) ii.In addition to emissions as calculated in the application, the project will generate: •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Nitrous Oxide (N2O) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Page 6 of 13 N/A A septic system that includes a subsurface mound absorption bed, septic tank, and pump station will be installed to provide wastewater treatment for the project. The required onsite wastewater treatment system construction permit will be applied for and obtained from the Tompkins County Health Department. N/A 3.47 123 Driveway/parking drainage system, swales, athletic field underdrains Runoff will be collected via a system of drainage inlets, swales, and underdrains; then directed to two bioretention filters and an extended detention shallow wetland before being released to Cascadilla Creek. Existing drainage patterns and rates will be maintained. Cascadilla Creek h.Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants,9 Yes 9 No landfills, composting facilities)? If Yes: i.Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ________________________________________________________________ ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g., combustion to generate heat or electricity, flaring): ________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i.Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes, such as 9 Yes 9 No quarry or landfill operations? If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust): _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ j.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial 9 Yes 9 No new demand for transportation facilities or services? If Yes: i.When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): † Morning † Evening †Weekend † Randomly between hours of __________ to ________. ii.For commercial activities only, projected number of truck trips/day and type (e.g., semi trailers and dump trucks): _____________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Parking spaces: Existing ___________________Proposed ___________Net increase/decrease _____________________ iv.Does the proposed action include any shared use parking?Yes No v.If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads, creation of new roads or change in existing access, describe: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vi.Are public/private transportation service(s)or facilities available within ½ mile of the proposed site?9 Yes 9 No vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electric 9 Yes 9 No or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii.Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing 9 Yes 9 No pedestrian or bicycle routes? k.Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand 9 Yes 9 No for energy? If Yes: i.Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ____________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or other): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Will the proposed action require a new,or an upgrade, to an existing substation?9 Yes 9 No l. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply. i.During Construction:ii.During Operations: •Monday - Friday: _________________________•Monday - Friday: ____________________________ •Saturday: ________________________________•Saturday: ___________________________________ •Sunday: _________________________________•Sunday: ____________________________________ •Holidays: ________________________________•Holidays: ___________________________________ Page 7 of 13 N/A 7AM - 3PM 7AM - 3PM 7AM - 3PM 7AM - 3PM 6AM - 9PM 9AM - 9PM 9AM - 9PM n/a m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction,9 Yes 9 No operation, or both? If yes: i.Provide details including sources, time of day and duration: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen?9 Yes 9 No Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ n.Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting?9 Yes 9 No If yes: i.Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? 9 Yes 9 No Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ o.Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearest occupied structures: ______________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ p. Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum (combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons)9 Yes 9 No or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? If Yes: i.Product(s) to be stored ______________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Volume(s) ______ per unit time ___________ (e.g., month, year) iii.Generally, describe the proposed storage facilities:________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.e., herbicides,9 Yes 9 No insecticides) during construction or operation? If Yes: i.Describe proposed treatment(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices?9 Yes 9 No r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal 9 Yes 9 No of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)? If Yes: i.Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility: •Construction: ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time) •Operation : ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time) ii.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste: •Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site: •Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 13 N/A Construction: Typical construction and jobsite activity noise: Diesel engines, dump trucks, excavators, etc. Operations: PA system, spectators, field hockey activity during practices and games Twenty-two 20' pedestrian lights will be installed in the proposed parking lot and along the sidewalk/path circulation areas between parking, field hockey field, and support facility locations. Four 70' tall standard athletic lighting poles will be sited at the corners of the field hockey field. If necessary, a professional will apply pesticides or herbicides to control unwanted vegetation and pests. Cornell utilizes an Integrated Pest Management approach to grounds management on campus that will be used at this site as well. s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i.Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (e.g., recycling or transfer station, composting, landfill, or other disposal activities): ___________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Anticipated rate of disposal/processing: •________ Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment, or •________ Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment iii.If landfill, anticipated site life: ________________________________ years t.Will the proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation, treatment,storage,or disposal of hazardous 9 Yes 9 No waste? If Yes: i.Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility: ___________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ___________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/month iv.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: ____________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ v.Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: provide name and location of facility: _______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action E.1. Land uses on and surrounding the project site a. Existing land uses. i.Check all uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project site. 9 Urban 9 Industrial 9 Commercial 9 Residential (suburban) 9 Rural (non-farm) 9 Forest 9 Agriculture 9 Aquatic 9 Other (specify): ____________________________________ ii.If mix of uses, generally describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Land use or Covertype Current Acreage Acreage After Project Completion Change (Acres +/-) •Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervious surfaces •Forested •Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (non- agricultural, including abandoned agricultural) •Agricultural (includes active orchards, field, greenhouse etc.) •Surface water features (lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, etc.) •Wetlands (freshwater or tidal) •Non-vegetated (bare rock, earth or fill) •Other Describe: _______________________________ ________________________________________ Page 9 of 13 soccer fields and baseball diamond 1.55 5.02 +3.47 4.70 2.53 -2.17 0.10 0.33 +0.23 Lawn 9.30 7.77 -1.53 c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? 9 Yes 9 No i.If Yes: explain: __________________________________________________________________________________________ d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed 9 Yes 9 No day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site? If Yes, i.Identify Facilities: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ e. Does the project site contain an existing dam? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i.Dimensions of the dam and impoundment: •Dam height: _________________________________ feet •Dam length: _________________________________ feet •Surface area: _________________________________acres •Volume impounded: _______________________________ gallons OR acre-feet ii.Dam=s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________ iii.Provide date and summarize results of last inspection: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, 9 Yes 9 No or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility? If Yes: i.Has the facility been formally closed? 9 Yes 9 No •If yes, cite sources/documentation: _______________________________________________________________________ ii.Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: __________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ g. Have hazardous wastes been generated, treated and/or disposed of at the site, or does the project site adjoin 9 Yes 9 No property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste? If Yes: i.Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any 9 Yes 9 No remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? If Yes: i.Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site 9 Yes 9 No Remediation database? Check all that apply: 9 Yes – Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________ 9 Yes – Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________ 9 Neither database ii.If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures:_______________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? 9 Yes 9 No If yes, provide DEC ID number(s): ______________________________________________________________________________ iv.If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s): _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 13 v.Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? 9 Yes 9 No •If yes, DEC site ID number: ____________________________________________________________________________ •Describe the type of institutional control (e.g., deed restriction or easement): ____________________________________ •Describe any use limitations: ___________________________________________________________________________ •Describe any engineering controls: _______________________________________________________________________ •Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? 9 Yes 9 No •Explain: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? ________________ feet b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes, what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? __________________% c. Predominant soil type(s) present on project site: ___________________________ __________% ___________________________ __________% ____________________________ __________% d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: _________ feet e. Drainage status of project site soils: 9 Well Drained: _____% of site 9 Moderately Well Drained: _____% of site 9 Poorly Drained _____% of site f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: 9 0-10%: _____% of site 9 10-15%: _____% of site 9 15% or greater: _____% of site g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes, describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ h. Surface water features. i.Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers, 9 Yes 9 No ponds or lakes)? ii.Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes to either i or ii, continue. If No, skip to E.2.i. iii.Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, 9 Yes 9 No state or local agency? iv.For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site, provide the following information: •Streams: Name ____________________________________________Classification _______________________•Lakes or Ponds:Name ____________________________________________Classification _______________________•Wetlands: Name ____________________________________________Approximate Size ___________________ •Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) _____________________________ v.Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired 9 Yes 9 No waterbodies? If yes, name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _____________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i.Is the project site in a designated Floodway? 9 Yes 9 No j.Is the project site in the 100-year Floodplain? 9 Yes 9 No k.Is the project site in the 500-year Floodplain? 9 Yes 9 No l. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i.Name of aquifer: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 13 >10 N/A Silt mixed with clay and trace sand.100 Glacial Till (>13 ft depth) >10 100 100 RiverineCascadillaCreek m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: ______________________________ ______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i.Describe the habitat/community (composition, function, and basis for designation): _____________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Source(s) of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________ iii.Extent of community/habitat: •Currently:______________________ acres •Following completion of project as proposed: _____________________ acres •Gain or loss (indicate + or -): ______________________ acres o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as 9 Yes 9 No endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? If Yes: i.Species and listing (endangered or threatened):______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of 9 Yes 9 No special concern? If Yes: i.Species and listing:____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing? 9 Yes 9 No If yes, give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: ___________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site a. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to 9 Yes 9 No Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: _________________________________________________________________ b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? 9 Yes 9 No i.If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? ___________________________________________________________________________ ii.Source(s) of soil rating(s): _________________________________________________________________________________ c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to, a registered National 9 Yes 9 No Natural Landmark? If Yes: i.Nature of the natural landmark: 9 Biological Community 9 Geological Feature ii.Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ___________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i.CEA name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Basis for designation: _____________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Designating agency and date: ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 13 Deer Rodents Garter Snakes Three Birds Orchid is identified on the EAF Mapper,but the conditions for this species do not exist on the project site. NRCS Soil Mapping e. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district 9 Yes 9 No 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? If Yes: i.Nature of historic/archaeological resource: 9 Archaeological Site 9 Historic Building or District ii.Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ f. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for 9 Yes 9 No archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory? g. Have additional archaeological or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i. Describe possible resource(s): _______________________________________________________________________________ ii.Basis for identification: ___________________________________________________________________________________ h.Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or local 9 Yes 9 No scenic or aesthetic resource? If Yes: i.Identify resource: _________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Nature of, or basis for, designation (e.g., established highway overlook, state or local park, state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.): ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Distance between project and resource: _____________________ miles. i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers 9 Yes 9 No Program 6 NYCRR 666? If Yes: i.Identify the name of the river and its designation: ________________________________________________________________ ii.Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? 9 Yes 9 No F.Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G.Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name ___________________________________ Date_______________________________________ Signature________________________________________________ Title_______________________________________ Page 13 of 13 Eligible property:CCC Camp SP-48 (140 Game Farm Road) Former Civilian Conservation Corp building (shed)located on the property Former CCC building (see above),19th century farm sites,Native American sites Multiple archaeology investigations. Cayuga Lake Byway;Town-Designated View on Pine Tree Road;County-Designated View on Turkey Hill/Dodge Road Scenic byway,designated views Byway +/-2.7;Views +/-0.5 Kimberly Michaels October 1,2024 PRINT FORM Director of Landscape Architecture 33 Supplemental Information This page has been intentionally left blank. 35 Impact on Land The proposed development is located adjacent to McGovern Soccer Fields on Game Farm Road, and two overhead NYSEG transmission lines. The project area currently consists of a previously developed grass soccer field and a drive lane that connects Game Farm Road to McGovern Fields. Land disturbance for the project will be limited to excavation for utilities (septic, water service, drainage, electrical), field development, support facility development, site earthwork, and pavement installation. All excavated material is intended to be used on site. Existing drainage patterns will be emulated to the extent possible. Erosion and sediment controls will be implemented during construction as outlined in the project SWPPP, and the site will ultimately be stabilized with vegetation. No significant adverse impacts to land are anticipated. Impact on Water The site currently drains to Cascadilla Creek, which lies north of the project site, and runs to the west, ultimately to Cayuga Lake. The watershed contributing to Cascadilla Creek is greater than 1,500 acres. The proposed development conforms to the Town of Ithaca Stream Setback Law and is greater than 100 feet from the southern stream bank. Based on a review of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Town of Ithaca, NY (dated June 19, 1985), the project property is located in flood zone “C” for Cascadilla Creek. The FEMA definition of flood zone “C” is areas that are of minimal flood hazard, and higher than the elevation of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance-flood. There are neither federal nor state wetlands located on the project site. The National Wetlands Inventory indicates that the adjacent Cascadilla Creek area is a Forested/Shrub Wetland, but the project will not disturb land within that area. The stormwater management design will reduce runoff discharge from the project area for the 1, 10, and 100-year storm events, and will provide Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Reduction, and Erosion Control Measures to meet the NYSDEC and Town of Ithaca requirements. Potable water for domestic, fire protection, and Field Hockey watering purposes will be supplied from the Cornell University Zone 3 distribution grid. This system has adequate capacity to accommodate the project. The distribution main will be protected from the Field Hockey watering system with an approved backflow prevention assembly. Wastewater collected from the proposed buildings will be directed to an on-site septic tank. No significant adverse impacts to water are anticipated as a result of the project. Impact on Air The proposed project will include no new emissions sources and therefore is expected to have no adverse impacts on air quality. Impact on Plants, Animals, & Agriculture The existing project site consists of a previously developed grass soccer field and a gravel drive lane; is adjacent to two other improved soccer fields; and is currently characterized by mowed grass, surrounded by fallow fields. One pine tree (4” DBH) will be removed as part of the construction of this project. This land has not been used in the last 20 years for agriculture and is not within an Agricultural or Farmland Protection Zone. According to the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper which provides generalized locations of Rare Plants and Animals, the Three Birds Orchid is identified as potentially inhabiting these parcels. The Three Birds Orchid habitat is beech forest, which does not exist on the project site. No significant adverse impacts to plants, animals, or agriculture are expected as a result of this project. Impact on Aesthetic Resources The proposed project is not located within an identified viewshed and will be surrounded by similar athletic facilities, therefore no significant adverse impacts to aesthetic resources are expected. Supplemental Information 36 Impact on Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources According to SHPO CRIS, the entire project parcel is within an “archaeological buffer area”. Between 2003 to 2021, Public Archaeology Facility (PAF) and Panamerican archaeologists surveyed and investigated roughly 43% of the current and former agricultural fields owned by Cornell University along Game Farm Road, Ellis Hollow Road, and Pine Tree Road. From these investigations, four precontact Indigenous sites, one historic site, and one precontact site with an associated early historic component were identified within the properties owned by Cornell University. Most of these site areas were either investigated at the Phase 2 level of analysis and found to be not eligible for the National Register as individual sites or were not recommended as potentially eligible after the Phase 1 surveys. Of the precontact sites, only one produced the cultural material results consistent with a high research potential, and through consultation with NYS OPRHP an Alternative Mitigation Report was developed to summarize, analyze, and interpret all of the Cascadilla Creek Sites within an archaeological district focused on upland sites in marginal environmental settings. The studies have identified one area of potential archaeologic interest, and that area is not within the project site. For more information, refer to the Phase I Reconnaissance Addendum Survey (2024) appendix. There are no structures, sites, or districts within the project properties that are currently listed on the State or National Register of Historic Places. A shed located on the 62.-2-6 tax parcel (located north of the NYSEG transmission lines from the project site is listed as an “Eligible” facility, as a Civilian Conservation Corps structure CCC Camps SP-48 at 140 Game Farm Road), according to the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS). This structure will not be impacted by the proposed project. The project team is coordinating with SHPO and expects to receive a letter of concurrence with PAF’s findings in November. This letter will be provided to planning staff once available. Impact on Open Space & Recreation The project site consists of a previously developed grass soccer field and a driveway with informal parking that is accessed from Game Farm Road. The project site is adjacent to McGovern soccer fields and a small fieldhouse used by Cornell Athletics. The new Field Hockey venue will be consistent with these active recreation land uses. The project site will not impact the East Ithaca Recreation Way trail, a nearby open space amenity. The project will have a positive impact on university recreational space by providing Cornell University’s field hockey athletes with a new playing field. No negative impacts to open space or recreation are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Impact on Critical Environmental and Unique Natural Areas There are no designated critical environmental areas (CEA) within or immediately adjacent to the proposed project. The nearest CEA, Coy Glen, is located approximately four miles west of the project site. The Cascadilla Creek Woods and Fish Ponds Unique Natural Area is located north of the project site. As previously noted, all site development is at least over 100 feet from the creek, compliant with the Town of Ithaca’s Stream Setback Law. Site grading and other proposed improvements are outside of the UNA boundary. Stormwater management features are being designed for the project to protect downstream features. No adverse impact to Unique Natural Areas is anticipated as a result of the project. Impact on Transportation Parking Impacts The project will provide 120 paved parking spaces to support both the proposed field hockey venue and existing soccer practice fields. This will provide adequate parking, based on detailed projected use for these functions. The project is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to parking. Traffic Impacts The complex lies on the west side of Game Farm Road, a Tompkins County road where the street centerline is identified as the municipal boundary between the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden. The soccer and proposed field hockey facilities are accessed directly and solely via Game Farm Road, which runs for just over one mile between NYS Route 366 to the north and Supplemental Information 37 Tompkins County’s Ellis Hollow Road to the south. Field hockey practices are anticipated to generate up to 18 vehicle trips between 6:30-9:00AM Mon-Friday. Field Hockey competitions are anticipated to generate up to 74 car roundtrips and one or two buses in the afternoon/evening hours. These additional vehicle trips are not expected to impact the level of service on Game Farm Road or to disrupt typical traffic patterns. Please see Traffic and Parking study memo appendix for more information. The project is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to local traffic or parking. Impact on Energy The project is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to energy. The project facilities and lighting will be supplied by the existing NYSEG electric service along Game Farm Road. Service is presently extended to the McGovern field soccer facility. The field hockey facilities are small and require relatively low energy loads, and the electrical capacity is sufficient to supply the programmatic needs of the project. No propane or other natural gas is proposed for this project. The project will comply with the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement. Impacts from Sound, Odor & Light Sound generation will be restricted to typical noise associated with athletic facilities, including a sound system for warm up music, and expected competition sound including spectator cheering and commentating. The sound system is designed to project sound from east to west across the field to reach spectators within the field area, the dugouts, and the press box, while minimizing the volume of noise to the surrounding area. A sound study has been completed for the proposed project and is provided as an appendix. By focusing sound west, toward the field hockey field, volume is greatly mitigated for the surrounding areas, including residences located to the south of the project site along Game Farm Road. Modeling for the audio system indicates that the project will not increase noise over existing sound levels. There are no significant odor-producing aspects from the field and associated operations. Four, 70’ tall athletics field light poles will flank the field hockey field to provide sufficient, safe lighting to support both competition and practice play. Pedestrian lighting will be Cornell standard LED fixtures that are energy efficient and dark-sky compliant. No light trespass will occur. No significant adverse impacts to sound, odor or light are anticipated as a result of the project. Impact on Human Health This project proposes to build one NCAA-compliant synthetic turf field hockey field to support a needed practice and competition venue for the varsity field hockey team. Much scrutiny and research has been completed to specify this field to ensure that Cornell athletes, visitors to the field, and the general public health are protected. Synthetic turf, as proposed for this project, has been shown to pose no health risk in more than 110 technical studies conducted by a variety of trusted scientific authorities, including the US EPA, US Department of Energy and Environment, Washington State Department of Health, and more. The proposed synthetic turf installed at Game Farm Road will meet the requirements set forth in New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Section 27-3313(2). (“On and after December thirty-first, two thousand twenty-six, no carpet sold or offered for sale in the state shall contain or be treated with PFAS substances for any purpose.”). Additionally, the synthetic turf will not include infill. From an air quality perspective, health agencies in New York State, New York City, and the State of Connecticut collected air samples on synthetic and natural turf fields during use. The air samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and airborne particulate matter. The studies showed that inhalation exposures Supplemental Information 38 resulting from playing on synthetic turf fields were insignificant and not different from inhalation exposures on natural grass fields. Impact on Growth & Character of Community The field hockey field will expand athletics activities on Cornell’s Game Farm Road lands, while retaining a sense of openness, rural character and vernacular in its field and facility development. The update from a lightly used grass soccer field to a regularly used field hockey facility will not significantly change the area. There are no significant adverse impacts to the character of the community anticipated as a result of the project. Impacts from Construction Construction for phase I is anticipated to take approximately six months, beginning in March 2025 with completion in August 2025. Construction may have short-term impacts to the community as the development period is brief. Construction routes will utilize approved truck routes and Tompkins County roads to Ellis Hollow and Game Farm Road. The project will have erosion control features outlined in the SWPPP and as previously described, to protect the public and the environment. Construction will be limited to 7am to 3pm to minimize afternoon and evening disturbances. Staging and laydown will be located on a Cornell lot located just north of the proposed Field Hockey Field and Northeast of the existing McGovern Fields on a disturbed parking area previously used for other project staging. Temporary traffic controls will be provided on Game Farm Road only as needed but are not anticipated frequently. Emergency vehicles will have access to the site for the duration of construction. Waste from construction will be disposed of legally and appropriately. Construction vehicles will be directed to access the site via a prescribed route either north or south from Game Farm Road for field development. The project will generate approximately 300 truck roundtrips over a two-month period. The largest volumes of truck activity would be associated with importing general fill used for rough grading the site and bringing the new field up to finished grade elevation, when a maximum of 30 trucks could be expected to arrive on site in a single day. Most long-distance delivery routes to/from Cornell’s campus utilize route 81 north or south. Traffic leaving the site and heading north would utilize NYS Route 366 to NYS Routes 13 to 81 north. Traffic leaving the site and heading south would use Tompkins County Roads: Ellis Hollow Road to Pine Tree Road (an approved truck route), on to NYS Routes 79 to 81 south. Due to the project location and the fact that appropriate safety controls and best work practices will be followed, there should be negligible adverse impacts from construction. Supplemental Information Figure: Site Logistics - March 2025 through August 2025 39 Supplemental Information 40 Appendices This page has been intentionally left blank. 42 Owner’s Authorization and Certification Form 43 44 Vehicle Tracking Fire Access Diagram This page has been intentionally left blank. 46 G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGSTSTSTSTST8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' WST ST ST ST ST ST ST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTFIELD HOCKEY FIELD GAME FARM ROADPRACTICE SOCCER BUILDING PHASE 2 TEAM FACILITY 5,000 SF. PHASE 2 INDOOR TURF FACILITY 9,400 SF. MOUND SEPTIC ABSORPTION SYSTEM, SEE CIVIL SERIES STORMWATER PRACTICE, SEE CIVIL SERIES STORMWATER PRACTICE, SEE CIVIL SERIES STORMWATER PRACTICE, SEE CIVIL SERIES ACCESS FROM GAME FARM ROAD VEHICLE TRACKING FIRE ACCESS TRUCK BODY TRUCK CHASSIS VT-01 Plot Date: 9/25/2024 File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\2_XRefs\Studies\L-PL-FIRE ACCESS-VEHICLE TRACKING.dwg Saved By: arenaud Seal Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Map Project Title: Client Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Issue Date:09.27.2024 TS AR, TS AG, ZC DRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No.Description Date Sasaki Project No: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11835 38145.02 ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI 110 Chauncy Street Boston, MA 02111 TEL. 617.926.3300 www.sasaki.com CIVIL TG MILLER 605 West State Street, Suite A Ithaca, NY 14850 TEL. 607.272.6477 www.tgmillerpc.com STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 Soldiers Field Road Boston, MA 02135 TEL. 617.868.1200 www.lemessurier.com MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 Water Street Laconia, NH 03246 TEL. 603.524.4647 www.rfsengineering.com BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110 Norwell, MA 02061 TEL. 781.878.3500 www.howeengineers.com 09/27/2024 ISSUE FOR PERMIT Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Game Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853 Cornell University North Scale: 1" = 30' FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC. 30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd Floor Nashua, NH 03062 TEL. 978.433.8972 www.irrigationconsulting.com 47 This page has been intentionally left blank. 48 Lighting Cut Sheets This page has been intentionally left blank. 52 53 This page has been intentionally left blank. 54 Photometrics Report This page has been intentionally left blank. 56 57 58 59 60 Environmental Sound Study This page has been intentionally left blank. 62 September 26, 2024 Emily Parris Sasaki Associates 110 Chauncy Street Boston, MA 02110 SUBJECT: Game Farm Road Field Hockey Facility Cornell University, Ithaca NY Environmental Sound Study (Revised) Dear Emily, Cavanaugh Tocci Associates has evaluated the sound expected from the public address system at the new field hockey facility proposed for the Game Farm Road location. The system has been designed to cover the playing field and bleachers while minimizing sound to surrounding areas. The public address system includes seven loudspeakers mounted on three poles on the east side of the field. Three loudspeakers cover the playing field, and the other four loudspeakers cover the spectator area including the bleachers and adjacent sidelines. Our sound model included the coverage pattern, position, and orientation of each loudspeaker in the current design. In the model, sound levels are set at 84 dBA at the center of the playing field. This is a sound level we use in most of our models for outdoor athletic facility projects and is loud enough for players and spectators to hear announcements. The new field will be used for practice and for intercollegiate games. The expectation is that intercollegiate games will be scheduled for afternoon or evening. Noise Regulations The new competition and practice field will be located in the Town of Ithaca, but directly adjacent to the Town of Dryden. Game Farm Road is the boundary between the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden, so we have considered the noise regulations for both municipalities1, 2 in our evaluation. The Town of Ithaca noise ordinance prohibits “unreasonable noise”, defined as “Any excessive or unusually loud sound which either annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of a reasonable person of normal sensitivities”, but does not specify measurable sound level limits. The Town of Dryden has sound level limits of 65 dBA from 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM, and 55 dBA from 7:00 PM – 7:00 AM. 1 https://ecode360.com/8659281 2 https://ecode360.com/34362947#34363066 63 Emily Parris, September 26, 2024 Page 2 Game Farm Road Field Hockey Facility Cornell University, Ithaca NY Environmental Sound Study (Revised) The practice field may sometimes be used during nighttime hours (7:00 PM – 7:00 AM for Dryden); therefore, we have evaluated sound from the public address system with respect to the more stringent nighttime limits. We used CadnaA acoustic modeling software3 to calculate sound from the public address system. This software is widely used by acoustics professionals in the evaluation of environmental sound. Individual receptor points have been calculated for representative residential buildings near the facility, as well as the Raptor Center operated by Cornell University. These receptors are modeled at the height of upper-story windows at these locations. In addition, sound level contours have been calculated for the entire area, at a height of 6 feet above grade. The results are presented in the figures below. Figure 1 presents sound contours for field coverage with loudspeaker levels optimized for a target sound level at field center of 84 dBA. Figure 2 presents calculated sound levels at residential properties and other points of interest for the conditions described above. Sound levels at all Dryden residential properties comply with the Dryden nighttime limit of 55 dBA. Maximum sound levels at all modeled receivers are 55 dBA or lower. Summary Our study of sound from the PA system at the proposed field hockey facility shows that sound levels in the surrounding area will comply with noise regulations for both the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden. CAVANAUGH TOCCI Bradley M. Dunkin, Associate Principal Consultant 23182/23182 - Cornell Game Farm Road Athletic Fields Loudspeaker Environmental Sound 20240925.docx 3 CadnaA conforms with the ISO 9613 standard for outdoor sound propagation. 64 FIGURES 65 Figure 1 Sound contours showing field coverage of loudspeakers, volume adjusted to 84 dBA at field center 66 Figure 2 Sound levels at surrounding locations with loudspeaker volume adjusted to 84 dBA at field center 67 Traffic and Parking Study Memo This page has been intentionally left blank. 69 Memorandum Sasaki 110 Chauncy Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02111 USA p 617 926 3300 f 617 924 2748 www.sasaki.com 1 of 5 Date 2 July 2024 To Cornell University Cc Sasaki Design Team, Kimberly Michaels (Fisher) From Andy McClurg Project Name Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project No. 38145.01 Subject Traffic and Parking Analysis Cornell has asked for an assessment of the traffic impacts and parking needs that will be generated at the Game Farm Rd. athletics facility by the activities of the soccer and field hockey teams. Existing Conditions and New Program The existing site contains three sports fields, a building and an informal driveway/parking area. The project proposes to replace one of the existing fields with a field hockey field and support buildings, improve the access road and improve and expand the parking lot. The existing soccer fields and support building to remain are used by the men's and women's varsity soccer teams for practice. Soccer games are held at a separate facility. The field hockey venue will host games and practices. The new access road and parking lot will replace the existing road and lot that supports the soccer facility. The new parking lot will have more parking spaces than the existing lot in order to support the soccer and field hockey facilities, and act as an overflow lot for the existing baseball facility located to the south. Traffic Impacts Site Context. Fig. 1 shows the Game Farm Rd. athletics complex, highlighting the proposed soccer and field hockey facilities. The complex lies on the west side of Game Farm Rd., which is also the line between the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden. The soccer and proposed field hockey facilities are accessed directly and solely via Game Farm Rd., which runs between Dryden Rd. (Rte. 366) at the north and Ellis Hollow Rd. (Rte. 110) at the south. Stevenson Rd., in Dryden, intersects Game Farm Rd. from the east approximately a half-mile to the north of the athletics complex driveway. Proposed project and operations. The proposed project involves the replacement of an existing sports field with the proposed field hockey field directly to the east of two existing soccer practice fields.. The soccer fields are used for practice by the women’s and men’s varsity teams, while the field hockey field will be the site of both team practices and home games. The traffic impacts of the three fields will be a function of the numbers of people involved and the schedules of activities, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 below1. 1 Source: Rob Ferguson, email to Matthew Coats, May 7 2024. 70 Sasaki Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field 38145.00 Memorandum 02 July 2024 2 of 5 SITE Figure 1. Site context 71 Sasaki Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field 38145.00 Memorandum 02 July 2024 3 of 5 Athletes Coaches Trainer Manager Total Women's Soccer 33 3 1 1 38 Men's Soccer 33 3 1 1 38 Field Hockey 26 4 1 31 Table 1. Team Personnel Team Practice Individuals Games Athletes Mar- May Time Aug- Nov Time Aug-Nov Saturday Aug-Nov, Mar- May Aug-Nov Women's Soccer 33 3x/wk 5:00-7:00PM M-F 5:00-7:00PM Random At Berman Field Men's Soccer 33 3x/wk 5:00-7:00PM M-F 5:00-7:00PM Random At Berman Field Field Hockey 26 M-F 6:30-9:00AM M-F 6:30-9:00AM 9:30AM-12PM 4:30-5:30PM Various Days/Times Table 2. Schedules of Use Trip Generation. In estimating the volume of vehicular traffic that will be generated by a given land use, the standard guide is the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual2, which provides vehicle-trip generation rates for hundreds of land uses on a daily and peak-hour basis. The Manual, however, does not provide guidance on the trip-generation characteristics of collegiate sports activities such as soccer practices or field hockey games. (The closest reference would be Land Use Code 462, “Professional Baseball Stadium”, which is not relevant.) Therefore the best way to develop an estimate of the traffic impacts of the proposed facilities is to take into account the particular circumstances indicated by Tables 1 and 2 above. The methodologies for estimating trips generated by practices and by field hockey games will be somewhat different, as described below. Practices. The person-trips generated by practices at the Game Farm Rd. complex will reflect the numbers of players, coaches and other staff, as shown in Table 2. The number of vehicle-trips generated will depend on mode split (the percentage of person-trips that are made by modes other than private automobile) and vehicle occupancy. Players tend to carpool, both to practices and games, and the soccer teams utilize a shuttle. The 33 soccer players are observed to generate up to 12 round trips by car3, indicating an average of 2.75 persons/vehicle. For purposes of conservative analysis, it is assumed here that: • Vehicle occupancy for players is 2.0 persons/vehicle; • Coaches and manager arrive in single-occupant vehicles. On this basis, each soccer practice (men’s or women’s) would generate 21.5 trips on either end of the 5:00-7:00PM time period, for a total of 43 round trips if both teams practice simultaneously. If the same ratio of person-trips to vehicle-trips can apply to the field hockey team, the 26 players will generate 13 vehicle round-trips. Adding one car each for coaches, manager and trainers yields an estimate for field hockey practices of 18 vehicle trips on either end of the 6:30-9:00AM time period. 2 11th Edition, updated Dec. 2022 3 Ferguson, op.cit. 72 Sasaki Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field 38145.00 Memorandum 02 July 2024 4 of 5 It should be noted that since the soccer practice fields are existing and are already in operation, the only new traffic generated by practices will be that associated with field hockey. Field Hockey Games. The busiest time period at the facility would be on the occasion of a field hockey game coinciding with practices by both soccer teams. This could happen on a weekday afternoon/evening. Field hockey games, which will attract spectators, may generate more person-trips than any other single activity. The estimates of attendance by players, staff and spectators for a typical game are as follows: • 26 players on each of two teams = 52 players • 14 coaches and staff between the two teams (7 per team) • 8 people in the press box and general staff • 75 spectators Total: approximately 150 people in attendance. However, as discussed above, attendees will not all arrive in separate vehicles. If Cornell players carpool to games in the same proportions that they do to practices; spectators, to some degree, carpool or use alternative modes of transportation (walk/bike/micro-mobility); and visiting teams arrive by bus, the parking demand will be much less than 150: • Cornell players: 13 cars (two per car) • Cornell coaches and staff, arriving separately: 7 cars • Press/general staff: say two people per car: 4 cars • Visiting team, including coaches and staff, arriving by bus • Spectators: say 1.5 spectators per car = 50 cars Total: 74 car round-trips and one or two buses. Parking Current plans for GFR are for 120 car parking spaces and two bus spaces. This supply is designed to accommodate women’s and men’s soccer practices, and both practices and games for the field hockey team all at once. Since field hockey practices are held in the morning and soccer practices in the afternoon, the likelihood of overlap, and competing demand for parking, is low. 120 parking spaces will be more than adequate to accommodate maximum demand generated by soccer practices, which will attract approximately 43 cars during the 5:00-7:00PM time period if the men’s and women’s teams are both practicing. Field hockey games will generate a need for approximately 74 parking spaces for cars and one or two for buses. In the worst-case event of a field hockey game coinciding with both women’s and men’s soccer practices, 117 parking spaces would be needed. 73 Sasaki Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field 38145.00 Memorandum 02 July 2024 5 of 5 Conclusions Table 3 summarizes the traffic impacts and parking needs generated by activities at the Game Farm Rd. soccer/field hockey facility. Practice Game Women's Soccer 21.5 n/a Men's Soccer 21.5 n/a Field Hockey 14 74 Maximum* 117 *Simultaneous occurrence of both soccer teams practicing during a field hockey game Table 3. Vehicle Round-Trips and Parking Need On a typical weekday afternoon/evening, when soccer practices are the only activities at the Game Farm Rd. facilities, approximately 43 vehicle-trips are currently generated by the women’s and men’s teams combined. In the future, if a field hockey game coincides with practices by both men’s and women’s soccer teams (on a Fall weekday between 4:00 and 7:00PM), an additional 74 new vehicle- trips will be generated, for a total of approximately 117 vehicle-trips generated by the facility as a whole. Geotechnical Report This page has been intentionally left blank. This page has been intentionally left blank. 94 95 This page has been intentionally left blank. This page has been intentionally left blank. 130 Phase 1 Reconnaissance Addendum Survey (2024) This page has been intentionally left blank. PHASE 1 RECONNAISSANCE ADDENDUM SURVEY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC FIELDS PROJECT TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK 03PR00922 PREPARED BY: SAM KUDRLE, MA JOHN FERRI, MA and CLAIRE HORN, PhD SUBMITTED TO: ENGINEERING-PROJECT MANAGEMENT FACILITIES AND CAMPUS SERVICES CORNELL UNIVERSITY SEPTEMBER 27, 2024 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | i MANAGEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT NAME: Cornell University Athletic Fields Project (03PR00922) CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY TYPE: Addendum Phase 1 Reconnaissance Survey LOCATION: Minor Civil Division: Town of Ithaca County: Tompkins County AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE): addendum APE is 3.5 acres (1.4 ha) USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE: Ithaca East, NY Quadrangle ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT: Precontact Sites within 3.2 km (2 miles) of Addendum APE: 5 CRIS sites Precontact Sites within Addendum APE: none Assessment Summary: high sensitivity for smaller camps and resource procurement/processing stations Historic Sites within 3.2 km (2 miles) of Addendum APE: 13 CRIS Sites Historic Sites within Addendum APE: none Assessment Summary: Low for historic sites given the lack of map documented structures (MDSs) and historic standing structures within the addendum APE. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY: Number of shovel test pits: 64 STPs at 15 m (49 ft) intervals Surface survey: none RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY: Number of precontact sites identified: none within addendum APE Number of historic sites identified: none within addendum APE Number of sites recommended for investigation: none within addendum APE Number of listed/eligible or potentially eligible National Register sites that may be impacted: none within addendum APE RECOMMENDATIONS: No further archaeological work is recommended for the current addendum APE. Avoidance of any future adverse impacts is recommended for the early historic component at Locus 2 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site that was documented during a site examination in 2005 within the original APE for the athletic fields project (Kudrle 2005b). Although the early historic component at Locus 2 is located outside of the current addendum APE summarized in this report, the area is still within an undisturbed setting west of the existing athletic fields. REPORT AUTHOR: Sam Kudrle (MA), John Ferri (MA), and Claire Horn (PhD) / Public Archaeology Facility SPONSOR: Engineering-Project Management; Facilities and Campus Services; Cornell University DATE: September 27, 2024 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | ii TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................i I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 III. BACKGROUND RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................... 5 3.1. Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................................ 5 3.2. NYS SHPO CRIS Database ................................................................................................................................ 7 3.2.1 Regional Precontact Sites within 2 miles (3.2 km) ....................................................................................... 7 3.2.2 Regional Historic Sites within 2 miles (3.2 km) ........................................................................................... 7 3.3 Precontact Setting .............................................................................................................................................. 10 3.4 Historic Setting .................................................................................................................................................. 10 3.5 Previous Archaeological Investigations Near the Addendum APE ................................................................... 18 3.5.1 Past Phase 1 Surveys .................................................................................................................................. 19 3.5.2 Past Phase 2 Site Examinations .................................................................................................................. 22 3.5.3 Phase 3 Alternative Mitigation Report ....................................................................................................... 30 3.5.4 Summary of Past Investigations Near the Addendum APE ........................................................................ 30 IV. ADDENDUM SURVEY METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 32 4.1 Project Walkover ............................................................................................................................................... 32 4.2 Testing Procedures............................................................................................................................................. 32 4.3 General Laboratory Methods ............................................................................................................................. 32 V. ADDENDUM SURVEY RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 33 5.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 33 5.2 Negative Survey Results .................................................................................................................................... 33 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 33 APPENDIX I: References ........................................................................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX II. STP Data ............................................................................................................................................ 36 2.1 STP Soil Catalog, Addendum APE ................................................................................................................... 36 2.2 Artifact Catalog, Addendum APE ..................................................................................................................... 39 APPENDIX III: Client Map Showing the Location of the Addendum APE ............................................................... 40 APPENDIX IV: STP Maps for the Addendum APE ................................................................................................... 41 APPENDIX V: SHPO Correspondence for Previous Projects Near the Addendum APE ........................................... 43 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | iii List of Figures Figure 1. Location of the Town of Ithaca within Tompkins County and New York State. ........................................... 1 Figure 2. Location of the addendum APE on the USGS 1969 Ithaca East, NY 7.5' quadrangles. ................................. 2 Figure 3. Location of the addendum APE on 2023 aer ial imagery; photo locations also depicted. .............................. 3 Figure 4. Elevation model for the addendum APE showing the Cascadilla Creek gorge to the north. ......................... 5 Figure 5. USDA-NRCS soil survey map for the addendum APE.................................................................................. 6 Figure 6. Location of documented precontact and historic sites around the addendum APE. ....................................... 9 Figure 7. Location of the addendum APE on the 1853 Atlas of Tompkins County, New York. ................................. 12 Figure 8. Location of the addendum APE on the 1866 Atlas of Tompkins County, New York. ................................. 13 Figure 9. Location of the addendum APE on the 1900 USGS 15’ Dryden, NY Quad. ............................................... 14 Figure 10. Location of the addendum APE on the 1949 USGS 7.5’ Ithaca East, NY Quad ....................................... 15 Figure 11. Location of the addendum APE on the 1951 USGS 7.5’ Ithaca East, NY Quad. ..................................... 16 Figure 12. Location of the addendum AP E on the 1969 USGS 7.5’ Ithaca East, NY Quad. ..................................... 17 Figure 13. Location of previous completed consultation projects within the vicinity of the addendum APE. ............ 18 Figure 14. Phase 1 survey results for consultation projects within the vicinity of the addendum APE. ...................... 21 Figure 15. Phase 2 site examination testing for the Cascadilla Creek 1 Site. .............................................................. 25 Figure 16. Phase 2 site exam testing for the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site .......................................................................... 26 Figure 17. Interpolated historic artifact distribution for the historic component at Locus 2 of Casc adilla Creek 2. ... 27 Figure 18. Layout for previously documented archaeological sites within the vicinity of the addendum APE. ......... 31 List of Photos Photo 1. View northwest across the addendum APE from Game Farm Road ............................................................... 4 Photo 2. View northwest across the addendum APE from Game Farm Road ............................................................... 4 Photo 3. Gun flint, glass button, and pipe stems from the historic component at Locus 2 at Cascadilla Creek 2 ....... 23 Photo 4. Glass beads from the historic component at Locus 2 at Cascadilla Creek 2 ................................................... 8 Photo 5. Ceramic vessel artifacts from the historic component at Locus 2 at Cascadilla Creek 2 .............................. 23 Photo 6. Ceramic and glass vessel artifacts from the historic component at Locus 2 at Cascadilla Creek 2 ............... 23 List of Tables Table 1. USDA-NRCS Soil Types Located within the Addendum APE....................................................................... 6 Table 2. Summary of Precontact and Historic Sites within 3.2 km (2 miles) of the Addendum APE ........................... 8 Table 3. Archaeological Consultation Projects within the Vicinity of the Addendum APE ....................................... 18 Table 4. Results of Previous Phase 1 Surveys for Consultation Projects Near the Addendum APE ........................... 20 Table 5. Results of Previous Phase 2 site Examinations for Consultation Projects near the Addendum APE ............ 23 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 1 I. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an addendum Phase 1 survey for the Cornell University Athletic Fields Project (03PR00922) in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. The fieldwork summarized in this report was performed under the supervision of Dr. Laurie M iroff, Director of the Public Archaeology Facility (PAF), with fieldwork conducted under the management of project directors John Ferri , Claire Horn, and Sam Kudrle. In compliance with the Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations in New York State (1994) and the National Park Service’s Criteria and Procedures for the Identification of Historic Properties (2000), the addendum area of potential effect (APE) defined the project limits for the purpose of conducting the Phase 1 survey, and the results of the research performed for this report do not apply to any territory outside the addendum APE. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The larger Cornell University Athletic Fields Project APE, including the addendum APE, is located within the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York (Figure 1). Figure 2 shows the addendum APE on the USGS Ithaca East, NY 7.5’ quadrangle and Figure 3 highlights the addendum APE on 2023 aerial photography for the Town of Ithaca. The addendum APE is located in a fallow agricultural field adjacent to Game Farm Road, roughly 400 m (1,312 ft) north of the intersection with Ellis Hollow Road. The original Athletic Fields APE, which was investigated by PAF archaeologists between 2003 and 2005, covers an area of 14 ha (35 ac) to the north of the addendum APE. The addendum APE is also bounded to the south and east by linear corridors for the Cornell University Gas Line Project that was surveyed by PAF in 2006 to 2007. These early surveys and investigations resulted in the documentation of the precontact Cascadilla Creek 1 Site, Loci 1-4 (USN 10906.000335), and precontact and early historic period Cascadilla Creek 2 Site, Loci 1-3 (USN 10906.000336). The Cascadilla Creek 1 and 2 Sites formed the framework for a detailed GIS-based Alternative Mitigation Report submitted to Cornell University and the N ew York State Historic Preservation Office (NYS SHPO) in 2009 for the Cornell University Gas Line Project. Figure 1. Location of the Town of Ithaca within Tompkins County and New York State. The current land conditions for the addendum APE are depicted in Photos 1-2 (see photo locations in Figure 3). The addendum APE covers approximately 1.4 ha (3.5 ac), with proposed impacts to include the construction of a new field hockey field, press box, team room, restrooms, dugouts , and parking lot, as well as adjacent landscaping (see Appendix III). Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 2 Figure 2. Location of the addendum APE on the USGS 1969 Ithaca East, NY 7.5' quadrangle. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 3 Figure 3. Location of the addendum APE on 2023 aerial imagery; photo locations also depicted. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 4 Photo 1. View northwest across the addendum APE from Game Farm Road. Photo 2. View southwest across the addendum APE from Game Farm Road. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 5 III. BACKGROUND RESEARCH Background research for the addendum APE within the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County was completed to provide a description of the environmental setting and soil conditions, a site files check of the NYS SHPO Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS) database, an analysis of available historic maps, and a summary of any past archaeological investigations within the vicinity of the region. This background research was used to provide an overall sensitivity assessment of the region within the addendum APE for precontact and historic archaeological sites. 3.1. Environmental Setting Tompkins County is situated within the Finger Lakes Uplands of the Northern Allegheny Plateau of central New York State (Bryce et al. 2010). The Finger Lakes Uplands is a transitional ecoregion, encompassing the northern edge of the elevated landforms of the plateau where it meets the broad lake plains of the Lake Ontario Lowlands. During the Pleistocene era, the glaciers ground into soft shale bedrock and transformed the region’s pre-glacial river and stream valleys into the large u-shaped troughs that contain the current Finger Lakes, culminating in the deposition of the undulating Valley Heads Moraine south of the lakes. The Valley Heads Moraine blocked the flow of water to the south, reversing the earlier pre-glacial drainage pattern of the valleys toward Lake Ontario . The topography of the addendum APE is relatively flat, with a slight northwestward slope. Elevations range from a high of 333 m (1000 ft) ASL along the east end of the APE adjacent to Game Farm Road to low of 323 m (970 ft) ASL at the western end of the APE. Average slope across the area is approximately 5%. The main drainage for the area is provided by Cascadilla Creek, an upland tributary of the Cayuga Inlet and ultimately Cayuga Lake. The creek flows east to west from headwaters near the hamlet of Ellis through a broad valley with a large complex of wetlands before entering a steep gorge to the descent to the Ca yuga Inlet. The addendum APE is located roughly 360 m (1,181 ft) south of the creek at the eastern end of the gorge boundary. The topography of the creek gorge is depicted in Figure 4 using 2 m (7 ft) elevation data from the NYS GIS Clearinghouse, with overlays for a 0.5 m (1.75 ft) contours. Figure 4. Elevation model for the addendum APE showing the Cascadilla Creek gorge to the north. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 6 The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Tompkins County (Table 1 and Figure 5) noted that a majority of the addendum APE contains glacial till soils classified as Erie channery silt loam, 3-8% slope (EbB), coupled with a much smaller area of glacial outwash soils of Chenango gravelly loam, 5-15% slope (CdC). Neither of these soil types is considered to be hydric (wetland like), nor is either soil type an alluvial soil with the potential for complex and deeply buried horizons. Proposed subsurface testing by means of shovel test pits (STPs) for these upland and outwash landforms should extend 15 cm (6 in) into the culturally sterile B horizon subsoil. Table 1. USDA-NRCS Soil Types Located within the Addendum APE* Soils and Acreage Horizon and Depth Drainage Hydric Landform Erie channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (EbB); 2.6 acres Ap: 0 to 23 cm (0 to 9 in): channery silt loam E: 23 to 33 cm (9 to 13 in): channery silt loam B: 33 to 100 cm (13 to 38 in): channery silt loam C: 100 to 183 cm (38 to 72 in): channery loam Somewhat poorly drained No Hills; glacial till Chenango gravelly loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes (CdC); 0.9 acres Ap: 0 to 20 cm (0 to 8 in); gravelly loam B: 20 to 86 cm (8 to 34 in); gravelly silt loam C: 86 to 152 cm (34 to 60 in); very gravelly loamy sand Well drained No Valley terraces; glacial outwash *source data from: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov Figure 5. USDA-NRCS soil survey map for the addendum APE. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 7 3.2. NYS SHPO CRIS Database Information on the location and types of documented precontact and historic sites around the addendum APE was obtained from the CRIS database on the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) website (cris.parks.ny.gov). CRIS is an online Geographic Information System program that provides access to New York State's vast historic and cultural resource databases and now digitized paper records . The site locations were mapped for a 2 mile (3.2 km) area around the addendum APE and are depicted in Figure 6 and summarized by type in Table 2. 3.2.1 Regional Precontact Sites within 2 miles (3.2 km) Within a 2 mile (3.2 km) area around the addendum APE there are five recorded precontact archaeological sites listed in the NYS SHPO CRIS database. None of the sites is located within the boundaries of the addendum APE, although the Cascadilla Creek 1 and 2 Sites are within relatively close proximity (more detailed summaries of the Cascadilla Creek Sites can be found in Section 3.5). 3.2.2 Regional Historic Sites within 2 miles (3.2 km) Thirteen historic archaeological sites are shown in the CRIS database within a 2 mile (3.2 km) area around the addendum APE. Only the historic component at the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site Locus 2 and the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) Camp are shown in relatively close proximity to the addendum APE. The historic component at Locus 2 is discussed in more detail in Section 3.4. A concise summary of the CCC Camp along Game Farm Road is provided in a Phase 1A assessment report by Panamerican Consultants (Hanley et al. 2021:8) which stated: In 1933, Civilian Conservation Corps camps began working on fede ral conservation programs in New York State Parks. The State Council of Parks established state park regions to organize the employment of CCC camps. Bear Mountain State Authority and the Central New York State Park commission were among the first in the state to initiate work in cooperation with the federal program. A CCC camp was established at Cornell University on July 2, 1935. The camp’s location was on a Cornell University farm property southeast of the campus and south of the Arboretum location on the west side of Game Farm Rd between Cascadilla Creek and Ellis Hollow Rd. CCC camps were established according to U.S. Army standardized plans. In the spring 1934, the Army designed a sturdy wood-frame building with interchangeable parts that was fabricated for easy construction. This type of temporary building could be adapted to serve as an administrative, recreation, mess, or barracks facility. The Army set specific dimensions for the different building types. The structure was inexpensive, comfortable, weatherproof, and easily transportable. In 1935, this plan was mass-produced. A standard camp layout consisted of approximately 24 structures which formed a rough U-shape that fronted on a cleared space used for assemblies and sports activities. Types of camp buildings included recreation halls, a garage, a hospital, administrative buildings, a mess hall, officers’ quarters, enrollee barracks, and a schoolhouse. The camps were supported other ancillary structures such as latrines, garages, oil house, blacks mith shop, pump house, generator house, etc. 143 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 8 Table 2. Summary of Precontact and Historic Sites within 3.2 km (2 miles) of the Addendum APE Site Type (Map #) Site Name and USN National Register Status Distance from Addendum APE Comments Precontact (#1) Cascadilla Creek 1; Locus 1 to 4 USN 10906.00034 Undetermined 0.15 km (0.01 mi) north Late Archaic to Early Woodland components (3500 -700 BC); lithic scatters with one isolated pottery sherd Precontact (#2) Cascadilla Creek 2; Locus 1 to 3 USN 10906.000336 Undetermined 0.4 km (0.2 mi) northwest Late Archaic to Early Woodland components (3500 -700 BC); lithic scatters; likely hearth feature in small camp locale at Locus 3 Precontact (#3) Cascadilla Creek 4 USN 10906.000335 Undetermined 0.75 km (0.5 mi) west Undiagnostic lithic scatter Precontact (#4) Cascadilla Creek 3 USN (none listed) NA 1 km (0.6 mi) northwest Single chert flake Precontact (#5) Brown Farm Site USN 10906.000087 Undetermined 2.7 km (1.8 mi) northwest Single bifurcate projectile point; possibly associated with the Early to Middle Archaic period (7000 to 5000 BC) Historic (#6) Cascadilla Creek 2; Locus 2 USN 10906.000336 Undetermined 0.4 km (0.2 mi) northwest The historic component was identified during PAF’s 2005 site examination of the larger Cascadilla Creek 2 Site Historic (#7) Whitted Site USN 10903.000172 Undetermined 2.8 km (1.7 mi) southeast 19th to 20th century historic residence with midden Historic (#8) English Cemetery USN 10903.000271 Undetermined 2.2 km (1.4 mi) east 19th century family cemetery Historic (#9) Turkey Hill Road Dump USN 10903.000272 Undetermined 1.2 km (0.75 mi) east Garbage dump; no associated structures Historic (#10) Empire Grist Mill USN 10906.000016 Listed 2.5 km (1.6 mi) northwest Grist mill ruins Historic (#11) Cornell-Blair Farm USN 10906.000212 Not Eligible 1.7 km (1 mi) northwest Pre-1866 domestic residence Historic (#12) Moore House Site USN 10906.000214 Undetermined 2.9 km (1.8 mi) northwest 1817 to 1995 domestic residence Historic (#13) Forest Home Mill 10906.000215 Undetermined 2.4 km (1.5 mi) northwest Saw mill foundation ruins Historic (#14) Ellis Hollow Road USN 10906.000340 Undetermined 0.8 km (0.5 mi) southwest Middle to late 19th century residence Historic (#15) Dryden Road I Site USN 10906.000342 Undetermined 1.3 km (0.8 mi) north Middle to late 19th century residence Historic (#16) Dryden Road II Site USN 10906.000343 Undetermined 1.3 km (0.8 mi) north Middle to late 19th century residence Historic (#17) Lamkin Site USN 10903.000323 Undetermined 0.7 km (0.4 mi) east Historic artifact scatter, foundation and capped well; one grave marker Historic (#18) Civilian Conservation Corp. Camp USN 10906.000421 (building) NA 0.2 km (0.1 mi) south The camp depicted as multiple structures and circular access road along Game Farm Road on USGS 1949 and 1951 Ithaca East, NY quadrangles. One shed from the camp is still standing today. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 9 Figure 6. Location of documented precontact and historic sites around the addendum APE. Confidential: Not for Public Release. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 10 3.3 Precontact Setting The precontact period of the Northeast was characterized by two broad subsistence patterns, both of which had influences on the settlements and the types of material culture used by Indigenous communities. The first pattern was associated with pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers and the arrival of highly mobile groups during the Paleoindian (9000-8000 BC) and Early-Middle Archaic periods (7000-5000 BC) and flourished in the region from the Late Archaic through the early Middle Woodland (4000 BC - AD 700). During this hunter-gatherer period communities relied almost solely on gathered plant resources, fish, and game animals for daily subsistence and overall mobility was high as groups moved in search of available resources. Group mobility tended to compress through time, with small Paleoindian communities ranging widely across the landscape and later groups centered at seasonal base camps within well-defined territories, often approximating regional watersheds. Hunting and gathering continued to be an important part of the subsistence base during the later farmin g period of the late Middle Woodland and Late Woodland (roughly AD 800 -1550), but a larger part of the daily subsistence was increasingly shifted toward the production and consumption of the maize -beans-squash agricultural complex. This subsistence shift was associated with the development of sedentary communities, and the construction of hamlet and village settlements near agricultural fields. Precontact Sensitivity Assessment The NYS SHPO CRIS database indicated that there are five recorded precontact archaeological sites within 3.2 km (2 miles) of the addendum APE. Diagnostic cultural material recovered from these sites suggests that the region was utilized mainly by hunter-gatherer communities from the Archaic through the Early Woodland periods, possibly as early as 7000 to 5000 BC to about 700 BC. These hunter -gatherer communities created a series of small camps around upland tributaries, such as Cascadilla Creek to the north and Six Mile Creek to the south, and reso urce procurement/processing stations at interior locales, often near ephemeral wetlands and headwaters. The background research on the regional environmental setting, the NYS CRIS site files suggested that the area as a whole should be considered as sensitive for additional archaeological sites, particularly for smaller precontact sites associated with ephemeral camps and/or resource procurement/processing activities. 3.4 Historic Setting The addendum APE is located in Tompkins County in the Town of Ithaca. At the time of European contact, this region was home to the Cayuga Nation, a member of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. The Town of Ithaca was established in 1821 and today the area includes a mix of suburban residential and rural agricultural characteristics. Historic maps for the Town of Ithaca from 1853 to 1969 were inspected to provide a depiction of potential historic structures within and around the addendum APE during the 19th and 20th centuries (Figures 7-12). Available maps were obtained online and incorporated into the GIS mapping for the project. The maps for the Town of Ithaca included: 1853 Atlas of Tompkins County, New York 1866 Atlas of Tompkins County, New York 1900 USGS 15’ Dryden, New York Quadrangle 1949 USGS 7.5’ Ithaca East, New York Quadrangle 1951 USGS 7.5’ Ithaca East, New York Quadrangle 1969 USGS 7.5’ Ithaca East, New York Quadrangle Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 11 The 19th century maps to early 20th century quadrangle show the addendum APE situated in an undeveloped rural region within the Town of Ithaca, east of the City of Ithaca, with a scatter of structures and properties along the network of main roads (such as Ellis Hollow Road south of the addendum APE). The middle 20th century quadrangle maps (1949 to 1951) depict the previously discussed CCC Camp as a series of small structures within a U-shaped complex along Game Farm Road south of the addendum APE. One of these structures is still standing to the present day as a shed; the structure is included in the CRIS database as a building (USN 10906.000421). The CCC Camp is not shown on the 1969 Ithaca East, NY quadrangle map, which is the most recent USGS quadrangle with detailed structure locations. Historic Sites Sensitivity Assessment Overall, the historic map analysis suggests a low potential for identifying historic sites within the addendum APE. Historic maps show that the area was not near any clearly defined map documented structures (MDSs). In addition, there are no historic standing structures within the addendum APE. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 12 Figure 7. Location of the addendum APE on the 1853 Atlas of Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 13 Figure 8. Location of the addendum APE on the 1866 Atlas of Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 14 Figure 9. Location of the addendum APE on the 1900 USGS 15’ Dryden, NY Quad . Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 15 Figure 10. Location of the addendum APE on the 1949 USGS 7.5’ Ithaca East, NY Quad (note the CCC Camp) Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 16 Figure 11. Location of the addendum APE on the 1951 USGS 7.5’ Ithaca East, NY Quad (note the CCC Camp). Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 17 Figure 12. Location of the addendum APE on the 1969 USGS 7.5’ Ithaca East, NY Qua d. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 18 3.5 Previous Archaeological Investigations Near the Addendum APE The addendum APE forms part of a larger series of current and/or former agricultural properties (covering an area of roughly 187 acres [76 hectares]) between Game Farm Road, Ellis Hollow Road, and Pine Tree Road owned by Cornell University. Since 2003 these properties as a whole have been the focus of varying phases of archaeological investigation and excavations by PAF and other archaeologists through at least five consultation projects (including the original Cornell University Athletic Fields Project from 2003 to 2005) with the NYS OPRHP SHPO (Figure 13). Table 3 lists the consultation projects by NYS OPRHP number and name. These various investigations resulted in the identification of four precontact archaeological sites (Cascadilla Creek 1 [Loci 1-4], Cascadilla Creek 2 [Loci 1-3], Cascadilla Creek 3 [an isolated find], and Cascadilla Creek 4), one historic site at Ellis Hollow Road, and an early historic component at Locus 2 of the precontact Cascadilla Creek 2 Site. Table 3. Archaeological Consultation Projects within the Vicinity of the Addendum APE OPRHP # Project Name Approx. Acreage Associated Archaeological Sites 03PR00922 Cornell University Athletic Fields Project 27 acres Cascadilla Creek 1 and 2 07PR64400 Cornell University Gas Transmission Project 8 acres Cascadilla Creek 1 and 2 None listed Cornell University Data Center Project 24 acres Cascadilla Creek 3 08PR00512 Cornell University Water Line Project 3 acres Cascadilla Creek 4; Ellis Hollow Road 21PR03998 Cornell University Baseball Field Project 18 acres No associated sites Figure 13. Location of previous completed consultation projects within the vicinity of the addendum APE. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 19 3.5.1 Past Phase 1 Surveys (see Table 4 and Figure 14) Phase 1 surveys were completed for the Cornell Athletic Fields Projects in the spring of 2003 and 2005 when portions of the fields had been freshly plowed, allowing for the use of systematic surface surveys shortly after soaking rains. During these surface surveys, PAF archaeologists walked the plowed fields from north to south, spaced roughly 3 m (10 ft) apart, looking for and mapping the location of any precontact or historic cultural material visible on the ground surface. Materials were mapped on the ground surface through the use of either digital transit or hand -held GPS. Additionally, a small sample of STPs was excavated across the plowed fields to examine soils. The APEs for the Cornell Gas Line Project, Cornell Data Center Project, and Cornell Water Line Project were located in areas that were covered by vegetation with no freshly visible ground surface. For these APEs STPs were excavated along systematic linear transects and/or within square grids, with the p rimary testing interval set at 15 m (49 ft), followed by closer interval testing around the location of any cultural material finds. As part of the field work preparation for each Phase 1 survey, historic maps for the Town of Ithaca dating from the middle 19th to early 20th centuries were inspected to determine if any historic structures were either still standing or were previously standing within any of the project APEs. While the maps indicated that there were no known historic structures for the interior of the university properties, at least one historic structure (now since demolished) was located along Ellis Hollow Road. This location was determined to be a mapped documented structure (MDS) that overlapped a section of the APE for the Cornell Water Line Project. The systematic surface surveys, coupled with the excavation of transects of STPs for the Cornell Athletic Fields Project and Cornell University Gas Line Project APEs produced a collection of precontact cultural material (including a few stone tools, chert debitage, and one small piece of grit tempered pottery). Their locations were mapped and were used to define the spatial limits of the precontact Cascadilla Creek 1 and 2 Sites within the Athletic Fields and Gas Line APEs. Both sites contained multiple loci, with four loci (Loci 1-4) at Cascadilla Creek 1 and three loci (Loci 1-3) at Cascadilla Creek 2. The types of stone tools (projectile points) found at the Phase 1 level of investigation defined both Cascadilla Creek Sites as lithic artifact scatters most likely associated with seasonally mobile hunter- gatherer groups from 3500 to 700 BC. Additionally, during the Cornell University Gas Line Project Phase 1 survey (Kudrle 2007), a grid of STPs (n=12) was excavated within the approximate location of the middle 20th century CCC Camp along Game Farm Road for a proposed construction staging area. These 12 STPs did not produce any historic or modern artifacts. The excavation of STPs for the Cornell Data Center Project APE produced a single precontact chert flake from one STP and the location of this STP was used to define the limits of the Cascadilla Creek 3 Site. Likewise, the excavation of a linear transect of 224 STPs for the Cornell Water Line Project APE along Ellis Hollow Road produced a small number of precontact cultural material items (three pieces of chert debitage) from three STPs that defined the Cascadilla Creek 4 Site. The location of the Ellis Hollow Road Historic Site was also identified along the margin of Ellis Hollow Road during the Phase 1 survey for the Cornell Water Line APE. The nine site STPs produced 24 historic artifacts, including: 2 cut nails, 1 metal hinge, 5 pieces of window glass, 1 clear bottle glass, 1 lamp chimney glass, 1 piece of clear glass, and 13 pieces of ceramics. The location of the Ellis Hollow Road Historic Site matched the setting of a MDS noted on town historic maps from 1866 to 1900. A Phase 1 survey was completed by Panamerican Consultants for the Cornell Baseball Field Project in 2021. The APE for this project was located southwest of the current addendum APE along Ellis Hollow Road and covered an area of 18 ac (7.3 ha). Panamerican archaeologists excavated 425 STPs within the project APE and recovered only a small and widely scattered assemblage of historic artifacts (n=20). No additional investigations were recommended for the project after completion of the Phase 1 survey. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 20 Table 4. Results of Previous Phase 1 Surveys for Consultation Projects Near the Addendum APE Project and Report Phase 1 Survey Methods Phase 1 Survey Results* Cultural Material Survey Recommendations Cornell University Athletic Fields Project (Part 1) PAF Project Zlotucha Kozub 2003a Systematic surface survey of plowed and disked agricultural fields and the excavation of 51 STPs placed judgmentally across the project APE Identification of the Cascadilla Creek 1 Site (Loci 1-3) USN: 10906.000336 1 projectile point 4 chert flakes 2 chert cores 2 chert chunks Phase 2 site examination of all loci of the Cascadilla Creek 1 Site Cornell University Athletic Fields Project (Part 2) PAF Project Kudrle 2005a Systematic surface survey of plowed and disked agricultural fields and the excavation of a systematic grid of 123 STPs at 15 m (49 ft) intervals Identification of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site (Loci 1-3) USN: 10906.000336 1 bifacial tool 5 chert flakes 2 chert cores 3 chert chunks Phase 2 site examination of Loci 1-2 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site; Locus 3 was outside of the project APE Cornell University Gas Transmission Line Project PAF Project Kudrle 2007 Rudler 2007a Excavation of a systematic transect of 533 STPs at 15 m (49 ft) intervals Identification of the Cascadilla Creek 1 Site (Locus 4) and the expansion of the limits of Cascadilla Creek 2 Site (Locus 3) USN: 10906.000336 USN: 10906.000335 1 pottery sherd 1 projectile point 5 chert flakes Phase 2 site examination of the Cascadilla Creek 1 Site Locus 4 and Cascadilla Creek 2 Site Locus 3 Cornell University Data Center Project PAF Project Kudrle 2008a Excavation of a systematic grid of STPs at 15 m (49 ft) intervals 187 STPs at 15 m (49 ft) intervals; 8 STPs at 1-3 m (3-7 ft) intervals at isolated find Identification of the Cascadilla Creek 3 Site (isolated find) USN: none listed 1 chert flake No additional work recommended for the Cascadilla Creek 3 Site Cornell University Water Line Project PAF Project Carroll 2008 Excavation of a systematic transect of STPs at various distance intervals: 224 STPs at 15 m (49 ft) intervals; 5 STPs at 7.5 m (25 ft) intervals; 13 STPs at 1-3 m (3 -10 ft); intervals Identification of the Cascadilla Creek 4 Site and the Ellis Hollow Road Site USN: 10906.000341 3 chert flakes 2 cut nails 1 metal hinge 5 window glass 1 bottle glass 1 chimney glass 1 clear glass 13 ceramics Phase 2 site examination of the Cascadilla Creek 4 Site. No additional work recommended for the Ellis Hollow Road Historic Site Cornell Baseball Field Project Panamerican Project Button et al. 2021 Excavation of a systematic grid of STPs at 15 m (49 ft) intervals 405 STPs at 15 m (49 ft) intervals; 14 STPs at 7.5 m (25 ft) intervals; 6 STPs at 30 m (98 ft) intervals No archaeological sites identified 20 widely scattered historic artifacts No additional investigations recommended *USN: unique site number from NYS CRIS. 156 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 21 Figure 14. Phase 1 survey results for consultation projects within the vicinity of the addendum APE. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 22 3.5.2 Past Phase 2 Site Examinations (see Table 5 and Figures 15-17) The results of the various Phase 1 surveys indicated that the Cascadilla Creek 1, 2, and 4 Sites were potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and Phase 2 site examinations wer e recommended for each site. Additional investigations were not recommended for the Cascadilla Creek 3 Site, given the site’s context as an isolated or single cultural material find, or for the historic Ellis Hollow Road Site given the light frequency and limited diversity of historic artifacts found at the site. Phase 2 site examinations were conducted at the Cascadilla Creek 1, 2, and 4 Sites from 2003 to 2008. The site examinations were completed to determine each site’s National Register eligibility (site examination maps for Cascadilla Creek 1 and 2 are shown in Figures 15 and 16). Table 5 summarizes the site examination results and recommendations for the sites. The field methodologies for each site examination included the excavation of additional STPs at 7.5 m (25 ft) or smaller intervals within selected areas of the sites, additional surface surveys of any freshly plowed and disked agricultural fields, and the excavation of a series of test units (1 x 1 meter [3 x 3 ft] in size) across the sites near mapped surface finds and/or the location of STPs that produced precontact cultural material. The test units were excavated within natural soil layers and soil profiles were drawn once the units were completed. The Phase 2 site examination cultural material types from the Cascadilla Creek 1 and 4 Sites did not differ meaningfully from the original survey, with both sites producing redundant assemblages that were deemed sufficient for determining the site type, site activities, and overall land use. Given these results, no additional investigations were recommended for the Cascadilla Creek 1 or 4 Sites. Locus 1 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site produced similarly redundant cultural material results at the Phase 2 level, and no further investigations were r ecommended for this area of the site. The Cascadilla Creek 2 Site Locus 2 and Locus 3 produced much more interesting cultural material results at the Phase 2 site examination level of analysis, suggesting that both areas of the site warranted additional research through Phase 3 data recoveries, or that the sites should be avoided. For Locus 3, these results included the recovery of additional stone tools (projectile points and scraping tools), a moderate collection of additional stone tool debitage (waste byproducts), and four burnt rocks (fire-cracked rock) that were probably the remnants of one or more small camp hearths. Overall, these site examination results suggested a higher level of research potential for Locus 3, with the site area representative of a small upland camp created by seasonally mobile hunter-gatherer groups. From Locus 2 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site a late 18th to early 19th century historic component was defined during the site examination based on the recovery of a highly diverse and abundant assemblage of historic artifacts (n=642) from three test units (Units 6, 7, and 8) and several close -interval STPS surrounding these units (see the modeled historic artifact distribution interpolated from the STP and unit data for Locus 2 in Figure 17). Historic maps for the Town of Ithaca show no historic structures within the area from at least 1853 to the present, so it is possible these cultural material remains are associated with an early pioneer cabin or an early historic period Indigenous settlement given the recovery of two glass trade beads and a gun flint. The most abundant artifact types for the historic component at Locus 2 are food-related artifacts (primarily ceramic vessel fragments) at 59% of the total and undifferentiated artifacts at 16% of the total assemblage. Undifferentiated artifacts include eight undiagnostic bottle glass fragments and 92 pieces of historic ceramics. Only small amounts of architectural artifacts (37 cut nails, 1 undiagnostic nail fragment, 39 pieces of window glass, and 5 pieces of broken brick) were present in the component assemblage, a pattern that would fit the interpretation for a small cabin occupation. Lighting -related artifacts include three pieces of chimney lamp glass. The three clothing or personal type artifacts include one black glass hexagonal button and two glass trade beads. Buttons were a fairly common trade item between Indigenous people and European settlers, and several post-contact period sites in central New York have produced “Jesuit black glass buttons” (Monte 1983). In addition, the component also produced one broken gun flint and seven clay smoking pipe stem fragments. Documented production dates for the ceramic vessel fragments produced an average prod uction date of 1825 to 1837. Faunal and food remains include 30 animal bone fragments, 16 animal teeth, 25 clam or oyster shell, and one ceramic gullet stone. The bones include two pieces of cow bone and one charred bone fragment, as well as 27 generic mammal bone fragments. The teeth include 10 pig teeth, three cow teeth, two sheep or goat teeth, and one undiagnostic tooth fragment. Photographs of the gun flint, glass button, trade beads, pipe stems, and ceramic and glass vessel fragments are shown in Photos 3-6. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 23 The high frequency of historic artifacts recovered from the three test units and STPs, as well as the overall scatter size and tight clustering pattern within the center of Locus 2, provided enough evidence to rule out the previous random field refuse hypothesis and it was clear that these artifacts were associated with a historic archaeological site, but one that pre-dated the mid- to late 19th century maps. Diagnostic ceramics within the component assemblage supported this interpretation, with most closed production periods dating prior to 1840. Historic outlines for Tompkins County and the Town of Ithaca do indicate that several families settled in the region between 1780 and 1810, and a few did build log cabins within the To wn of Ithaca (Hewitt 1894). Locational descriptions for these early settlers are fairly vague, so at present it is difficult to say whether or not the Cascadilla Creek 2 historic component represents one of these small pioneer cabins or camp site. Similarly, deed research for the larger project parcel revealed no clear information for historic occupation of the site. Blocks 3 and 4 of Lot 96 were originally purchased by Cornell University in the early 20th century, but prior to this purchase, both parcels were part of larger farming estates back to at least the 1840s, with three of the deeds from Block 4 specifying a lease agreement for agricultural use . Neither deed search turned up any conclusive evidence of residential structures within the property, a p attern consistent with an ephemeral pioneer cabin or camp site. Table 5. Results of Previous Phase 2 Site Examinations for Consultation Projects near the Addendum APE Site Name and Report Reference Phase 2 Site Examination Methods Site Examination Cultural Materia Site Features Site Examination Recommendations Cascadilla Creek 1 Locus 1-4 Zlotucha Kozub 2003a Rudler 2007b Additional systematic surface surveys of freshly plowed and disked fields. Excavation of 10 test units; each unit measured 1 x 1 m (3 x 3 ft) with one rectangular unit (2 m x 0.5 m [7x1.5 ft]). Units were situated at the location of cultural material finds from the various surface survey or STP locations 1 stone adze 8 flakes 7 pieces of shatter 3 chunks None found within site limits The site examination produced a sufficient sample of cultural material for determining the site type, activities, and overall land use. No additional archaeological investigations were recommended for the Cascadilla Creek 1 Site. Cascadilla Creek 2 Locus 1-3 Kudrle 2005b Rudler 2007c Additional systematic surface surveys of freshly plowed and disked fields. Excavation of 73 close interval STPs and 15 test units; each unit measured 1 x 1 m (3 x 3 ft) and was situated at the location of cultural material finds from the various surface survey or STP locations 2 projectile points 2 scraping tools 1 biface tool frag. 39 flakes 4 pieces of shatter 3 cores 4 burnt rocks 642 historic artifacts from the historic component at Locus 2 None found, although the recovery of four potentially burnt rocks (fire-cracked rocks) within a single test unit at Locus 3 suggested a small hearth feature was likely present within the limits of Locus 3 The site examination produced a sufficient sample of cultural material for determining the site type, activities, and overall land use for Locus 1 and no additional field-based archaeological investigations were recommended for this area of the site. Locus 3 produced a collection of cultural material types indicative of a more complex hunter-gatherer camp site and in consultation with OPRHP the locus was recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. A Phase 3 data recovery was also recommended for the locus if adverse impacts could not be avoided through project modifications. From Locus 2 a potentially late 18th to early 19th century historic site or component was defined based on the Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 24 Site Name and Report Reference Phase 2 Site Examination Methods Site Examination Cultural Materia Site Features Site Examination Recommendations recovery of a diverse and abundant assemblage of historic artifacts (n=642) from three of the test units (Units 6, 7, and 8) and several close-interval STPs around these units. Available maps show no structures within or adjacent to the area from at least 1853 to the present; it is possible these artifact remains are associated with an early pioneer cabin or an early historic period Indigenous settlement. The results of the site examination at Locus 2 indicated a high research potential for the historic component and we recommended that this area of the site be considered as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and that any adverse impacts to the historic component be avoided, maintaining the center of Locus 2 as an agricultural field or mitigate any future impacts through Phase 3 data recovery excavations. Cascadilla Creek 4 Kudrle 2008b Excavation of three test units. Each unit measured 1 x 1 m (3 x 3 ft) and was situated at the location of cultural material finds from the Phase 1 STPs (around STP A77). 11 flakes None found within site limits The site examination produced a sufficient sample of cultural material for determining the site type, activities, and overall land use. No additional archaeological investigations were recommended for the Cascadilla Creek 4 Site. 160 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 25 Figure 15. Phase 2 site examination testing for the Cascadilla Creek 1 Site. 161 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 26 Figure 16. Phase 2 site examination testing for the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site. 162 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 27 Figure 17. Interpolated spatial distribution of historic artifacts for the historic component at Locus 2 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 28 Photo 3. Gun flint, glass button, and pipe stems from the historic component at Locus 2 of Cascadilla Creek 2. Photo 4. Glass beads from the historic component at Locus 2 of Cascadilla Creek 2. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 29 Photo 5. Ceramic vessel artifacts from the historic component at Locus 2 of Cascadilla Creek 2. (Top row: Blue shell-edged plate; Green shell-edged plate; Blue feather- edged plate; Red shell-edged plate. Row 2, L to Rt: Blue “sprigged” whiteware plate, applied clay decoration, ca. 1840; Red transfer printed plate; Cup or bowl with hand painted red and green floral design; Cup or bowl shoulder with hand painted blue floral design. Row 3, L to Rt: Blue transfer printed pearlware lidded; Blue transfer printed pearlware lidded vessel. Row 4, L to Rt: Pearlware hand painted in earthy tones, teacup, and saucer; Pearlware hand painted blue, teacup, and saucer. Bottom row, L to Rt: Green and brown annular banded pearlware; Orange annular banded pearlware w/ molded ribbed design; Blue, mauve, and brown marbled annular whiteware; Black dendritic “mocha” annular design on olive slip; Black dendritic “mocha” annular design on mustard-color slip.) Photo 6. Ceramic and glass vessel artifacts from the historic component at Locus 2 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site. (Upper L: Redware milk pan, lead-glazed interior & unglazed exterior. Upper Rt: Olive glass wine bottle neck with hand applied finish. Middle, L to Rt: Yellow glazed redware rim, tableware; Slip-trailed redware fragment; Olive glass bottle base, melted, possibly free-blown. Lower L: Molded manganese-glazed redware, possible teapot. Lower Rt: Redware base fragment.) Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 30 3.5.3 Phase 3 Alternative Mitigation Report In 2008 Cornell University embarked on a previously surveyed gas transmission line project. Sections of the proposed gas line corridor along the northern edge of the athletic fields were planned to cut directly through Locus 3 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site (Rudler 2007d). PAF proposed an alternative mitigation of these adverse impacts in consultation with OPRHP that would include a review of the published literature on archaeological sampling and testing strategies for small precontact sites in similar upland contexts aro und the Finger Lakes, additional detailed analysis and description of all the Cascadilla Creek 1 -4 Site precontact cultural material, and a GIS-based regional environmental model to complement our final interpretations for the sites. An Alternative Mitigat ion Report summarizing the proposed archaeological district for Cascadilla Creek and a GIS environmental model was submitted to the state in 2009 and was accepted by the NYS OPRHP (Kudrle 2009). Correspondences with OPRHP staff from 2009 regarding the consultation process and final acceptance of the alternative mitigation report are provided in Appendix V. While a district concept was proposed for the precontact Cascadilla Creek sites as part of the 2009 Alternative Mitigation, the sites are not currently d epicted as an archaeological district in the CRIS database. 3.5.4 Summary of Past Investigations Near the Addendum APE Between 2003 to 2021 PAF and Panamerican archaeologists surveyed and investigated roughly 43% of the current and former agricultural fields owned by Cornell University along Game Farm Road, Ellis Hollow Road, and Pine Tree Road. From these investigations, four precontact Indigenous sites (Cascadilla Creek 1-4), one historic site (Ellis Hollow Road Site), and one precontact site with an associated early historic component (Cascadilla Creek 2 Locus 2) were identified within the properties owned by Cornell University (Figure 18). Most of these site areas were either investigated at the Phase 2 level of analysis and found to be not eligible for the National Register as individual sites or were not recommended as potentially eligible after the Phase 1 surveys. Of the precontact sites, only Locus 3 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site produced the cultural material results consistent wit h a high research potential, and through consultation with NYS OPRHP an Alternative Mitigation Report was developed to summarize, analyze, and interpret all of the Cascadilla Creek 1-4 Sites within an archaeological district focused on upland sites in marginal environmental settings. At the present time, only the early historic component at Locus 2 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site has not been destroyed by university development projects, primarily those associated with the Cornell University Athletic Fields Project from 2003 to 2005. The results of the site examination in 2005 suggested a high research potential for the historic component and PAF archaeologists recommended to SHPO at that time that this specific area within the center of Locus 2 either be avoided and maintained as an agricultural field or that any potential adverse impacts to the center of Locus 2 be mitigated through a Phase 3 data recovery (Kudrle 2005b). 166 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 31 Figure 18. Layout for previously documented archaeological sites within the vicinity of the addendum APE. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 32 IV. ADDENDUM SURVEY METHODOLOGY The background research on the regional environmental setting, the NYS CRIS site files, historic maps, and the results from past investigations for archaeological sites within the vicinity of the addendum APE suggested that the area as a whole should be considered as sensitive for additional archaeological sites, particularly for smaller precontact sites associated with ephemeral camps and/or resource procurement/processing activities. The historic map analysis suggested a lower potential for identifying historic sites within the addendum APE, with no historic standing structures and with historic maps showing the addendum APE in an area that was not near any clearly defined MDSs. 4.1 Project Walkover Archaeologists from PAF conducted a walkover of the addendum APE on September 23, 2024. The walkover was completed to provide an overview of the current land use within the addendum APE (Appendix IV). 4.2 Testing Procedures On September 23 and 24, 2024 PAF archaeologists staked out and excavated a grid of 64 STPs at 15 m (49 ft) intervals within the addendum APE (see excavated STPs in Appendix IV). All STPs were excavated with hand tools and were generally 40 cm (16 in) in diameter. Standard excavation depth for STPs is a minimum of 15 cm (6 in) into sterile B horizon subsoil deposits, unless stopped by rock, dense roots, or other obstruction. All soil was screened through 7 mm (0.25 in) hardware cloth. Any material culture recovered from each recognizable soil horizon was bagged separately. Notation was made of coal ash, brick fragments, and any post-1974 materials such as plastic and roadside debris, and these items were discarded in the field. Written descriptions of soil color and texture, material culture content, and digging conditions were made at the time of excavation. The STP soil records are presented in Appendix 2.1. 4.3 General Laboratory Methods Following fieldwork, all cultural material was processed and analyzed in the labs of PAF at Binghamton University. Processing included washing and dry-brushing fragile materials and checking and re-tagging of the cultural material bags for proper conservation. All cultural material recovered was analyzed according to standard PAF systems (Appendix 2.2). The historic cultural material was catalogued according to a PAF system based on South’s classification (South 1977). Each piece was classified as to general functional group (e.g., food -related, faunal remains, architectural remains, etc.) and then according to specific type, form, and pattern (e.g., blue transfer print cup, sun-purpled bottle glass, cut nail, animal bone, etc.). Where possible, time ranges for the cultural material were assigned. The resulting cultural material catalog was entered into a relational database management program (Paradox) to facilitate subsequent analysis, and is included in Appendix 2.2 . All notes and documentation of the survey testing are curated according to federal (36 CFR Part 79) and state (NYAC 1994) guidelines in facilities of the Department of Anthropology at Binghamton University. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 33 V. ADDENDUM SURVEY RESULTS 5.1 Overview Archaeologists excavated 64 STPs within the addendum APE for the Phase 1 survey. Soil profiles matched the glacial till and outwash types mapped by the USDA-NRCS, with an average A horizon depth of 27 cm (11 in) and a maximum A horizon depth of 40 cm (16 cm). The A horizon appeared most consistently as a brown to dark brown compact silt loam with rocks. The underlying subsoil was a compact yellowish-brown silt or clay loam with rocks. Final STP depths averaged 42 cm (17 in) with a maximum depth of 51 cm (20 in). No precontact cultural material was recovered from the addendum APE. Eight historic or modern artifacts were found in seven STPs (A3, B1, B3, B4, C6, F6, and F7), including 4 pieces of clear bottle glass, 1 piece of amber bottle glass, 1 piece of sun-purpled bottle glass, 1 piece of aqua bottle glass, and 1 nail fragment. These artifacts represent the light scatter and random refuse expected in an agricultural field and road side areas and are not associated with any archaeological sites. 5.2 Negative Survey Results No archaeological sites were identified within the addendum APE. Based on an assessment of the historic maps showing the absence of recorded structures (map documented structures) within the addendum APE and no historic standing structures, historic sites were not expected to be identified and none were found. Rather, the addendum APE was likely used for agricultural purposes during the 19 th century and early to middle 20th century. In contrast, precontact sites, particularly smaller sites associated with foraging camps and resource procurement/processing stations, were potentially anticipated within the addendum APE based on the environmental setting and the presence of documented precontact sites within the immediate vicinity. The addendum survey produced no precontact cultural material and no precontact sites were identified for the addendum APE. The lack of sites within the addendum APE can likely to be attributed to the distance from Cascadilla Creek at well over 300 m (984 ft) to the north of the area. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS Phase 1 testing within the addendum APE recorded no additional precontact or historic period archaeological sites for this area. We recommend that the addendum to the Cornell University Athletic Fields Project will not impact any significant cultural resources and that no further archaeological work is necessary within the addendum APE. The historic component at Locus 2 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site is still within the original 2003 to 2005 project APE for the Cornell University Athletic Fields, is intact, and in an undisturbed setting. This component area produced an abundance and diversity of early historic artifacts, possibly associated with a sett ler cabin or camp, and has the potential to produce significant archaeological information about the early historic period for the Town of Ithaca. Although this component area is well outside of the current addendum APE summarized for this report, we are recommending that this specific section of Locus 2 be maintained as an existing agricultural field and not subject to construction connected with the university athletic fields (or any other future development projects). As such, the NYS SHPO is likely to request an official avoidance plan from the university outlining the methods in which the early historic component at Locus 2 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site will be protected from future athletic field developments. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 34 APPENDIX I: References Bryce, S. A., G. E. Griffith, J. M. Omernik, G. Edinger, S. Indrick, O. Vargas, and D. Carlson 2010 Ecoregions of New York (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, map scale 1:1,250,000 . Button, Edwin, Mark A. Steinback, and Martin Boratin 2021 Phase 1B Archaeological Resources. Investigation for the Proposed New Cornell Baseball Field Project (21PR03998). Cornell University, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY. Prepared by Panamerican Consultants, Inc. Carroll, Lynda 2008 Phase 1 Survey, Cornell Water Line Project, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, MCD 10906. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York. Fagan, L. Smith and Robert Pearsell 1853 Atlas of Tompkins County, New York from Actual Surveys. Horace & Charles Smith, Philadelphia. Hanley, Robert J., Christine M. Longiaru, Edwin Button, and Mark A. Steinback 2021 Phase 1A Cultural Resources Assessment. Investigation for the Proposed Hoy Field Development Project (21PR03998). Cornell University, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY. Prepared by Panamerican Consultants, Inc. Hewitt, W. T. 1894 Landmarks of Tompkins County, New York, ed. John H. Selkreg. D. Mason & Company, Syracuse. Kudrle, Sam 2005a Phase 1 Survey, Cornell University Athletic Fields Project Part 2, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York. 2005b Phase 2 Site Examination, Cascadilla Creek 2 Site (SUBi-2524), Cornell University Athletic Fields Project Part 2, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York. 2007 Phase 1 Survey, Cornell University Gas Line Project, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York . Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York. 2008a Phase 1 Survey, Cornell University Data Center Project, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York. 2008b Phase 2 Site Examination, Cascadilla Creek 4 Site (SUBi-2765), Cornell University Waterline Project, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York. Kudrle, Sam (with contributions by Melody Pope and Jeremy Wilson) 2009 Cornell University Gas Transmission Line Project. Cascadilla Creek Precontact Archaeological District (CCPAD), Alternative Mitigation Report, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 35 Monte, Bennet 1983 Glass Trade Beads from Central New York. In Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conference, edited by Charles F. Hayes III. Research Records No. 16. Rochester Museum and Science Center. National Park Service 2000 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Park Service, Washington D.C. New York Archaeological Council 1994 Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations in New York State. Rudler, Michael 2007a Phase 1 Archaeological Survey, Cornell University Gas Line Project - Addendum Survey, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York. 2007b Phase 2 Site Examination, Cascadilla Creek 1 Site (SUBi-2385) - Locus 4, Cornell University Gas Line Project, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York. 2007c Phase 2 Site Examination, Cascadilla Creek 2 Site (SUBi-2524) - Locus 3, Cornell University Gas Line Project. Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York. South, Stanley A. 1977 Method and Theory in Historic Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Stone and Stewart 1866 Atlas of Tompkins County, New York. Stone and Stewart Publishers, Philadelphia. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1900 15’ Dryden, NY Quadrangle. 1949 7.5’ Ithaca East, NY Quadrangle. 1951 7.5’ Ithaca East, NY Quadrangle. 1969 7.5’ Ithaca East, NY Quadrangle. Zlotucha Kozub, Andrea 2003a Phase 1 Survey, Cornell University Athletic Fields Project, Part 1, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York. 2003b Phase 2 Site Examination, Cascadilla Creek 1 Site (SUBi -2385), Cornell University Athletic Fields Project, Part 1, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York. Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 36 APPENDIX II. STP Data 2.1 STP Soil Catalog, Addendum APE Pa=Pale Lt=Light Md=Medium Dk=Dark Br=Brown Gr=Gray Yl=Yellow Ol=Olive Tn=Tan Rd=Red Bk=Black Wh=White Si=Silt Sa=Sand Cl=Clay Lo=Loam Gvl=Gravel P=Precontact H=Historic N=No Cultural Material Disc.=Discarded STP Level Depth Soil Description CM Crew Date A1 1 0-25 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 A1 2 25-42 Dk Yl Br Si Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 A2 1 0-26 Dk Gr Br Si Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks; Drain Pipe Fragment - Disc. N TB/EA 9/24/24 A2 2 26-45 Yl Br Si Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 A3 1 0-28 Br Compact Si Lo W/ High Density Rocks & Gvl H KCL/CHH 9/24/24 A3 2 28-42 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo W/ High Density Rocks & Gvl N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 B1 1 0-16 Dk Gr Br Compact Si Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks H KCL/CHH 9/24/24 B1 2 16-33 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 B2 1 0-24 Dk Gr Br Si Lo Compact W/ Rocks & Gvl N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 B2 2 24-39 Yl Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks & Gvl N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 B3 1 0-26 Dk Gr Br Si Lo Compact W/ Rocks & Gvl; Plastic Fragments - Disc. H KCL/CHH 9/24/24 B3 2 26-43 Yl Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks & Gvl N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 B4 1 0-27 Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks H KCL/CHH 9/24/24 B4 2 27-42 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 B5 1 0-30 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 B5 2 30-44 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Rocks; Stopped by Large Rock N TB/EA 9/24/24 C1 1 0-25 Dk Gr Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 C1 2 25-41 Dk Ol Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 C2 1 0-29 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 C2 2 29-44 Dk Ol Br Cl Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 C3 1 0-30 Dk Gr Br Si Lo; Plastic Utensil Handle - Disc. N TB/EA 9/24/24 C3 2 30-48 Yl Br Si Lo N TB/EA 9/24/24 C4 1 0-30 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 C4 2 30-46 Dk Yl Br Si Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 C5 1 0-28 Dk Gr Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 C5 2 28-43 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 C6 1 0-25 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Rocks H TB/EA 9/24/24 C6 2 25-40 Yl Br Si Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 C7 1 0-35 Dk Gr Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 C7 2 35-50 Dk Ol Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 C8 1 0-25 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Low Gvl & Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 C8 2 25-42 Ol Br Si Lo W/ Low Gvl & Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 D1 1 0-21 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 D1 2 21-36 Dk Yl Br Si Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 D2 1 0-28 Dk Gr Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 D2 2 28-44 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 D3 1 0-29 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 D3 2 29-40 Dk Yl Br Si Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks; Stopped by Rock N TB/EA 9/24/24 D4 1 0-28 Dk Gr Br Compact Si Lo N TB/EA 9/24/24 D4 2 28-45 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo N TB/EA 9/24/24 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 37 STP Level Depth Soil Description CM Crew Date D5 1 0-27 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Low Gvl N TB/EA 9/24/24 D5 2 27-45 Dk Yl Br Si Lo W/ Low Gvl N TB/EA 9/24/24 D6 1 0-35 Dk Gr Br Very Compact Si Lo; Styrofoam - Disc. N TB/EA 9/24/24 D6 2 35-50 Dk Yl Br Very Compact Si Lo N TB/EA 9/24/24 D7 1 0-25 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Low Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 D7 2 25-40 Ol Br Si Lo W/ Low Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 D8 1 0-30 Dk Gr Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 D8 2 30-45 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 9/24/24 D9 1 0-30 Dk Br Si Lo; Plastic & Window Glass - Disc. N TB/EA 9/24/24 D9 2 30-47 Dk Yl Br Si Lo N TB/EA 9/24/24 D10 1 0-35 Dk Gr Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks; Stopped by Rock N TB/EA 9/24/24 E1 1 0-15 Dk Gr Br Compact Si Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 E1 2 15-30 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 E2 1 0-24 Dk Br Very Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks & Gvl N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 E2 2 24-40 Mottled Yl Br Si Lo & Gr Very Compact Si Lo W/ Gvl N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 E3 1 0-23 Dk Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks; 1 Coal Fragment - Disc. N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 E3 2 23-38 Mottled Yl Br Si Lo & Gr Compact Si Lo N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 E4 1 0-28 Br Compact Dry Si Lo; Concrete - Disc. N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 E4 2 28-38 Dk Yl Br Very Compact Dry Si Lo W/ Dense Rocks N KCL/CHH 9/24/24 E5 1 0-27 Br Compact Si Lo N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E5 2 27-45 Yl Br Compact Si Lo N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E6 1 0-26 Br Compact Dry Si Lo N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E6 2 26-41 Dk Yl Br Si Lo Mottled W/ Gr Compact Dry Si Lo N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E7 1 0-31 Br Compact Si Lo; Plastic Bag Fragment - Disc. N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E7 2 31-46 Dk Yl Br Si Lo Mottled W/ Gr Compact Si Lo N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E8 1 0-29 Br Compact Dry Si Lo; Plastic Bag Fragment - Disc. N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E8 2 29-44 Dk Yl Br Dry Si Lo Mottled W/ Gr Compact Si Lo N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E9 1 0-29 Br Compact Si Lo; Small Styrofoam Fragments - Disc. N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E9 2 29-46 Dk Yl Br Si Lo Mottled W/ Gr Compact Si Lo N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E10 1 0-25 Br Compact Dry Si Lo N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E10 2 25-42 Yl Br Compact Dry Si Lo N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E11 1 0-26 Br Compact Dry Si Lo; Ceramic Drain Pipe & 2 Fragments of Coal - Disc. N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E11 2 26-41 Yl Br Compact Dry Si Lo N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E12 1 0-21 Br Compact Dry Si Lo N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E12 2 21-30 Dk Br Gr Si Lo Mottled W/ Yl Br Compact Dry Si Lo N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 E12 3 30-46 Yl Br Dry Si Lo Mottled W/ Gr & Oxidized Si Lo N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 F1 1 0-23 Gr Si Lo Compact W/ Gvl N LH/JF 9/23/24 F1 2 23-38 Ol Br Si Lo Compact W/ Gvl N LH/JF 9/23/24 F2 1 0-32 Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks; Plastic & Floor Tile - Disc. N CHH/TB 9/23/24 F2 2 32-50 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks N CHH/TB 9/23/24 F3 1 0-29 Gr Br Si Lo Compact W/ Gvl; Plastic Wrapper - Disc. N LH/JF 9/23/24 F3 2 29-31 Ol Br Si Lo Compact W/ Gvl; Stopped by Rock N LH/JF 9/23/24 F4 1 0-25 Gr Br Compact Si Lo; 1 Pc. Plastic - Disc. N CHH/TB 9/23/24 F4 2 25-40 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo N CHH/TB 9/23/24 F5 1 0-30 Gr Br Compact Si Lo; Plastic Nozzle - Disc. N CHH/TB 9/23/24 F5 2 30-45 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo N CHH/TB 9/23/24 F6 1 0-23 Gr Br Si Lo Compact W/ Gvl H LH/JF 9/23/24 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 38 STP Level Depth Soil Description CM Crew Date F6 2 23-38 Ol Br Si Lo Compact W/ Gvl N LH/JF 9/23/24 F7 1 0-28 Dk Br Compact Si Lo; Plastic - Disc. H TB/CHH 9/23/24 F7 2 28-38 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks; Stopped by Rock N TB/CHH 9/23/24 F8 1 0-27 Gr Br Si Lo Compact W/ Gvl; 1 Pc. Plastic - Disc. N LH/JF 9/23/24 F8 2 27-45 Ol Br Si Lo Compact W/ Gvl N LH/JF 9/23/24 F9 1 0-30 Gr Br Si Lo W/ Compact Gvl; 2 Pcs. Plastic - Disc. N LH/JF 9/23/24 F9 2 30-45 Yl Br Si Lo W/ Compact Gvl N LH/JF 9/23/24 F10 1 0-34 Dk Br Compact Si Lo N TB/CHH 9/23/24 F10 2 34-51 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo N TB/CHH 9/23/24 F11 1 0-30 Gr Br Si Lo W/ Compact Gvl N LH/JF 9/23/24 F11 2 30-45 Yl Br Si Lo W/ Compact Gvl N LH/JF 9/23/24 F12 1 0-19 Gr Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks (Very Dry Soil) N TB/CHH 9/23/24 F12 2 19-34 Yl Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks (Very Dry Soil) N TB/CHH 9/23/24 F13 1 0-30 Dk Br Compact Si Lo N TB/EA 9/24/24 F13 2 30-40 Dk Br Compact Si Lo N TB/EA 9/24/24 F13 3 40-48 Ol Br Compact Cl Lo N TB/EA 9/24/24 F14 1 0-25 Br Compact Dry Si Lo; Concrete Chunk - Disc. N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 F14 2 25-41 Yl Br Compact Dry Si Lo N CHH/KCL 9/24/24 G1 1 0-22 Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks N CHH/TB 9/23/24 G1 2 22-30 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo W/ Rocks; Stopped by Rocks N CHH/TB 9/23/24 G2 1 0-27 Gr Br Si Lo N LH/JF 9/23/24 G2 2 27-42 Ol Br Si Lo N LH/JF 9/23/24 G3 1 0-28 Br Compact Si Lo; Styrofoam & Plastic - Disc. N CHH/TB 9/23/24 G3 2 28-45 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo N CHH/TB 9/23/24 G4 1 0-28 Gr Br Si Lo N LH/JF 9/23/24 G4 2 28-44 Ol Br Si Lo N LH/JF 9/23/24 G5 1 0-28 Br Compact Si Lo; Plastic Spoon Fragment - Disc. N CHH/TB 9/23/24 G5 2 28-43 Mottled Dk Yl Br & Gr Br Compact Si Lo N CHH/TB 9/23/24 G6 1 0-17 Gr Br Si Lo W/ Gvl (Compact Blocky Soil); 1 Brick - Disc. N LH/JF 9/23/24 G6 2 17-35 Ol Br Si Lo W/ Gvl (Compact Blocky Soil) N LH/JF 9/23/24 G7 1 0-25 Br Compact Si Lo N CHH/TB 9/23/24 G7 2 25-32 Br Compact Si Lo N CHH/TB 9/23/24 G7 3 32-47 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo N CHH/TB 9/23/24 G8 1 0-34 Gr Br Si Lo W/ Gvl N LH/JF 9/23/24 G8 2 34-50 Dk Yl Br Si Lo W/ Gvl N LH/JF 9/23/24 G9 1 0-25 Br Compact Si Lo N CHH/TB 9/23/24 G9 2 25-31 Br Compact Si Lo N CHH/TB 9/23/24 G9 3 31-49 Dk Yl Br Compact Si Lo N CHH/TB 9/23/24 G10 1 0-23 Gr Br Si Lo W/ Gvl (Compact Blocky Soil) N LH/JF 9/23/24 G10 2 23-39 Dk Yl Br Si Lo W/ Gvl (Compact Blocky Soil) N LH/JF 9/23/24 G11 1 0-30 Br Cl Lo N LH/JF 9/23/24 G11 2 30-42 Yl Br Cl Lo W/ Rocks; Stopped by Rocks N LH/JF 9/23/24 G12 1 0-31 Br Cl Lo N LH/JF 9/23/24 G12 2 31-47 Yl Br Cl Lo W/ Few Small Rocks N LH/JF 9/23/24 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 39 2.2 Artifact Catalog, Addendum APE STP Level Depth Description CT WT(g) Dates Crew Date A3 1 0-28 Glass Clear Bottle-Unid. 1 0.80 KCL/CHH 9/24/24 B1 1 0-16 Glass Clear Bottle-Unid. 1 0.50 KCL/CHH 9/24/24 B3 1 0-26 Glass Clear Bottle-Unid. 1 1.30 KCL/CHH 9/24/24 B3 1 0-26 Glass Molded Clear Bottle-Unid. 1 2.00 KCL/CHH 9/24/24 B4 1 0-27 Glass Amber Bottle-Unid. 1 0.70 KCL/CHH 9/24/24 C6 1 0-25 Glass Sun Purpled Bottle-Unid. 1 0.80 1880-1918 TB/EA 9/24/24 F6 1 0-23 Glass Aqua Bottle-Unid. 1 2.60 LH/JF 9/23/24 F7 1 0-28 Ferrous Metal Cut Nail Frag 1 9.10 TB/CHH 9/23/24 175 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 40 APPENDIX III: Client Map Showing the Location of the Addendum APE 176 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 41 APPENDIX IV: STP Maps for the Addendum APE 177 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 42 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 43 APPENDIX V: SHPO Correspondence for Previous Projects Near the Addendum APE Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 44 Public Archaeology Facility 03PR00922, Addendum Phase 1 Report Page | 45 Cultivating our gifts to create a legacy of infrastructure that improves quality of life. October 28, 2024 C.J. Randall, Director of Planning Department of Planning, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field, OPRHP Letter of Concurrence Dear Director Randall: In our submission for Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field on October 3, 2024 we provided official reports from Public Archeology Facility (PAF) which indicate that there are no areas of potential archeological interest within the limits of the proposed project. In an effort to be thorough, the project team worked with PAF to coordinate a a review of the reports by the Division for Historic Preservation within the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). This review was completed and has yielded a letter of concurrence with the findings of the previous studies, which is attached. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to call. We look forward to introducing the project to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board at the November 19 meeting. Sincerely, Kimberly Michaels Director of Landscape Architecture 1001 W Seneca Street, Suite 201 • Ithaca, New York 14850 • 607.277.1400 • fisherassoc.com New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Division for Historic Preservation, Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 (518) 237-8643 • https://parks.ny.gov/shpo KATHY HOCHUL ERIK KULLESEID Governor Commissioner October 18, 2024 Sam Kudrle Archaeologist Public Archaeology Facility Binghamton University Science 1 Binghamton, NY 13902 Re: OPRHP Addendum to the Cornell University Athletic Fields Project 24PR08775 03PR00922 Dear Sam Kudrle: Thank you for requesting the comments of the Division for Historic Preservation of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). We have reviewed the submitted materials in accordance with the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (section 14.09 of the New York Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law). These comments are those of the Division for Historic Preservation and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources. They do not include potential environmental impacts to New York State Parkland that may be involved in or near your project. OPRHP has reviewed the Addendum Phase I Archaeological Survey report for the Addendum to the Cornell University Athletic Fields Project (24PR08775) prepared by The Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Consulting Archaeologists (September 2024; 24SR00535). OPRHP concurs with the report recommendation that no additional archaeological investigation is warranted. Based upon this review, it is OPRHP’s opinion that no properties, including archaeological and/or historic resources, listed in or eligible for the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places will be impacted by this project. If you have any questions, I can be reached at Bradley.Russell@parks.ny.gov. Sincerely, Bradley W. Russell, Ph.D. Historic Preservation Specialist - Archaeology Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Volume I. Narrative Town of Ithaca Tompkins County, New York Prepared for: Cornell University 102 Humphreys Service Building Ithaca, New York 14853 Prepared by: T.G. Miller P.C. 605 West State Street, Suite A Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 272-6477 September 27, 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT INFORMATION 1 PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 1 OPERATOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 PURPOSE AND EXTENT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1 PROJECT DISTURBANCE AREA 1 DESCRIPTION AND LIMITATIONS OF ON-SITE SOILS 1 HISTORIC PLACES 2 WETLANDS 3 NAME OF RECEIVING WATERS 3 FLOODPLAINS 3 SEQUENCE OF MAJOR ACTIVITIES 3 POST-CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 FUTURE CONDITIONS 4 WATER QUALITY CONTROLS 5 RUNOFF REDUCTION VOLUME 5 CHANNEL PROTECTION 8 WATER QUANTITY CONTROLS 9 PRACTICE SIZING 10 BIORETENTION FILTER 10 POROUS PAVEMENT SIZING 11 DRY SWALE WITH CHECK DAMS 11 DRY BASIN 11 STORMWATER WETLANDS 11 INFILTRATION BASIN 12 UNDERGROUND STORMWATER CHAMBERS 12 GREEN ROOF 12 CISTERN 13 DRY WELL 13 UNDERGROUND SAND FILTER 14 VEGETATED SWALES 15 PRACTICE SUMMARY 16 UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PERMITS 17 STORMWATER SIGNAGE 17 BETTER SITE DESIGN 17 PRESERVATION OF UNDISTURBED 18 PRESERVATION OF BUFFERS 18 REDUCTION OF CLEARING AND GRADING 18 LOCATING SITES IN LESS SENSITIVE AREAS 18 OPEN SPACE DESIGN 18 ROADWAY REDUCTION 18 SIDEWALK REDUCTION 18 DRIVEWAY REDUCTION 18 CUL-DE-SAC REDUCTION 18 BUILDING FOOTPRINT REDUCTION 18 PARKING REDUCTION 18 VEGETATED BUFFER/FILTER STRIPS 18 OPEN VEGETATED SWALES 18 BIORETENTION/RAIN GARDENS 18 INFILTRATION 19 ROOFTOP RUNOFF REDUCTION MITIGATION 19 STREAM DAYLIGHTING FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 19 TREE PLANTING 19 SOIL RESTORATION 19 CONTROLS 20 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS 20 STABILIZATION PRACTICES 21 STRUCTURAL PRACTICES 21 OTHER CONTROLS 21 WASTE DISPOSAL 21 SANITARY WASTE 21 OFF-SITE VEHICLE TRACKING 21 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE 22 CONTAMINATED SOILS 22 MAINTENANCE/INSPECTION PROCEDURES 23 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES 23 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT FORMS 23 OTHER RECORD-KEEPING REQUIREMENTS 24 POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE 24 SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURES (SPCC) PLAN 27 MATERIALS COVERED 27 GOOD HOUSEKEEPING 27 HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS 27 PRODUCT SPECIFIC PRACTICES 28 PETROLEUM PRODUCTS 28 FERTILIZERS 28 PAINTS, PAINT SOLVENTS, AND CLEANING SOLVENTS 28 SPILL PREVENTION PRACTICES 28 CONTROL OF ALLOWABLE NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES 29 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS 29 CERTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION 30 OPERATOR’S CERTIFICATION 30 ENGINEER’S CERTIFICATION ON COMPLIANCES WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS:30 SWPPP FORMS NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMETAL CONSERVATION NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) CONTRACTOR AND INSPECTION FORMS CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION LOG FORM 1 CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION FORM 2 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN INSPECTION REPORT FORM 3 MODIFICATION REPORT FORM 4 PROJECT RAINFALL LOG FORM 5 RECORD OF STABILIZATION AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FORM 6 FIGURES EXISTING WATERSHED MAP SHEET 1 OF 2 PROPOSED WATERSHED MAP SHEET 2 OF 2 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS LEGEND AND NOTES C100 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C101 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN C102 UTILITY DEMOLITION PLAN C103 UTILITY PLAN C104 DRAINAGE PLAN C105 UTILITY DETAILS C201 UTILITY DETAILS C202 UTILITY PROFILES C301 PLANTIING PLAN L5-01 PLANTING PLAN L5-01 CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.1.September 27, 2024 PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name and Description Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Game Farm Road Town of Ithaca Tompkins County, New York Operator’s Name and Address Cornell University c/o Elisabete Godden 102 Humphreys Service Building Ithaca, NY 14853 (607) 255-2478 egodden@cornell.edu PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purpose and Extent of Proposed Development The Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project is located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York (Tax Map Parcels 62.-2-4, 62.-2-5, & 62.-2-6,). The project includes the construction of a competition synthetic turf field along with several athletic support buildings such as a bathroom, press box, storage, and team clubhouse facility. Additional site amenities such as an enlarged parking area, vehicle drive, and concrete walks will also be included. The stormwater management objectives focus on controlling erosion and sedimentation during construction and treatment of runoff from the post-developed site. As a non-residential property disturbing greater than one acre of land, a full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required, including both erosion controls and permanent stormwater management practices under the regulations of the Town of Ithaca and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The project will be applying for coverage under the DEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-20-001). Stormwater management objectives for the site include: •Providing water quality treatment by means of two bioretention filters and an extended detention shallow wetland. •Providing stormwater detention to meet DEC’s standards for the 1-, 2-, 10-, 25- and 100-year storm events. •Controlling sediment and erosion during construction utilizing temporary practices. Project Disturbance Area Total Disturbed Area: 12.22 acres Existing Impervious Area: 7.49 acres Proposed Impervious Area: 10.96 acres Increase in Impervious Area: 3.47 acres Disturbance greater than five (5) acres of soil at any one time shall not be allowed without prior written authorization from the NYSDEC or the MS4 having jurisdiction. CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.2.September 27, 2024 Description and Limitations of On-Site Soils On-site soils consist mainly of Erie Channery Silt Loam (43.7%), Rhineback Silt Loam (20%) and Chenango Gravelly Loam (10.4%) based on the USDA Soil Surveys of Tompkins County. Based upon the classification of soils defined by the Natural Resource Conservation Service, all of these soils are classified as either Hydrologic Soil Group “A or D.” (See Volume II) In support of the previous McGovern Soccer Fields project, a geotechnical investigation to determine the soil types and properties of the in-situ soils was conducted in 2003 by Empire Geo-Services, Inc. A total of 16 test borings were drilled on the site between February and June of 2003. The results of the investigation are presented in the attached report by Empire Geo-Services, Inc. dated June 30, 2003. The investigation found the surficial soils on this site include topsoil with thicknesses ranging from 0.5 to 1 foot. The topsoil overlays moist to wet, soft to stiff or firm, silt with clay and trace amounts of sand with a thickness ranging from 0.5 and 13 feet. Below the silt, the soil is characterized as stiff to hard glacial till (silts, gravels, and sands). Borings were generally terminated at a depth of 20 feet and bedrock was not encountered at any of the test locations. Groundwater was also not encountered. (See Volume II) Historic Places Multiple cultural resource studies have been conducted the Public Archaeology Facility (PAF) on, and beyond, the limits of disturbance for the project. The studies have concluded that the project will not impact significant cultural or archaeological resources. Concurrence from NYS SHPO will be obtained prior to submission of the Notice of Intent. Wetlands There are neither federal nor state wetlands located within the footprint of project disturbance. The National Wetlands Inventory does indicate that the adjacent Cascadilla Creek area is a Forested/Shrub Wetland, however the limits of the project are well removed from that area. (See Volume II) Name of Receiving Waters All of the watersheds being impacted by the project drain to Cascadilla Creek and ultimately the Southern end of Cayuga Lake. Floodplains Based on a review of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Town of Ithaca, NY (dated June 19, 1985), the project property is located in flood zone “C” for Cascadilla Creek. The FEMA definition of flood zone “C” is areas that are of minimal flood hazard, and higher than the elevation of the 0.2- percent-annual-chance flood. SEQUENCE OF MAJOR ACTIVITIES Major activities for each phase of this site include but are not limited to: •Installing and maintaining temporary control measures as shown on plans. •Completing site clearing, grubbing, and demolition. •Performing building, pavement and site grading earthwork operations. •Installing utilities to the buildings, including an onsite wastewater treatment system. •Installing stormwater collection and conveyance system. CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.3.September 27, 2024 •Installing extended detention stormwater wetland. •Installing asphalt pavements and artificial turf field. •Restoring all disturbed soils in proposed lawn areas, seed and mulch. •Installing bioretention filter practices and additional silt log. o Prior to beginning the installation of the bioretention filter practices, ensure that all proposed work in the contributing drainage area has been completed and that all disturbed lawn areas in the contributing drainage area are stabilized by achieving 80% vegetative coverage. o Install temporary plug in the low flow pipe of the upstream diversion structure to prevent runoff from entering bioretention filter practice. o Rough grade bioretention filter basin and forebay. o Install stone, underdrain, outlet control structure, drainage fabric, bioretention soil mixture, mulch, and specified permanent plantings. o Install silt log around the perimeter of the bioretention filter practice. o Ensure all areas in the contributing drainage that were disturbed during the installation process are immediately stabilized with seed and mulch. •Removing temporary practices, including the plugs used in the bioretention filters diversion structures. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to make any changes to the SWPPP necessary when the Contractor or any of the subcontractors elect to use borrow or fill or material storage sites, either contiguous to or remote from the construction site, when such sites are used solely for this construction site. Such sites are considered to be part of the construction site covered by the permit and this SWPPP. Off-site borrow, fill, or material storage sites which are used for multiple construction projects are not subject to this requirement, unless specifically required by state or local jurisdictional entity regulations. The Contractor should consider this requirement in negotiating with earthwork subcontractors, since the choice of an off-site borrow, fill, or material storage site may impact their duty to implement, make changes to, and perform inspections required by the SWPPP for the site. POST-CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Existing Conditions The project site is best characterized as a combination of natural turf athletic fields and fallowed agricultural fields. Construction activities will disturb approximately 12.22 acres of land. Within the boundary of all watersheds, the existing site cover is predominantly pervious with 29.21 acres (79%) of mown lawn or meadow. The remainder of the site watershed consists of impervious surfaces such as the McGovern Soccer building, gravel driveway and parking, and natural turf fields with underdrains. A SWPPP dated May 28, 2003, was prepared by The LA Group, P.C. and accepted by the Town in support of the original McGovern Fields project. That project was responsible for the construction of the four existing athletic fields and the existing building. Two stormwater management ponds were also constructed at the north end of the athletic fields in order to provide both water quality treatment and quantity attenuation. Per the 2003 SWPPP, these were designated pond #2 and pond #3. There are six watersheds in the vicinity of the project site that will be impacted by the proposed improvements. Watersheds #1 through #4 drain in a northerly direction to an existing stormwater wet pond, which discharges runoff to the point of analysis at Cascadilla Creek. Watershed #4 contains one of the two existing natural turf soccer fields as well as the existing McGovern Soccer building. While CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.4.September 27, 2024 both soccer fields are natural turf, they are considered impervious cover for hydrologic modeling purposes due to the use of extensive underdrains over soils with poor infiltration. Watershed #5 contains the other soccer field and drains to a second existing stormwater wet pond. Runoff from this pond is conveyed to the point of analysis at Cascadilla Creek. Watershed #6 is located north of the athletic fields and the existing stormwater ponds, runoff from which drains directly to Cascadilla Creek (See Sheet 1 of 2 – Existing Watershed Map) TABLE 1. HYDROLOGIC DATA FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS Watershed Drainage Area (Acres) Curve Number Time of Concentration (min) 1 2.70 74 18.3 2 2.05 74 11.6 3 5.10 93 6.5 4 17.89 69 23.4 5 7.36 84 6 6 1.58 74 6 Future Conditions Development of the site will include the construction of several small athletic support buildings, an artificial turf field hockey field, a clubhouse facility, expanded asphalt parking facilities, concrete sidewalks, vehicle access drive, utilities, and stormwater management practices. The project will disturb approximately12.22 acres and the footprint of new impervious surfaces will increase by approximately 3.47 acres. The stormwater strategy will utilize two bioretention filters and an extended detention shallow wetland (EDSW) to provide treatment of the water quality volume (WQv). The filter practices will provide the entire runoff reduction volume (RRv) and a portion of the WQv. However, due to site topography the filters do not physically capture all of the runoff from the new impervious cover. The remaining required WQv will be provided by the EDSW, which will also serve to provide detention storage for the 1-, 10- and 100-year storm events. All runoff from the EDSW will be discharged through an outlet control structure and will be directed to Cascadilla Creek. Both existing stormwater management ponds will be removed, and their inherent treatment and detention capacity replicated in the EDSW. The entire WQv for Watersheds #1, #2, and #4B will be provided in the EDSW. No impervious cover will be constructed in these Watersheds and therefore RRv will not be provided. Water quality treatment for Watershed #3, which contains the western soccer field and McGovern Soccer Building, is presently provided by the existing stormwater wet pond #2. This pond will be replaced by the EDSW and the inherent WQv it provides will be replicated within the EDSW. No construction will occur in Watershed #3 and therefore no RRv will be provided. Watershed #4A includes the proposed access drive and expanded parking facilities. The required RRv and a portion of the WQv will be provided by a bioretention filter and the remaining WQv contained in the EDSW. Water quality treatment for the eastern practice field is presently provided by the existing stormwater wet pond #3. This pond will also be replaced, and the inherent water quality treatment function will be replicated in the EDSW. The eastern practice field, which is the location of proposed Field Hockey CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.5.September 27, 2024 field and athletic support buildings, lies within Watershed #5. The resulting required RRv for Watershed #5, excluding the area of the natural turf soccer field that will not be disturbed, will be satisfied with a bioretention filter constructed at the north end of the fields. This filter will provide a portion of WQv for Watershed #5 and the remainder will be contained within the EDSW. Detention storage for the 1-, 10- and 100-year storm events for all of the impacted watersheds will be provided in the EDSW. (See Sheet 2 of 2 – Proposed Watershed Map) TABLE 2. HYDROLOGIC DATA FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS Watershed Drainage Area (Acres) Curve Number Time of Concentration (min) 1 3.28 74 18.3 2 2.05 74 11.6 3 5.10 94 17.5 4A 3.53 87 6 4B 14.71 67 23.3 5 7.68 90 6 6 0.91 74 6 Water Quality Controls The water quality strategy is designed to improve water quality by capturing and treating 90% of the average annual stormwater runoff volume. The required water quality volume is calculated from the following equation: WQv = P*(0.05+0.009*I)*A / 12 Where: P = 90% rainfall event (inches) = 1.00 inches (Ithaca, NY) Rv = (0.05+0.009*I) (minimum allowed value = 0.20) I = Imperviousness (%) A = Drainage Area (s.f.) Table 3. Required WQv by Watershed Summary Watersheds 1,2,3,4B 6,765 CF Watershed 4A 6,360 CF Watershed 5 8,895 CF Existing Stormwater Pond #2 4,615 CF Existing Stormwater Pond #3 1,755 CF Total Required WQv = 0.65 acre feet = 28,390 cubic feet Table 4. Provided WQv by Practice Summary Bioretention Filter #1 2,131 CF Bioretention Filter #2 5,587 CF Extended Detention Shallow Wetland 67,585 CF CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.6.September 27, 2024 Provided WQV: = 1.73 acre feet = 75,303 cubic feet > Required WQv, OK Runoff Reduction Volume To replicate pre-development hydrology, runoff reduction can be achieved through infiltration, groundwater recharge, recycling, or evaporation/evapotranspiration of 100 percent of the post- development water quality volume. This can be achieved by maintaining pre-construction infiltration, peak runoff flows, discharge volumes, and minimizing concentrated flows through the use of runoff control techniques that will provide treatment in a distributed manner before runoff reaches the collection system. The reduction in runoff volume can be accomplished by application of on-site green infrastructure techniques and standard stormwater management practices with runoff reduction capacity. Specific to this project, low hydrologic soil ratings and extremely low soil permeability preclude the installation of most green infrastructure practices. As a result of these physical limitations, 100% runoff reduction of the water quality volume cannot be achieved. Projects that cannot achieve runoff reductions to pre-construction conditions must, at a minimum, reduce a percentage of the runoff from impervious areas to be constructed on the site. The percent reduction is based on the Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSG) of the site. The minimum runoff reduction volume required is calculated using the following equation: Min RRv = [(P) (Rv*) (Ai)] / 12 Where: P = 90% rainfall event (inches) = 1.00 inches (Ithaca, NY) Rv* = 0.05+0.009(I) Where I is 100% impervious Ai = (S)(Aic) (Aic) = Total area of impervious cover (acres) S = HSG Specific Reduction Factor = 0.30 for HSG “C” Soils = 0.20 for HSG “D” Soils Table 5. Required Min RRv by Watershed Summary Watershed 4A (HSG D)1,210 CF Watershed 5 (HSG C)2,510 CF Total 3,720 CF Total Required Min RRv = 0.08 acre feet = 3,720 cubic feet Table 6. Provided RRv by Practice Summary Bioretention Filter #1 1,716 CF Bioretention Filter #2 3,098 CF Total 4,814 CF *Bioretention filters use underdrains. Total Provided RRv = 0.09 acre feet = 4,814 cubic feet > Required Min RRv, OK CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.7.September 27, 2024 See worksheets attached in Volume II. Channel Protection Channel Protection volume (CPv) is defined as the 24-hour extended detention of the post‐development 1‐year, 24‐hour storm event. As discussed in the Stormwater Desing Manual (SDM), the CPv requirement does not apply where a reduction in the total CPv volume is achieved through Runoff Reduction practices. While this project proposes Runoff Reduction practices as noted above, a total reduction of the CPv is not feasible. The calculations provided in Volume II illustrate that the total required CPv for the project is 1.10 ac‐ft. The total WQv provided in the EDSW is 1.55 ac-ft at the 1- year water surface elevation of 955.31ft. This volume is temporarily detained within the proposed EDSW. With the provided average head on the low flow outlet, a 3.93 inch diameter orifice would be required to discharge the required CPv over 24 hours. Water Quantity Controls The water quantity practice is designed to reduce peak discharges for the 1, 10, and 100-year storms to below pre-developed rates at the point of analysis. The EDSW will provide sufficient storage to attenuate post-developed peak flows. Table 7 summarizes resulting peak discharge rates from the project site. TABLE 7. HYDROLOGIC MODELING RESULTS Runoff Volume (acre-feet)Peak Rate of Runoff (cfs) 1-yr 2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr 1-yr 2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr Pre-Developed P.O.A.1.35 1.87 3.87 5.62 9.49 15.1 20.38 39.25 55.75 105.83 Post-Developed: Controlled (increase over pre-developed) 0.75 1.3 3.41 5.19 9.09 2.08 7.55 30.68 48.19 75.09P.O.A.(-0.600)(-0.570)(-0.460)(-0.430)(-0.400)(-13.02)(-12.83)(-8.57)(-7.56)(-30.74) Practice Sizing Bioretention Filter Two filters will capture and treat runoff from Watersheds #4A and #5. The filters are sized using Darcy’s Law as presented in the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, using the following equation: Af = WQv (df)/[(k)(T)(df+hf)] Where: Af = Filter Area (sf) df = Filter Depth (feet) = 2.5 feet hf = Average Head Above Filter (feet) = 0.25 feet Tf = Filtering Time (days) = 2 days k = Soil Permeability (ft/day) = 0.5ft/day WQv = Water Quality Volume (cf) = P*(0.05+0.009*I)*A / 12 CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.8.September 27, 2024 Table 8. Bioretention Filter Area Sizing Required Filter Area Provided Filter Area Bioretention Filter #1 1,937 SF 4,000 SF Bioretention Filter #2 5,079 SF 7,040 SF Extended Detention Shallow Wetland The EDSW practice will be located along the north side of the athletic fields and will consist of a series of low marsh and high marsh areas. These marsh areas will be planted with native plantings that follow the recommendations outlined in the SDM. A forebay with a volume equivalent to 10% of the WQv will provide pretreatment and a permanent pool equivalent to 50% of the WQv. Half of the WQv will be located in a deepwater zone of greater than 4 feet. The practice is designed to attenuate stormwater discharges from the post-development site. The outlet control structure (OCS) is located on the northern edge of the wetland and will consist of a 6-foot round concrete manhole. Within the OCS, a 3.9-inch orifice for channel protection will be installed. At a higher vertical elevation in the OCS, five additional orifices that each measure 12-inch high by 28-inch-wide, will be installed at the same vertical elevation in order to mitigate larger storm events. At the top of the OCS, a 36-inch cast iron grate will be installed to provide additional mitigation. A 36-inch culvert will serve as the discharge route from OCS and through the EDSW’s embankment and direct flow to the existing overland channel which leads into Cascadilla Creek. The EDSW practice was sized using HydroCAD routing calculations presented in Volume II. These calculations indicate that the EDSW practice is appropriately sized to maintain a freeboard of 1-foot during the 100-year storm event. Stormwater Signage The owner of post-construction stormwater management practices shall erect or post, in the immediate vicinity of the stormwater management practice, a conspicuous and legible sign of not less than 18 inches by 24 inches (or 10 inches by 12 inches for footprints smaller than 400 square feet) bearing the following information: Stormwater Management Practice – (name of the practice) Project Identification – (SPDES Construction Permit #) Must be maintained in accordance with O&M Plan DO NOT REMOVE OR ALTER Better Site Design In accordance with the stormwater regulations set forth by the Town of Ithaca, projects disturbing more than one acre must apply at least 2 better site design techniques. These practices incorporate non- structural and natural approaches to new and redevelopment projects to reduce effects on watersheds by conserving natural areas, reducing impervious cover and better integrating stormwater treatment. Several techniques described below have been incorporated into the project in order to satisfy runoff reduction requirements and are concurrent with the Town of Ithaca requirements: Bioretention/Rain Gardens Stormwater treatment is being provided by means of bioretention filters. Tree Planting The planting of several new trees will be incorporated into the landscaping. CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.9.September 27, 2024 Soil Restoration Soil restoration is a required practice applied across areas of a development site where soils have been disturbed and will be vegetated in order to recover the original properties and porosity of the soil. Soil restoration is applied in the cleanup, restoration, and landscaping phase of construction followed by the permanent establishment of an appropriate, deep-rooted groundcover to help maintain the restored soil structure. The required measures of soil restoration are outlined in Table 9. TABLE 9. SOIL RESTORATION REQUIREMENTS Type of Soil Disturbance Soil Restoration Requirement Comments/Examples No soil disturbance Restoration not required Preservation of Natural Features Minimal soil disturbance Restoration not required Clearing and grubbing HSG A & B HSG C & DAreas where topsoil is stripped only – no change in grade Apply 6 inches of topsoil Aerate1 and apply 6 inches of topsoil Protect area from any ongoing construction activities HSG A & B HSG C & D Areas of cut or fill Aerate1 and apply 6 inches of topsoil Apply full Soil Restoration2 Heavy traffic areas on site (especially in a zone 5-25 feet around buildings but not within a 5 foot perimeter around foundations walls) Apply full Soil Restoration2 (de- compaction and compost enhancement) Areas where Runoff Reduction and/or infiltration practices are applied Restoration not required, but may be applied to enhance the reduction specified for appropriate practices. Keep construction equipment from crossing these areas. To protect newly installed practice from any ongoing construction activities construct a single phase operation fence area 1: Aeration includes the use of machines such as tractor-drawn implements with coulters making a narrow slit in the soil, a roller with many spikes making indentations in the soil, or prongs which function like a mini-subsoiler. 2: Per “Deep Ripping and De-Compaction, DEC 2008.” The underlying soils on the project site classify as a combination of Hydrologic Soil Groups “A, C, & D” requiring full soil restoration. The required measures of full soil restoration, per the NYSDEC’s 2008 publication of “Deep Ripping and De-Compaction” are as follows: During periods of relatively low to moderate subsoil moisture, the disturbed subsoils are returned to rough grade and the following Soil Restoration steps applied: 1. Apply 3 inches of compost over subsoil. 2. Till compost into subsoil to a depth of at least 12 inches using a cat-mounted ripper, tractor- mounted disc, or tiller, mixing, and circulating air and compost into subsoils. 3. Rock-pick until uplifted stone/rock materials of four inches and larger size are cleaned off the site. CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.10.September 27, 2024 4. Apply topsoil to the depth specified on the landscaping plan. 5. Vegetate per the approved landscaping plan. CONTROLS Erosion and Sediment Controls A layout of applicable erosion and sediment controls measures, together with typical installation details, are depicted on sheet “C102-Erosion and Sediment Control Plan” drawing. Stabilization Practices The applicable erosion and sediment control measures shall be constructed prior to clearing or grading of any portion of the project, where applicable. In areas where soil disturbance activity has temporarily or permanently ceased, the application of soil stabilization measures must be initiated by the end of the next business day and completed within 14 days from the date the current soil disturbance activity ceased. Temporarily ceased means that an existing disturbed area will not be disturbed again within 14 calendar days of the previous soil disturbance. In order to be authorized to disturb greater than five (5) acres of soil at any one time, the application of soil stabilization measures must be initiated by the end of the next business day and completed within seven (7) days from the date the current temporarily or permanently soil disturbance activity ceased. If the Qualified Professional determines that permanent seed cannot be applied due to climate conditions, topsoil shall not be spread and temporary mulching shall be applied to the exposed surface to stabilize soils until the next recommended seeding period. Winter Stabilization If ongoing land disturbance is performed between November 15th and the following April 1st, the project will require temporary site specific, enhanced erosion and sediment controls to manage runoff and sediment at the site to protect off-site water resources. The enhanced erosion and sediment controls are as follows: 1. Prepare a snow management plan with adequate storage for snow and control of melt water, requiring cleared snow to be stored in a manner not affecting ongoing construction activities. 2. Enlarge and stabilize access points to provide for snow management and stockpiling. Snow management activities must not destroy or degrade installed erosion and sediment control practices. 3. A minimum 25-foot buffer shall be maintained from all perimeter controls such as silt fence. Mark silt fence with tall stakes that are visible above the snow pack. 4. Edges of disturbed areas that drain to a waterbody within 100 feet will have 2 rows of silt fence, 5 feet apart, installed on the contour. 5. Drainage structures must be kept open and free of snow and ice dams. All debris, ice dams, or debris from plowing operations, that restrict the flow of runoff and meltwater, shall be removed. 6. Sediment barriers must be installed at all appropriate perimeter and sensitive locations. Silt fence and other practices requiring earth disturbance must be installed before the ground freezes. 7. Soil stockpiles must be protected by the use of established vegetation, anchored straw mulch, rolled stabilization matting, or other durable covering. a barrier must be installed at least 15 feet from the toe of the stockpile to prevent soil migration and to capture loose soil. 8. In areas where soil disturbance activity has temporarily or permanently ceased, the application of soil stabilization measures should be initiated by the end of the next business CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.11.September 27, 2024 day and completed within three (3) days. Rolled erosion control blankets must be used on all slopes 3 horizontal to 1 vertical or steeper. 9. If straw mulch alone is used for temporary stabilization, it shall be applied at double the standard rate of 2 tons per acre, making the application rate 4 tons per acre. Other manufactured mulches should be applied at double the manufacturer's recommended rate. 10. To ensure adequate stabilization of disturbed soil in advance of a melt event, areas of disturbed soil should be stabilized at the end of each workday unless: a. Work will resume within 24 hours in the same area and no precipitation is forecast or; b. The work is in disturbed areas that collect and retain runoff, such as open utility trenches, foundation excavations, or water management areas. 11. Use stone paths to stabilize access perimeters of buildings under construction and areas where construction vehicle traffic is anticipated. Stone paths should be a minimum 10 feet in width but wider as necessary to accommodate equipment. 12. The site shall be inspected frequently to ensure that the erosion and sediment control plan is performing its winter stabilization function. If the site will not have earth disturbing activities ongoing during the “winter season”, all bare exposed soil must be stabilized by established vegetation, straw or other acceptable mulch, matting, rock, or other approved material such as rolled erosion control products. Seeding of areas with mulch cover is preferred but seeding alone is not acceptable for proper stabilization. 13. Compliance inspections must be performed and reports filed properly in accordance with the SWPPP for all sites under a winter shutdown. Structural Practices Structural erosion and sediment control practices have been classified as either temporary or permanent, according to how they are used. Temporary structural practices are used during construction to prevent offsite sedimentation. Permanent structural practices are used to convey surface water runoff to a safe outlet. Permanent structural practices will remain in place and continue to function after the completion of construction. Regardless of whether the practices are temporary or permanent, runoff control measures should be the first items constructed when grading begins and be completely functional before land disturbance takes place. Temporary structural practices used in this project include the following: •Silt Fence •Truck Tracking Pads •Inlet Protection •Rock Check Dams •Sediment Traps Other Controls Waste Disposal All waste materials will be collected and stored in securely lidded metal dumpsters rented from a local waste management company which must be a solid waste management company licensed to do business in Tompkins County. The dumpsters will comply with all local and state solid waste management regulations. All trash and construction debris from the site will be deposited in the dumpsters. The dumpsters will be emptied a minimum of twice per week or more often if necessary, and the trash will be hauled to a landfill approved by New York State. No construction waste materials will be buried on site. All personnel will be instructed regarding the correct procedures for waste disposal. Notices stating these practices will be posted in the job site construction office trailer, and the job site superintendent will be responsible for seeing that these procedures are followed. CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.12.September 27, 2024 Sanitary Waste All sanitary waste will be collected from portable units a minimum of two times per week by a licensed portable facility provider in complete compliance with local and state regulations. Off-Site Vehicle Tracking Stabilized construction exits (Tracking Pads) will be provided to help reduce vehicle tracking of sediments. The paved streets adjacent to the site entrances will be inspected daily and cleaned with vacuum equipment or swept as necessary to remove any excess mud, dirt, or rock tracked from the sites. Dump trucks hauling material from the construction sites will be covered with a tarpaulin. The job site superintendent will be responsible for seeing that these procedures are followed. Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Waste All hazardous waste materials will be disposed of by the Contractor in the manner specified by local, state, and/or federal regulations and by the manufacturer of such products. Site personnel will be instructed in these practices by the job site superintendent, who will also be responsible for seeing that these practices are followed. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS's) for each substance with hazardous properties that is used on the job site will be obtained and used for the proper management of potential wastes that may result from these products. An MSDS will be posted in the immediate area where such product is stored and/or used and another copy of each MSDS will be maintained in the SWPPP file at the job site construction trailer office. Each employee who must handle a substance with hazardous properties will be instructed on the use of MSDS sheets and the specific information in the applicable MSDS for the product he/she is using, particularly regarding spill control techniques. Any spills of hazardous materials which are in quantities in excess of Reportable Quantities as defined by EPA regulations shall be immediately reported to the EPA National Response Center 1-800-424- 8802. In order to minimize the potential for a spill of hazardous materials to come into contact with stormwater, the following steps will be implemented: •All materials with hazardous properties (such as pesticides, petroleum products, fertilizers, detergents, construction chemicals, acids, paints, paint solvents, cleaning solvents, additives for soil stabilization, concrete curing compounds and additives, etc.) will be stored in a secure location, under cover, when not in use. •The minimum practical quantity of all such materials will be kept on the job site. •A spill control and containment kit (containing, for example, absorbent such as kitty litter or sawdust, acid neutralizing powder, brooms, dust pans, mops, rags, gloves, goggles, plastic and metal trash containers, etc.) will be provided at the storage site. •All of the products in a container will be used before the container is disposed of. All such containers will be triple-rinsed with water prior to disposal. The rinse water used in these containers will be disposed of in a manner in compliance with state and federal regulations and will not be allowed to mix with stormwater discharges. •All products will be stored in and used from the original container with the original product label. •All products will be used in strict compliance with instructions on the product label. •The disposal of excess or used products will be in strict compliance with instructions on the product label. Contaminated Soils Any contaminated soils (resulting from spills of materials with hazardous properties) which may result from construction activities will be contained and cleaned up immediately in accordance with the CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.13.September 27, 2024 procedures given in the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan and in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. The job site superintendent will be responsible for seeing that these procedures are followed. MAINTENANCE/INSPECTION PROCEDURES Erosion and Sediment Control Inspection and Maintenance Practices The following inspection and maintenance practices will be used to maintain erosion and sediment controls and stabilization measures. •For construction sites where soil disturbance activities are on-going, the Operator’s trained contractor shall inspect the erosion and sediment control practices and pollution prevention measures daily to ensure they are being maintained in effective operating condition at all times. The trained contractor shall begin implementing corrective actions within one business day. •For construction sites where soil disturbance activities are on-going, the Operator’s Qualified Professional shall conduct a site inspection at least once every 7 calendar days. •For projects authorized to disturb greater than 5 acres of soil at any one time, The owner or operator shall have a qualified inspector conduct at least two (2) site inspections every seven (7) calendar days, for as long as greater than five (5) acres of soil remain disturbed. The two (2) inspections shall be separated by a minimum of two (2) full calendar days. Further, the owner or operator shall prepare a phasing plan that defines maximum disturbed area per phase and shows required cuts and fills, and shall install any additional site-specific practices needed to protect water quality. •All measures will be maintained in good working order; if repairs are found to be necessary, they will be initiated within 24 hours of report. •Silt fence will be inspected for proper toe-in depth, depth of sediment, tears, etc., to see if the fabric is securely attached to the fence posts, and to see that the fence posts are securely in the ground. Built up sediment will be removed from silt fence when it has reached one-third the height of the fence. •Inlet protection measures will be inspected for accumulation of sediments and debris. Sediment and debris shall be removed without damaging the inlet protection fabric. •Tracking pads shall be maintained in a condition that will prevent tracking of sediment onto public rights-of-way or streets. This will require periodic top dressing with additional aggregate in most cases, and complete replacement of aggregate in extreme cases. •Temporary sediment traps will be inspected for depth of sediment, and built up sediment will be removed before it reaches 50 percent of the height of the riser. •Temporary and permanent seeding and all other stabilization measures will be inspected for bare spots, washouts, and healthy growth. •The job site superintendent will be responsible for selecting and training the individuals who will be responsible for these maintenance and repair activities. •Personnel selected for the maintenance responsibilities will receive training from the job site superintendent. They will be trained in all the maintenance practices necessary for keeping the erosion and sediment controls that are used onsite in good working order. They will also be trained in the completion of, initiation of actions required by, and the filing of the inspection forms. Documentation of this personnel training will be kept on site with the SWPPP. •Disturbed areas and materials storage areas will be inspected for evidence of or potential for pollutants entering stormwater systems. •Report to NYSDEC within 24 hours any noncompliance with the SWPPP that will endanger public health or the environment. Follow up with a written report within 5 days of the noncompliance event CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.14.September 27, 2024 Inspection and Maintenance Report Forms Once installation of any required or optional erosion control device or measure has been implemented, weekly, inspections of each measure shall be performed by the Operator’s Qualified Professional. The Inspection and Maintenance Reports found in this SWPPP shall be used by the inspector to inventory and report the condition of each measure to assist in maintaining the erosion and sediment control measures in good working order. These report forms shall become an integral part of the SWPPP and shall be made readily accessible to governmental inspection officials, the Operator’s Engineer, and the Operator for review upon request during visits to the project site. In addition, copies of the reports shall be provided to any of these persons, upon request, via mail or facsimile transmission. Inspection and maintenance report forms are to be maintained by the Operator for five years following the final stabilization of the site. Other Record-Keeping Requirements The Contractor shall keep the following records related to construction activities at the site: •Dates when major grading activities occur and the areas which were graded •Dates and details concerning the installation of structural controls •Dates when construction activities cease in an area •Dates when an area is stabilized, either temporarily or permanently •Dates of rainfall and the amount of rainfall •Dates and descriptions of the character and amount of any spills of hazardous materials •Records of reports filed with regulatory agencies if reportable quantities of hazardous materials spilled Post-Construction Maintenance Permanent stormwater management practices will be owned and maintained by Cornell University. Maintenance requirements are indicated in Table 6. Additionally, corresponding inspections and maintenance will be incorporated into the Town of Ithaca's Stormwater Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement (SOMRA). TABLE 6. ONGOING MAINTENANCE Maintenance Item Schedule Inspections Inspection Annually Bioretention Filter Unclog outlet Bioretention does not drain/outlet is clogged Replace mulch/ add mulch Mulch layer is degraded Remove accumulated sediment Sediment visible on surface or filter clogging Remove sediment from inlet channel Sediment depth >3 inches Till filter surface to restore permeability Filter drains slowly and surface is compacted Replace entire filter Filter does not drain, and other measures to restore are unsuccessful Replace vegetation Dead or decaying vegetation in filter CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.15.September 27, 2024 TABLE 6. ONGOING MAINTENANCE Maintenance Item Schedule Repairs to embankment Based on inspection Stormwater Wetland Unclog outlet pipes Wetland does not drain, and outlet is clogged Debris/Trash Removal Trash accumulation Remove sediment from forebay Forebay ½ full Dredging Practice ¼ full Remove accumulated sediment at inlets/outlets Every 5 years Mowing Semi-annually Tree removal from embankment Woody vegetation established. Cattail management Annually, as needed. Algae Treatment Annually, as needed. Remove animal burrows from embankment.Burrows observed Mosquito treatment Mosquito complaints, larvae noted in wetland Repair areas of erosion Replace rip rap channels Repair low spots on the embankment Repair or replace manhole grates Replace cracked low flow orifice Repair cracks in concrete Replace riser structure As needed, based on inspection. 1: Maintenance Frequencies derived from the “New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual created by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2: Frequency may vary, and the need for maintenance will be determined by annual inspections. SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURES (SPCC) PLAN Materials Covered The following materials or substances with known hazardous properties are expected to be present onsite during construction: Concrete Cleaning solvents Detergents Petroleum based products Paints Pesticides Paint solvents Acids Fertilizers Concrete additives Soil stabilization additives CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.16.September 27, 2024 The following are the material management practices that will be used to reduce the risk of spills or other accidental exposure of materials and substances to stormwater runoff. Good Housekeeping The following good housekeeping practices will be followed onsite during the construction project: •An effort will be made to store only enough product required to do the job. •All materials stored onsite will be stored in a neat, orderly manner and, if possible, under a roof or other enclosure. •Products will be kept in their original containers with the original manufacturer's label in legible condition. •Substances will not be mixed with one another unless recommended by the manufacturer. •Whenever possible, all of a product will be used up before disposing of the container. •Manufacturer's recommendations for proper use and disposal will be followed. •The job site superintendent will be responsible for daily inspections to ensure proper use and disposal of materials. Hazardous Products These practices will be used to reduce the risks associated with hazardous materials. •Products will be kept in original containers with the original labels in legible condition. •Original labels and material safety data sheets (MSDS's) will be procured and used for each material. •If surplus product must be disposed of, manufacturers or local/state/federal recommended methods for proper disposal will be followed. •A spill control and containment kit (containing, for example, absorbent such as kitty litter or sawdust, acid neutralizing powder, brooms, dust pans, mops, rags, gloves, goggles, plastic and metal trash containers, etc.) will be provided at the storage site. •All of the product in a container will be used before the container is disposed of. All such containers will be triple-rinsed with water prior to disposal. The rinse water used in these containers will be disposed of in a manner in compliance with state and federal regulations and will not be allowed to mix with stormwater discharges. Product Specific Practices The following product specific practices will be followed on the job site: Petroleum Products All onsite vehicles will be monitored for leaks and receive regular preventative maintenance to reduce the chance of leakage. Petroleum products will be stored in tightly sealed containers which are clearly labeled. Any petroleum storage tanks used onsite will have a dike or berm containment structure constructed around it to contain any spills which may occur. Any asphalt substances used onsite will be applied according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Fertilizers Fertilizers will be applied only in the minimum amounts recommended by the manufacturer. Once applied, fertilizer will be worked in the soil to limit exposure to stormwater. Storage will be in a covered shed. The contents of any partially used bags of fertilizer will be transferred to a sealable plastic bin to avoid spills. CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.17.September 27, 2024 Paints, Paint Solvents, and Cleaning Solvents All containers will be tightly sealed and stored when not in use. Excess paint and solvents will not be discharged to the storm sewer system but will be properly disposed of according to manufacturer's instructions or state and federal regulations. Spill Prevention Practices In addition to the good housekeeping and material management practices discussed in the previous sections of this plan, the following practices will be followed for spill prevention and cleanup. •Manufacturer's recommended methods for spill cleanup will be clearly posted and site personnel will be trained regarding these procedures and the location of the information and cleanup supplies. •Materials and equipment necessary for spill cleanup will be kept in the material storage area onsite in spill control and containment kit (containing, for example, absorbent such as kitty litter or sawdust, acid neutralizing powder, brooms, dust pans, mops, rags, gloves, goggles, plastic and metal trash containers, etc.). •All spills will be cleaned up immediately after discovery. •The spill area will be kept well ventilated and personnel will wear appropriate protective clothing to prevent injury from contact with the hazardous substances. •Spills of toxic or hazardous materials will be reported to the appropriate federal, state, and/or local government agency, regardless of the size of the spill. Spills of amounts that exceed Reportable Quantities of certain substances specifically mentioned in federal regulations (40 CFR 302 list and oil) will be immediately reported to the EPA National Response Center, telephone 1-800-424-8802. Reportable Quantities of some substances which may be used at the job site are as follows: Oil - appearance of a film or sheen on water Pesticides - usually 1 lb. Acids - 5000 lb. Solvents, flammable - 100 lb. •The SPCC plan will be adjusted to include measures to prevent this type of spill from recurring and how to clean up the spill if there is another one. A description of the spill, what caused it, and the cleanup measures will also be included. If the spill exceeds a Reportable Quantity, all federal regulations regarding reports of the incident will be complied with. •The job site superintendent will be the spill prevention and cleanup coordinator. He will designate the individuals who will receive spill prevention and cleanup training. These individuals will each become responsible for a particular phase of prevention and cleanup. The names of these personnel will be posted in the material storage area and in the office trailer onsite. CONTROL OF ALLOWABLE NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES Certain types of discharges are allowable under the NYSDEC General Permit for Construction Activity, and it is the intent of this SWPPP to allow such discharges. These types of discharges will be allowed under the conditions that no pollutants will be allowed to come in contact with the water prior to or after its discharge. The control measures which have been outlined previously in this SWPPP will be strictly followed to ensure that no contamination of these non-stormwater discharges takes place. The following allowable non-stormwater discharges which may occur from the job site include: •Discharges from firefighting activities. •Fire hydrant flushings. CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.18.September 27, 2024 •Waters used to wash vehicles or control dust in order to minimize offsite sediment tracking. •Routine external building wash down which does not use detergents. •Pavement wash waters where spills or leaks of hazardous materials have not occurred or detergents have not been used. •Air conditioning condensate. •Springs and other uncontaminated groundwater, including dewatering ground water infiltration. •Foundation or footing drains where no contamination with process materials such as solvents is present. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS The Contractor will obtain copies of any and all local and state regulations which are applicable to stormwater management, erosion control, and pollution minimization at this job site and will comply fully with such regulations. The Contractor will submit written evidence of such compliance if requested by the Operator or any agent of a regulatory body. The Contractor will comply with all conditions of the NYSDEC General Permit for Construction Activities, including the conditions related to maintaining the SWPPP and evidence of compliance with the SWPPP at the job site and allowing regulatory personnel access to the job site and to records in order to determine compliance. CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field DRAFT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T.G. Miller, P.C.19.September 27, 2024 CERTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION The NYSDEC requires that certifications of knowledge of the contents of this SWPPP and agreement to follow the SWPPP be made by the Operator, Engineer, and the Contractor. The terms of the General Permit also require that each Contractor sign the SWPPP plan, thereby making them co-permittees and acknowledging their responsibility for certain operational aspects of the plan. These certifications should be signed before the contractor begins activities and should be filed with the site's SWPPP at the job site. The Contractor certification is attached to this document. Operator’s Certification “I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am aware that false statements made herein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to Section 210.45 of the Penal Law.” Name: Elisabete Godden, Cornell University Title: Project Manager Signature: _______________________________ Date: ___________________________________ Engineer’s Certification on Compliances with Federal, State and Local Regulations: This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan reflects the NYSDEC requirements for stormwater management and erosion and sediment control. Name: David A. Herrick, P.E. Title: President/Design Engineer Acting as Professional Engineer for: T.G. Miller, P.C. Signature: _______________________________ Date: _________________________________ 5/4/2023 9:55:01 AMPlot Date: 9/27/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\G0-00_COVER SHEET.dwgSaved By: arenaudGAME FARM ROAD FIELD HOCKEY FIELDCORNELL UNIVERSITYGame Farm RoadIthaca, NY 1485011835ISSUE FOR PERMITIssue Date: 09.27.2024Client Project No: 11835Sasaki Project No:38145.00ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comCORNELL UNIVERSITYFACILITIES AND CAMPUS SERVICESHUMPHREYS SERVICE BUILDINGITHACA, NY 14853 GGGGGGGGGGG////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH OH OH OH OH OH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH ETETEDESSWDCG G G G G G ST8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSSEDD STST STFIELD HOCKEYFIELDGAME FARM ROAD PRACTICE SOCCER BUILDINGPHASE 2TEAM FACILITY5,000 SF.PHASE 2INDOOR TURF FACILITY9,400 SF.MOUND SEPTIC ABSORPTIONSYSTEM, SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKBOOTHBASEBALLSTADIUMNYS E G O V E R H E A D E L E C T R I C A L S E R V I C E 225' E A S E M E N T GAME FARM ROADFIELD HOCKEYFIELDNYSEG NATURALGAS SERVICEEASEMENT 40'ELLIS HOLLOW ROADGAME FARMROAD50' SETBACKELLIS H O L L O W ROAD 50' SE T B A C K SITE PLANG1-00LEGENDLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)EASEMENTSETBACKROAD CENTERLINEPlot Date: 10/1/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\G1-00_SITE PLAN.dwgSaved By: wsasserSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com1" = 70' LEGEND ANDNOTESC100DAHOBBDAH11835SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024DAHOBBDAHDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02 (TGM: E23-15)ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: As ShownFIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com GGGGGGGGGGGGGG/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH ETETEDESSGG G G G G G G G G G STST ST STST STST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' WDD STSTST ST ST STSTST EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANC101SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024DAHOBBDAHDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02 (TGM: E23-15)ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: As ShownFIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com GGGGGGGGGGGGGG/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EEEDESSG G G G G G G G STST ST STST STST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W STSTST ST ST STSTST SEE CIVIL SERIES FOR GRADING OFSTORMWATER PRACTICE TO WESTEROSION AND SEDIMENTCONTROL PLANC102SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024DAHOBBDAHDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02 (TGM: E23-15)ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: As ShownFIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com··· GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EEEDESSGG G G G G G G G G G STST ST STST STST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W STSTST ST ST STSTST SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024DAHOBBDAHDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02 (TGM: E23-15)ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: As ShownFIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.comUTILITY DEMOLITION PLANC103 GGGGGGG////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EETEDESSG G G G G G G G G G G G G ST STSTST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W STSTSTST ST ST ST STSTSTST UTILITY PLANC104SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024DAHOBBDAHDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02 (TGM: E23-15)ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: As ShownFIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH ETETEDESSGG G G G G G G G G G STST ST STST STST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W STSTST ST ST STSTSTEL. 973.50DRAINAGE PLANC105SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024DAHOBBDAHDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02 (TGM: E23-15)ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: As ShownFIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024DAHOBBDAHDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02 (TGM: E23-15)ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: As ShownFIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.comUTILITY DETAILSC201 SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024DAHOBBDAHDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02 (TGM: E23-15)ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: As ShownFIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.comUTILITY DETAILSC202STORMWATERMANAGMENTPRACTICE:BIORETENTIONFILTERPROJECT ID: SPDESNYR-XXXXXXMUST BE MAINTAINED INACCORDANCE WITH O&M PLAN. DO NOT REMOVE OR ALTER.STORMWATERMANAGMENTPRACTICE:HYDRODYNAMICSEPARATORPROJECT ID: SPDESNYR-XXXXXXMUST BE MAINTAINED INACCORDANCE WITH O&M PLAN. DO NOT REMOVE OR ALTER.STORMWATERMANAGMENTPRACTICE:BELOW GRADEDETENTION SYSTEMPROJECT ID: SPDESNYR-XXXXXXMUST BE MAINTAINED INACCORDANCE WITH O&M PLAN. DO NOT REMOVE OR ALTER. UTILITY PROFILESC301SealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024DAHOBBDAHDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02 (TGM: E23-15)ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: As ShownFIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com 5/4/2023 9:55:01 AMGENERAL NOTESL0-01GENERAL NOTES:1.REFERENCES IN THESE NOTES TO APPLICABLE CODES SHALLINCLUDE COMPREHENSIVELY THE LATEST EDITION OF ALLFEDERAL, REGIONAL, STATE, CITY, FIRE DEPARTMENT ANDLOCAL CODES, LAWS, ORDINANCES, ORDERS, RULES, ANDGUIDELINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FORFAMILIARITY WITH THE APPLICABLE CODES AND COMPLY FULLYAS REQUIRED.2.REFERENCES IN THESE NOTES TO THE CONTRACTOR SHALLAPPLY TO THE CONTRACTOR, THEIR AGENTS, ALLSUBCONTRACTORS AND ALL OTHERS EMPLOYED BY THECONTRACTOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE EXECUTION OF THEWORK.3.REFERENCES IN THESE NOTES TO THE BUILDING OWNER ORARCHITECT SHALL INCLUDE ALL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ANDAUTHORIZED AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES OF THESE PARTIES.4.REFERENCES IN THESE NOTES TO THE WORK SHALL INCLUDE ALLELEMENTS AND COMPONENTS OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS,DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS WHETHER OR NOTSPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED.5.WHERE DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEENAPPLICABLE CODES AND/OR THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, THEMORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL APPLY UNLESS AGREEDTO IN WRITING BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION.6.PROPERTY LINES, EXISTING UTILITY INFORMATION ANDTOPOGRAPHY INFORMATION TAKEN FROM THE PLAN ENTITLEDTOPOGRAPHIC MAP CORNELL UNIVERSITY INDOOR SPORTS ANDRECREATION CENTER, PREPARED BY TG MILLER, DATED APRIL24, 2024.7.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THELOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES ANDSTRUCTURES, AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, IS BASED ONRECORDS OF VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND, WHEREPOSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THISINFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT ORCOMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR, PRIOR TO THE START OFCONSTRUCTION, SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALLUNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES IN THE FIELD. THECONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE UTILITYCOMPANY, ANY GOVERNING PERMITTING AUTHORITY, AND “DIGSAFE” AT LEAST 72 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION WORKTO REQUEST THE EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES AND THEARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED, IN WRITING, OF ANY UTILITIESINTERFERING WITH THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ANDAPPROPRIATE REMEDIAL ACTIONS TAKEN BEFORE PROCEEDINGWITH THE WORK. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THECONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICHCONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THEPLAN.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ESTABLISHINGAND MAINTAINING ALL CONTROL POINTS AND BENCHMARKSNECESSARY FOR THE WORK.9.BORINGS WERE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESIGN AND SHOWCONDITIONS AT BORING POINTS ONLY. THEY DO NOTNECESSARILY SHOW THE NATURE OF ALL MATERIALS TO BEENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION.10.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING AND PAYINGFOR ANY PERMITS AND/OR CONNECTION FEES REQUIRED TOCARRY OUT THE WORK.11.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COPIES OF ALL PERMITS ASREQUESTED BY THE BUILDING OWNER OR THE ARCHITECT.12.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE OWNER TO DETERMINEALL RULES GOVERNING THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK WITHINTHE PROJECT AREA AND SHALL FULLY COMPLY WITH SUCHRULES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING OWNERTHROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION.13.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE PROJECT SITE AND BEKNOWLEDGEABLE OF CONDITIONS THEREON. CONTRACTORSHALL INVESTIGATE, VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THECOORDINATION OF THE WORK WITH ALL CONDITIONS ANDDIMENSIONS OF THE PROJECT SITE AND SHALL NOTIFY THEARCHITECT OF ANY CONDITIONS REQUIRING MODIFICATION OFTHE PLANS PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF CONSTRUCTION BIDSFOR THE WORK.14.SUBMITTAL OF CONSTRUCTION BIDS SHALL BE DEEMED ASEVIDENCE THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS REVIEWED THE EXISTINGCONDITIONS AND HAS INCLUDED COSTS FOR THE INHERENTCONDITIONS AND/OR DIFFICULTIES WHICH AFFECT THEEXECUTION AND COMPLETION OF THE WORK.15.THROUGHOUT ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDINGSUSPENSION OF THE WORK, AND UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE OFTHE PROJECT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP THE PROJECTSITE CLEAN AND FREE FROM THE ACCUMULATION OF RUBBISHAND DEBRIS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ABATE DUST NUISANCEAS NECESSARY. ALL RUBBISH AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVEDFROM THE PROJECT SITE AND DISPOSED OF AS LAWFULLYREQUIRED.16.ALL DETAILS, SECTIONS AND NOTES SHOWN ON DRAWINGS AREINTENDED TO BE TYPICAL AND SHALL APPLY TO SIMILARSITUATIONS ELSEWHERE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. WHERESPECIFIC DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, OR DESIGN INTENT CANNOT BEDETERMINED, CONSULT ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITHTHE WORK.17.DIMENSIONS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE "NOMINAL" UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED. ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE TO FINISHEDSURFACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.18.IN THE EVENT THAT QUESTIONS ARISE WITH RESPECT TO THEINTENT OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS THE CONTRACTORSHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION OF THEINTENT.19.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT TO THE ARCHITECT ANYREQUESTS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTSIN THE FORM OF FIELD DRAWINGS, SHOP DRAWINGS, SAMPLESOR OTHER MEANS APPROPRIATE WITH SPECIFIC CHANGESIDENTIFIED FOR REVIEW.20.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL COMPLETED WORKFROM THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE SUBSEQUENT PHASESOR TRADES AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT DAMAGE AND DEFECTS.21.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IMMEDIATEREMOVAL, REPAIR, AND REPLACEMENT OF ALL DAMAGED ANDDEFECTIVE MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP TO THESATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING OWNER AND THE ARCHITECT.22.ALL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ARE TO BE NEW, UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.23.THE ARCHITECT SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO THE PROJECT SITE ATALL TIMES DURING THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK.24.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND SUBMIT TO THEARCHITECT OR TO THE OWNER SHOP DRAWINGS, PROJECTDATA, SAMPLES AND SIMILAR SUBMITTALS AS REQUIRED BY THECONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS WITH REASONABLE PROMPTNESSAND IN SUCH SEQUENCE AS TO CAUSE NO DELAY IN THE WORKOR IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE OWNER OR OF SEPARATECONTRACTORS. NO PORTION OF THE WORK REQUIRING A SHOPDRAWING OR SUBMITTAL SHALL BE COMMENCED UNTIL THESUBMISSION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT AND/ORCONSULTING ArchitectS. ALL SUCH PORTIONS OF THE WORKSHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGSAND SAMPLES.25.SAMPLES OF ALL FINISHES, COLORS AND MATERIALS SHALL BESUBMITTED TO THE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVALPRIOR TO ORDERING OF PRODUCTS OR COMMENCING RELATEDWORK.ABBREVIATIONDESCRIPTIONB&BBALL AND BURLAPBCBOTTOM OF CURBBSBOTTOM OF STAIRBWBOTTOM OF WALLDIDRAIN INLETEEASTEQEQUIVALENTEX.EXISTINGFFEFINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONFGFINISHED GRADEHDPEHIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENEHPHIGH POINTHPSHIGH POINT OF SWALELFLINEAR FEETLOWLIMIT OF WORKLPLOW POINTLPSLOW POINT OF SWALENNORTHN.T.S.NOT TO SCALEO/CON CENTERP&SPROTECT AND SUPPORTPAPLANTING AREAPERF.PERFORATEDQTYQUANTITYR&DREMOVE AND DISPOSER&SREMOVE AND SALVAGERIMRIM ELEVATIONSSOUTHSSLOPESFSQUARE FEETTCTOP OF CURBTOSTOP OF STONETSTOP OF STAIRTSGTOP OF SUBGRADETWTOP OF WALLTYPTYPICALVIFVERIFY IN FIELDWWESTPlot Date: 9/27/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L0-01_GENERAL NOTES.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH ETETEDESSGG G G G G G G G G GSTSTSTSTST STST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' WDD STSTST ST ST STCLEAR & GRUB LAWN, MEADOWGRASSES AND SHRUBS, TYP.R&D GRAVEL, TYP.R&D ASPHALTPAVEMENT, TYP.R&D LIGHT POLE ANDFOUNDATION, TYP.P&S UTILITYSTRUCTURE,TYP.EXISTING TREE TOBE REMOVED, TYP.P&S ENTRANCE SIGN AND POSTSP&S GRAVEL WALKWAY, TYP.CLEAR & GRUB LAWN, MEADOWGRASSES AND SHRUBS, TYP.CLEAR & GRUB LAWN, MEADOWGRASSES AND SHRUBS, TYP.LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKSURFACE PROTECTION ANDREMOVALSL1-01CLEAR AND GRUB. REMOVETOPSOIL AND STORE FORREUSEREMOVE EXISTING TREEREMOVE AND DISPOSEGRAVELPROTECT EXISTING UTILITYSTRUCTUREREMOVE & DISPOSESAWCUT PAVEMENTLEGENDDESCRIPTIONSYMBOLSREMOVE & SALVAGE SITEFEATUREREMOVE AND DISPOSE ASPHALTPAVEMENT & UNDERLYING SLABPROTECT & SUPPORT SITEFEATUREPLANTED AREA TO REMAINLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)EASEMENTREMOVE & DEMOLISH EXISTINGLIGHT POLE AND FOUNDATIONREMOVE & SALVAGESILT LOG, REFER TO CIVILDRAWINGSPROTECT AND SUPPORTGRAVELPROTECT & SUPPORTPlot Date: 10/1/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L1-01_SURFACE PROTECTION AND REMOVALS.dwgSaved By: wsasserSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com1" = 40' GGGGGGGGGGGGG////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH ETETEDESSG G G G G G G G G G G G ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W STSTSTST ST ST ST ST20.00'50.00'20.00'48.50'22.00'R31. 0 0 ' R55 . 0 0 '22.00'22.00'R28.00'R2 8 . 0 0 'FIELD HOCKEYFIELDGAME FARM ROAD PRACTICE SOCCER BUILDINGPHASE 2TEAM FACILITY5,000 SF.PHASE 2INDOOR TURF FACILITY9,400 SF.MOUND SEPTIC ABSORPTIONSYSTEM, SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKFIRE ACCESS ROUTESL1-02LIMIT OF WORKSYMBOLSDESCRIPTIONLEGENDFIRE APPARATUS ACCESSPlot Date: 10/1/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L1-02_FIRE ACCESS ROUTES.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com GGGGGGGGGGGGG////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH ETETEDESSG G G G G G G G G G G G ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W STSTSTST ST ST ST STFIELD HOCKEYFIELDGAME FARM ROAD PRACTICE SOCCER BUILDINGPHASE 2TEAM FACILITY5,000 SF.PHASE 2INDOOR TURF FACILITY9,400 SF.MOUND SEPTIC ABSORPTIONSYSTEM, SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,15.00'8.00'20.00'50.00'6.50'4.50', TYP.132.00', TYP. FOR30'-HIGH FIELD NETTING8.33'20.50'48.50'8.00'2.00', TYP. FOR SITE LIGHT POLEO.C. FROM EDGE OF WALKWAY,UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED8.00', TYP. FOR ADA PARKINGSPACE (VAN ACCESSIBLE)9.00', TYP.8.00', TYP. FOR ACCESS AISLE18.00', TYP.R 1 0 . 0 0 'R3.00'R 3 . 0 0 'R10.00'R10.00'R10.00'R3.00'R8 0 . 0 0 'R80.00'R31.00'R55.00'R 7 1 . 5 0 ' R 3 . 0 0 'R3.00'R12.00' R15.00'R12.00'R15.00'R15.00'R12.00'R1 0 . 0 0 'R10.00'R 3 . 0 0 'R15.00'R1 5 . 0 0 'R10.00'R 3 . 0 0 'R3.00'R10.00'R3.00', TYP.FOR PARKINGLOT ISLAND8.00'8.00', TYP.21.00'91.00', TYP.11.00', TYP.22.00'75.56'55.54'22.00', TYP.22.00'18.00'15.00'15.00'R3.00'R3.00'R 1 2 . 0 0 ' R15. 0 0 ' 0.50', TYP. FOR CURB 73.52'63.00'15.00'39.50', TYP.50.00', TYP.300.00'180.00'333.00'151.17'100.58'10.00'12.50'2.00', TYP.6.50', TYP.0.17', TYP.8"X8" WOODEN POSTS,PLACED 8.00' O.C., TYP.0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 7+76 . 1 0 0+000+501+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+006+39.08BP: 0+00.00EP: 6+39.08PI: 5+22.14PC: 0+73.12PC: 5+50.64 PT: 0+88.07PT: 5+65.77Mid: 0+80.60M i d : 5 + 5 8 . 2 1 9.00'210.00'8.00'0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+37.38ACCESS DRIVESTATION=2+25.56116.18', TYP.ACCESS DRIVESTATION=1+04.73ACCESS DRIVESTATION=5+86.73N88° 13' 33.56"E315.15S88° 13' 33.56"W344.24N1° 46' 26.44"W 201.38 20.00', TYP.N88° 13' 33.56"E24.88N88° 13' 33.56"E24.88N:888265.48E:856221.8290°'9 0 ° 'N:888276.00E:856561.57N:888283.73E:856561.72N:888242.57E:856564.38N:888239.33E:856459.75N:888206.04E:856402.30N88° 13' 33.56"E182.46N88° 13' 33.56"E182.66N1° 46' 26.44"W16.00S1° 46' 26.44"E44.00R3 . 0 0 ' , T Y P .15.00', TYP.3.00', TYP.R3.00', TYP.15.00',TYP.N:888113.64E:856019.43N:888171.61E:856017.63N:888126.21E:856425.23N:888184.18E:856423.44N:888160.41E:856221.08N:888220.38E:856219.22N:888198.74E:856037.35N:888298.58E:855750.73N:888275.75E:855751.44N:888328.25E:855825.41N:888300.92E:855826.26N:888328.72E:855840.40N:888289.39E:855841.697.00', TYP.12.00', TYP.N:888250.06E:855853.03N:888233.12E:855903.96N:888258.14E:855855.73N:888300.60E:856160.71N:888432.44E:856448.10N:888776.11E:856437.45N:888768.96E:856201.23N:888455.90E:856187.9210.00'N:888540.94E:856456.246.00', TYP.N:888433.92E:856226.6118.00'56.83'11.67'24.00'R28.00'R 2 8 . 0 0 'LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLAYOUT PLANL2-01BEARING DISTANCE CENTERLINE (CL)LEGENDLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)DESCRIPTIONSYMBOLS694.56'N01°16'44"ER1' -0 "5.00'RADIAL DIMENSIONLINEAR DIMENSIONARC LENGTH DIMENSION1'-312"N:10541359.19E:3297858.87NORTHING/EASTING COORDINATESSET PARALLELPlot Date: 10/1/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L2-01_LAYOUT PLAN.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com GGGGGGGGGGGGG////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH ETETEDESSG G G G G G G G G G G G ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W STSTSTST ST ST ST STFIELD HOCKEYFIELDGAME FARM ROAD PRACTICE SOCCER BUILDINGPHASE 2TEAM FACILITY5,000 SF.PHASE 2INDOOR TURF FACILITY9,400 SF.MOUND SEPTIC ABSORPTIONSYSTEM, SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,ROADWAY STRIPING, TYP.CROSSWALK, TYP.SPORTS LIGHT POLE, F3TEAM SHELTER ASCOREBOARD35' CAMERA POLE, TYP.PRESS BOXSTRUCTURE(SEE ARCH)RESTROOM BUILDING(SEE ARCH)6' CHAIN LINKFENCE, TYP.6'-0" CHAIN LINKFENCE, TYP.PERIMETER CONCRETETURF CURB, TYP.SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD30' HIGH END OF FIELD NETTING, TYP.FLAGPOLESPECTATOR SEATINGFIELD NET POSTADA VAN ACCESSIBLEPARKING SPACE, TYP.CURB RAMP, TYP.SITE LIGHT POLE, TYP.TIMBER BARRIER RAIL, TYP.PAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAMOUNTABLE CURBASPHALT PAVEMENT-VEHICULAR, TYP.CONCRETE PAVEMENT -VEHICULAR, TYP.CONCRETE PAVEMENT -PEDESTRIAN, TYP.VERTICAL CURB, TYP.TIMBER BARRIER RAIL, TYP.FIELD TIMER, TYP.SPORTS LIGHTPOLE, F4SPORTS LIGHTPOLE, F1SPORTS LIGHTPOLE, F26' CHAIN LINKFENCE, TYP.TEAM SHELTER BIRRIGATIONSTORAGETANK35' CAMERA POLEFIELD TIMER35' CAMERA POLEPARKING ACCESSAISLE, TYP.STANDARD PARKINGSPACE, TYP.IRRIGATIONPUMPENCLOSURE42" CHAINLINK FENCEDETECTABLE WARNING PANEL, TYP.24" CURB CUTBIKE RACK, TYP.RELOCATED EMERGENCYTELEPHONEPARKING CURBSTOP, TYP.FLUSH CURB, TYP.EP2EP4EP1EP1EP1EP3EP2EP2EP2EP2EP2EP1EP1EP2ADA PARKING SIGN, TYP.EP2EP4EP4EP4LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKMATERIALS NOTES:1.TYPES OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES ARE NOTED INTHE LEGEND.2.ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS AND LAYOUT SHALL BECOORDINATED WITH CIVIL DRAWINGS ANDARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION PACKAGESMATERIALS PLANL3-01ASPHALT PAVINGCONCRETE PAVING,HEAVY-DUTYCONCRETE PAVING,PEDESTRIANLEGENDLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)PA-01PAVING ASSEMBLIESSYMBOL:DESCRIPTION:PA-02PA-03EDGE CONDITIONSSYMBOL:DESCRIPTION:MOUNTABLE CURBFLUSH CURBVERTICAL CURBEG-01EG-02EG-03SITE FURNISHINGSSYMBOL:DESCRIPTION:BIKE RACKSF-01SITE LIGHT POLESF-02MULTI-PURPOSE FIELDSYMBOL:DESCRIPTION:SYNTHETIC TURF FIELDFIELD NETTINGFD-01SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETERCURBFD-02FENCING AND NETTINGSYMBOL:DESCRIPTION:BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINKFENCEFN-01MUNICIPAL BOUNDARYSCOREBOARDFD-11FIELD NET POSTFN-03STEEL EDGINGEG-06FD-10FLAGPOLEFN-02SPORTS LIGHTSSEEL8-01SEEL8-02SEEL8-02SEEL10-01SEEL10-02FD-13CAMERA POLECAST IRON DETECTABLEWARNING PLATEEG-05TIMBER BARRIER RAILFIELD TIMERADA PARKING SIGN SIGNPlot Date: 10/1/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L3-01_MATERIALS PLAN.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com GGGGGGGGGGGGG////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH ETETEDESSG G G G G G G G G G G G ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W STSTSTST ST ST ST STFIELD HOCKEYFIELDGAME FARM ROAD PRACTICE SOCCER BUILDINGPHASE 2TEAM FACILITY5,000 SF.PHASE 2INDOOR TURF FACILITY9,400 SF.LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK98 0 985 976 977 978 979 981 982 983 984 970 975980 985967968969971972 973 974 976977978 979 981 982 983 984 986 987 988 989974.99977.22980.18979.61980.03980.97982.15982.44984.64976.12978.05977.78977.49980.60982.72983.02985.17(989.00)971970969968968968967967967976.43979.99980.202.50%1.50%2.50%1.50%3.91%3.50%3.95%4.75%3.95%2.40%1.00%1.50%1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%1.10%3.21%1.50% 0.00%9729739749759769779789799809819829839849859869879889899909919929939759769779789719709699689679729739749799809819829839849859869871.50%967.439759 7 4976977 SEE L4-02 FOR FIELD GRADING AND DRAINAGE ENLARGEMENT976.95977.11976.22967.42FFE 965.10966.85965.98965.98966.44966.34969 968 967 98898898 7986985984 9 8 3 9 8 2 9 8 1 9 8 0978 968967975 9729 7 9EXTENTS OF STORMWATERPRACTICE. SEE CIVIL SERIESFOR MORE DETAILED GRADINGINFORMATIONEXTENTS OF STORMWATERPRACTICE. SEE CIVIL SERIESFOR MORE DETAILED GRADINGINFORMATIONSEE CIVIL SERIES FOR GRADING OFSTORMWATER PRACTICE TO WESTLP 966.02HPS 985.90EL. 973.509759769739749589579569559549539529519509499489479469459449589579569559549539529519509 6 2 9 6 1 960959967966967(988.15)(988.28)(990.48)LPS 984.83HPS 988.45985 9859859879869859849839829819809799789769759749739729719709699689699689679 7 4 972971970969LPS 967.06968969970971972973973972 971 970 974 975975974EXTENTS OF GRADING FORSEPTIC SYSTEM. SEE CIVILSERIES FOR GRADINGINFORMATIONGRADING PLANL4-015110.00TSBSVERIFY IN FIELDSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONSPOT ELEVATIONFINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONTOP AND BOTTOM OF STAIRCONTOUR MAJORCONTOUR MINORVIFFFETCBCTOP AND BOTTOM OF CURBTWBWTOP AND BOTTOM OF WALLHPLPSLOW POINT OF SWALEHIGH POINTCONTOUR/ELEVATIONEXISTINGGRADE BREAKRIM ELEVATIONRIM(5)UTILITY STRUCTURE, SEECIVIL DRAWINGSLPLOW POINTHPSHIGH POINT OF SWALETRENCH DRAIN, SEE CIVILDRAWINGSFINISHED / FIELD GRADEFGTOP OF ELASTIC LAYERTELTOP OF STONETOSTOP OF SUBGRADETSGLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)MUNICIPAL BOUNDARYLEGENDPlot Date: 10/1/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L4-01_GRADING PLAN.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHEG G G G G G G G G ST ST ST ST STSTSTSTST ST ST ST ST STFIELD HOCKEYFIELDPHASE 2TEAM FACILITY5,000 SF.PHASE 2INDOOR TURF FACILITY9,400 SF.STORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESFG 0.30%SG 0.50%FG 0.30%SG 0.50%20.00FG 973.80FG 973.81TOS: 973.68TSG: 973.0110.00SG 0.50%FG 0.30%FG 0.30%FG 973.81TEL: 973.71TOS: 973.62TSG: 972.90FG 973.50FG 973.74FG 973.68FG 973.62FG 973.56FG 873.74FG 973.68FG 973.62FG 973.5620.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.00FG 973.50TOS: 973.37TSG: 972.49FG: 973.50, TEL: 973.96, TOS: 973.37, TSG: 972.49FG: 973.56, TEL: 973.52, TOS: 973.43, TSG: 972.59FG: 973.68, TEL: 973.64, TOS: 973.55, TSG: 973.79FG: 973.74, TEL: 973.70, TOS: 973.61, TSG: 972.89FG: 973.80, TEL: 973.76, TOS: 973.67, TSG: 972.99FG: 973.62, TEL: 973.58, TOS: 973.49, TSG: 972.69FG: 973.80, TEL: 973.76, TOS: 973.67, TSG: 972.99 FG: 973.74, TEL: 973.70, TOS: 973.61, TSG: 972.89 FG: 973.68, TEL: 973.64, TOS: 973.55, TSG: 973.79 FG: 973.62, TEL: 973.58, TOS: 973.49, TSG: 972.69 FG: 973.56, TEL: 973.52, TOS: 973.43, TSG: 972.59 FG: 973.50, TEL: 973.96, TOS: 973.37, TSG: 972.49 FG: 973.50, TEL: 973.96, TOS: 973.37, TSG: 972.49FG: 973.56, TEL: 973.52, TOS: 973.43, TSG: 972.59FG: 973.68, TEL: 973.64, TOS: 973.55, TSG: 973.79FG: 973.74, TEL: 973.70, TOS: 973.61, TSG: 972.89FG: 973.80, TEL: 973.76, TOS: 973.67, TSG: 972.99FG: 973.62, TEL: 973.58, TOS: 973.49, TSG: 972.69FG: 973.80, TEL: 973.76, TOS: 973.67, TSG: 972.99FG: 973.74, TEL: 973.70, TOS: 973.61, TSG: 972.89 FG: 973.68, TEL: 973.64, TOS: 973.55, TSG: 973.79 FG: 973.62, TEL: 973.58, TOS: 973.49, TSG: 972.69 FG: 973.56, TEL: 973.52, TOS: 973.43, TSG: 972.59 FG: 973.50, TEL: 973.96, TOS: 973.37, TSG: 972.49 FG 973.50FG 973.50FG 973.81TEL: 973.71TOS: 973.62TSG: 972.90LIMIT OF WORKOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHEG G G G G G G G G ST ST ST ST STSTSTSTST ST ST ST ST STFIELD HOCKEYFIELDPHASE 2TEAM FACILITY5,000 SF.PHASE 2INDOOR TURF FACILITY9,400 SF.STORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIES18" PERF HDPE PIPE S=0.5%1 2 " P A N E L D R A I N12" PANEL DRAIN12" PANEL DRAIN2 0 . 0 0 '12" PERF HDPE PIPE S=0.5%3.0'W STONE TRENCH(HEIGHT VARIES),WITH 18" PERF. PIPE, TYP12" PERF HDPE PIPE S=0.5%1 2 " P A N E L D R A I N 12"x18"x18" TEE CONNECTIONPERF. HDPEINV: 869.0712" PERF. HDPEINV: 871.072.0'W X 2.0'H STONE TRENCH,WITH 12" PERF. PIPE, TYP12" PERF. HDPEINV: 871.072.0'W X 2.0'H STONE TRENCH,WITH 12" PERF. PIPE, TYP12"x18" ELBOW CONNECTIONPERF. HDPEINV: 870.6712"x18" ELBOW CONNECTIONPERF. HDPEINV: 870.6712"x18"x18" TEE CONNECTIONPERF. HDPEINV: 869.0718" PERF HDPE PIPE S=0.5%LIMIT OF WORKPlot Date: 10/1/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L4-02_FIELD DRAINAGE & GRADING.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.comFIELD GRADING & DRAINAGEL4-025110.00TSBSVERIFY IN FIELDSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONSPOT ELEVATIONFINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONTOP AND BOTTOM OF STAIRCONTOUR MAJORCONTOUR MINORVIFFFETCBCTOP AND BOTTOM OF CURBTWBWTOP AND BOTTOM OF WALLHPLPSLOW POINT OF SWALEHIGH POINTCONTOUR/ELEVATIONEXISTINGGRADE BREAKRIM ELEVATIONRIM(5)UTILITY STRUCTURE, SEECIVIL DRAWINGSLPLOW POINTHPSHIGH POINT OF SWALETRENCH DRAIN, SEE CIVILDRAWINGSFINISHED / FIELD GRADEFGTOP OF ELASTIC LAYERTELTOP OF STONETOSTOP OF SUBGRADETSGLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)MUNICIPAL BOUNDARYLEGENDDESCRIPTION:FIELD DRAINAGESYMBOL:TRENCH DRAIN IN CONCRETEPAVINGPANEL DRAINHDPE PERFORATED DRAIN PIPESTONE TRENCHFD-051" = 20'FIELD HOCKEY FIELD GRADINGFIELD HOCKEY FIELD DRAINAGE 970 975980 985967968969971972 973 974 976977978 979 981 982 983 984 986 987 988 989974.99977.22980.18979.61980.03980.97982.15982.44984.64976.12978.05977.78977.49980.60982.72983.02985.17976.43979.99980.202.50%1.50%2.50%1.50%3.91%3.50%3.95%4.75%3.95%2.40%1.00%1.50%1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%1.10%3.21%1.50% 0.00%1.50%967.439759 7 4976977 976.95977.11976.22967.42966.44966.34969 968 967 988988987986985984 9 8 3 9 8 2 9 8 1 9 8 0978 968967975 9729 7 9 SEE CIVIL SERIES FOR GRADING OFSTORMWATER PRACTICE TO WESTEL. 973.509759769739749589579569559549539529519509499489479469459449589579569559549539529519509 6 2 9 6 1960 959967966967985 9859859879869859849839829819809799789769759749739729719709699689699689679 7 4 972971970969968969970971972973973972 971 970 974 975975974 GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH ETETEDESSGG G G G G G G G G GSTSTSTSTST STST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' WDD STSTST ST ST STFIELD HOCKEYFIELDGAME FARM ROAD PRACTICE SOCCER BUILDINGPHASE 2TEAM FACILITY5,000 SF.PHASE 2INDOOR TURF FACILITY9,400 SF.MOUND SEPTIC ABSORPTIONSYSTEM, SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIES(5) BN(12) AF(17) QB(8) PW(13) JETURF SEEDING OVER EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY.FOLLOW SCOOP & DUMP METHOD FOR SOILPREPARATION PER CORNELL STANDARDSPECIFICATION 329100, SECTION 2.06, PART D3LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKPLANTING PLANL5-01Plot Date: 10/1/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L5-01_5-02 PLANTING PLAN.dwgSaved By: wsasserSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com1" = 40' SYMBOLCODEBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZECONTAINERQTYREMARKSTREESAFACER RUBRUM 'FRANKSRED'RED SUNSET® MAPLE3"-3.5" CALB&B12BNBETULA NIGRA `CULLY`HERITAGE RIVER BIRCH MULTI-TRUNK8` HT.B&B5CLUMPJEJUNIPERUS VIRGINIANAEASTERN REDCEDAR8` HT.B&B13PWPRUNUS SEROTINABLACK CHERRY3" CALB&B8QBQUERCUS BICOLORSWAMP WHITE OAK3"-3.5" CALB&B17SYMBOLCODEBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZECONTAINERSPACINGQTYREMARKSGROUND COVERSLOW-MOW NATIVE UPLAND PLUG MIX9,626 SFATASCLEPIAS TUBEROSABUTTERFLY MILKWEED---PLUG3% @ 12" o.c.300AL2ASTER LATERIFLORUSCALICO ASTER---PLUG5% @ 12" o.c.500BCBOUTELOUA CURTIPENDULASIDE OATS GRAMA---PLUG20% @ 12" o.c.2,000CLCOREOPSIS LANCEOLATALANCELEAF TICKSEED---PLUG3% @ 12" o.c.300EVELYMUS VIRGINICUSVIRGINIA WILD RYE---PLUG15% @ 12" o.c.1,500HFHELIOPSIS HELIANTHOIDESFALSE SUNFLOWER---PLUG3% @ 12" o.c.300PNPYCNANTHEMUM TENUIFOLIUMNARROW-LEAF MOUNTAIN MINT---PLUG3% @ 12" o.c.300RHRUDBECKIA HIRTABLACK-EYED SUSAN---PLUG4% @ 12" o.c.400SLSCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUMLITTLE BLUESTEM---PLUG40% @ 12" o.c.4,001SNSOLIDAGO NEMORALISGRAY GOLDENROD---PLUG4% @ 12" o.c.400TURF SEED- LOW GROW MIX210,721 SFHIGH MARSH MIX6,016 SFCgCHELONE GLABRAWHITE TURTLEHEAD---PLUG34% @ 12" o.c.2,126Iv2IRIS VERSICOLORBLUE FLAG---PLUG33% @ 12" o.c.2,084Je2JUNCUS EFFUSUSSOFT RUSH---PLUG33% @ 12" o.c.2,084LOW MARSH MIX2,805 SFPvPELTANDRA VIRGINICAARROW ARUM---PLUG33% @ 12" o.c.973PcPONTEDERIA CORDATAPICKEREL WEED---PLUG33% @ 12" o.c.973Sl2SAGITTARIA LATIFOLIABROADLEAF ARROWHEAD---PLUG34% @ 12" o.c.990DRY SWALE MIX4,850 SFLcLOBELIA CARDINALISCARDINAL FLOWER---PLUG20% @ 12" o.c.1,008Pc2PANICUM VIRGATUM 'CAPE BREEZE'CAPE BREEZE SWITCH GRASS---PLUG80% @ 12" o.c.4,033BIORETENTION MIX16,468 SFIv2IRIS VERSICOLORBLUE FLAG---PLUG10% @ 12" o.c.1,711Je2JUNCUS EFFUSUSSOFT RUSH---PLUG20% @ 12" o.c.3,423LcLOBELIA CARDINALISCARDINAL FLOWER---PLUG35% @ 12" o.c.5,990Pc2PANICUM VIRGATUM 'CAPE BREEZE'CAPE BREEZE SWITCH GRASS---PLUG35% @ 12" o.c.5,990PLANT SCHEDULEPLANTING SCHEDULEL5-02Plot Date: 10/1/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L5-01_5-02 PLANTING PLAN.dwgSaved By: wsasserSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com GGGGGGGGGGGGG////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH ETETEDESSG G G G G G G G G G G G ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W STSTSTST ST ST ST STFIELD HOCKEYFIELDGAME FARM ROAD PRACTICE SOCCER BUILDINGPHASE 2TEAM FACILITY5,000 SF.PHASE 2INDOOR TURF FACILITY9,400 SF.MOUND SEPTIC ABSORPTIONSYSTEM, SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKEP2EP4EP1EP1EP1EP3EP2EP2EP2EP2EP2EP1EP1EP2EP2EP4EP4EP4F2F1F3F40.00.00.10.10.10.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.20.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.30.20.10.20.20.30.30.40.50.50.40.40.30.30.30.30.30.40.40.40.40.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.20.10.10.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.30.40.40.30.20.20.30.40.60.81.01.00.90.60.50.50.50.40.50.70.80.80.70.50.40.40.40.40.50.60.70.70.60.50.40.40.40.40.40.50.50.50.40.40.30.20.20.30.40.40.30.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.40.80.80.60.30.30.50.61.01.82.62.61.81.00.70.70.60.60.91.42.02.01.40.90.60.60.60.60.81.21.51.51.20.80.60.50.50.50.60.91.11.10.90.60.40.40.30.40.50.40.30.30.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.10.10.10.00.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.51.21.41.10.40.40.70.91.83.55.35.33.61.81.01.00.90.91.52.94.54.52.91.50.90.90.90.81.32.53.83.82.51.30.80.80.80.71.11.92.82.91.91.10.70.60.50.60.90.80.60.40.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.10.10.10.20.40.70.90.60.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.61.31.81.70.10.40.70.91.93.95.65.73.92.01.11.11.11.12.04.15.95.94.22.01.11.11.11.12.04.15.95.94.12.01.11.11.11.01.93.75.55.53.71.91.00.90.71.01.91.71.00.50.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.20.30.20.20.30.40.91.72.01.40.70.40.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.61.41.61.40.50.40.60.71.22.13.23.32.21.20.80.80.90.91.52.74.24.22.71.50.90.91.01.01.73.24.94.93.21.71.01.01.01.01.93.85.55.53.81.91.00.90.81.42.72.91.50.60.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.30.40.40.30.20.30.61.11.61.61.50.90.50.30.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.51.01.10.80.40.30.40.50.71.11.31.31.10.80.60.60.60.60.91.31.81.81.30.90.60.60.70.70.91.62.22.21.61.00.70.70.70.81.12.02.93.02.01.10.80.70.81.52.83.11.60.60.30.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.50.70.50.30.20.30.40.70.91.00.90.60.50.40.30.30.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.50.70.70.50.30.30.40.40.50.60.70.70.60.50.50.50.50.50.60.70.80.80.70.60.50.50.50.50.60.80.91.00.80.60.50.50.60.60.71.01.21.21.00.70.60.60.61.12.22.01.20.60.30.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.41.01.30.80.40.10.20.20.30.30.30.40.40.40.30.30.30.30.30.30.20.30.30.30.40.50.50.50.40.30.40.40.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.40.40.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.40.40.40.50.40.60.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.60.70.70.60.50.50.50.50.81.21.10.70.50.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.71.81.71.00.30.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.30.40.40.40.40.30.30.40.40.40.50.50.50.40.40.40.40.50.50.50.40.50.50.50.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.50.50.50.50.40.40.40.40.40.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.40.40.40.60.70.70.60.50.40.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.10.82.01.71.00.30.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.40.50.81.01.00.80.60.40.40.50.50.60.70.80.80.70.50.40.50.50.50.50.60.70.70.60.50.40.40.40.40.40.50.50.60.50.40.40.40.40.40.40.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.40.40.40.40.40.40.50.70.70.60.50.40.40.30.30.20.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.10.51.21.50.90.40.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.30.40.50.81.52.42.41.60.80.50.60.60.50.71.31.91.91.30.70.50.60.60.50.61.01.51.51.10.70.50.40.40.40.40.60.70.80.60.50.40.40.40.40.50.70.90.90.80.60.50.50.50.50.50.60.70.70.60.50.50.60.60.60.50.50.60.50.40.30.30.20.20.10.00.00.00.10.30.60.80.60.40.20.20.20.20.20.20.30.40.50.61.02.03.13.22.11.00.60.60.60.61.02.03.13.22.01.00.60.60.60.50.91.82.93.01.91.00.60.50.50.40.50.81.21.30.80.60.50.50.50.50.71.32.02.01.40.80.50.60.60.50.71.11.61.61.10.70.50.50.60.50.70.91.21.20.90.60.30.30.20.10.00.00.00.00.20.40.50.50.40.30.30.30.40.40.30.30.30.50.50.81.41.92.01.50.80.40.40.40.50.91.82.42.41.81.00.50.50.50.51.02.02.82.92.11.10.60.50.40.40.61.11.71.71.10.60.50.50.50.61.02.03.13.22.01.00.60.60.60.50.91.83.03.01.90.90.60.60.60.50.91.72.62.61.70.80.40.40.20.10.00.00.00.10.20.40.40.40.30.50.80.90.90.70.50.30.40.40.40.50.70.70.50.30.20.20.20.30.40.71.01.00.70.40.30.20.20.30.61.01.41.41.00.60.40.30.30.30.50.81.31.30.90.60.40.30.40.50.91.72.32.31.80.90.50.50.50.51.02.02.82.82.01.00.50.50.50.51.02.03.03.02.11.00.50.40.20.10.00.00.00.10.10.20.40.40.40.81.52.32.21.40.70.40.40.30.20.30.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.20.40.50.50.40.30.20.20.20.30.40.50.80.90.70.50.30.20.20.30.40.70.91.00.70.40.30.20.20.30.50.91.31.30.90.50.30.30.30.40.71.21.71.71.30.70.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.40.51.02.13.23.11.90.90.50.40.20.10.10.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.20.20.10.10.00.00.10.10.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.70.60.40.20.10.10.10.20.30.40.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.20.30.50.50.40.20.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.60.40.30.00.00.10.10.20.30.40.91.62.12.01.50.80.40.30.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.60.60.40.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.60.80.80.50.30.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.60.90.80.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.30.30.20.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.31.01.31.20.60.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.41.61.81.40.60.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.41.51.71.40.60.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.30.91.21.20.50.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.50.70.70.40.10.00.00.00.00.10.30.50.50.30.10.00.00.00.00.10.30.50.50.30.10.00.00.00.00.10.40.50.50.30.10.00.00.00.10.20.60.90.70.40.10.00.00.00.10.41.21.41.00.40.10.00.00.00.10.61.91.71.20.40.10.00.00.00.10.51.71.61.10.40.10.00.00.00.10.30.91.20.90.40.10.00.00.00.00.20.40.60.50.30.10.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.30.20.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.05/4/2023 9:55:01 AMSITE LIGHTING PLANL6-01SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)LEGENDSPORTS LIGHT POLE, MUSCO'LIGHT-STRUCTURE SYSTEM'70' MOUNTING HEIGHTSITE LIGHT POLE,LEOTEK ARIETA LUMINAIRE,20' MOUNTING HEIGHT11.8ILLUMINATION LEVEL(FOOTCANDLE)Luminaire ScheduleSymbolQtyDescriptionCatalog #TagMountingHeightLLDLDDLLF5SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 2 DISTRIBUTIONAR13-48N-MV-NW-2-BK-040-BLSEP1200.9000.9000.8108AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-BK-080-BLSEP2200.9000.9000.8101AR13-48N-MV-NW-5-BK-055-BLSEP3200.9000.9000.810Calculation SummaryLabelCalcTypeUnitsAvgMaxMinAvg/MinMax/MinFLOOR_TopIlluminanceFc0.565.90.0N.A.N.A.Plot Date: 10/1/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L6-01_LIGHTING PLAN.dwgSaved By: wsasserSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com4AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-BK-080-BLSEP4200.9000.9000.810SITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 4 DISTRIBUTIONSITE LIGHT POLE, TYPE 5 DISTRIBUTIONSITE DOUBLE HEAD POLE, TYPE 4 DIST. GGGGGGGGGGGGG////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH EOH ETETEDESSG G G G G G G G G G G G ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W STSTSTST ST ST ST STFIELD HOCKEYFIELDGAME FARM ROAD PRACTICE SOCCER BUILDINGPHASE 2TEAM FACILITY5,000 SF.PHASE 2INDOOR TURF FACILITY9,400 SF.MOUND SEPTIC ABSORPTIONSYSTEM, SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,SEE CIVIL SERIESSTORMWATER PRACTICE,0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.20.30.40.40.30.30.20.10.00.00.00.10.20.71.21.61.61.61.61.30.80.30.10.00.00.00.20.72.36.48.37.67.58.37.02.80.80.20.10.00.00.31.68.026.227.925.926.227.027.910.32.00.40.10.00.00.32.721.960.863.458.958.863.063.229.23.70.40.00.00.00.00.22.721.080.879.773.272.478.982.527.33.90.20.00.00.00.00.10.54.423.775.377.476.476.077.976.230.05.80.60.10.00.00.00.10.31.68.940.077.279.677.277.679.478.647.911.42.00.40.10.00.00.10.52.110.141.374.679.275.675.778.776.248.012.72.70.70.20.00.00.20.62.29.238.368.878.176.676.178.071.944.211.82.60.70.20.00.00.10.62.110.041.174.479.075.675.678.576.147.712.62.70.70.20.00.00.10.31.69.040.377.079.676.977.279.578.348.011.62.10.40.10.00.00.00.10.54.624.575.477.476.776.377.876.231.06.20.70.10.00.00.00.00.22.720.779.979.873.472.878.681.627.13.90.20.10.00.00.32.722.662.765.560.560.465.365.230.23.80.40.00.00.00.31.78.527.829.627.627.928.529.611.02.10.40.10.00.00.20.72.46.99.08.28.18.97.63.00.90.20.10.00.00.10.30.71.31.81.71.71.81.40.80.30.10.00.00.00.10.20.30.30.40.40.30.30.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0F2F1F3F4LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK5/4/2023 9:55:01 AMFIELD LIGHTING PLANL6-02SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLIMIT OF WORK (LOW)LEGENDSPORTS LIGHT POLE, MUSCO'LIGHT-STRUCTURE SYSTEM'70' MOUNTING HEIGHTSITE LIGHT POLE,BEGA POLE-TOP LUMINAIRE,14' MOUNTING HEIGHT11.8ILLUMINATION LEVEL(FOOTCANDLE)Plot Date: 9/27/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L6-01_LIGHTING PLAN.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.com Plot Date: 9/27/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L8-00_SITE DETAILS-PA.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.comSITE DETAILS - PAVINGASSEMBLIES & JOINTSL8-01PA-01AS NOTEDASPHALT PAVEMENT, TYP.1"=1'-0"UNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADECOMPACTED AGGREGATEBASEBITUMINOUS CONCRETEBINDER COURSEAPPLY TACK COATBETWEEN LAYERSBITUMINOUS CONCRETEWEARING (SURFACE)COURSEAPPLY JOINT ADHESIVERUBBERIZED ASPHALT TOALL TOP COURSE JOINTSBETWEEN ASPHALT ANDCONCRETE PAVINGFILTER FABRIC MIRAFI500X OR EQUIVALENT38" x 12" SPIRAL STEELSTAKE, 12" O.C. MINALUMINUM ASPHALTEDGE RESTRAINT, BLACKCOLORCONCRETE PAVEMENTPA-02L8-01CONCRETE PAVING - HEAVY DUTY1"=1'-0"GRADED, GRANULAR,FREE-DRAINING CRUSHEDSTONE OR GRAVELAGGREGATE BASE COURSECOMPACTED OR UNDISTURBEDSUBGRADEGALVANIZED WWFW2.9xW2.9x6/65,000 PSI CONCRETE,MEDIUM BROOM FINISH, TYP.14 OF SLAB THICKNESS SAWCUTJOINT, TYP.FILTER FABRIC MIRAFI500X OR EQUIVALENTPA-02CONCRETE PAVING - PEDESTRIAN1"=1'-0"COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBEDSUBGRADEGALVANIZED WELDED WIRE FABRICREINFORCEMENT, W2.9xW2.9x6/6.SEE SPECIFICATIONS.5,000 PSI CONCRETE,MEDIUM BROOM FINISH, TYP.14 OF SLAB THICKNESS SAWCUTJOINT, TYP.GRADED, GRANULAR,FREE-DRAINING CRUSHEDSTONE OR GRAVELAGGREGATE BASE COURSEFILTER FABRIC MIRAFI500X OR EQUIVALENTPA-03PA-04VARIESFLEXIBLE SEALANTBACKER RODCOMPRESSIBLEFILLER12" S.S. SLIP DOWEL, 30" O.C.CORE DRILL INTO EXISTINGCONCRETE, SET DOWEL WITHNON-SHRINK EPOXY.BELOW GRADECONDITION VARIESFINISH VARIES. SEESPECIFICATIONS.CAST-IN-PLACE REINFORCEDCONCRETE HAUNCHC.I.P. CONCRETE PAVEMENT @ EXISTING1"=1'-0"EXISTING CONCRETECONTROL JOINT3"=1'-0"NOTE:1.REFER TO LAYOUT PLANS FOR JOINTING TYPE, LAYOUT, ANDSPACING, TYP. SEE SPECIFICATIONS.SAW CUT JOINTJOINT DEPTH = 14 OF DEPTH OF CONCRETE SLAB, TYP.1/8", TYP.EXPANSION JOINT3"=1'-0"VARIES12"FLEXIBLE SEALANTBACKER RODCOMPRESSIBLE FILLER12" S.S. SLIP DOWEL FIXED ATONE END 30" O.C.CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE BASEWITH FIBERMESH REINFORCINGBELOW GRADE CONDITION VARIESFINISH VARIES. SEE SPECIFICATIONS.NOTE:1.REFER TO LAYOUT PLANS FOR JOINTING TYPE, LAYOUT, ANDSPACING, TYP.EXPANSION JOINT @ VERTICAL ELEMENT3"=1'-0"VARIES12"FLEXIBLE SEALANTBACKER RODCOMPRESSIBLE FILLERADJACENT RIGID ELEMENTVARIES: WALL, CURB, FOOTING,OR OTHER, TYP.FINISH VARIES. SEE SPECIFICATIONS.NOTE:1.REFER TO LAYOUT PLANS FOR JOINTING TYPE, LAYOUT, ANDSPACING, TYP.2.EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE INSTALLED BETWEEN RIGIDSURFACES SUCH AS WALLS, CURBS, PAVINGS, AND FOOTINGS.SEE SPECIFICATIONS.JT-03JT-01JT-02 Plot Date: 9/27/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L8-10_SITE DETAILS-EG.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.comSITE DETAILS -EDGE CONDITIONSL8-02EG-01EG-02EG-03EG-04EG-05EG-062'-0" TYP.12:1 MAXAT CURB CUTSCAST IRON TACTILEWARNING PLATECOMPACTED AGGREGATE BASEMATERIAL VARIES, SEE PLANSOIL SUBGRADE SHALL BE PREPAREDIN ACCORDANCE WITH THEREQUIREMENTS OF THE EARTHWORKSPECIFICATION AND THEGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY.PREPARED SUBGRADE2" DEPTH MULCH.14" THICK X 5" DEEP STEELEDGING, STAKED. SEESPECIFICATIONS.LAWN AREAPLANTING AREAOR STABILIZEDSTONE DUSTVARIES, SEE PLAN3'-0" MIN.SLOPESLOPE SLOPEVARIESVARIES1:10 MAX1:10 MAX1:12 MAX NOTESA.TACTILE WARNING PAVER TO BE INSTALLEDPER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. SEESPECIFICATIONS.2'-0" MIN.EG-05L8-02EG-03L8-02EG-02L8-02EG-02L8-02PA-02L8-01PA-03L8-01CAST IRON DETECTABLE WARNING PLATECONCRETE CURBCONCRETE FLUSH CURBCONCRETE PAVINGFLUSHCONCRETECURBCONCRETE MOUNTABLE CURB1"=1'-0"CONCRETE FLUSH CURB1"=1'-0"CONCRETE CURB1"=1'-0"ADJACENT EXISTINGASPHALT PAVEMENT6"1'-6"MATERIAL VARIES. SEEMATERIALS PLAN(2) #4 GALVANIZED REBAR1'AGGREGATE BASE COURSEHEAVY-DUTY CONCRETEPAVING WITH CONCRETEHAUNCH3"NOTES:1. TOP OF CONCRETE MOUNTABLE CURB ELEVATION TO MATCH LINE AND GRADE OF EXISTINGADJACENT CONCRETE ROAD CURBS. SEE MATERIAL AND LAYOUT PLANS FOR ALIGNMENT ANDEXTENTS.FLUSH10"1'-6"CONCRETE CURB, BEYOND.ALIGN FACES OF CURBS.ADJACENT EXISTINGASPHALT PAVEMENTREINFORCED CAST-IN-PLACECONCRETE MOUNTABLE CURB(2) #4 GALVANIZED REBAREXPANSION JOINT12"10"6"AGGREGATE BASE COURSE11 2" 1'CONCRETE CURBHEAVY-DUTY CONCRETEPAVING WITH CONCRETEHAUNCHFLUSH6"1'-6"ADJACENT EXISTINGASPHALT PAVEMENT(2) #4 GALVANIZED REBAREXPANSION JOINT12"10"6" 1'AGGREGATE BASE COURSECONCRETE CURB5116"6"STEEL EDGING1"=1'-0"CURB RAMP1"=1'-0"CAST IRON DETECTABLE WARNING PLATE1"=1'-0"JT-01L8-01PA-02L8-01JT-01L8-01PA-02L8-01PA-02L8-01PA-03L8-01PA-01L8-01PA-01L8-01PA-01L8-01BIKE RACK ANCHOR1"=1'-0"NOTES1.BIKE RACK 'DOWNTOWN' BY DERO2.TO BE INSTALLED PLUMB VERTICAL3.FOLLOW MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATION FOR SPACING2'-6"2'-8" 10"PLANSECTIONCORE DRILLEDCONCRETEFOOTING2 38"6"FINISH GRADE, TYP.LIGHT POLE, SEE SITEELECTRICAL DRAWINGSCAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETEFOUNDATION, SEEELECTRICAL SITE DRAWINGSNOTE:1.TOP OF CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE FOUNDATION SHALLSIT 1" MAX ABOVE FINISH GRADE AT PLANTED AREAS.1" REVEAL MAX.1" REVEAL MAX.AT PLANTED SHALLOW SLOPESAT PLANTED STEEP SLOPESLIGHT POLE FOUNDATION1"=1'-0"SF-01SF-02AS NOTED PLANTING DETAILS(VT TYPES)L9-00Plot Date: 9/27/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L9-00_PLANTING DETAILS-VT.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/202450% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTSGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.comVARIESVARIES2" DEPTH LEAF MULCH.DO NOT COVER STEMSOR FOLIAGEREMOVE CONTAINERAND LOOSEN ROOTBALLSPREPARED SUBGRADE1'-0"PLANTING BED SOIL6060 60`A'`A'`A'`B'PLANT SPACING (`A')6 IN. O.C.8 IN. O.C.10 IN. O.C.12 IN. O.C.15 IN. O.C.18 IN. O.C.24 IN. O.C.30 IN. O.C.26 IN. O.C.21 IN. O.C.16 IN. O.C.13 IN. O.C.10-1/2 IN. O.C.8-1/2 IN. O.C.7 IN. O.C.5 IN. O.C.ROW SPACING (`B')FINISHED GRADESEEDED LAWN W/STRAW MULCHPREPARED SUBGRADEMODIFIED EXISTINGPLANTING BED SOIL,4" AFTER SETTLEMENT.APPLY COMPOSTAMENDMENTS MODIFYEXISTING SOIL AS REQUIREDPER CORNELL STANDARDSPECIFICATION 329100,SECTION 2.06B AND 2.06CHORTICULTURAL SUBSOIL4" MIN. 4" MIN.GROUNDCOVER PLANTING - ON SLOPE1" = 1'-0"GROUNDCOVER PLANTING1" = 1'-0"SEEDED LAWN1" = 1'-0"GROUNDCOVER TRIANGULATION LAYOUT1" = 1'-0"PLACE MIN 2" MULCH OVERSLOPE, TAKING CARE NOT TOBURY PLANTSPLANT LARGER PLANTS ATSLOPE ANGLE, ROUGHENROOTBALLS TO IMPROVECONTACT W/ SOIL.INSTALL JUTE MESH EROSIONCONTROL MATTING AS SLOPEREINFORCEMENT FOR SLOPES3:1 OR GREATERPLANTING SOILPLACE & COMPACT FILL IN 6"LIFTS, CREATING BENCHES TOSTABILIZE PLANTING BED SOILJUTE MESH EROSIONCONTROL MATTINGCLCLEXTENT OF PLANTING PIT2"-3" DEEP LOAM WATERING BERM @EDGE OF ROOTBALL, REMOVE AFTERONE YEAR1'-6"MULCH RINGPLAN2" DEPTH MULCH, DO NOT APPLYMULCH TO ROOT FLARE OF TREE(3) 2"X4"X10' STAKES DRIVEN MIN24" INTO UNDISTURBED GRADEOUTSIDE ROOTBALL1'-6"MULCH RINGSECTION120°WOOD STAKES SPACED EQUALLYAROUND TREE (3 PER TREE)TREEROOTBALLEXTENT OF MULCH RING.DO NOT APPLY MULCH TOROOT FLARE OF TREE9"GUY WIRE (3 PER TREE)PREPARED SUBGRADE OR STRUCTURE3"ALLSIDESCUT AND REMOVE BURLAP ANDCOMPLETELY REMOVE WIREBASKET ANDNON-BIODEGRADABLE MATERIALSFROM ROOTBALLNOTE:1.SET TREE TRUNK PLUMB VERTICAL.2.MULCH SHALL NOT COVER BASE OF TREE TRUNK.3.PRUNE BROKEN, CROSSING OR RUBBING BRANCHES.4.REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR STAKING INFORMATION.DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING, TYP.1/2"=1'-0"COMPACTEDHORTICULTURAL SUBSOILSET TREE FLARE AT FINISHEDGRADE OF SOILCUT AND REMOVE BURLAPAND COMPLETELY REMOVEWIRE BASKET3' DIA. MULCH (NO MULCHAROUND TRUNK BASE)CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVEEXCESS FILL FROM TOP OFTRUNK. SET CROWN OF ROOTBALL 2" HIGHER THANFINISHED GRADE.TREES ARE TO BE PRUNED TOMAINTAIN UNDERSTORY.COMPACTED SOIL PEDESTALTO PREVENT SETTLING WITHTREES > 2.5" CALIPER TRUNKSCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOMOF HOLEROOTBALL3' DIA. MULCH (NO MULCHAROUND TRUNK BASE)VARIES, SEE PLANSNO GROUNDCOVEROVER ROOT BALLNOTE:1.TREE TRUNK TO BE PLUMB VERTICAL.2.MULCH SHALL NOT COVER BASE OF TREE TRUNK OR GROUND COVER.3.ALL TREES TO BE STAKED PER TREE STAKING DETAIL.PLANSECTIONPREPARED SUBGRADE ORSTRUCTUREPLANTING BED SOILCONIFER TREE PLANTING, TYP.1/2"=1'-0"PLANTING SOIL, SEE PLANSPREPARED SUBGRADE ORSTRUCTURECLCLARBORTIE, FIXED TO WOOD POSTROOTBALLSOIL SAUCER120°2" DEPTH MULCH, DO NOT APPLYMULCH TO ROOT FLARE OF TREETREEARBORTIE GUY (3 PER TREE)PLANEXTENT OF PLANTING PIT3"ALLSIDESPLANT PIT=3X ROOT BALL DIAMETERSECTIONCUT AND REMOVE BURLAPAND COMPLETELY REMOVEWIRE BASKET ANDNON-BIODEGRADABLEMATERIALS FROM ROOTBALLWOOD STAKES (3 PER TREE)WOOD STAKES(3 PER TREE)NOTE:1.SET TREE TRUNK PLUMB VERTICAL.2.MULCH SHALL NOT COVER BASE OF TREE TRUNK.3.FOLLOW MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS FOR ARBORTIE INSTALLATION.4.PRUNE BROKEN, CROSSING OR RUBBING BRANCHES.5.REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR STAKING INFORMATION.PLANTING BED SOILMULTI-STEM TREE PLANTING, TYP.1/2"=1'-0"6"1'-0" 6"HORTICULTURAL SUBSOIL, DEPTHDEPENDS ON ROOTBALL SIZE, TYP.PLANTING BED SOILHOSEARBORTIE, FIXED TO WOOD POSTARBORTIE, FIXED TO WOOD POSTWOOD STAKES (3 PER TREE)SP-04HORTICULTURAL SUBSOIL, DEPTHDEPENDS ON ROOTBALL SIZE, TYP.VT-01VT-02VT-03VT-04VT-05VT-06VT-07AS NOTED FIELD DETAILS(FD TYPES)L10-01Plot Date: 9/27/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L10-00_FIELD DETAILS-FD.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/202450% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTSGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.comFD-011.SYNTHETIC TURF FIBER W/ SHOCK PAD2.POROUS ASPHALT - 4"3.TOP DRAINAGE STONE: 1"4.DYNAMIC BASE DRAINAGE STONE: 7.5" - 9" DEPTH5.PANEL DRAIN6.GEOTEXTILE FABRICA.FG: FINISHED GRADE (TOP OF TOP FIBER)B.TEL: TOP OF POROUS ASPHALTC.TOS: TOP OF DRAINAGE STONE (-3"); GRADES AREADJUSTED BY 3" TO ALLOW FOR THICKNESS OFPOROUS ASPHALTD.TSG: TOP OF SUBGRADEE.SEE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SYNTHETICTURF FIELD SYSTEM.LEGENDNOTES134562SYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEM - FIELD HOCKEY 3NTS1.1"W x 3"D CONCRETE NOTCH2.2X8 PRESSURE TREATED WOOD NAILER3.SYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEM4.CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE CURB5.4 #4 BAR HORIZONAL CONTINUOUS REINFORCING; 8" LAP6.#4 TIE @ 8' ON CENTER7.6" DENSE GRADED AGGREGATE BASE8.COMPACTED SUBGRADE9.ADJACENT SURFACE, VARIES - SEE DET X/LX-XX FORSURFACE CONDITIONSLEGEND8457139A.FORM CONCRETE WITH A 1" X 3" INSET "NOTCH".ATTACH PRESSURE TREATED 2X8 LUMBER TO EDGE OFCONCRETE ADJACENT TO "NOTCH", DOWN 1/2" FROMTHE TOP OF CONCRETE CURB. THE TURF RUNS OVERTOP OF THE LUMBER, AND IS MECHANICALLY SECUREDTO THE LUMBER.B.TOP OF CONCRETE = TOP OF TURF = FINISHED GRADEC.PROVIDE SCORING JOINT EVERY 8' OC AND EXPANSIONJOINTS EVERY 24' OC. SEE FENCE POST DETAIL.NOTES14"2.00' (24")13"26SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURB1" = 1'-0"FD-02DRAIN CLEANUOUT - SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD1" = 1'-0"TRENCH DRAIN IN CONCRETE PAVING1"=1'-0"TRENCH DRAIN SYSTEMEXPANSION JOINTCONCRETE PAVING/CURBCIP CONCRETECOMPACTEDAGGREGATE BASECOMPACTED SUBGRADEUNDISTURBED SUBGRADECOMPACTED AGGREGATE6"HDPE OUTLETGRAVEL BEDDINGADS DRAINAGE BASINSQUARE CAST IRON GRATEH-10 LOADING. ADACOMPLIANTSEE DRAINAGE PLAN 12" SUMP 6"DIAMETER NOTED IN PLANRESTRICTOR PLATEWHERE REQUIREDAREA DRAIN @ SYNTHETIC LANDSCAPE TURFNTS12" FILTERFABRIC OVERLAP4" PERFORATED HDPESLOPE: 0%#57 WASHED STONE7"#67 STONE@ SIDES AND TOP18"SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURB3"7"3"FRENCH DRAINNTSFD-03FD-04FD-05FD-061LEGEND1.PUBLIC ADDRESS & SCOREBOARD SECTION2.SYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEM3.SET E-LAYER FLUSH WITH CONCRETE CASING4.REMOVABLE ALUMINUM COVER WITH SYNTHETIC TURFSYSTEM PANEL, SET FLUSH TO TOP OF TURF5.SPORTSFIELD SPECIALTIES COMBOX 3500 (30" X 18")6.OPEN BOTTOM DRAIN TO STONE7.CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE ENCASEMENT8.DRAINAGE PIPE OVERFLOW TO STONE234671'-6"1'-2"8"1'-6"2'-61 4"NOTESA.INSTALL BOX PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.B.PROVIDE ALL CONDUIT AND ELEC/COMM BOXES PERAUDIOVISUAL PLANS.C.WHERE BOTH ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATION ORDATA SHARE A BOX, INSTALL CODE COMPLIANTSEPARATION BARRIER BETWEEN SYSTEM TYPES.D.BOXES SHALL BE INSTALLED FLUSH WITH TOP OF TURF.E.BOTTOM OF BOXES TO HAVE 2" WASHED STONE BASE.IN CASES WHERE BOXES ARE WITHIN TEN FEET OFDRAIN OR NOT WITHIN WELL-DRAINED SUBSTRATE,PROVIDE CONCRETE BOTTOM AND PIPE CONNECTIONTO DRAIN.F.ALL CONDUITS SHALL EXTEND 4" ABOVE TOP OFWASHED STONE BASE MATERIAL.G.ALL CABLES AND CONDUCTORS SHALL BE FULLYPROTECTED WITH RIGID CONDUIT OR FLEX-TIGHTCONDUIT.9549107ELECTRICAL & COMMUNICATIONS BOXNTSFD-0811.JUNCTION BOX1.1.NEMA TYPE 3R, WALLMOUNTED HINGE COVER BOX(8"D X 14"W X 16"H)1.2.14GA GALVANIZED STEEL,BLACK1.3.HINGED GASKETED DOOR1.4.GASKETED HINGED ACCESSCOVER AT BOTTOM FOR CABLEPASS THROUGH1.5.WALL MOUNTED FEET.2.UNISTRUT3.CONCRETE TURF CURBNOTES:1.MOUNT JUNCTION BOX TOUNISTRUT.2.CONDUITS TO RUN FROM HANDHOLE TO JUNCTION BOX.3.EACH LOCATION TO INCLUDEDOUBLE DUPLEX OUTLET ANDACCOMMODATIONS FOR OITLEGEND24JUNCTION BOX AT FENCE1" = 1'-0"FD-09FLAGPOLEN.T.SNOTESCARE MUST BE EXERCISED IN SETTING TUBE PLUMB AND LEVEL IN FORMS AND IT MUST BE SECUREDSO IT DOES NOT SHIFT WHEN POURING CONCRETE.FLAGPOLE SHALL NOT BE OVER 40 FT.FLASH COLLAR OR STOCKDESIGN BASEWATERPROOF MASTICFINISH GRADEHARDWOOD WEDGES3,000 PSI MIN. MIXCONCRETEPACKED DRY SAND(4)WELDED STEELCENTERING WEDGES16"X16"X3/16" WELDEDSTEEL BASE8"X8"X3/16" WELDEDSTEEL SUPPORT3/4" DIA X 3'-6" ST.LIGHTING GROUNDSPIKE WITH NUTWELDED TO BASE30" DIA. AT TOP6"1" 4'-0" FOUNDATION TUBE 316"3'-6"12"30" DIA. AT BOTTOMFD-10SCOREBOARDCAMERA POLE ("CP")HAND HOLECLNOTE:1.FINAL POLE BASE/ANCHOR BOLT ORIENTATION, FIXTURE MOUNTING HEIGHTSAND CONFIGURATION ON POLE TO BE VERIFIED THROUGH SHOP DRAWINGS.2.FINAL CAMERA AIMING TO BE COORDINATED IN THE FIELD.3.CAMERA COONECTION TO POLE AND DRILL HOLE PATTERN T.B.D.4.FOR POLE MOUNTED SPEAKER SEE AUDIO VISUAL PACKAGE.5.SPEAKER CONNECTION TO POLE AND DRILL HOLE PATTERN T.B.D.6.PROVIDE MANUFACTURER'S FULL BASE PLATE COVER FOR LIGHT POLE BASE.FINISH AND COLOR TO MATCH LIGHT POLE.7.INSTALL BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR PER MANUFACTURER.8.LIGHT POLE FINISH AND COLOR TO BE APPROVED BY ARCHITECT.FOUNDATION,SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGSBEGA 35 RFTE1 ROUND FIXED TAPERED HIGH EPAALUMINUM POLE WITH CAMERA.35'0.75'FULL BASE PLATE COVERGFCI RECEPTACLEPTZ CAMERA, TYP.1" = 1'-0"FD-137'-0"2'-0"2"CLEAR COVER3" MIN CLEAR COVER BASE PLATE & ANCHOR BOLTSBY MANUFACTURERCAMERA LIGHT POLE BYMANUFACTURERFINISH GRADE, SEELANDSCAPE DRAWINGS#4@12" O.C. ROUNDTIES, (4) @ 2" O.C. @ TOP.LAP ENDS 6" MIN &PROVIDE STD HOOKS#4@12" O.C.ROUND TIES, (4)@ 2" O.C. @ TOP12-#6 VERT,EVENLY SPACED12-#6 VERT,EVENLY SPACEDSECTIONA-AAACAMERA POLE "CP" FOUNDATIONFD-11FD-12AS NOTED8"12" INV: VARIES2.25"2.50'MIN. 2.00'EL: VARIESTSG: TOP OFSUBGRADESYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEMFIBER, INFILL, SHOCK PADDRAINAGE STONE BED12" PANEL DRAINGEOTEXTILE FABRICCOMPACTED SUBGRADEPERIMETER STONE TRENCHWITH EMBEDDED 12"PERFORATED HDPE PIPE,OR AS OTHERWISE NOTEDFG: TOP OF INFILL←SUBGRADE SLOPE 0.5%TOS: TOP OF STONE0.50'PERIMETER FIELD DRAINAGE12" = 1'-0"FD-07 FIELD DETAILS(FD TYPES)L10-02Plot Date: 9/27/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L10-00_FIELD DETAILS-FD.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/202450% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTSGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.comMID-AISLE RAILS, TYP.(2 @ 4'0")SPECTATOR SEATING - PLAN AND SECTIONS1/2" = 1'-0"FD-14AS NOTED10 ft(3 m)2 ft(600 mm)Galvanized steel polePrecast concrete basePoletop luminaireassemblyElectrical componentsenclosurePole & Field Elevation 73'-6"BRACKET FORFUTURE SPEAKERS@ 30 FEET ABOVEFINISHED GRADEBRACKET FORFUTURE CAMERA@ 50 FEET ABOVEFINISHED GRADESPORTS LIGHT POLEFOUNDATIONSP-0370' SPORTS LIGHT POLES F1, F2, F3, F4SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"SPORTS LIGHT POLES FOUNDATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"FD-15FD-16 Plot Date: 9/27/2024File: G:\38145.00\3.0_Working\3.9_CAD\1_SheetFiles\PERMITTING\L10-00_FIELD DETAILS-FN.dwgSaved By: arenaudSealDrawing No.Drawing Title:Key MapProject Title:Client Project No:Drawn By:Checked By:Approved By:Issue Date:09.27.2024TSAR, TSAG, ZCDRAWING ISSUE & REVISION HISTORYNo.DescriptionDateSasaki Project No:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1183538145.02ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSASAKI110 Chauncy StreetBoston, MA 02111TEL. 617.926.3300www.sasaki.comCIVILTG MILLER605 West State Street, Suite AIthaca, NY 14850TEL. 607.272.6477www.tgmillerpc.comSTRUCTURALLEMESSURIER1380 Soldiers Field RoadBoston, MA 02135TEL. 617.868.1200www.lemessurier.comMEP/FPRFS ENGINEERING71 Water StreetLaconia, NH 03246TEL. 603.524.4647www.rfsengineering.comBUILDING AND FIRE CODEHOWE ENGINEERS141 Longwater Drive, Suite 110Norwell, MA 02061TEL. 781.878.3500www.howeengineers.com09/27/2024ISSUE FOR PERMITGame Farm RoadField Hockey FieldGame Farm Road | Ithaca, NY 14853Cornell UniversityNorthScale: 1" = 30'FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATIONIRRIGATION CONSULTING, INC.30 Merritt Parkway, 2nd FloorNashua, NH 03062TEL. 978.433.8972www.irrigationconsulting.comFIELD DETAILS -FENCING & NETTING(FN TYPES)L10-03FN-0116' 6'2'66617D5SECTIONELEVATION1.FENCE POST2.SYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEM3.SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURB X/LX-XX4.ADJACENT PLANTING OR PAVING (SEE MATERIALSAND GRADING PLANS)5.DENSE GRADED AGGREGATE BASE6.TOP, BOTTOM, AND MID RAIL.7.VINYL COATED CHAIN LINK FABRIC8.WINDSCREEN9.12" HIGH CHAIN LINK PAD WITH RIGID BACKING10.(4) #4 CONTINUOUS THROUGH CURB; 8" LAP11.#4 TIE @ 8' ON CENTERLEGENDNOTESA.SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR FENCE MESH MATERIAL.B.FRONT OF FENCE POST TO ALIGN WITH FRONT OF NET POST.C.TOP OF FENCE FABRIC SHALL BE SET 12" BELOW TOP RAIL OF FENCE.D.CORE FENCE POST INTO CONCRETE CURB EVERY 8' OC. PROVIDESCORING JOINT IN CURBING AT EACH POST AND EXPANSION JOINTEVERY 3RD POST OR 24'.E.CHAIN LINK FABRIC AND WINDSCREEN ON FIELD SIDE OF FENCE.F.12" PAD SHOULD BE MOUNTED AT BOTTOM OF FENCE SET 1" ABOVETOP OF CURB. REFER TO DRAWINGS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS.814"2.00' (24")31052413"101'-9"1196 FT FENCE AT SYNTHETIC TURF PERIMETER CURB1" = 1'-0"1.ADJACENT PLANTING OR PAVING2.SYNTHETIC TURF SYSTEM3.PERIMETER TURF CURB4.60" NET POST EMBEDDMENT5.#4 HOOPS @ 12" O.C.6.CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETEFOOTING7.(6) VERTICAL #8 BARS8.6" DIA X 30' TALL FIELD NETTINGPOSTA.SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR NETTINGDETAILSB.SEE LAYOUT & MATERIALS PLANFOR NET POST SPACING.C.CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRMFOUNDATION SIZE WITHMANUFACTURER.617854LEGENDNOTES3'7'-0" 6'-0" 5'-0"14"3212"57PLAN - FOOTINGFIELD NET POST1" = 1'-0"42" BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCENTSFN-02FN-03AS NOTED RESTROOM BUILDING PRESS BOX PRE-FAB GOAL STORAGE 15'-0" X 60'-0" 480'TRAVEL DISTANCE FROM SPECTATOR SEATING (500' MAX. ALLOWED) SPECTATOR SEATING (REMOTE POINT) SPECTATOR SEATING (75 SPECTATORS) TEAM SHELTER PRE-FAB 12' 188' 220' 32' 28' PRESS BOX TEAM SHELTER PRE-FAB 62'-0" OVERALL OVERALL28'-0"A1-10 1 A1-20 1 FIRE TRUCK ACCESS20'-0"APPROXIMATE+/- 16'-0"APPROXIMATE+/- 68'-0"APPROXIMATE+/- 97'-0"PHASE 2 TEAM FACILITY 5,000 SF. CONFERENCE LOUNGE TRAINING / REHAB MEP ENTRY LOCKER RM / RESTROOMS OFFICESOFFICES FIELD HOCKEY FIELD PHASE 2 INDOOR TURF FACILITY 9,400 SF. PRIMARY OPTION RESTROOM BUILDING ALTERNATE OPTION TEAM BUILDING PHASE 1 FIELD AND RESTROOM BUILDING A1-11 1 ALTERNATE OPTION PRIMARY OPTION A1-20 9 A1-20 9 APPROXIMATE +/- 16'-0" APPROXIMATE +/- 97'-0" Stamp Project Directory: Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Plan Project Title: Scale:Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Date: ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI BOSTON, MA 02111 110 CHAUNCY STREET TEL. 617. 926. 3300 WWW.SASAKI.COM CIVIL TG MILLER 605 WEST STATE STREET ITHICA, NT 14850 TEL. 607. 272. 6477 WWW.TGMILLERPC.COM STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 SOLDIER FIELD RD BOSTON, MA 02135 TEL. 617. 868. 1200 WWW.LEMESSURIER.COM MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 WATER STREET LACONIA, NH 03246 TEL. 603. 524. 4647 WWW.RFSENGINEERING.COM BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 LONGWATER DRIVE NORWELL, MA 02061 TEL. 781. 878. 3500 WWW.HOWEENGINEERS.COM FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING,INC. 30 MERRITT PARKWAY NASHUA, NH 03062 TEL. 978. 433. 8972 WWW.IRRIGATIONCONSULTING.COM 9/27/2024 3:21:49 PM 1/16" = 1'-0" NEW FEILD HOCKEY FIELD Game Farm Road | Ithica, NY 14853 Cornell University OVERALL SITE PLAN A1-00 09.27.24 RT LR 38145.00 FC 09/27/2024 ISSUED FOR PERMIT 1/16" = 1'-0"1 OVERALL SITE PHASING PLAN DWG ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No. Description Date PHASE 1 FIELD AND RESTROOM BUILDING PHASE 2 TEAM FACILITY FUTURE PROJECT SCOPE CURRENT PROJECT SCOPE COST ESTIMATE NOTE (PRIMARY AND ALTERNATE OPTIONS): REFER TO A1-10 AND A1-11 FOR THE SCOPE OF WORK TO BE INCLUDED IN THE COST ESTIMATES FOR THE PRIMARY OPTION AND THE ALTERNATE OPTION. THE MEPFP, TEL/COM, IT, SECURITY, STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL DRAWINGS INCLUDE ONLY THE SCOPE OF WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALTERNATE OPTION AND DO NOT DIRECTLY REPRESENT THE PRIMARY OPTION. THE COST ESTIMATE FOR THE PRIMARY OPTION SHALL INCLUDE ONLY THE MEPFP, TEL/COM, IT, SECURITY, STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL SCOPE RELEVANT TO THE REDUCED BUILDING FOOTPRINT SHOWN IN THE PRIMARY OPTION. OS J NEW PARTITION WINDOW OR LOUVER NEW DOOR EXTERIOR GLAZING ASSEMBLY (EGA) RECESSED ITEM FLOOR PLAN LEGEND NEW POCKET DOOR NEW DOUBLE DOOR NEW BEARING WALL 52 SF REST RM. 01 36 SF REST RM. 02 36 SF REST RM. 03 CONDENSER : FENCE WITH SLAT INFILL MOP SINK TOTAL AREA:+/- 500 SF. JAN. 05 68 SF REST RM. 04 UTILITY 06 01 02 03 04 05 06 REF: A1-11 FOR ALTERNATE LAYOUT OPTION A2-10 6 A2-10 5 A2-102A2-10 3 1 A2-10 1C0 1C1 1C1 1C0 1C0 1C1 1C1 18'-0" OVERALL 28'-0" OVERALL1'-2"3'-3 1/2"5'-0"3'-3 1/2"3'-0"3'-3 1/2"8'-11 1/2"6'-0"6'-0"5'-0"3'-3 1/2"1'-0"3'-3 1/2"2'-0"3'-3 1/2"10'-1 1/2"28'-0" OVERALL7'-10"5'-6"5'-6"6'-3 1/8"4'-0"13'-8"8'-11 3/4"7'-4" 16'-3 3/4"7'-0"6'-7"8'-7 3/4"A6-10 1 A6-10 5 1C1 A6-109 3200 1C1 LOW WALL A4-02 4 REST RM. 01 EXPOSED CEILING REST RM. 02 REST RM. 03 JAN. 05 EXPOSED CEILING3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"POWER FOR BACK-LIT SIGNAGE REST RM. 04 UTILITY 06 REF: A1-11 FOR ALTERNATE LAYOUT OPTION 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 9' - 0" 0951A1 9' - 0" 0951A1 9' - 0" 0951A1 9' - 0" 0951A1 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 3'-0"2650L 3'-0"2650L 3'-0"RCP LEGEND SUSPENDED CEILING GRID SYSTEM EXIT SIGN - CEILING MOUTNED ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION GYPSUM BOARD CEILING CEILING TYPE KEY CEILING HEIGHT AFF CEILING TYPE STRIP FIXTURE DOWNLIGHT SPRINKLER OCCUPANCY SENSOR CEILING MOUNTED SPEAKER SMOKE DETECTOR SUPPLY DIFFUSER SUPPLY RETURN JUNCTION BOX CEILING MOUNTED WAP SECURITY CAMERA 8'-0" DS 1/4"/1'-0" SLOPE CRICKETS +/- 500 SF. ROOF AREA ERA-01 1/4" / 1'-0"REF: A1-11 FOR ALTERNATE LAYOUT OPTION 0762C 0771G0771G DOOR TYPE F SEE SCHEDULE SEE SCHEDULEDOOR TYPE FG SEE SCHEDULE SEE SCHEDULEFRAME TYPE ASEE SCHEDULESEE SCHEDULE 1 3/4"1 3/4"1 3/4"REF: 2/A1-10 FOR ALTERNATE LAYOUT OPTIONUSA-01 17'-2"27'-2"1/4" = 1'-0"2 RCP - RESTROOM BUILDING Stamp Project Directory: Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Plan Project Title: Scale:Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Date: ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI BOSTON, MA 02111 110 CHAUNCY STREET TEL. 617. 926. 3300 WWW.SASAKI.COM CIVIL TG MILLER 605 WEST STATE STREET ITHICA, NT 14850 TEL. 607. 272. 6477 WWW.TGMILLERPC.COM STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 SOLDIER FIELD RD BOSTON, MA 02135 TEL. 617. 868. 1200 WWW.LEMESSURIER.COM MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 WATER STREET LACONIA, NH 03246 TEL. 603. 524. 4647 WWW.RFSENGINEERING.COM BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 LONGWATER DRIVE NORWELL, MA 02061 TEL. 781. 878. 3500 WWW.HOWEENGINEERS.COM FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING,INC. 30 MERRITT PARKWAY NASHUA, NH 03062 TEL. 978. 433. 8972 WWW.IRRIGATIONCONSULTING.COM 9/27/2024 3:21:52 PM As indicated NEW FEILD HOCKEY FIELD Game Farm Road | Ithica, NY 14853 Cornell University CONSTRUCTION PLAN, RCP AND ROOF PLAN A1-10 09.27.24 RT LR 38145.00 FC 09/27/2024 ISSUED FOR PERMIT KEYNOTE LIST 0762C COPING FASCIA: ALUMINUM, PREFINISHED 0771G SCUPPER BOX AND DOWNSPOUT 2650L LIGHTING SYSTEM - REFER TO E DRAWINGS 3200 EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS - SEE SITE C AND L DWGS DWG ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No. Description Date 1/4" = 1'-0"1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - RESTROOM BUILDING FINISH LEGEND: 0330C: EXPOSED/SEALED CONCRETE SLAB 0664P: FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC (FRP) WALL PANELS 0965B: RESLIENT BASE 0965R1: RESLIENT FLOORING 0991N1: PAINTED GYP. PARTITION OR CEILING (WHITE) 0951A1: ACT CEILING DOOR SCHEDULE FINISH SCHEDULE 1/4" = 1'-0"3 ROOF PLAN - RESTROOM BUILDING MARK ROOMS FIRE RATING FRAME WIDTH (INCHES) HEIGHT (INCHES) DOOR DETAILS REMARKS FROM ROOM NUMBER & NAME TO ROOM NUMBER & NAME MATERIAL FRAME TYPE MATERIAL TYPE HEAD JAMB SILL 01 01 REST RM.0811D A 36"96"0811D F 02 02 REST RM.0811D A 36"96"0811D F 03 03 REST RM.0811D A 36"96"0811D F 04 04 REST RM.0811D A 36"96"0811D F 05 05 JAN.0811D A 36"96"0811D F 06 06 UTILITY 0811D A 36"96"0811D F ROOM NUMBER ROOM NAME ROOM STYLE CODE FLOOR FINISH BASE FINISH WALL FINISH CEILING FINISH COMMENTS 01 REST RM.0965R1 0965B 0664P 0951A1 02 REST RM.0965R1 0965B 0664P 0951A1 03 REST RM.0965R1 0965B 0664P 0951A1 04 REST RM.0965R1 0965B 0664P 0951A1 05 JAN.0330C 0965B 0991N1 EXPOSED 06 UTILITY 0330C 0965B 0990N1 EXPOSED 1/4" = 1'-0"4 SLAB PLAN - TEAM BUILDING OS J NEW PARTITION WINDOW OR LOUVER NEW DOOR EXTERIOR GLAZING ASSEMBLY (EGA) RECESSED ITEM FLOOR PLAN LEGEND NEW POCKET DOOR NEW DOUBLE DOOR NEW BEARING WALL A2-11 6 A2-11 5 A2-112A2-11 3 4 A2-11 1 A2-11 52 SF REST RM. 01 68 SF REST RM. 04 166 SF UTILITY 06 36 SF REST RM. 02 36 SF REST RM. 03 110 SF GOALIE RM. 08 132 SF TRAINING 10 119 SF ENTRY 07 103 SF CIRCULATION 09 01 02 03 04 05 08 11 10 BENCH SHOE DRYER (FFE)TAPING TABLE(FFE)SPACE FOR 27 FUTURE LOCKERS (FFE) CEILING ABOVE CEILING ABOVE MOP SINK 38'-0"6'-0"18'-0"28'-0" OVERALL8'-11 1/2" 3'-3 1/2" 3'-0" 3'-3 1/2" 5'-0" 3'-3 1/2"1'-2"28'-0" OVERALL4'-0"20'-0"4'-0"18'-0"5'-11" 6'-1"32'-0" OVERALL 62'-0"2'-0"7'-0"07 6'-7" 6'-10 1/2" 13'-10 7/8"21'-6" 8'-11 3/4"7'-4"7'-10 3/4"7'-6 1/4"9'-6"3'-11" 2'-0" 4'-0" 2'-0"6'-0"17'-9 1/4"7'-10"5'-6"5'-6"6'-3 1/8"13'-8"16'-3 3/4"TAPING TABLE(FFE)TOTAL AREA:+/- 1,670 SF. 1248M 0640C 0640N 0965R14'-0"06 36 SF JAN. 05 7'-0"09 5'-0"4'-6 1/4"3'-0"8'-6" BEARING WALL C.L. 22'-7 1/2" BEARING WALL C.L. 14'-3 3/4"6'-0" 3'-6"26'-3 1/2"POWER AND DATA FOR FUTURE TV3'-0"1G11C1 1C1 1C1 1G11G1 1D0 1D0 1D0 1G11G1 1C1 1C1 1C0 1G1 1C0 1C1 1C1 1C1 1C0 62'-0" TEAM ROOM 11 2'-0" 8'-7 3/4" A6-10 5 A6-10 1 A6-109 CONDENSERCONDENSER : FENCE WITH SLAT INFILL6'-0"6'-0" 3200 1C1 LOW WALL REST RM. 01 166 SF UTILITY 06 2650L EXPOSED CEILING REST RM. 02 REST RM. 03 REST RM. 04 ENTRY 07 GOALIE RM. 08 CIRCULATION 09 TRAINING 10 2650L 2650L2650L 9' - 0" 0951A1 9' - 0" 0951A1 2650L 2650L 9' - 0" 0951A1 2650L 9' - 0" 0951A1 2650L 9' - 0" 0951A2 9' - 0" 0951A2 10' - 0" 0991N2 11' - 0" 0991N1 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L ESA-01 ESA-01 JAN. 05 EXPOSED CEILING 9' - 0" 0951A2 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 6'-1"6'-9"2650L 3'-0"2650L 3'-0"2650L 3'-0"POWER FOR BACK-LIT SIGNAGE TEAM ROOM 11 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L 2650L17'-0"RCP LEGEND SUSPENDED CEILING GRID SYSTEM EXIT SIGN - CEILING MOUTNED ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION GYPSUM BOARD CEILING CEILING TYPE KEY CEILING HEIGHT AFF CEILING TYPE STRIP FIXTURE DOWNLIGHT SPRINKLER OCCUPANCY SENSOR CEILING MOUNTED SPEAKER SMOKE DETECTOR SUPPLY DIFFUSER SUPPLY RETURN JUNCTION BOX CEILING MOUNTED WAP SECURITY CAMERA 8'-0" DS 1/4"/1'-0" SLOPE CRICKETS 1/4"/1'-0" SLOPE CRICKETS 1/4" / 1'-0"ERA-01 0771G0771G0771G 0762C +/- 1600 SF. ROOF AREA DOOR TYPE F SEE SCHEDULE SEE SCHEDULEDOOR TYPE FG SEE SCHEDULE SEE SCHEDULEFRAME TYPE ASEE SCHEDULESEE SCHEDULE 1 3/4"1 3/4"1 3/4"3'-2"20'-10"3'-2"6" USA-01 17'-2"6'-10" 6'-0"31'-2" 61'-2"27'-2"7"6'-2"6'-9"18'-7" 1'-10" 1/4" = 1'-0"2 RCP - RESTROOM BUILDING (ALTERNATE) Stamp Project Directory: Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Plan Project Title: Scale:Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Date: ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI BOSTON, MA 02111 110 CHAUNCY STREET TEL. 617. 926. 3300 WWW.SASAKI.COM CIVIL TG MILLER 605 WEST STATE STREET ITHICA, NT 14850 TEL. 607. 272. 6477 WWW.TGMILLERPC.COM STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 SOLDIER FIELD RD BOSTON, MA 02135 TEL. 617. 868. 1200 WWW.LEMESSURIER.COM MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 WATER STREET LACONIA, NH 03246 TEL. 603. 524. 4647 WWW.RFSENGINEERING.COM BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 LONGWATER DRIVE NORWELL, MA 02061 TEL. 781. 878. 3500 WWW.HOWEENGINEERS.COM FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING,INC. 30 MERRITT PARKWAY NASHUA, NH 03062 TEL. 978. 433. 8972 WWW.IRRIGATIONCONSULTING.COM 9/27/2024 3:21:53 PM As indicated NEW FEILD HOCKEY FIELD Game Farm Road | Ithica, NY 14853 Cornell University CONSTRUCTION PLAN, RCP AND ROOF PLAN (ALTERNATE) A1-11 09.27.24 RT LR 38145.00 FC 09/27/2024 ISSUED FOR PERMIT KEYNOTE LIST 0640C ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK: CUSTOM 0640N COUNTERTOP & BACKSPLASH (WHERE OCCURS) AS SCHEDULED 0762C COPING FASCIA: ALUMINUM, PREFINISHED 0771G SCUPPER BOX AND DOWNSPOUT 0965R1 RUBBER FLOORING: TYPE 1 1248M 2650L LIGHTING SYSTEM - REFER TO E DRAWINGS 3200 EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS - SEE SITE C AND L DWGS 1/4" = 1'-0"1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - RESTROOM BUILDING (ALTERNATE) ROOM NUMBER ROOM NAME ROOM STYLE CODE FLOOR FINISH BASE FINISH WALL FINISH CEILING FINISH COMMENTS 01 REST RM.0965R1 0965B 0664P 0951A1 02 REST RM.0965R1 0965B 0664P 0951A1 03 REST RM.0965R1 0965B 0664P 0951A1 04 REST RM.0965R1 0965B 0664P 0951A1 05 JAN.0330C 0965B 0991N1 EXPOSED 06 UTILITY 0330C 0965B 0991N1 EXPOSED 07 ENTRY 0965R1 + 1248M 0965B 0991N1+0991N4 0991N4 08 GOALIE RM.0965R1 0965B 0991N1 0951A1 09 CIRCULATION 0965R1 0965B 0991N1 0951A1 10 TRAINING 0965R1 0965B 0991N1 0951A1 11 TEAM ROOM 0965R1 0965B 0991N1+0991N4 0991N1 FINISH LEGEND: 0330C: EXPOSED/SEALED CONCRETE SLAB 0664P: FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC (FRP) WALL PANELS 0965B: RESLIENT BASE 0965R1: RESLIENT FLOORING 0991N1: PAINTED GYP. PARTITION OR CEILING (WHITE) 0991N2: PAINTED GYP. PARTITION OR CEILING (RED) 0951A1: ACT CEILING 1248M: ENTRANCE FLOOR MAT MARK ROOMS FIRE RATING FRAME WIDTH (INCHES) HEIGHT (INCHES) DOOR DETAILS REMARKS FROM ROOM NUMBER & NAME TO ROOM NUMBER & NAME MATERIAL FRAME TYPE MATERIAL TYPE HEAD JAMB SILL 01 01 REST RM.0811D A 36"96"0811D F 02 02 REST RM.0811D A 36"96"0811D F 03 03 REST RM.0811D A 36"96"0811D F 04 04 REST RM.07 ENTRY 0811D A 36"84"0811D F 05 05 JAN.07 ENTRY 0811D A 36"84"0811D F 06 06 UTILITY 07 ENTRY 0811D A 36"84"0811D F 07 07 ENTRY 0841D1 0841 36"102"0841D1 FG 08 09 CIRCULATION 08 GOALIE RM.0811D A 36"84"0811D F 09 07 ENTRY 09 CIRCULATION 0811D A 36"84"0811D F 10 09 CIRCULATION 10 TRAINING 0811D A 36"84"0811D F 11 11 TEAM ROOM 09 CIRCULATION 0811D A 36"84"0811D F DOOR SCHEDULE FINISH SCHEDULE 1/4" = 1'-0"3 ROOF PLAN - RESTROOM BUILDING (ALTERNATE) DWG ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No. Description Date 1/4" = 1'-0"4 SLAB PLAN - TEAM BUILDING (ALTERNATE) OS J PRE-FAB BOX SIZE 24'-0"PRE-FAB BOX SIZE9'-0"7 A1-20 PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) EWA-11S PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) OVERALL 24'-8"OVERALL9'-8"PRESS BOX - LEVEL 2 188 SF. (INTERIOR) PRE-FAB BOX SIZE 24'-0" 7 A1-20 PRE-FAB BOX SIZE9'-0"PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) EWA-11S PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) OVERALL 24'-8"OVERALL9'-8"PRESS BOX - LEVEL 1 188 SF. (INTERIOR) NEW PARTITION WINDOW OR LOUVER NEW DOOR EXTERIOR GLAZING ASSEMBLY (EGA) RECESSED ITEM FLOOR PLAN LEGEND NEW POCKET DOOR NEW DOUBLE DOOR NEW BEARING WALL RCP LEGEND SUSPENDED CEILING GRID SYSTEM EXIT SIGN - CEILING MOUTNED ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION GYPSUM BOARD CEILING CEILING TYPE KEY CEILING HEIGHT AFF CEILING TYPE STRIP FIXTURE DOWNLIGHT SPRINKLER OCCUPANCY SENSOR CEILING MOUNTED SPEAKER SMOKE DETECTOR SUPPLY DIFFUSER SUPPLY RETURN JUNCTION BOX CEILING MOUNTED WAP SECURITY CAMERA 8'-0" DS LEVEL 1 0'-0"4'-6"20'-0"6"PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) 0742P EWA-11S 0742C2 PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY)24'-6"7 A1-20 LEVEL 1 0'-0" 0742P PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) EWA-11S 0742C2 LEVEL 1 0'-0" EWA-11S PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) 0742P 7 A1-20 :TYP. AT ALL OUTSIDE CORNER CONDITIONS 0742C3 0742C2 LEVEL 1 0'-0" EWA-11S 0330C 0742C2 :STRUCUTRAL SLAB AND FOUNDATION WALLS. RE: STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) 24'-0"9'-0"USA-01 FROST WALL FOR STAIR SUPPORT. RE: STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. A1-20 10 A1-20 12 A1-20 11 13 A1-20 PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER STRUCTURE ABOVE. REF: LANDSCAPE SPEC.+/- 9'-0"+/- 30'-0" EWA-20S EWA-20S EWA-20S LEVEL 1 0'-0" EWA-20S 6"0742C2 0742T PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER STRUCTURE ABOVE. REF: LANDSCAPE SPEC. 0742CM 12" THICKENED SIDEWALK SLAB BELOW. RE: LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS +/- 8'-0"LEVEL 1 0'-0" 13 A1-20 6"EWA-20S :TYP. AT ALL OUTSIDE CORNER CONDITIONS 0742C2 0742T PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER STRUCTURE ABOVE. REF: LANDSCAPE SPEC.+/- 8'-0"0742C3 LEVEL 1 0'-0"6"EWA-20S 0742C2 PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER STRUCTURE ABOVE. REF: LANDSCAPE SPEC.+/- 8'-0"LEVEL 1 0'-0" EWA-20S 6"0742CM 0742C2 0742T PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER STRUCTURE ABOVE. REF: LANDSCAPE SPEC.+/- 8'-0"13 A1-20 PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER STRUCTURE ABOVE. REF: LANDSCAPE SPEC. 0742CM 2'-0" TYP. WITH ATTACHMENT GIRTS BEYOND Stamp Project Directory: Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Plan Project Title: Scale:Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Date: ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI BOSTON, MA 02111 110 CHAUNCY STREET TEL. 617. 926. 3300 WWW.SASAKI.COM CIVIL TG MILLER 605 WEST STATE STREET ITHICA, NT 14850 TEL. 607. 272. 6477 WWW.TGMILLERPC.COM STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 SOLDIER FIELD RD BOSTON, MA 02135 TEL. 617. 868. 1200 WWW.LEMESSURIER.COM MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 WATER STREET LACONIA, NH 03246 TEL. 603. 524. 4647 WWW.RFSENGINEERING.COM BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 LONGWATER DRIVE NORWELL, MA 02061 TEL. 781. 878. 3500 WWW.HOWEENGINEERS.COM FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING,INC. 30 MERRITT PARKWAY NASHUA, NH 03062 TEL. 978. 433. 8972 WWW.IRRIGATIONCONSULTING.COM 9/27/2024 3:21:56 PM As indicated NEW FEILD HOCKEY FIELD Game Farm Road | Ithica, NY 14853 Cornell University CONSTRUCTION PLAN - PRESS BOX AND TEAM SHEALTERS A1-20 09.27.24 RT LR 38145.00 FC 09/27/2024 ISSUED FOR PERMIT DWG ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No. Description Date 1/4" = 1'-0"2 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - PRESS BOX 1/4" = 1'-0"1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - PRESS BOX (LEVEL 1) PREFABRICATED PRESS BOX SCOPE BREAKDOWN: PREFABRICATED PRESS BOX INCLUDES: 1. PRESS BOX STRUCTURE AND FRAMING 2. EXTERIOR SHEATHING WHEATHER BARRIER 3. EXTERIOR WINDOWS, DOORS AND HARDWARE 4. ROOF, FILMING PLATFORM, GUARDRAIL AND ROOF HATCH 5. EXTERIOR STAIRCASE AND RAILING 6. ALL INTERIOR LIGHTING, MILLWORK 7. INTERIOR WALL PANELS PROVIDED, BUT NOT INSTALLED TO ALLOW FOR A.H.J. INSPECTIONS 8. PRE-WIRING FOR ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS GENERAL CONTRACTOR PROVIDES: 1. FOUNDATION WALLS AND STRUCTURAL SLAB 2. EXTERIOR CLADDING, INSULATION, ATTACHMENT GIRTS AND TRIM 3. TIE-IN TO PRE-WIRED ELECTRICAL PANEL AND SUB-PANEL 4. SPORTS LIGTING PANEL INSTALL 5. INSTALLATION OF DRY SPRINKLER SYSTEM 6. CONNECTION OF ALL AV/IT SCOPE, BETWEEN PRESS BOX CONNECTIONS POINTS AND AV/IT DEVICES. 7. INSTALL INTETIOR WALL PANELS AFTER A.H.J. INSPECTIONS KEYNOTE LIST 0330C CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE 0742C2 METAL WALL PANELS: TYPE 2 0742C3 METAL WALL PANELS: FACTORY BENT OUTSIDE CORNER 0742CM COMPOSITE METAL PANEL SYSTEM 0742P METAL WALL PANELS: 1/8" ALUMINUM PLATE 0742T METAL WALL PANEL TRIM 1/4" = 1'-0"5 ELEVATION - PRESS BOX - EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"6 ELEVATION - PRESS BOX - NORTH/SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0"4 ELEVATION - PRESS BOX - WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"7 SECTION - PRESS BOX 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SLAB PLAN - PRESS BOX 1/4" = 1'-0"9 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - TEAM SHELTER (A AND B) 1/4" = 1'-0"13 SECTION - TYP. TEAM SHELTER 1/4" = 1'-0"10 ELEVATION - TYP. TEAM SHELTER - WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"12 ELEVATION - TYP. TEAM SHELTER - NORTH/SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0"11 ELEVATION - TYP. TEAM SHELTER - EAST PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER SCOPE BREAKDOWN: PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER INCLUDES: 1. TEAM SHELTER STRUCTURE AND ROOF CLADDING 2. ALUMINUM BENCH GENERAL CONTRACTOR PROVIDES: 1. 12" THICKENED SLAB BELOW TEAM SHELTER FOR ANCHORAGE 2. EXTERIOR CLADDING, ATTACHMENT GIRTS AND TRIM 3. WIRING AND MOUNTED OF EXTERIOR ELECTRCIAL OUTLETS 1/4" = 1'-0"8 RCP - TEAM SHELTER (A AND B) EXT. WALL LEGEND METAL PANEL - PROFILE 1EWA-10S CURTAIN WALL GLAZINGEGA-010880E1 METAL PANEL - PROFILE 2EWA-10S 0742CM METAL PANEL - COMPOSITEEWA-12S CUSTOM FORMED CORNER PANELS AT ALL OUTSIDE CORNER CONDITIONS 0742C1 0742C2 LEVEL 1 0'-0" T.O. ROOF FRAMING 12'-0" T.O. PARAPET 13'-6" CEILING - LOW 9'-0"3'-6"10'-0"OVERALL13'-6"1 A2-10 REF: A2-11 FOR ALTERNATE LAYOUT OPTION EWA-10S 0762C 0742T2 0742C1 0742C2 0742P LEVEL 1 0'-0" T.O. ROOF FRAMING 12'-0" T.O. PARAPET 13'-6" CEILING - LOW 9'-0"OVERALL13'-6"1 A2-10 REF: A2-11 FOR ALTERNATE LAYOUT OPTION 1 A3-10 EWA-10S 0762C 0742C1 0742C2 0742P 0771G 0742T2 3'-6"10'-0"2'-0" 2'-0"2'-0" 2'-0"10'-0 1/2"1'-2"1'-2"0890L1 LEVEL 1 0'-0" T.O. ROOF FRAMING 12'-0" T.O. PARAPET 13'-6" CEILING - LOW 9'-0"OVERALL13'-6"EWA-10S 0762C 0742T2 0742C1 0742C2 0742P 3'-6"10'-0"0742CM LEVEL 1 0'-0" T.O. ROOF FRAMING 12'-0" T.O. PARAPET 13'-6" CEILING - LOW 9'-0" 4 A2-11 OVERALL13'-6"4 A3-10 EWA-10S 0762C 0742T2 0811D 0742T 0742C1 0742C2 0742P 1014E +/- 4'-8"+/- 3'-8"3'-6"10'-0"0742CM :TYP. AT ALL OUTSIDE CORNER CONDITIONS 0742C3 LEVEL 1 0'-0" T.O. ROOF FRAMING 12'-0" T.O. PARAPET 13'-6" CEILING - LOW 9'-0" ERA-01 EWA-10SEWA-10S REST RM. 04 JAN. 05 UTILITY 06 ERA-01 0762C 0742C1 0742T2 0742CM 0742T 0742C2 EWA-10S 0742P 1014E 1/4" / 1'-0" 7 AXON - TEAM BUILDING 1/4" = 1'-0"6 ELEVATION - TEAM BUILDING - W 1/4" = 1'-0"5 ELEVATION - TEAM BUILDING - E Stamp Project Directory: Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Plan Project Title: Scale:Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Date: ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI BOSTON, MA 02111 110 CHAUNCY STREET TEL. 617. 926. 3300 WWW.SASAKI.COM CIVIL TG MILLER 605 WEST STATE STREET ITHICA, NT 14850 TEL. 607. 272. 6477 WWW.TGMILLERPC.COM STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 SOLDIER FIELD RD BOSTON, MA 02135 TEL. 617. 868. 1200 WWW.LEMESSURIER.COM MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 WATER STREET LACONIA, NH 03246 TEL. 603. 524. 4647 WWW.RFSENGINEERING.COM BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 LONGWATER DRIVE NORWELL, MA 02061 TEL. 781. 878. 3500 WWW.HOWEENGINEERS.COM FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING,INC. 30 MERRITT PARKWAY NASHUA, NH 03062 TEL. 978. 433. 8972 WWW.IRRIGATIONCONSULTING.COM 9/27/2024 3:22:00 PM 1/4" = 1'-0" NEW FEILD HOCKEY FIELD Game Farm Road | Ithica, NY 14853 Cornell University EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS A2-10 09.27.24 RT LR 38145.00 FC 09/27/2024 ISSUED FOR PERMIT KEYNOTE LIST 0742C1 METAL WALL PANELS: TYPE 1 0742C2 METAL WALL PANELS: TYPE 2 0742C3 METAL WALL PANELS: FACTORY BENT OUTSIDE CORNER 0742CM COMPOSITE METAL PANEL SYSTEM 0742P METAL WALL PANELS: 1/8" ALUMINUM PLATE 0742T METAL WALL PANEL TRIM 0742T2 METAL WALL PANEL TRIM: EXTRUDED PROFILE, FINISH TO MATCH PANELS 0762C COPING FASCIA: ALUMINUM, PREFINISHED 0771G SCUPPER BOX AND DOWNSPOUT 0811D HOLLOW METAL DOOR 0880E1 IGU, EXTERIOR: TYPE 1 - CLEAR INSULATING WITH LOW-E COATING, DOUBLE-PANE [ORIENTATION: N & E] 0890L1 LOUVER, TYPE 1 1014E BUILDING SIGNAGE, SEE SIGNAGE DRAWINGS 1/4" = 1'-0"2 ELEVATION - TEAM BUILDING - N 1/4" = 1'-0"3 ELEVATION - TEAM BUILDING - S 1/4" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING SECTION - TEAM BUILDING - E/W DWG ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No. Description Date EXT. WALL LEGEND METAL PANEL - PROFILE 1EWA-10S CURTAIN WALL GLAZINGEGA-010880E1 METAL PANEL - PROFILE 2EWA-10S 0742CM METAL PANEL - COMPOSITEEWA-12S CUSTOM FORMED CORNER PANELS AT ALL OUTSIDE CORNER CONDITIONS 0742C1 0742C2 LEVEL 1 0'-0" T.O. ROOF FRAMING 12'-0" T.O. PARAPET 13'-6"OVERALL13'-6"CEILING - HIGH 11'-0" CEILING - LOW 9'-0" 1 A2-11 EWA-10S EGA-01 0742C1 0742C2 0762C 0742T2 0742P 0742CM 1014E 1 A2-10 1 A3-10 2 A3-10 5 A3-10 EWA-12S 3'-6"10'-0"LEVEL 1 0'-0" T.O. ROOF FRAMING 12'-0" T.O. PARAPET 13'-6"OVERALL13'-6"CEILING - HIGH 11'-0" CEILING - LOW 9'-0" 1 A2-11 EWA-10S 0762C 0742T2 0771G 0742P 0742C1 0742C2 EGA-01 0841T 1 A2-10 3'-6"10'-0"0890L11'-2"2'-0" 2'-0"2'-0" 2'-0"1'-2"LEVEL 1 0'-0" T.O. ROOF FRAMING 12'-0" T.O. PARAPET 13'-6" CEILING - HIGH 11'-0" CEILING - LOW 9'-0"OVERALL13'-6"4 A2-11 0742C1 0742C2 0742C1 0742P 0762C 0742T2 EWA-10S EGA-01 3 A3-10 2'-6"7'-6"3'-6"10'-0"LEVEL 1 0'-0" T.O. ROOF FRAMING 12'-0" T.O. PARAPET 13'-6" CEILING - HIGH 11'-0" CEILING - LOW 9'-0"OVERALL13'-6"4 A2-11 EWA-10S 0762C 0742T2 0742P 0811D 1014E 0742CM 0742C1 0742C2 4 A3-10 +/- 3'-7"+/- 4'-8"3'-6"9'-5"7":TYP. AT ALL OUTSIDE CORNER CONDITIONS 0742C3 LEVEL 1 0'-0" T.O. ROOF FRAMING 12'-0" T.O. PARAPET 13'-6" CEILING - HIGH 11'-0" CEILING - LOW 9'-0" GOALIE RM. 08 CIRCULATION 09 TRAINING 10 ERA-01 EWA-10S EWA-10S LEVEL 1 0'-0" T.O. ROOF FRAMING 12'-0" T.O. PARAPET 13'-6" CEILING - HIGH 11'-0" CEILING - LOW 9'-0" REST RM. 01 REST RM. 04 GOALIE RM. 08 ERA-01 EWA-10SEWA-10S EGA-01 ERA-01 EWA-10S 0742C2 0742C1 0742CM 1/4" / 1'-0"0762C 0742T2 0742T 1014E 0742P 7 AXON - TEAM BUILDING (ALTERNATE) 1/4" = 1'-0"6 ELEVATION - TEAM BUILDING - W (ALTERNATE) 1/4" = 1'-0"5 ELEVATION - TEAM BUILDING - E (ALTERNATE) Stamp Project Directory: Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Plan Project Title: Scale:Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Date: ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI BOSTON, MA 02111 110 CHAUNCY STREET TEL. 617. 926. 3300 WWW.SASAKI.COM CIVIL TG MILLER 605 WEST STATE STREET ITHICA, NT 14850 TEL. 607. 272. 6477 WWW.TGMILLERPC.COM STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 SOLDIER FIELD RD BOSTON, MA 02135 TEL. 617. 868. 1200 WWW.LEMESSURIER.COM MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 WATER STREET LACONIA, NH 03246 TEL. 603. 524. 4647 WWW.RFSENGINEERING.COM BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 LONGWATER DRIVE NORWELL, MA 02061 TEL. 781. 878. 3500 WWW.HOWEENGINEERS.COM FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING,INC. 30 MERRITT PARKWAY NASHUA, NH 03062 TEL. 978. 433. 8972 WWW.IRRIGATIONCONSULTING.COM 9/27/2024 3:22:04 PM 1/4" = 1'-0" NEW FEILD HOCKEY FIELD Game Farm Road | Ithica, NY 14853 Cornell University EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND SECTION (ALTERNATE) A2-11 09.27.24 RT LR 38145.00 FC 09/27/2024 ISSUED FOR PERMIT KEYNOTE LIST 0742C1 METAL WALL PANELS: TYPE 1 0742C2 METAL WALL PANELS: TYPE 2 0742C3 METAL WALL PANELS: FACTORY BENT OUTSIDE CORNER 0742CM COMPOSITE METAL PANEL SYSTEM 0742P METAL WALL PANELS: 1/8" ALUMINUM PLATE 0742T METAL WALL PANEL TRIM 0742T2 METAL WALL PANEL TRIM: EXTRUDED PROFILE, FINISH TO MATCH PANELS 0762C COPING FASCIA: ALUMINUM, PREFINISHED 0771G SCUPPER BOX AND DOWNSPOUT 0811D HOLLOW METAL DOOR 0841T ALUMINUM-FRAMED ENTRANCE SYSTEM TRIM / ACCESSORY / ANCHOR 0880E1 IGU, EXTERIOR: TYPE 1 - CLEAR INSULATING WITH LOW-E COATING, DOUBLE-PANE [ORIENTATION: N & E] 0890L1 LOUVER, TYPE 1 1014E BUILDING SIGNAGE, SEE SIGNAGE DRAWINGS DWG ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No. Description Date 1/4" = 1'-0"2 ELEVATION - TEAM BUILDING - N (ALTERNATE) 1/4" = 1'-0"3 ELEVATION - TEAM BUILDING - S (ALTERNATE) 1/4" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING SECTION - TEAM BUILDING - E/W (ALTERNATE) 1/4" = 1'-0"4 BUILDING SECTION - TEAM BUILDING - N/S (ALTERNATE) Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan June 2015 Cornell University TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary | Background | Process | Master Plan • Overall • Phase I | Probable Cost Estimate & Phasing Existing Conditions | Context | Transportation | Utilities | Natural Systems | Topography | Game Farm Site Plan | Athletic Venues Analysis | Planning Guidelines | Context | Transportation | Utilities | Case Studies | Master Planning Guidelines Master Plan | Athletics Master Plan | Framework & Infrastructure • Transportation • Utilities • Natural Systems | Athletic Venues Programs Implementation | Phasing Pages 4-9 Pages 10-25 Pages 26-33 Pages 34-53 Pages 54-57 Pages 58-59 Pages 60-63 Page 64 Page 65 Pages 66-67 Appendix 1 | Concept Alternatives Appendix 2| Power Line Report Appendix 3| Existing Athletics Shuttle Schedule and Proposed Use Analysis Appendix 4| Estimate of Probable Program Costs Appendix 5| Environmental Review Memorandum Appendix 6| Estimate of Probable Construction Costs (Separate Document) Published by Cornell University Copyright June 2015 Cornell University Designed By: Stantec 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEAD CONSULTANT Stantec, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts MASTER PLAN CONSULTANT Urban Strategies, Inc., Toronto, Ontario UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE CONSULTANT Stantec, Inc., Albany, New York ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT Stantec, Inc., Rochester, New York TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT Stantec, Inc., New York, New York COST ESTIMATING CONSULTANT Vermeulens, Boston, Massachusetts CONSULTANT TEAM The new athletics complex at Game Farm Road/ East Hill Village is a unique opportunity to develop a compelling and exciting athletics campus that will serve Cornell University Athletics and the Cornell Community now and into the future. This report outlines a comprehensive vision for the new ath- letics campus and an implementation strategy that will bring the vision to reality. Background The recent 2008 Cornell Master Plan for the Ithaca Campus (CMP) provided a sound foundation for developing an integrated campus community that reflected Cornell University’s academic planning and strategic goals for their facilities, infrastructure, and financial resources. One of the major recom- mendations was the long- term relocation of several central campus athletic practice fields and competi- tion venues to the edge of the main Ithaca campus at Game Farm Road. The relocation of these facil- ities would allow for the creation of core academic uses on the east campus that would connect central and east campus and open new development op- portunities in this location and between Campus and Hoy Road. Recently, the Bio-Medical Engineering program at Cornell has been interested in constructing a new facility at the location of the existing Alumni prac- tice fields along Tower Road. The successful and purposeful replacement of these important ath- letic fields is critical to the success of the athletics programs at Cornell. This master plan effort was spurred by the need to have a comprehensive and well-planned vision for the new athletics complex that can be implemented over time as required, as existing athletics facilities are displaced. Context – Existing Conditions The Game Farm Road Athletics Complex is located within the South Campus Precinct of the CMP. This expanded athletics complex is bounded by the Cas- cadilla Creek corridor, Game Farm Road, and Ellis Hollow Road and is adjacent to the CMP-proposed East Hill Village and Cornell Park. Though Cornell has long had a presence in these areas, the CMP envisions significant development of the south pre- cinct with greater physical, functional and visual connection to the larger campus. The existing site features the McGovern Athlet- ics Complex, which consists of four natural grass athletic practice fields, of which two are lighted and fenced (McGovern 1 and 2), one is an accept- able practice field (McGovern 3, along Game Farm Road) and the last is a lawn used as an overflow field for athletics (McGovern 4). A small field house building also exists for restrooms and small locker facilities. A gravel driveway and small park- ing area serves the athletics uses. The remainder of the site is active agricultural fields and natural meadow areas. Existing 115kV transmission lines bisect the site from the northwest to the southeast. Process The Cornell University Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan (ACFMP) will guide the growth and development of this new athletic 1 5Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master PlanFINAL MASTER PLAN N 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT.) • Promote Safety & Accessibility – Provide safe, efficient, timely, and dependable access and multi-modal transportation infrastructure. • Sustainability – Create a campus that is anchored in sustainable principles and is consistent with the maintenance resources of the University • NCAA Quality – Provide NCAA-quality venues, amenities and supporting facilities. • Ivy league Standards – Provide venues, amenities and supporting facilities that reach or exceed peer institution’s facilities. Program Through a thorough existing conditions inventory and analysis and meetings with the campus stake- holders, the executive committee and Cornell Athlet- ics, a detailed program was developed for the athletic venues and supporting infrastructure. A key element of the program development was that the proposed venues should be of equal quality or better than existing, reflecting Cornell’s long-term commitment to athletics and its student athletes. The proposed athletics and campus infrastructure program for the ACFMP is summarized as follows: Athletic Venues and Support Facilities The facilities listed below are in addition to the four McGovern fields that exist today: • Practice Fields (2)– Alumni Fields replacements ◦Varsity sports practice, intramurals, marching band, summer camp • NCAA Competition Soccer Venue ◦Berman Field, and practice area • NCAA Competition Track and Field Venue with multi-use practice infield ◦Kane Sports Complex • NCAA Competition Field Hockey Venue ◦Dodson Field • NCAA Competition Baseball Venue ◦Hoy Field • Multi-Purpose Practice Fields (2) • Club House Facility – 26,700 sf • Field House – 100,000sf Master Plan Infrastructure • Circulation ◦Vehicular – Cars (circulation and parking), buses (team and public transportation), service, maintenance, and emergency. ◦Pedestrian and Bicycle – Internal campus circulation and connections to the main campus. • Hydrology and Stormwater ◦Develop an integrated stormwater manage- ment design • Landscape ◦Design a vibrant landscape that assists in creating a campus environment, enhances and respects the natural character of the site context and is symbiotic with the stormwa- ter management strategies. • Utility Infrastructure ◦Relocate existing overhead transmission lines at a strategic milestone in the development of the campus. ◦Ensure that utility infrastructure is imple- mented to support the various facilities on the new campus and is consistent and compatible with infrastructure on the main campus More detailed descriptions of all programmatic ele- ments of the plan are outlined in detail in the body of this report. MASTER PLANOverview The ACFMP was the result of thorough evaluations of existing conditions and existing venues, analysis and program development. During the initial planning for the complex, the following base land-use and or- ganizing criteria were developed and maintained as consistent conditions for development of the ACFMP: East Hill Plaza / East Hill Village – The CMP identi- fied the East Hill Plaza area as a prime opportunity to be redeveloped into a vibrant and active mixed-use ‘Village.’ The CMP identified a potential expansion of this area along Ellis Hollow Road, and envisioned strong connections and shared uses with the Ath- letics Complex. The ACFMP as proposed ‘reserves’ approximately 10 acres along Ellis Hollow Road for potential expansion, and suggests vehicular, pedestri- an and visual linkages between the complex and the East Hill Village. It should also be noted that athletic facilities already exist in the area along Pine Tree Road south of Ellis Hollow Road. These facilities are the Reis Tennis Center, Oxley Equestrain Center, and the Niemard Robinson Softball Complex. Cornell Park – The CMP also suggested an area along Ellis Hollow Road as ‘Cornell Park,’ a multi-purpose passive open space that could serve as a transitional landscape between the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden and the University uses, and provide passive and active recreational, gathering and social uses for all. The ACFMP identifies an area at the intersection of Ellis Hollow and Game Farm Road for these uses. Existing McGovern Athletics Complex – The existing complex at Game Farm Road (four fields) will remain and the proposed expansion and additional facilities will occur around them. The athletics building will remain initially but may be removed once other pro- posed facilities come on-line. campus. The vision articulated here is comprehensive and ambitious, reflecting the goals and mission of Cornell’s Planning, Facilities, and Athletic Depart- ments. Building from the current operations located in the center of campus, south of Tower Road where the Alumni Fields, Dodson Field, and the Kane Sports Complex are currently located, the plan will guide growth for a vibrant, self-sustaining athletic campus at the Game Farm Road Complex. This significant undertaking will happen in a phased manner as needs arise and funding is available. Being prepared for opportunity is the strategic goal of this plan. The Master Plan lays out a framework of strong ideas that will shape how Cornell invests intelligently, and with consistency, when these opportunities arise. The process of preparing this Master Plan has in- volved a high degree of collaboration and consulta- tion with Cornell University, design consultants, fac- ulty, and staff. Various committees met regularly to review the progress of the planning effort. Through the discussions with campus stakeholders and a thor- ough understanding of the existing site and context, primary guiding principles for the Master Plan were developed: • Place Making – Create a vibrant, self-sustaining athletics campus that is a compelling desti- nation for student-athletes, coaches, staff and spectators. • Synergies – Understand important adjacencies and potential synergies (East Hill Village, Cornell Park, Cornell Plantations). • Image & Character – Develop an image and character that reflects Cornell University’s unique brand, culture, and context. • Integrate Natural Systems – Respect and enhance specific site features (topography, natural areas, hydrology, Cascadilla Creek) and utilize these features as an asset for the Athletics Campus. 7Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL MASTER PLAN N 115kV Transmission Lines – These existing lines consist of a dou- ble row of transmission lines mounted on paired wood poles, and extend from Pine Tree Road through the site to the southeast to a point near the intersection of Game Farm Road and Ellis Hollow Road. These transmission lines essentially bisect the site and limit uses around and under them. Through a preliminary analysis and many discussions, it was determined that the plan would recom- mend relocating the lines to the north along the Cascadilla Creek corridor at a strategic point in the plan development. This will provide flexibility in the development of the plan and will be a long-term solution for the project. Pine Tree Road Improvements – It is understood that the Town of Ithaca, in cooperation with Cornell, will be implementing improvements to Pine Tree Road, including replacement of the ex- isting bridge that currently serves the East Ithaca Recreation Way, and a new multi-use path along the west side of Pine Tree Road that will provide a direct and safe pedestrian/bike connection from Route 366 to Mitchell Avenue and the Recreation Way trail. These improvements are vital to providing a strong pedestrian and bicycle connection from the Main Campus to the new Game Farm Road Athletics Complex. Campus Plan From the existing conditions inventory, analysis, program de- velopment and goals developed in the initial phases of the plan- ning effort, alternative master plan concepts were developed that addressed various layouts of athletic venues, circulation and infrastructure improvements. These alternatives are included in this report as Appendix 1. These alternatives were then vetted and discussed in a charrette setting with the various campus stakehold- ers. From these discussions, a final concept plan emerged and was subsequently refined and further developed. The final ACFMP provides a complete and comprehensive plan for a logical and organized arrangement of proposed athletics venues, linked by important circulation and utility infrastructure improve- ments. Improvements will be made in a way that embraces and strength- ens the existing features and character of the site, including the natural areas and systems, and the dramatic views to both core campus and the surrounding setting. The goal of the ACFMP is to 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT.) Poultry Farm complex across Cascadilla Creek. This will require a pump station system and force main from the new campus to the Poultry Farm area along Game Farm Road. It should also be noted that as the East Hill Village plan is developed, there may be opportunities there for potential sewer connections. Water – There is sufficient water service at the site perimeter to provide adequate water supply for domestic, fire protection and irrigation uses for the project. New mains will be required from the perimeter service to the new facilities. Drainage – Drainage will be accommodated as part of the overall stormwater management strategy. Drainage infrastructure will be minimized to the extent feasible and most drainage will be addressed with surface treatment. Electrical – The existing electrical transformer (300kva) at the existing building does not have capacity for any added load. A supplemental or replacement transformer would be required for any program that would require additional loads (field lighting/ buildings). It has been determined that NYSEG will be the service provider for the new campus. Additional coordination with NYSEG will be required. Data/ Fiber – New data/fiber service will be re- quired to service blue light and other security as well as general Cornell campus network access and services. Working with Cornell, it appears that the best location to provide this service from is near the Library Annex area across Cascadilla Creek. Empty conduit already exists in Cascadilla Creek installed previously as part of the water line crossing. connections to the core campus, improved public transit and campus shuttle service and an increa- sein the number and quality of amenities for both the Cornell community and the surrounding com- munity will be necessary. Vehicular circulation for the campus is provided by a new roadway system with new campus entries off Pine Tree Road (aligned with Maple Ave), Game Farm Road and Ellis Hollow Road. A new drop- off is proposed at the Clubhouse location, creating a ‘front door’ to the campus. Permanent parking is dispersed along the main road to provide con- venient parking for all of the proposed venues. Overflow parking will be provided in grassed areas along the main internal road. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation is defined on two levels: connections to the main campus and inter- nal. Connections to the main campus for walking/ running and bicycles will be improved dramatically by the new multi-use trail as part of the Town of Ithaca’s Pine Tree Road Renovation Project. The ACFMP also proposes a new pedestrian/bicycle crossing of Cascadilla Creek, connecting the new athletic campus to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. On-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation will center around two multi-use trail ‘spines’ that run approximately parallel on each side of the main access road. Improvements/ expansion of the public transpor- tation and campus shuttle service systems will be critical programmatic requirements to assist in providing safe, reliable and timely access between the new campus and the core campus. Hydrology and Stormwater The strategy for stormwater management and hydrology for the site is comprehensive and inte- grated. This master plan embraces stormwater and hydrology as a site asset and character-defining feature. Natural drainage systems are maintained and enhanced to the extent feasible. Stormwater facilities are incorporated into the plan as vegetated swales, raingardens, bio-retention areas and storm- water ponds. These areas will be planted with nat- ural vegetation that will assist in improving water quality, provide habitat and enhance the natural character of the campus. Landscape Planting and landscape will be used to create a campus environment that is reflective of the quality and character of the core campus. It will enhance and respect the natural environments of the site context and will be a critical component of the stormwater management strategy. It is proposed that the core campus and higher-use areas be de- fined with a variety of predominantly shade and or- namental trees. Perimeter, natural and stormwater areas will have trees, shrubs and groundcovers. The treatment of the ground plane will also be an important part of the character and image of the site. Manicured lawn areas will be limited to the extent feasible, focused on higher use, spectator seating and multi-purpose areas. Meadow will be used elsewhere on the site, reinforcing the natu- ral character of the site and reducing maintenance requirements. Utilities Utility infrastructure services will be required to service the new athletic facilities and support struc- tures of the new Athletics Complex. Sewer – The existing facilities are serviced by a septic field located near the existing building. Any upgrades and need for new sanitary sewer service should be connected to the Cornell system that con- nects to the Varna waste line and, ultimately, to the Town of Dryden system. Unfortunately, there are no Cornell sewer facilities in the vicinity. Working with Cornell Facilities, it was determined that the best location to tie into is an existing system at the work with the natural character of the agricultural site to create a unique, memorable, flexible and highly functional campus layout that promotes efficiency and sustainability. A key objective will be to improve the aesthetics of the development to reflect the stature of Cornell, given that the precinct contains multiple gateways to campus and is a key point of arrival for many visitors. The campus is anchored by a new club house and field house located at the heart of the campus. The club house building will provide athletes’ lock- ers, rest rooms, team facilities, training and fitness areas, spectator amenities and other supporting programs. Please reference a detailed program for the club house in this report. The field house will enclose a multi-use field facility to be used for prac- tice and training for all teams during the winter season and inclement weather. The new competition venues are then organized around the club house / field house buildings, providing direct and easy access from these venues to the core support facilities. Additional practice and multi-use fields are then proposed to the east, including the existing McGovern fields and addi- tional fields along Game Farm Road. The venues are organized to work with the existing topography to minimize site impact and earthwork operations. Sloped transitions between venues are envisioned to provide informal spectator seating to compliment formal seating at all competition venues. INFRASTRUCTURE Circulation & Access Enhancing a connection between the newly located athletic fields and the core campus will be para- mount to maximizing the utilization of the new athletic complex. In order to encourage usage of these new facilities, stronger pedestrian and trail 9Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MASTER PLAN - PHASE I N IMPLEMENTATION The master planning effort focused on the full-build master plan and a realistic and compelling Phase I. Through the planning process there was a consistent goal from the Cornell stakeholders, Athletics and the design team that the first phase of this master plan implementation needs to have enough of an impact and provide the facilities necessary to create a strong sense of place and destination. The Phase I plan proposes the following athletics facilities, required in- frastructure improvements and added programmatic requirements: Athletics Program • Phase I Club House facility – 10,500 sf • Existing McGovern fields 1 and 2 will remain ◦Natural Grass / lighting • Multi-Purpose practice ◦Synthetic Turf (renovated McGovern 3) • Multi-Purpose practice ◦Synthetic Turf / Lights (renovated McGov- ern 4, Alumni 2 replacement) • Multi-Purpose practice ◦Synthetic Turf / Lights – (Alumni 3 replace- ment) • Multi-purpose practice ◦Synthetic Turf/ Lights (Infield of future track) Infrastructure Improvements • Vehicular access and parking improvements • Pedestrian circulation including multi-use path connection to Pine Tree Road • Stormwater infrastructure improvements asso- ciated with new facilities • Landscape – Tree planting and natural areas asso- ciated with stormwater management • Utility Infrastructure ◦Sewer ◦On-Site – New on-site sewer infrastructure including new pump station number 1 ◦Off-Site – Force main in or adjacent to Game Farm Road, across the GFR bridge and connection to the existing pump station at the Poultry Farm area. Improvements to existing sewer infrastructure at the Poultry Farm. ◦Water – New 8” connection from existing 8” main to the new club house building ◦Drainage – Drainage improvements associated with the development ◦Electrical – Transformer upgrade and new electrical service ◦Data/ Fiber – Connection from Library Annex (across Cascadilla Creek) Programmatic Improvements • Increased / improved shuttle bus service • Increased maintenance requirements • Increased security presence • Staffing (Club House) The above program, if implemented together, will be an important start in creating a robust and vibrant athletic campus that will provide Cornell Athletics with facilities that will serve them now and into the future. The sequence of subsequent phases of the plan’s implementation is unknown at this time, and will depend on what existing facilities will be replaced and when. The next phases will most likely con- sist of competition venue(s), which will change the character and use of the campus, as it will bring in spectators and visiting teams requiring additional infrastructure and support facilities. ROUTE 3 6 6 10 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Game Farm Road site is located south and east of the core campus. It is a 160-acre site bordered by Pine Tree Road to the west, Ellis Hollow Road to the south, Game Farm Road to the east and Cas- cadilla Creek and associated natural areas to the north. The southwest portion of the site abuts an existing retail, commercial and office development area, consisting of retail uses (East Hill Plaza), a Best Western Hotel, Ellis Hollow Apartments, car wash and Cornell University offices. The site is located entirely within the Town of Ithaca, although it abuts the Town of Dryden to the East (along Game Farm Road). It is entirely within the Low Density Residential Zone. Opportunities to achieve connections to and from the central campus exist at the macro and micro level and should be embodied in the Game Farm Road organizational framework. Existing Conditions | Context NORTH WEST CENTRAL SOUTH TOWN OF ITHACACITY OF ITHACAROUTE 3 6 6 CASCADILLA CREEK MITCHELL ST ELLIS H O L L O W R D MAPLE AVE HOY RD TOWER RD CAMPUS RD GAME FARM RDPINE H ILL RD N 2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION TO SITE EXISTING TCAT CAMPUS BUS ROUTES TO EAST HILL PLAZA EXISTING BICYCLE CIRCULATION TO SITE 11Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan Existing Conditions | Transportation Public Transportation – The Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) serves as the campus transit system. Currently,two bus routes (82 and 92) serve the campus with stops at East Hill Plaza (see routes below). These are separate routes with different schedules and stops. The 92 route only runs during the academic year. No public transportation is currently available to the proposed ath- letic complex. Shuttle – Cornell Athletics currently provides shuttle service to the McGovern athletic fields for varsity athletes, coaches and staff (predominantly men’s and women’s soccer). The shuttles run during afternoon practice times (4-7:30PM +/-) on selected days during the week. Shuttle service runs from August to mid-November, as well as in April. Please reference Appendix 3 for more detailed information on specific schedules. Existing travel patterns to the Game Farm Road site are auto-oriented and are strongly influenced not only by the remoteness of the site, but also by the poor quality and limited number of pedestrian and bicycle connec- tions and the limited TCAT service, particularly on routes serving the South precinct. The following out- lines existing conditions for each mode of transporta- tion. Vehicular – The only vehicular access to the site is via a gravel driveway that services the existing athletic uses off of Game Farm Road. There is adequate frontage along Pine Tree and Ellis Hollow Roads for additional vehicular connections to the site. 12 KEY Existing Pedestrian Circulation Proposed Multi-Use Trail East Ithaca Recreation Way Proposed Pedestrian Crossing EXISTING CONDITIONS (CONT.) Existing Conditions | Transportation Pedestrian – Pedestrian circulation to the site is cur- rently limited from the main campus. Please refer- ence the diagram on Page 11 that outlines approxi- mate pedestrian distances and travel times from the main areas of the core campus to the center of the Game Farm Road site. There are currently no side- walks along Pine Tree Road from the intersection of Route 366 to Maple Avenue. The East Ithaca Recre- ation Way is a pedestrian/bicycle corridor that runs along the north side of Cascadilla Creek from Game Farm Road to a bridge crossing at Pine Tree Road, south to Maple Avenue, west along Maple to where the greenway heads back south. An existing mulch path along Pine Tree Road connects the Recreation Way to the intersection of Pine Tree and Rt 366. The Town of Ithaca, with support from Cornell Univer- sity, is scheduled to perform improvements at Pine Tree Road, including replacement of the existing East Ithaca Recreation Way bridge. Also included is a multi-modal path along the west side of Pine Tree Road that will connect the intersection of Pine Tree/366 to the Recreation Way and Maple Avenue. There is no crosswalk across Pine Tree Road at the Maple Avenue intersection. There are no existing sidewalks along Ellis Hollow or Game Farm Roads. Bicycle – Similar to the pedestrian circulation above, there is limited bicycle access to the site. Please reference diagram on Page 11 that outlines approximate bicycle distances and travel times from the main areas of the core campus to the center of the Game Farm Road site. The multi-modal path proposed as part of the Pine Tree Road improve- ments will be significant improvement for bicycle access to the new site. ROUTE 3 6 6 PINE H ILL RD MAPLE AVE MITCHELL ST TOWER RD CAMPUS RD HOY RD VIEW OF INTERSECTION AT PINE HILL RD AND MAPLE AVE CONNECTIONS TO GAME FARM ROAD SITE FROM CAMPUS VIEW OF EAST ITHACA RECREATION WAY AT GAME FARM RD VIEW OF EAST ITHACA RECREATION WAY VIEW OF INTERSECTION OF PINE TREE RD AND ROUTE 366 N 13Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan 225’ EASEMENT NYSEG POWER LINES EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Conditions | Utilities There are a number of existing utilities on the Game Farm Road site as follows: New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) Transmis- sion Lines – There are two 115kV NYSEG transmis- sion lines that bisect the site from the northwest to the southeast. The paired wood towers are approximately 75’ apart and have a 75’ easement on each side, result- ing in a 225’ easement. Please reference the plan to the left and the report included in Appendix 2 of this document. Gas Line – Cornell recently installed a new 10” gas line across the site that runs east-west. The gas line enters the site at Pine Tree Road, runs east following the southern edge of the natural area along Cascadilla Creek, runs south along the west side of Game Farm Road to the approximate location of the power line easement and then runs east across Game Farm Road along the northern edge of the transmission line ease- ment. There is an above-ground valving station in the northeast corner of the site, near Game Farm Road, as noted on the plan to the left. Water – There are two 16” water mains that cut across the site from Hungerford Hill water tank to the south. The mains cross Ellis Hollow Road then run north along the residential portions of East Hill Plaza then north across Cascadilla Creek. These lines are sourced from the Cornell filtered water plant at Fall Creek. There are three pressurized zones from these lines: Zone 1: Endowed zone fed from tank near existing elevated tank Zone 2: Buildings east of Garden Ave Zone 3: East Hill / Game Farm Road In addition, there is a water line just west of where the Cornell 16” lines cross the Creek that is part of a loop around the City of Ithaca (Bolton Point Line). There is an existing 8” water service from Ellis Hollow Road to service the existing building at the McGovern Fields. Septic/Sewer – The existing building at McGovern fields is served by an existing septic/leaching field. It is assumed that any future development at the Game Farm Road site would need to be serviced by connec- tions to sewer. Drainage / Stormwater – The only existing drainage and stormwater facilities on the site are associated with the McGovern athletics complex, consisting of vegetat- ed swales, drainage piping and two detention ponds as noted on the plans. There are also general field drain- age pipes associated with the agricultural fields. Electric, Tel/Data – An existing 300kV transformer just west of the building at McGovern fields services the existing building and field lighting. The closest Tel / Data (Fiber) is located at East Hill Plaza, although some existing empty conduits come from East Palm Road and cross Cascadilla Creek (in vicinity of the new water line). EXISTING POWER LINES AND EASEMENTS EXISTING GAS LINE AND SETBACKS EXISTING VALVING STATION VIEW OF EXISTING POWER LINES Valving Station10” GAS LINE WITH 20’ SETBACK AREA u N 14 EXISTING CONDITIONS (CONT.) Existing Conditions | Natural Systems The South Campus Precinct is a valued landscape and was first proposed as part of the Cornell Ar- boretum in the late 1920’s within a much larger plan that encompassed both the Fall Creek and Cascadilla Creek valleys. The bucolic character of the site and context is a character-defining feature that should be included in the new Master Plan. Agricultural support services currently occupy and use a significant portion of the land. However, it is understood that these uses would not need to be replaced elsewhere. The Game Farm Road site is characterized by a number of natural areas. Most prominent is the Cornell Plantations Natural Area in the Cascadilla Creek Valley that bounds the site to the north. The limit of this Natural Area is essentially the tree line of the existing woods along Cascadilla Creek (de- lineated in yellow on the image to the right). A comprehensive and integrated stormwater man- agement strategy should also be an integral part of the Master Plan. Presently, there are engineered drainage channels around the McGovern Fields that lead to three existing detention ponds. Existing hydrological patterns should be maintained to the extent feasible, and enhanced and promoted as part of the plan. As the site is mostly pervious today, and because of the proximity of the site to East Hill Village, stormwater management will be critical. Flooding is an issue in the low area adjacent to East Hill Village and should be addressed in the Master Plan. A Stantec environmental scientist performed a site visit and prepared an environmental review, sum- marized in a memorandum in Appendix 4. CORNELL PLANTATIONS NATURAL AREA APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY EXISTING DETENTION POND EXISTING MEADOW ALONG CASCADILLA CREEK NATURAL AREA STORMWATER EXISTING MEADOW / SWALE ALONG CASCADILLA CREEK NATURAL AREA Cascadilla Creek + Setbacks Low Area Swale, Typ. Detention Pond, Typ. 15Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Conditions | Topography The topography varies on the site, rising from the northeast corner to the southwest corner with both steep and gradual elevation changes. This setting makes for a dramatic landscape tied to valuable ecosystems and views. The management of existing soils is a critical com- ponent to consider when developing the Master Plan. It will be a vital piece of the phasing of the project as each facility is implemented, and could have significant cost implications if not planned for properly. As a predominantly existing active agrarian use, existing topsoil will need to be stock- piled, re-used or exported, unless there is a strate- gic method for retaining soils on site as part of the plan. A. SECTION DIAGONAL FROM NORTHEAST OF SITE TO INTERSECTION OF GAME FARM ROAD AND ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD 137 FOOT GRADE CHANGE B. SECTION DOWN CENTER OF SITE FROM CASCADILLA CREEK TO ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD 72 FOOT GRADE CHANGE TOPOGRAPHY 10% 10%3%3%5%5%8% 8% 10% 7% A B B A 16 EXISTING CONDITIONS (CONT.) Existing Conditions | Game Farm Site Plan The plan to the right illustrates the existing condi- tions and context to the Game Farm Road Site. The majority of the information gathered was taken from meetings with Cornell University faculty and staff. The existing Game Farm Road Site consists of crop production fields, four McGovern athletic practice fields and a small field house (referenced as athletic venues later in this chapter), and a natural meadow area. Two NYSEG transmission lines bisect the site from the northwest to the southeast. A remnant building that has been left from farming activities exists off Game Farm Road. The crop production fields upslope from the ex- isting athletic fields are maintained by Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station and are subject to annual crop rotation of hay, corn, soy- beans and other grains. The Cascadilla Creek Valley located along the north edge of the study area is heavily wooded in mixed hardwoods with scattered white pine and eastern hemlock. This creek valley is designated a Cornell Plantations Natural Area. There are areas of ripar- ian wetland and tributary channels that extend upslope from overland drainage. N EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 17Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Conditions | Athletic Venues The 2008 CMP calls to relocate the following central campus athletic facilities: • Robison Alumni Fields (Alumni Fields 2 and 3) ◦Football, Lacrosse, and Marching Band Practice • Marsha Dodson Field ◦Field Hockey • Robert J. Kane Sports Complex ◦Track and Field Sports • Charles F. Berman Field ◦Competition Soccer • David F. Hoy Field ◦Competition Baseball and Lacrosse Practice The University would like the proposed Master Plan to have a similar or better design and function- al character standards as the following: • Bartels Hall (Field House) • Schoellkopf Field & Schoellkopf Memorial Hall Robison Alumni Fields Schoellkopf Field Schoellkopf Memorial Hall Bartels Hall Marsha Dodson Field Charles F. Berman Field David F. Hoy Field Robert J. Kane Sports Complex N AERIAL 18 EXISTING CONDITIONS (CONT.) ROBISON ALUMNI FIELDS Athletic Venues Alumni Field 2 Alumni Field 3 • 2 Natural Grass under-drained practice fields • Maximum size field at Field 2 is 200’x330’ plus safety runoff • Maximum size field at Field 3 is 200’x330’ plus safety runoff • Approximately 173,000 sf. of natural grass field • Existing Athletic Lighting is dated and not as efficient as modern athletic field lighting systems. Black corrugated pipe at bases of light poles to protect athletes. • Varsity Football Practice field – 120 players • Men’s Sprint Football Practice – 65 players • Men’s Lacrosse Practice – 45 players • Womens’ Lacrosse Practice – 35-40 players • Marching Band practice – Approximately 200 participants • Summer Sports Camps – Soccer, Lacrosse, Hockey - up to 100 participants per week in the summer, about 4,600 children in the summer • 6’ high black chain link fence at south and north of fields. No physical separation between Alumni Fields and Dodson fields • The fields are next to Bartels Hall and locker rooms are needed for all teams using the fields: ◦Existing Varsity Football, Sprint Football, and Men’s Lacrosse practice use locker rooms and showers in Schoellkopf Hall ◦Women’s Lacrosse locker rooms and showers are in Lynah Rink ◦Sports camps use locker rooms in Bartels / Lynah ◦Big Red Marching Band uses facility in close proximity 19Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS MARSHA DODSON FIELDMarsha Dodson Field • 180’x300’ AstroTurf field for NCAA Division I Field Hockey. Field constructed in 2008. • Approximately 69,000 sf. of turf • Existing Athletic Lighting is dated and not as efficient as modern athletic field lighting systems. Black corrugated pipe at bases of light poles to protect athletes. • Irrigation and drainage system. Channel drain at the east side to capture runoff from the slope and Tower Road parking. • Scoreboard - Athleticshas stated that if this field gets a new scoreboard, a new PA system would be required. • Portable raised scorer’s table/donkey • Portable bleachers for 300 spectators - Athletics would like permanent bleachers, similar style to Kane’s bleachers. • Locker Rooms are needed for all teams / groups using the fields • Athletics would like something to separate the AstroTurf field from the natural grass clippings, either a walkway or a fence with windscreen to give the field an edge. • Removable netting at endlines in sleeves. There would need to be netting to stop ball roll, especially at the endlines • Athletics requested a concept where the soccer field and field hockey field have a double sided bleacher with a shared press box 20 EXISTING CONDITIONS (CONT.) ROBERT J. KANE SPORTS COMPLEX Athletic Venues Robert J. Kane Sports Complex Charles F. Berman Field THE SIMON TRACK • 8 lane track with 400 meter oval made of resilient track surface completed in 1996 • Two chute extensions for extra sprint run out space • 42 inch lane lines with portable curb on inside lane • 2-3 major competitions held on weekends in the summer, up to 15 teams invited. Each team is typically approximately 100 athletes • Long / Triple jump runways and pits along eastern and western inside lanes with pit covers (4 total) • Southern D Area is resilient track surface for high jump and pole vault runway (2 total on this end) • Northern D Area is natural grass with resilient track surface for Pole Vault runway (2 total on this end) and steeple chase KROCH THROWING EVENTS • Combination Discus / Hammer circle and cage with natural grass landing area • Shot Put circle and stone dust landing area • Resilient track Surface Javelin runway and natural grass landing area CHARLES F. BERMAN FIELD • Natural Grass Competition Soccer Venue • Athletic Lighting installed in August of 2000 • Scoreboard • Main use for Men’s and Women’s Soccer • Maximum size approximately 222’ x 354’ • Sand based field with an 8:1:1 ratio (sand: soil: bio compost mix), vertical drains and irrigated. Mix of 30% perennial rye and 70% Kentucky bluegrass • Tough to schedule track practice/meets with soccer practice/games • Bleacher seating installed in August of 2000 for approximately 1,000 spectators. Athletics believes 1,500 should be max for proposed facility in case they host a large event. Kroch Throwing Events 21Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS DAVID F. HOY FIELD David F. Hoy Field • Infilled Synthetic Turf field (Field Turf), home plate circle is turf, pitcher’s mound is clay infield mix • Installed in 2007, re-oriented when renovated • Approximately 134,140 sf. of turf: 320’ RF, 320’ LF, 400’ Center • Currently no Athletic Lighting • Home field baseball - 45 players • Practice baseball • Lacrosse uses field for practice • Big Red Marching Band practice when available (about 200 people) • Snow is removed during the winter and field is used about 10 months out of the year • Tension netting backstop with unit block 42” backstop with pad • Batters eye (pitcher’s backdrop, part of outfield fencing) • Windscreen at perimeter fence • Scoreboard • Dugouts • Batting cages • Permanent Bleachers for approximately 500 spectators - ornamental fence for guard rails at bleacher, seat plants along sides of bleacher, center has foldup chairs with seat backs • Press Box • Sound System • Storage for baseball equipment in storage room next to each dugout and under bleachers • Lockers and showers for home baseball team in Grumman Squash Courts • Visiting team uses Bartels Hall Locker rooms • This field is in a central part of campus and an ideal location for athletes and considered one of the top collegiate baseball diamonds in the northern half of the country 22 EXISTING CONDITIONS (CONT.) BARTELS HALL (FIELD HOUSE) Athletic Venues Bartels Hall RICHARD RAMIN MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM • AstroTurf Field House - approximately 27,000 sf. • Does not accomodate a full size field (football or lacrosse) • The Lindseth Climbing Wall was the best of its kind when it first went up and still is the largest natural rock indoor climbing wall in North America. • The Outdoor Recreation Education stores their equipment outside between the Ramin Room and Alumni Fields. • Ideally Athletics would like to fit all sports in a new indoor multi-purpose facility because they could practice to late hours without any neighbor complaints of lights/noise. FRIEDMAN STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING CENTER • Built in 1997 • 8,000 sf. • Weight room, treadmills • 1,100 varsity athletes have access, about 27 teams train here NEWMAN ARENA • Basketball and Volleyball arena • Seats 4,473 spectators • Telescoping bleachers LOCKER ROOMS AND SHOWER FACILITIES • In general the locker rooms that were toured were all about the same size as the rest of the locker rooms in Bartels Hall and Athletics believes they are undersized • Basketball – larger than the other sports, TV, lounge, showers, bathrooms • Baseball (inside Grumman Squash Courts) - old squash courts converted into locker rooms with couches, tables, lounge chairs, ping pong table, TV’s 23Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS SCHOELLKOPF FIELD AND SCHOELLKOPF MEMORIAL HALL Schoellkopf Field Schoellkopf Memorial Hall SCHOELLKOPF FIELD • The home for Football, Sprint Football, Men’s and Women’s Lacrosse. • Built in 1915, lights installed in 1920 • Crescent was built in 1924 and holds 21,500 spectators • In 1971 artificial turf was installed and has been resurfaced multiple times since, most recently with an infilled synthetic turf system. Needs replacement soon • Press box was built in 1986 • Perimeter track is not currently used for track and field team practice or competition SCHOELLKOPF MEMORIAL HALL • Existing Varsity Football. Sprint Football, and Men’s Lacrosse practice use lockers rooms and showers in Schoellkopf Memorial Hall • Coaches offices • Meeting rooms • Outdoor Function space • Trainers’ rooms – converted from the old football locker rooms 24 EXISTING CONDITIONS (CONT.) GAME FARM FIELD ATHLETIC COMPLEX (McGOVERN FIELDS 1-4) McGOVERN FIELDS 1 AND 2 • Natural grass fields • 6’ galvanized chain link fence around field perimeters • Athletic Lighting -6 poles total (4 poles each field, 2 shared poles). An Osprey nest is currently on one of the shared light poles and will need to be addressed • Used for Men’s and Women’s soccer practice and Cornell sports summer camps for approximately 19 days • Field Construction ◦6” deep sandcap (rootzone) over compacted subgrade ◦4” diameter perforated HDPE underdrain in subgrade, 18’ O.C. ◦Center ridge with 1% slope to sidelines ◦In-ground irrigation system • Per the Town of Ithaca’s permit conditions, there is no amplified sound and lighting is limited to before 9pm. • Primarily used on weekdays 4 pm to 8 pm; occasional weekend and morning practices • Currently, student athletes use locker and training rooms in Bartels Hall. They are transported by taking a shuttle bus to McGovern Fields and back. The shuttle is a 30-passenger bus that makes 3 trips out and 3 trips back per practice. McGOVERN FIELD 3 • Natural grass field • No lights • Used for Women’s lacrosse secondary practice field and Cornell sports summer camps for approximately 19 days • Field Construction ◦6” deep salvaged topsoil over compacted subgrade (imported fill) ◦Center ridge with 2% slope to sidelines ◦No underdrain ◦Not irrigated McGOVERN FIELD 4 • Natural grass field • No lights • Used for Cornell sports summer camps for approxi- mately 19 days • Field Construction ◦6” deep salvaged topsoil over compacted subgrade (imported fill) ◦Steep slope to sidelines ◦No underdrain ◦Not irrigated McGOVERN FIELD HOUSE • Very basic, utilitarian training room • No showers • There are bathrooms – 3 stalls and 2 urinals • No municipal sewer at this time (septic). • Team rooms are a room with hooks on the walls Athletic Venues McGovern Field 4 McGovern Field 1 McGovern Field 2 McGovern Field 3 McGovern Field House N GAME FARM FIELD ATHLETIC COMPLEX AERIAL 25Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS GAME FARM FIELD ATHLETIC COMPLEX EXISTING PHOTOS 26 ANALYSIS | PLANNING GUIDELINES Site Analysis | Context Two NYSEG transmission lines bisect the site in a northwest to southeast corridor and limit the flex- ibility of the site. There is a desire to relocate the lines to the north, adjacent to the wooded stream corridor to open up central space in the study area. A consideration in potentially moving the 115kV lines is the need to remove tree cover within the established right-of-way to keep vegetation clear of the lines. Re-location options would need to be assessed to determine if portions of the stream cor- ridor would need to be cleared. Immediately south of the access drive from Game Farm Road is a constructed drainage swale that collects overland and seep flow from the field area upslope to the south and directs the flow westward along the driveway and then piped underground to the north to an outlet near to the Cascadilla Creek corridor. There are two small detention ponds (<2000 sq. ft. surface area each) located northeast and northwest of the existing athletic fields and south of the stream corridor. The ponds are constructed water detention basins with over- flow outlets downslope to the north. In addition, visual connections back to the core campus will be important as a constant reminder to the users that this complex is an important part of the Cornell community. The northwest views towards campus are particularly important as this intersection is a campus gateway and should be preserved and highlighted. Coordination will be needed with the proposed planning for East Hill Village in order to establish a successful framework for the two properties to work together. Such potential shared resources include traffic and circulation, stormwater, utilities, views, and open space. N SITE ANALYSIS PLAN 3 27Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan Analysis| Transportation Existing travel patterns to the Game Farm Road site are auto oriented and are strongly influenced not only by the remoteness of the site but also by the poor quality and limited number of pedestrian and bicycle connections and infrequency of the TCAT service, particularly on routes serving the south precinct. Maintaining a connection between the newly located athletic fields and the core campus will be paramount to maximizing the utilization of this new athletic complex. The only existing vehicular access to the site is via a gravel driveway that services the existing athletics uses off of Game Farm Road. There is adequate frontage along Pine Tree and Ellis Hollow Roads for additional vehicular connections to the site. The intersection along Pine Tree Road at Maple Avenue is an ideal location for a new athletics campus entrance/gate- way. Plans to improve Pine Tree Road and the East Ithaca Recreation Way will aid in improving access to the site. The project team together with Cornell developed a methodology for determining what the number of fixed parking spaces should be for the full-build project. With the assumptions outlined on this page and assuming competition soccer and field hockey events could be happening at the same time, a tar- get of 500 fixed parking spaces was developed. Parking Strategy Assumptions: • Percentage of Student Spectators: 40% • Percentage of Students with Cars: ◦ Freshman 10% ◦ Sophomore 20% ◦ Junior 30% ◦ Senior 40% ◦ All Students 25% • Percentage of Students with Cars who will use them to get to GFR: 50% • Occupancy of Non-Student Cars: 2 • Percentage of non-student spectators that use alternative transit (not cars): 25% ANALYSIS | PLANNING GUIDELINES VIEW OF PINE TREE RD AND MAPLE AVE INTERSECTION NEW ENTRY ROAD AT PINE TREE RD AND MAPLE AVE INTERSECTION Parking Strategy Spectators • Student Spectators ◦ Student spectators with cars ◦ Student spectators that come to athletics complex by car • Non-Student Spectators ◦ Non-student spectators with cars ◦ Non- student spectators that come to athletics complex by car Total Spaces Needed Soccer 1,500 600 150 75 900 675 338 413 Field Hockey 300 120 30 15 180 135 68 68 Total 1,800 720 180 90 1,080 810 405 495 SAY TOTAL 500 28 Analysis | Transportation (Cont.) The existing trail system, for both pedestrians and cyclists, is largely incomplete in this area. In addi- tion, only a few TCAT routes currently link the core campus to the Game Farm Road Athletics Complex area and currently stop at East Hill Plaza. In order to encourage usage of these new facilities, the pe- destrian and bicycle networks should be completed and enhanced. Similar to the recommendations in the adopted Cornell Master Plan, a shuttle bus ser- vice should help students access these areas with frequent, convenient stops and routes. A pedestrian bridge across Cascadilla Creek is an ideal way to connect not only pedestrians but also bicyclists from the East Ithaca Recreation Way to the new athletic facilities. The plan indicates a crossing at the existing location where the Bolton Point water line crosses Cascadilla Creek. Due to steep slopes on the south side of the Creek corridor, a more thorough analysis of this crossing should be performed to minimize impacts to natural areas while providing an accessible and convenient crossing. The demanding schedule placed on the student athletes requires efficiency in their day to day ac- tivities. In order to achieve the desired efficiencies, logical transportation solutions will be paramount. ANALYSIS | PLANNING GUIDELINES (CONT.) Recreation Way Cascadilla Creek Flood Plain Steep Slope CREEK CROSSING - EXISTING SECTION - EXISTING SECTION - PROPOSED CREEK CROSSING - PROPOSED PROPOSED OPTIONS FOR CASCADILLA CREEK CROSSING 29Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan Analysis| Utilities ANALYSIS | PLANNING GUIDELINES EXISTING DOUBLE POLE STRUCTURE EXISTING ALIGNMENT OF TRANSMISSION LINES PRECEDENT FOR A MONOPOLE STRUCTURE CONCEPT A PRELIMINARY PROPOSED CONCEPT FOR TRANSMISSION LINES RELOCATED TO THE NORTH (PREFERRED) A SECONDARY PROPOSED CONCEPT FOR TRANSMISSION LINES RELOCATED TO THE SOUTH 225’ EASEMENT 225’ EASEMENT COORDINATE WITH GAS LINE NATURAL AREA IMPACTS VALVING STATION IMPACT TO EXISTING FIELD 225’ EASEMENT New and upgraded utility infrastructure will be required and implemented on an as needed basis. The design team evaluated different concepts for relocating the transmission lines (refer to Appendix 1) and concluded that realigning the lines to the north along the tree line was the preferred solution. This would open up the site to be developed without the divide of the transmission lines. Through pre- liminary discussions with NYSEG, it was determined that a dual pole system would still be required as they carry redundant feeds to improve reliability. The alignment as shown is conceptual and should be carefully analyzed to minimize cost and to coordinate with the existing gas line to minimize damage to the existing natural area. This re- alignment will also have an impact on the existing McGov- ern Field 3 at Game Farm Road. The existing gas line along the tree line in the northern sec- tion of the site will need to remain with a 20 foot setback on either side. Currently, the gas line follows the contours of the existing land with 3 to 4 feet of cover. There is a valving station in the northeast corner of the site that will remain. Electricity for existing building comes from a line that goes to Ellis Hollow Road that is provided by NYSEG. The University requested the sport lighting at the fields be LED lights. Potable water crosses project area from Ellis Hollow Road within newly installed pipes from Cornell’s tank on Hun- gerford Hill Road. This should have capacity and required pressure to service normal needs of project area. Based on capacity, sewer alternatives would be the City of Ithaca system near East Hill Plaza or the Cornell Sewer system (to the Varna waste line, part of the Town of Dryden system). This second option would most likely be via a connection to the existing pump station across Cascadilla Creek at the Poultry Farm. There is a desire to consolidate this electric and other utili- ties within existing corridors. 30 ANALYSIS | PLANNING GUIDELINES (CONT.) Case Studies As part of the Project, the team was requested to prepare a case study analysis, looking at other colleges and universities that have remote athletic facilities. The case studies for the new Game Farm Road Athletic Complex centered around universities that have comparable separate athletic complexes, simi- lar to the arrangement that will be created with the number of outdoor varsity teams competition and practice facilities moving to Game Farm Road. The Game Farm Road Athletic Complex will not be the only separate athletic facilities associated with the Cornell campus. The existing facilities located in Precinct 9, which include Reis Tennis Center, Belkin International Squash Courts, Oxley Equestri- an Center, and the Niemand-Robison Softball Field, are also located outside of the core campus. These facilities have been separate for some time, but with the creation of the new Game Farm Road Athletic Complex, it provides an opportunity to better sup- port these existing Precinct 9 facilities. The new Game Farm Road Athletic Complex is 1.72 miles from the core athletic facilities. With new pathway connections, this direct walking distance could be reduced to 1.58 miles. The existing Pre- cinct 9 facilities are 1.29 miles from the core athletic facilities. The following universities were surveyed as case studies: Yale University, New Haven, CT Ivy League Dartmouth College, Dartmouth, NH Ivy League Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA Colonial Athletic Association Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY Atlantic Coast Conference YALE UNIVERSITY • Almost all Varsity Athletic Facilities are located at the Yale Bowl Complex. Strength & Conditioning is located on Main Campus • Competition & Practice Facilities are located at the Yale Bowl Complex • Soccer, Lacrosse & Field Hockey Teams practice on their game synthetic surface facilities • Dedicated athletic shuttle buses, costs Athletic Department +$350,000 annually CORNELL UNIVERSITY 31Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan ANALYSIS | PLANNING GUIDELINES DREXEL UNIVERSITY • Varsity field sports are located at Vidas Athletic Complex Athletic Center is on Main Campus • Field Competition & Practice Facilities at Vidas Athletic Complex • Soccer, Lacrosse & Field Hockey teams practice on their game synthetic surface facilities • Field House with support facilities at Vidas includes Locker Rooms, Film Room, Lounge, Laundry, etc. • Transportation via University Shuttle Bus - 1 of 4 stops on the shuttle loop SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY • Almost all Varsity Facilities are located at Lampe Athletic Complex. Strength & Conditioning on Main Campus • Competition & Practice Facilities at Lampe Complex Football, Lacrosse (Basketball) play games at Carrier Dome • Transportation via Campus Shuttle Bus Loop Stops at Lampe to and from Main Campus and South Campus Residential Village DARTMOUTH COLLEGE • Almost all Varsity Facilities are located together, southeast of the center of Main Campus • Competition & Practice Facilities are together • Soccer, Lacrosse & Field Hockey teams practice on their game synthetic surface facilities • No Shuttle Buses, students walk and bike 32 ANALYSIS | PLANNING GUIDELINES (CONT.) CAMPUS PLANNING ATHLETICS Create a vibrant, self-sustaining athletics campus that is a compelling destination for student-athletes, coaches, staff and spectators. Respect and enhance specific site features (topography, natural areas, hydrology, Cascadilla Creek) and utilize as an asset for the new Athletic Campus. Provide NCAA quality venues, amenities and supporting facilities. Provide safe, efficient, timely and dependable access and multi-modal transportation infrastructure. Provide venues, amenities and supporting facilities that reach or exceed peer institution’s facilities. Create a campus that is sustainable and is consistent with the mainte- nance resources of the University. Understand important adjacencies and potential synergies (East Hill Village, ‘Cornell Park’, Cornell Plantations). Develop an Image and Character that reflects Cornell University’s unique brand, culture, and context. PLACE MAKING INTEGRATE NATURAL SYSTEMS NCAA QUALITY PROMOTE SAFETY & ACCESSIBILITY IVY LEAGUE STANDARDS SUSTAINABILITY POTENTIAL SYNERGIES IMAGE & CHARACTER Master Planning Guidelines 1 4 7 625 83 The form of the ACFMP is derived from several themes, or principles. These principles guide the development of the open space and public realm, circulation, infrastructure, land use, and building development. 33Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan ATHLETICS NCAA QUALITY ANALYSIS | PLANNING GUIDELINES Having a clear vision for the direction of the ACFMP is essential. One of the first objectives of the master planning process was to establish the goals for this effort: Place Making Great athletic complexes are not only a result of great facilities, but also the result of creating a unique public realm with places for social and cul- tural interactions, public gatherings, recreation and athletics, and passive enjoyment. To best create this community, the plan looks to those defining phys- ical characteristics that make Cornell unique and memorable. The new athletics complex at Game Farm Road is a unique opportunity to develop a compelling and exciting athletics campus that will serve Cornell University Athletics and the Cornell Community now and into the future. Potential Synergies The CMP not only looks to reinforce the campus community, but also to promote a healthy, vital greater Ithaca community. The ACFMP should provide open and transparent connections to the surrounding areas such as East Hill Village, Cornell Park, and the Cornell Plantations Natural Area to create potential synergies and efficiencies. Image & Character The plan should ensure that the new athletic com- plex creates a beautiful setting that enhances Cor- nell’s aesthetics, unique brand, and culture. Ithaca’s landscapes are its most distinguishing feature and a goal of the ACFMP is to embrace these landscapes and provide facilities that attract students and instills pride in alumni. The plan should identify entrances and create a sense of arrival to the new athletic facilities complex. Campus edges that are attractive and well kept provide a positive image and collaborative relationship with the community. Integrate Natural Systems Improvements will be made in a way that will embrace and strengthen the existing features and character of the site, including the natural areas and systems, and the dramatic views to both the core campus and the surrounding context. The existing landscape of the Game Farm Road Complex will provide the framework that will shape and define the image of the new development. Understand- ing the landscape will be critical to maintain open space in many useful and practical forms that integrates it into the new athletic facility and its supporting infrastructure. The ACFMP focuses on naturalization and habitat creation to not only pro- vide sustainable solutions to stormwater treatment but also to create a sense of place. Promote Safety & Accessibility The plan should provide a safe and accessible system of roadways, sidewalks, and trails that is well lit and has appropriate signage. Provide a campus transportation system that allows for different modes of travel. Invest in improved public transportation and campus shuttle services that are dependable and reliable. Sustainability As part of the 2008 master planning process, Cor- nell’s overarching vision for the future of the cam- pus was to be a model of efficient and sustainable development. Cornell continues to work towards demonstrating sustainability across the campus by promoting environmental stewardship. This includes careful site and master planning on the Game Farm Road Athletic Facilities Complex to create a place that is integrated, connected and engaged. A campus char- acter is only as good as it can be maintained. The ACFMP should reflect the maintenance resources of the University and embrace low maintenance strategies for venues and campus improvements. NCAA Quality In order to host certain events, the NCAA has spe- cific guidelines and recommendations that need to be met. In the CMP, it was one of the requirements to be able to host all of the program athletic events. The competition venues should have, as a baseline, the goal to meet NCAA standards and quality. Not only are these required to host NCAA events, but Cornell’s student athletes and visiting teams de- serve to have venues that reflect their dedication, commitment, and level of competition. Ivy League Standards One of the goals in the ACFMP was to retain the character of the existing site while designing the new facilities to the standards of the Cornell Cam- pus. The design aesthetic and functionality would also need to consider the other Ivy League Schools to ensure that the new facilities are up to the cur- rent standards of peer institutions. One item that was considered during the design was that the Ivy League has an agreement that all League games will have a live streaming video footage broadcast. This requires that lighting and athletic surfaces must be carefully evaluated to ensure maximum quality of streamed events. 54 IMPLEMENTATION Phasing The master planning effort focused on the full-build master plan backing into a realistic and compelling Phase I strategy. Through the planning process there was a consistent goal from the Cornell stakeholders, Athletics and the design team that the first phase of this master plan implementation has enough of an impact and provides the facilities necessary to create a strong sense of place and a destination. The pending devel- opment of the Bio-Medical Engineering building at the core campus would result in the required relocation of existing Alumni fields, putting a priority on a strong and implementable Phase I strategy. The Phase I plan proposes the following athletics facil- ities, required infrastructure improvements and added programmatic requirements: Athletics Program • Phase I Club House facility – 10,500 sf • Existing McGovern fields 1 and 2 will remain ◦Natural Grass / lighting • Multi – Purpose practice ◦Synthetic Turf (renovated McGovern 3) • Multi-Purpose practice ◦Synthetic Turf/ Lights – (renovated McGovern 4, Alumni 2 replacement) • Multi-Purpose practice ◦Synthetic Turf / Lights – (Alumni 3 replacement) • Multi-purpose practice ◦Synthetic Turf/ Lights (Infield of future track) PHASE I PHASE I - UTILITY N 5 55Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan IMPLEMENTATION Infrastructure Improvements The proposed parking is suggested to be at the grade of the lower level of the new clubhouse facility, under the existing power lines. The use of this area for parking should be confirmed with NYSEG. If not, a more linear arrangement could be provided along the existing driveway. • Phase I plan assumes that the power lines will remain. • Vehicular access and parking improvements, including a temporary drop-off at the new clubhouse facility and parking for 50 cars. • Pedestrian circulation including the multi-use path connection to Pine Tree Road. Providing a strong pedestrian and bicycle connection to the main campus will be critical with the increased users for the athletics complex. • Stormwater infrastructure improvements associated with new facilities. • Phase I tree planting and natural areas associated with stormwater management improvements. It should also be noted that any opportunity to install a more comprehensive tree planting program that works with the future plan would be a valuable asset to the site. There is virtually no tree cover at the existing site and a new tree canopy will be an important component of the future plan. • Utility Infrastructure – Reference previous plan. ◦Sewer On-Site – New on site sewer infrastructure including new pump station number 1 ◦Sewer Off-Site - Force main in or adjacent to Game Farm Road, across the GFR bridge and connection to the existing pump station at the Poultry Farm area. Improvements to existing sewer infrastructure at the Poultry Farm. ◦Water – New 8” connection from existing 8” main to the new club house building ◦Drainage – Improvements associated with the development ◦Electrical – Transformer upgrade and new electrical service ◦Data/ Fiber – Connection from Library Annex (across Cascadilla Creek) via existing conduit FINAL MASTER PLAN N 34 MASTER PLAN Athletics Complex Master Plan The new athletics complex at Game Farm Road/ East Hill Village is a unique opportunity to develop a compelling and exciting athletics campus that will serve Cornell University Athletics and the Cornell Community now and into the future. This report outlines a comprehensive vision for the new athletics campus, and an implementation strategy that will bring the vision to reality. Overview The Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan (ACFMP) was the result of thorough evaluations of existing conditions and existing venues, analysis and program development. During the initial plan- ning for the complex, base land-use and organizing criteria were developed and maintained as consistent conditions for development of the ACFMP: East Hill Plaza/ East Hill Village – The 2008 CMP identified the East Hill Plaza area as a prime oppor- tunity to be redeveloped into a vibrant and active mixed-use ‘Village’ (East Hill Village). The CMP identified a potential expansion of this area along Ellis Hollow Road, and envisioned strong connec- tions and shared uses with the Athletics Complex. The ACFMP as proposed ‘reserves’ approximately 10 Acres along Ellis Hollow Road for potential expan- sion, and suggests vehicular, pedestrian and visual linkages between the athletics complex and the to-be-designed East Hill Village. It should be noted that planning for the East Hill Village is currently underway. As that plan is further developed, poten- tial synergies with this plan should continue to be explored and coordinated, including final size and configuration of any expansion area. Cornell Park – The CMP also suggested an area along Ellis Hollow Road as ‘Cornell Park’, a multi-purpose passive open space that would serve as a transitional landscape between the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden and the University uses, andpro- vide passive and active recreational, gathering and social uses for all. The Cornell Park will allow for a spacious green space adjacent to community areas and provide a place to host concerts, outdoor events, tailgating, and a full range of informal active and passive recreational opportunities for students, staff, and members of the surrounding communities. To create more of a buffer between the new facilities and the community, the design team has extended this park landscape character all along the southern portion below the access drive. A shared pedestri- an/bicycle path has been woven into this area not only to facilitate access from the core campus to the Cornell Park, but also serve as a trail for physical activity. The vision for the ACFMP is consistent with the overall objectives of the CMP as it fosters the integration of natural landscapes with recreational and leisure facilities. Also consistent with the CMP, is the idea that the proposed location for the Cornell Park can preserve the northwest views toward the core campus. This view strengthens the idea that the intersection of Ellis Hollow and Game Farm Roads will become a symbolic campus gateway. Existing McGovern Athletics Complex – The exist- ing complex at Game Farm Road (four fields) will remain and the proposed expansion and additional facilities will occur around them. The athletics build- ing will remain initially but could be removed once other proposed facilities come on-line, or re-pur- posed as a support structure. 115kV Transmission Lines – As stated previously in this report, the existing lines consist of a double row of transmission lines mounted on paired wood poles, and extend from Pine Tree Road through the site to the southeast to a point near the intersec- tion of Game Farm Road and Ellis Hollow Road. These transmission lines essentially bisect the site and limit uses around and under them. Through a preliminary analysis and many discussions, it was determinedthat this plan would recommend relocat- ing the lines to the north along the Cascadilla Creek corridor at a strategic point in the plan development. This will provide flexibility in the development of the plan and will be a long-term solution for the project. Pine Tree Road improvements – It is understood that the Town of Ithaca in cooperation with Cornell will be implementing improvements to Pine Tree Road, including replacement of the existing bridge that currently serves the East Ithaca Recreation Way, and a new multi-use path along the west side of Pine Tree Road, that will provide a direct and safe pedestrian/bike connection from Route 366 to Mitchell Avenue and the Recreation Way trail. These improvements are vital to providing a strong pedes- trian and bicycle connection from the Main Campus to the new Athletics campus. Campus Plan From the existing conditions inventory, analysis, program development and goals developed in the initial phases of the planning effort, alternative master plan concepts were developed that addressed various layouts of athletic venues, circulation and infrastructure improvements. These alternatives are included in this report as Appendix 1. These alterna- tives were then vetted and discussed in a charrette setting with the various campus stakeholders. From these discussion a final concept plan emerged and was subsequently refined and further developed The final ACFMP provides a complete and compre- hensive plan for a logical and organized arrangement of proposed athletics venues, linked by important circulation and utility infrastructure improvements. Improvements will be made in a way that will embrace and strengthen the existing features and character of the site, including the natural areas and systems, and the dramatic views to both the core campus and the surrounding setting. The goal of the ACFMP is to work with the natural character of the agricultural site to create a unique, memorable, flex- ible and highly functional campus layout that pro- motes efficiency and sustainability. A key objective will be to improve the aesthetics of the development to reflect the stature of Cornell given that the precinct contains multiple gateways to campus and is a key point of arrival for many visitors. The complex is anchored by a new clubhouse and field house located at the center of the campus. The clubhouse building will provide athletes’ lockers, rest rooms, team facilities, training and fitness areas, spectator amenities and other supporting programs. Please reference the detailed program for the club- house outlined previously in this report. The field house will enclose a multi-use field facili- ty to be used for practice and training for all teams during the winter and inclement weather. The new competition venues are organized around the clubhouse/field house buildings, providing direct and easy access from these venues to the core support facilities. Additional practice and multi-use fields are proposed to the east, including the existing McGovern fields and additional fields along Game Farm Road. The venues are organized to work with the existing topography to minimize site impact and earthwork operations. Sloped transitions between venues are envisioned to provide informal spectator seating in addition to formal seating at competition venues. Other open space areas are provided as multi-use spaces for informal gathering, tailgating, team tent areas and other outdoor uses. More detailed descriptions and recommendations for specific athletic and infrastructure components of the plan follow in this section of the report. 4 35Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan N FINAL MASTER PLAN 36 MASTER PLAN (CONT.) Athletics Complex Master Plan The following outlines the proposed venues to ultimately be accommodated at the Game Farm Road Athletics Com- plex. Please reference a detailed de- scription of the program for each venue outlined later in this chapter. Athletic Venues: • Existing McGovern fields (4) • Practice Fields (2)– Alumni Fields replacements ◦Varsity sports practice, intramurals • NCAA Competition Soccer Venue ◦Berman Field, and Practice • NCAA Competition Track and Field Venue with multi-use practice infield ◦Kane Sports Complex • NCAA Competition Field Hockey Venue ◦Dodson Field • NCAA Competition Baseball Venue ◦Hoy Field • Multi-Purpose Practice Fields (2) • Club House Facility – 26,700 sf • Field House – 100,000sf N FINAL MASTER PLAN 37Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan 38 MASTER PLAN (CONT.) Framework & Infrastructure | Transportation Vehicular Circulation The ACFMP has envisioned the transportation infrastructure as safe, convenient, and reliable access for vehicles, buses, bicyclists, and pedestri- ans. The success of the ACFMP will hinge on the implementation of transportation and circulation improvements campus wide. The ACFMP embrac- es a mobility-oriented approach that supports the use of non-auto modes as the cornerstone for the improved transportation method for the Game Farm Road site. A new connection to the existing core campus is proposed on Pine Tree Road at the intersection with Maple Ave. This new roadway system will be a two-way street connecting Pine Tree Road to Game Farm and Ellis Hollow Roads. The plan also shows a suggested connection to East Hill Village that will need to be coordinated with the final improvements to this area. The other three new vehicular access points will serve as gateways or portals to the new campus. The ACFMP includes a series of surface parking lots along the roadway system to serve various athletic and recreational venues throughout the complex. Approximately 524 spaces are shown with additional areas for overflow parking for special events and tailgating. On occasions, where additional parking is needed, shared parking could be utilized with East Hill Village or other areas on the Cornell campus, with a shuttle to take visitors back and forth. A flexible transit plan will also improve the operation of bus parking. Three bus drop-off areas have been incorporated at the club house, track facility, and baseball facility. Bus park- ing would be accommodated at the drop-off areas and satellite parking lots where the events are not scheduled. 125cars 90cars 50cars 24 cars 50cars 95cars 90cars KEY Vehicular Circulation Parking Areas Vehicular Site Access Points Bus Drop-Off 39Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan The roadway system will typically be a 24 foot travel lane with a sloped granite edging typical on both sides, LED street lighting, a 12 foot shared primary walk nearby, and irregular spaced street trees to enhance the naturalistic character of the campus. The character of the landscape along the roadway is illustrated in the concept plan to the right. Shown on the left in the image below is the 20 foot meadow/lawn area for temporary overflow parking. When not in use, the area can remain meadow and when there is a de- mand for extra parking or tailgating activities, the meadow can be mown and used as an overflow area. To deter this new vehicular network from becoming a new cut through to avoid the Ellis Hollow / Pine Tree intersection, traffic calming measures should be imple- mented at strategic locations in the network to slow and discourage through traffic. MASTER PLAN Public Transit / Campus Shuttle Enhancements are recommended to existing TCAT bus ser- vices to address peak hour capacity and reliability issues. Ex- tension of one or more bus routes that now terminate at East Hill Village are a priority. Expansion to the existing Cornell athletic shuttle service or modifications to proposed services will be evaluated as new athletic facilities come on line, and will be critical in providing safe, reliable transportation for student athletes. CHARACTER OF PLANTING ALONG ROADWAY TYPICAL VEHICULAR ROADWAY PLAN TYPICAL VEHICULAR ROADWAY SECTION 40 MASTER PLAN (CONT.) Framework & Infrastructure | Transportation (Cont.) Pedestrian Circulation KEY Primary (Multi-Use) Walks Secondary Walks Nature Walk Moving around the campus easily, comfortably, and safely is critical to the wellbeing of the cam- pus community. For the Game Farm Road Athlet- ic Complex, a pedestrian friendly approach was taken to create a network of paths to accommodate internal mobility needs around the athletic facilities and external access in a safe and convenient way. In addition, bicycling is also an important mode for campus trips and the primary walkways have been designed to be shared paths at 12 feet in width. Secondary paths have been designed at 8 feet in width to meet campus standards. These paths will be paved to provide a durable, safe, and accessible route that is easily maintained year-round. Parking and drop-off areas are located as to pro- vide easy and accessible access to all venues. The proposed pedestrian bridge across Cascadilla Creek will provide better access to the Cascadilla Creek Natural Area and the East Ithaca Recreation Way, and can provide a safe and more convenient pedestrian and bicycle access from the core cam- pus. A new nature trail, (mulch or stone dust,) is proposed along the wooded northern edge of the site that weaves in and out of the Cornell Planta- tions Natural Area for the Cascadilla Creek, paral- lel to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. 41Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan MASTER PLAN The pedestrian circulation infrastructure will be a key component in defining the character and ex- perience of the new campus. The plan envisions meandering walkways weaving through a natural landscape. The pedestrian circulation will work with the integrated stormwater strategy with board- walks and pedestrian bridges at strategic locations. WALK DESIGN PRECEDENTS TYPICAL PRIMARY WALK SECTION TYPICAL SECONDARY WALK SECTION 42 MASTER PLAN (CONT.) Framework & Infrastructure | Utilities Utilities Utility infrastructure services will be required to service the new athletic facilities and support structures of the new Athletics Campus. The design team has worked with Cornell Facilities to assess proposed improvements and potential connection points. A more detailed analysis and engineering study will be required for each utility to confirm the master plan level designs noted on the following plans and described below. It should be noted that as the proposed East Hill Village planning contin- ues, potential synergies related to utility infrastructure and services should continue to evaluated. Sewer – Any upgrades and need for new sanitary sewer service should be connected to the Cornell treatment system which ultimately connect to the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, or Town of Dryden systems. There are no Cornell sewer facilities in the vicinity. Working with Cornell Facilities, it was determined that the best location to tie into is an existing system at the Poultry Farm complex north of Cascadilla Creek. The plan outlines a proposed on-site sanitary sewer strategy. Two new pump stations are proposed. The force main will extend along or under Game Farm Road from the new pump station to the existing pump station facility at the Poultry Farm location. The team un- derstands that the Town has current plans for renovation/repairs to the existing Game Farm Road bridge, which would provide an opportunity to include a sleeve to accommodate the future force main. It should also be noted that the existing sewer facilities at the poultry farm (Pump station and force main) should be evaluated for capacity and condition as part of the final design. Water – There is sufficient water service at the site perimeter to provide adequate water supply for domestic, fire protection and irrigation uses for the project. An existing paired 16” water main occurs along the south and west edges of the site, continuing north across Cascadilla Creek. An existing 8” line services the existing building. New mains will be required from the perimeter service to the new facilities. Not shown are exterior hydrants which would need to be located along the roadways and at strategic locations in the interior of the campus. Drainage – Drainage will be accommodated as part of the overall stormwater management strategy. Drainage infrastructure will be minimized to the extent feasible and most drainage will be addressed with surface treatment. It is assumed that the existing detention/ retention areas north of the exist- ing fields will remain and new facilities will be included in the plan as outlined in the stormwater/ hydrology section of this report. Electrical – The existing electrical transformer (300kva) at the existing building does not have capac- ity for any added load. A supplemental or replacement transformer would be required for any pro- gram that would require additional loads (field lighting/ buildings). In addition, coordination with NYSEG should be performed to determine permanent service connections. Data / Fiber – New Data / Fiber service will be required to be run to service blue light and other secu- rity as well as general Cornell campus network access and services. It appears that the best location to provide this service is near the Library Annex area on East Palm Road across Cascadilla Creek. The required crossing would occur at the location of the previously installed water main crossing, where empty conduits were installed for this purpose. 43Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan MASTER PLAN Framework & Infrastructure | Natural Systems Landscape The ACFMP offers an opportunity to introduce planting patterns that compre- hensively integrate landscape systems of the site and the broader region. The ACFMP embraces the physical openness of the Game Farm Site and reinforces the valued natural systems. This is consistent with Cornell’s goal to promote environmental stewardship and maintain its natural features, legacy spaces, and important views. The ACFMP strives to maintain and restore as much of the open meadows and vegetation of Cascadilla Creek as possible as illustrat- ed in the plan to the left. The majority of the floodplain forest along the Cas- cadilla Creek is maintained and the views into this landscape are embraced by strategic orientation of the proposed facilities. Lawn areas have been minimized and are used for multiuse, gathering, and spectator seating areas. Meadow areas are proposed as the major groundcover for the campus to en- hance the natural character and reduce maintenance needs. Temporary over- flow parking areas and will be mowed on a limited, as needed basis. A tree installation plan should be implemented immediately as there are currently no trees in the open agricultural fields. Trees shall consist of native shade trees that define spaces, provide shade, and contribute to the character and image of the site. Smaller trees and shrubs will be used in natural areas to assist with water quality and provide habitat. KEY Floodplain Forest Open Meadow Lawn Meadow/Lawn LANDSCAPE DESIGN PRECEDENTS 44 MASTER PLAN (CONT.) Framework & Infrastructure | Natural Systems Stormwater & Hydrology As the Game Farm Road Athletic Complex devel- ops, naturalized ponds, swales, and other appropri- ate stormwater management features should be in- tegrated into the design so that these infrastructure elements can also serve as campus amenities. Best management practices to retain and treat stormwa- ter discharge into the Cascadilla Creek should be integrated to reduce flows, minimize erosion, and improve water quality. The location of water col- lection and infiltration directly corresponds to the existing drainage patterns determined in the anal- ysis part of this planning process. By creating long linear infiltration systems, the water management is likened to a water web, an integrated system that permeates the plan in a comprehensive way and enhances the ecological function of the site. The stormwater features will be supplemented with natural vegetation to support stormwater treatment functions, provide habitat, and enhance the natural character of the campus. The locations where circulation intersects with stormwater facilities are prime locations for board- walk and simple bridge crossings. KEY Stormwater Feature 45Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan MASTER PLAN STORMWATER AND BOARDWALK DESIGN PRECEDENTS CONCEPT SKETCH 46 PRACTICE FIELDS (McGOVERN FIELDS) • Recommendations ◦225’ x 360’ Field Dimension (McGovern 1, 2, and 4) ◦147’ x 360’ Field Dimension (McGovern 3) • Field Surfacing ◦Two (2) natural grass fields ◦Two (2) infilled synthetic turf fields • Field Amenities ◦4’ Perimeter fencing ◦20’ High protective athletic ball net and endlines • Sports Lighting System ◦Existing 6 pole system (4 poles each field, two shared back to back) ◦New 5 pole system (3 poles shared with Berman Field) for McGovern 4 ◦Proposed light levels for the competition field 70/50 foot candles ◦Energy consumption monitoring programs Athletic Venue Program University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Harvard University, Boston, MA MASTER PLAN (CONT.) The following outlines programmatic elements for each competition venue, practice / multiuse fields, and support- ing facilities associated with the new athletics complex. These programs were vetted with Cornell stakeholders in- cluding athletes and coaches, and conform to the goals of providing NCAA quality venues and supporting facilities that meet or exceed Ivy League standards. Precedent images for each venue are included to represent the quality and program that is anticipated. Detailed design for each facility will be required as the project moves forward. 47Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan NCAA SOCCER PROGRAM (PROPOSED RELOCATION OF BERMAN FIELD) Athletic Venue Program Harvard University, Boston, MA Mount Ida College, Newton, MA MASTER PLAN • Recommendations and Requirements to match NCAA and Existing Facility ◦Required Field Dimension: 210’ x 345’ NCAA min., 225’ x 360’ NCAA max. (FIFA :150’x300’ min., 300’x 390’ max.) • Competition Field Surfacing ◦Sand based under drained natural grass field • Spectator Seating and Press Box ◦Proposed capacity 1500 to match existing. Bleachers to be raised 3’ above field and tiered on two levels with overflow seating berm. ◦Aluminum planks with seat backs, center section to have flip up/folding chairs ◦Press box • Soccer Field Amenities ◦Flat area adjacent to bleachers dedicated to concessions ◦Scoreboard with PA system ◦Game Management/Scorers Area with Shade Structure ◦Team Area Benches with Shade Structure ◦4’ perimeter fencing with windscreen ◦20’ High protective athletic ball net and endlines ◦Brick/unit block wall behind grandstands • Sports Lighting System ◦6 pole system with energy consumption monitoring programs ◦Proposed light levels for the competition field (70/50 foot candles) ◦Potential for televised events (100/70 horizontal, 70/40 vertical foot candles) ◦Safety/security lighting on fields 48 NCAA TRACK AND FIELD PROGRAM (PROPOSED RELOCATION OF KANE SPORTS COMPLEX) Athletic Venue Program Mount Holyoke, Holyoke, MA MASTER PLAN (CONT.) • Recommendations and Requirements to match NCAA and Existing Facility ◦Required: ◦400m 8 lane track with (2) straightaways (to match existing) ◦Throwing events – (2) shot put, (1) hammer/discus, (1) javelin ◦Field events – (2) Long/Triple Jump/ High Jump, (1) Steeple Chase, (2) Pole Vault • Competition Track Surfacing ◦Resilient Track Surfacing at track lanes, “D- areas”, and runways ◦Infilled synthetic turf infield (fits 210’x345’ Soccer) • Track Facility Amenities ◦Seating for 1,000 spectators (+/- 2,500 more for overflow informal seating berm and tent space for large events. Bleachers to be raised 3’ above field with overflow seating berm above bleacher seating and around south end of track. ◦Brick/unit block wall behind grandstands ◦4’ Perimeter black chain link fence ◦20’ High protective athletic ball net and endlines ◦900 sf Storage Shed • Field Surfacing ◦One (1) infilled synthetic turf field (210’ x 345’ plus runoff boundary) • Sports Lighting System ◦6 pole system ◦Proposed light levels for the competition field (70/50 foot candles) ◦Potential for televised events (100/70 horizontal, 70/40 vertical foot candles) ◦Safety/security lighting on fields ◦Energy consumption monitoring programs 49Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan Athletic Venue Program NCAA FIELD HOCKEY PROGRAM (PROPOSED RELOCATION OF DODSON FIELD) • Meet All NCAA Facility Recommendations and Requirements for field dimensions (180’ x 300’ plus runoff boundary) • Field Surfacing ◦Knitted Nylon Synthetic Turf with Hydration (Water Cannons) • Field Hockey Facility Amenities ◦Seating for 250 spectators to match existing – permanent bleacher ◦Team Areas ◦Press box/game management area ◦Scoreboard with PA system ◦Perimeter fencing with curb and windscreen • Sports Lighting System ◦4 pole system ◦Proposed light levels 75/50 fc 2.0:1 uniformity University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA MASTER PLAN 50 NCAA BASEBALL PROGRAM (PROPOSED RELOCATION OF HOY FIELD) • Dimensional Recommendations and Requirements to match NCAA and Existing Facility ◦Required: ◦90’ to bases ◦13’ radius skinned cutouts at each base ◦Team areas ◦Bull pen for both teams, each to allow for 2 pitchers to warm up at exact measurements of mound on playing field ◦5’ diameter on deck circle, minimum 30’ from home plate in line with front edge of dugout ◦4’x6’ batter’s box, 4’x6’ catchers box ◦Coaches box shall be 20’x5’, located 15’ from the foul line ◦13’ radius home plate circle ◦9’ radius pitcher’s mound ◦Pitcher’s mound 60’-6” ◦Top of pitcher’s rubber 10” higher than the level home plate ◦1:12 slope from 6” in front of pitchers rubber to a point 6’ toward home plate ◦Pitcher’s mound level with top of pitcher’s rubber, 6’ in front and 22” behind pitcher’s rubber, 18” from each end ◦Required (cont): ◦Foul lines. All lines marked with chalk or non-burning white material and must be 2-3 inches wide 3’ offset for first base restraining line ◦6’ wide skinned first and third base lines ◦Recommendations: ◦330’ to each foul pole, 375’ in right and left center, 400’ in center field ◦Solar orientation, north to south ◦Outfield fence 6’ if possible, 8’ high preferred ◦15’ minimum wide warning track ◦Bull pens oriented same direction as playing field mounds, outside playing area ◦Distance from home plate to back stop 60’ ◦On deck circle 37’ from home plate in line with front edge of dugout ◦.67% from edge of sideline boundaries to edge of pitchers circle ◦Team areas enclosed on either end, at the rear, and overhead ◦Team areas centered on home plate/ first base and home plate/third base ◦First and third base lines be skinned 15” inside each base line (no more than 36”) and 36” outside each base line ◦Recommendations (cont): ◦Scoreboard showing balls, strikes, outs and line score located to be easily seen by both teams and spectators, not placed in batter’s vision sector • Competition Field Surfacing ◦Infilled synthetic turf monofilament ◦Everything turfed except for high performance pitcher’s mound infield mix • Spectator Seating and Press Box ◦Proposed capacity 500 to match existing. Bleachers to be raised 4’ above field level. ◦Aluminum planks with seat backs, center section to have flip up/folding chairs ◦Structural steel I-Beam construction ◦Press box ◦Accessibility and Plumbing Code challenges • Baseball Facility Amenities ◦8’ Black Chain Link Fencing (with wind screens and fence guards along foul territory, padding out outfield) ◦Bull Pens (2 Home, 2 Visitors) ◦Dugouts/Team Areas ◦Scoreboard ◦Batting Cage(s) (indoor preferred) Athletic Venue Programs MASTER PLAN (CONT.) • Baseball Facility Amenities (cont) ◦Batter’s Eye ◦Protective Netting ◦Tension backstop pole system with padded unit block knee wall ◦Spectator circulation/ seating ◦Communications, Telephone, Data ◦Building Program ◦1,590 sf Home Team Locker Room and Bathroom with showers ◦803 sf Visitors Team Locker Room and Single Bathroom ◦1,815 sf Spectator Bathrooms ◦163 sf Umpire Changing Room ◦163 sf Storage Room (Maintenance) ◦413 sf Concession Area under Press Box ◦1,174 sf Storage under Steel I-Beam Bleachers ◦Brick Veneer wrapped around bleachers • Sports Lighting System ◦8 pole system ◦Proposed light levels for the competition field (70/50 foot candles) ◦Potential for televised events (100/70 horizontal, 70/40 vertical foot candles) ◦Safety/security lighting on fields ◦Energy consumption monitoring programs 51Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH MASTER PLAN 52 Athletic Venue Programs MULTI-PURPOSE PRACTICE FIELDS • Recommendations ◦225’ x 360’ field dimensions • Field Surfacing ◦One (1) infilled synthetic turf full size NCAA field ◦One (1) natural grass full size NCAA field • Field Amenities ◦4’ Perimeter fencing ◦20’ High protective athletic ball net and endlines University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA MASTER PLAN (CONT.) LIGHTING PLAN Lighting of the fields will be an important programmatic element of the plan. Extended use of the venues will be a critical component of the complex, but will need to weighed with Towns of Ithaca and Dryden concerns. Easily controlled, dimable, and programmable LED lights will be a fundamental part of the plan. This will not only address neighbor concerns, but will also assist in energy conservation and reduce habitat impact. 53Cornell University: Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan MASTER PLAN Athletic Venue Programs Harvard University Beren Tennis Pavilion & Jordan Field, Boston, MA Air Force Academy Holaday Athletic Center, Colorado Springs, CO Game Farm Athletic Complex Club House and Field House PHASE I | Club House Men’s Soccer Team Locker Room……………………………………………960 sf Bathroom and Shower Room…………………………600 sf Women’s Soccer Team Locker Room……………………………………………960 sf Bathroom and Shower Room…………………………600 sf Men’s Bathroom..............................................................600 sf Women’s Bathroom …………………………………...600 sf Lounge/Cafeteria/Lobby…………………………….1,600 sf Laundry Room…………………………………………120 sf Storage Maintenance storage closet…………………………... 760 sf Athletic Equipment Storage…………………………1,200 sf Miscellaneous Stairs/elevator/hallways/mechanical space………..2,500 sf TOTAL FIRST FLOOR……………………………..10,500 sf   PHASE II | Club House Men’s Lacrosse Team Locker Room……………………………………………960 sf Bathroom and Shower Room………………………….600 sf Women’s Lacrosse Team Locker Room……………………………………………960 sf Bathroom and Shower Room………………………….600 sf Field Hockey Locker Room……………………………………………960 sf PHASE II | Club House (continued) Bathroom and Shower Room………………………….600 sf Flex Locker Rooms 7 total (352 sf. each)…………………………………..2,464 sf Men’s Bathroom...............................................................650 sf Women’s Bathroom…………………………………….650 sf Offices Coaches Office (5 total) at 120 sf. each…………….....600 sf Class Room / Film Room……………………………..1,000 sf Trainer’s Room…………………………………………900 sf Fitness / Warm Up Room………………………………900 sf Storage Maintenance storage closet…………………………... 380 sf Miscellaneous Stairs/elevator/hallways/mechanical space………...5,162 sf TOTAL SECOND FLOOR…………………………..17,386 sf TOTAL BUILDING PROGRAM…………………...27,886 sf PHASE II | Field House Field House with Infilled Synthetic Turf Field….100,000 sf (Fits a full size NCAA football, soccer, lacrosse, and field hockey field) From:AshleyPizak<akp65@cornell.edu>Sent:Thursday,November14,20247:39PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:CornellFieldHockeyFieldandComplex**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentGoodeveningTownPlanningBoardMembers,MynameisAshleyPizakandIamasophomoreintheNolanSchoolofHotelAdministrationonthefieldhockeyteamhereatCornell.IfeelverypassionateaboutthefieldhockeycomplexprojectasIbelieveitwillhelpourteambeatopcompetitorinallofDivisionI.Beingaparto-FtheCornellFieldHockeyteamhasbroughtmesomeofmyfavoritememoriesandfriendships.Notonlythis,buttheteampusheseachothertobeourbesteveryday.TheteamkeepsmymentalandphysicalhealthingreatshapeandItrulydonotknowwhatIwoulddowithoutthem.Playingonthisspecificsyntheticturfisessentialtothissport.Ithelpsustraintoourbestpotentialandtowhatourcompetitorsplayon.Ithelpsmakeourgamesomuchfasterwhichwewouldnotbeabletodoongrassorotherturfoptions.Mystudent-athleteexperiencewouldbeimprovedbythisbyhavingabrandnewfacilityformylasttwoyearsofplayingfieldhockey.Iwouldlovetheopportunitytoendmyfieldhockeycareerplayinginastateoftheartcomplex.IhighlysupportthisprojectandIthankyousomuchforyourtimeandconsideration.BestRegards,AshleyPizakClassof2027 From:AnnabelCheveley<ahc258@corne11.edu>Sent:Thursday,November14,20247:48PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:LetterofSupport-CornellFieldHockeyFacility**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentGoodeveningTownPlanningBoardMembers,Ihopethatthisemailfindsyouwell.MynameisAnnabelCheveley,IamaSophomoreontheCornellFieldHockeyteam,majoringinpsychology.Ihopethatyoudon’tmindmetakingamomentofyourtimetoexpresstheimportanceofthenewfieldhockeyfacilityforourteam.Thisprojectisparamountforourprogramandwillhavesignificantbenefitsforourperformancebutalsoourindividualexperiencesaspartoftheprogram.Itwouldbeanincredibleopportunitytoplayonastate-of-theartsfacilityandImyselfwouldbehonouredtorepresentsuchaforwardthinking,developedprogramwhichwouldreachthehighestlevelofperformancesupportedbysuchanamazingfacility.BeingamemberoftheCornellfieldhockeyteamistrulyspecialandasaninternationalstudentfromLondon,Ifeelluckyeverydaytobepartofsuchawonderfulprogram.Thisteamteachesmeskillsonandoffthefieldandbringspositivitytomyeveryday.Playingonasyntheticturfisessentialforourteamtocontinuedevelopingandbringingitshighlevelperformance,withoutitwewouldn’thavethesufficientmeanstocompetewithotherhighlevelteams.Therefore,Iaminfullsupportoftheprojectandeveryoneofmyteammemberswillhaveanimprovedstudent-athleteexperienceasaresultofit.Thankyousomuchfortakingthetimetoreadmyemail.Best,Annabel From:EmmaPoplyk<elp68@cornell.edu>Sent:Thursday,November14,20248:01PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanning**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearTownPlanningBoardMembers,Ihopeyouarewell.MynameisEmmaPoplykandIamasophomoreonthefieldhockeyteamatCornellstudyingCognitiveScience.Iamwritingthislettertoyouallsoyoucanseehowimpactfulanewfacilitywouldbeformeandmyteam.Weworksohardplayingthesportwelove,andthisprojectclearlyshowshowhardwework.Wespend20hoursaweekcommittingtothesportweloveaswellasbeingstudents.IwouldnotputthatmuchworkinifIdidnotloveeveryaspectofCornellfieldhockey.Thisnewfacilitywouldbesobeneficialandrewardingforalltheworkweputin.Playingfieldhockeynotonlyhelpsmestayinshape,butissoimportantformymentalhealthandgivesmetheoutletthatIneed.Ourfieldisoldandquitefranklydangeroustoplayon.Theturfhasnogivetoitanymore.Weneedanewfacility.Playingongrassorinfillturfissimplynotacceptableatthedivision1level.Thegameisnotthesame,itslowseverythingdown,and-ForhowmuchworkweputinthroughoutourlivesIdonotwanttogobacktoplayingmiddleschoolfieldhockey.Thankyouforyourconsideration.Bestwishes,Emma From:MarthaBroderick<mjb574cornel1.edu>Sent:Thursday,November14,20248:04PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanning**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearTownplanningboardmembers,MynameisMarthaBroderick,I’masophomorefieldhockeyplayeratCornellstudyinggovernment.Ihavebeenplayingfieldhockeyforalmost14yearsnow,andIhavealwaysplayedonsyntheticturf.HockeyhasalwaysbeenabigpartofmylifeandisthereasonIcametoCornellfromEnglandtoplay.Thisnewturfwillmakeahugedifferencetotheabilityofourteamtocompeteatthehighestlevelandbeaconsistenttop20teamthatweknowwecanbe,afterreachingnewhighsinthepastseasonsasateamit’sreallyimportantforustocarryonthemomentum.Havingthisnewfieldwillmeanwedon’thavetocompetewiththechallengesouroldfieldpresenteduswith,beingoldandwornout.Asaneliteathleteitisreallyimportanttotrustthesurfaceyouareplayingonandmakesureitdoesn’tpresentyouwithmorechallenges.Asagoalkeeperit’simportantfortheballspathtobepredictable—thatisn’tpossibleonourcurrentturforagrassfield,onlyonanewsyntheticturf.IreallythinkthisnewfieldwillgiveCornelltheabilitytoreallygrowasaprogram,andIfullysupportthenewsyntheticfieldbeingputintoplace.IthankyoufortheconsiderationofournewfieldBest,Martha From:SarahBurns<seb392@cornell.edu>Sent:Thursday,November14,20248:22PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:SupportofFieldHockeyFacilityonGameFarmRoad**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearTownPlanningBoardMembers,MynameisSarahBurnsandIamcurrentlyasophomoreontheCornellFieldHockeyteamstudyingAppliedEconomicsandManagementattheDysonSchool.IunderstandthedecisiononthemunicipalapprovalforthenewfieldhockeyfacilityatGameFarmRoadiscomingup.AsastudentandmemberofthefieldhockeyteamIwantedtoprovidemyperspectivesoyoumightutilizeitinyourdecisionmakingprocess.Iwouldliketoexpressmystrongsupportforthefacilityasitwouldbeanincredibleopportunityforourteamtogrowandstrengthenourfuturesuccess.Furthermore,asastudentathleteCornellisanincrediblyacademicallyrigorousuniversityandthisfacilitywouldgreatlyenhanceourwholeteam’sstudentathleteexperience.Withoutthisfacilitywewouldnothaveadesignatedhomewhichwouldgreatlyaffectnotonlyourperformance,buttheteam’swell-beingmentally.Wededicate20hoursaweektotheteamwhilebalancingthecourseworkofaCornellstudent,andtonothaveaplacetocallourownmakesitevenmorechallengingaswedevoteourselvesandtimesofully.WiththefacilityitwouldprovideourteamwiththeabilitytogrowtoourfullestpotentialasathletesandpeopleThankyousomuchforyourtimeandconsideration.Isincerelyhopeyouareabletotakeastudentperspectiveintoaccountforallthisfieldandfacilitywouldmeantousontheteam.Thankyou,SarahBurnsSarahBurnsCornellUniversityDysonSchoolIClassof2027M:(484)225-4314ILinkedin From:OliviaWeir<olw9@cornell.edu>Sent:Friday,November15,20249:55AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:TownPlanningBoardMembers**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearPlanningBoardMembers,MynameisOliviaWeir,andIamajuniorontheFieldHockeyTeammajoringinBiologyatCornellUniversity.IamwritingtoexpressmystrongsupportfortheconstructionoftheFieldHockeyComplexonGameFarmRoad.Asastudent-athlete,Iamdeeplyinvestedinmysportandtheexperiencesthatithasprovidedmethusfar.Theproposedcomplexwouldsignificantlyenhanceourtrainingandcompetitioncapabilities,allowingustoreachourfullpotentialasatopDivisionIprogram.Withstate-of-the-artfacilities,wewouldhaveaccesstoaworldclassfieldthatmeetsofficialstandards,providingasafeenvironmentforpracticeandgames.Thiswouldnotonlyimproveourperformancebutalsohelpreducetheriskofinjuries.Additionally,thenewcomplexwouldpromotethesportofFieldHockeyandbuildadeepersenseofcommunityamongathletesandfans.Itwouldserveasadedicatedspaceforfieldhockeyevents,encouraginggreaterattendanceandsupportfromourpeers,families,andthecommunity.Additionally,thecomplexwouldenhanceourrecruitmentefforts,attractingtoptalenttoCornell’sfieldhockeyprogram.Prospectivestudent-athletesoftenconsiderthequalityoffacilitiesandsupportwhenchoosingwheretoinvesttheirtimeandeducation.HavingamoderncomplexwouldputCornellinamorecompetitivepositionwhenitcomestoattractingskilledplayerswhowillcontributetothesuccessandlegacyofourprogram.IhavemadesomeofmybestmemoriesthroughCornellFieldHockeyandconsiderthisteammysecondfamily.Ibelievetheconstructionofthiscomplexispivotalforthefuturesuccessofthisprogramformanyyearstocome.Thankyouforyourconsideration.Sincerely,OliviaWeirI Cil/1cj2c)From:ConstanceStirling-Engman<cstirlingengman@gmail.com>Sent:Sunday,November17,20248:05PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningCc:info@zerowasteithaca.orgSubject:Moresyntheticturfprojectsandtheirharmfuleffects**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentTO:TownofIthacaPlanningBoardIamwritingtoexpressmyoppositiontotheinstallationofmoresyntheticturfonathleticfieldsatCornell.IwouldbeattheNov.19meeting,butwillbeout-of-town,soI’mwritinginstead.Ourworldisalreadyawashinmicroplasticsandplasticpollutionandwedon’tneedtoaddmore.Theproduction,installationandbreakdownofsyntheticturfjustaddsmoreofaburdentoourland,airandgroundwater.Onceitiswornout,itprobablygoestoalandfill.Theentirelifecycleofsyntheticturfisawasteofresourcesandtheplasticwillneverbiodegrade.Eventhoughnaturalgrassanddirtplayingfieldsmayrequireoccasionalwateringandsomemaintenance,Ifeelthatthisisfarbetterthancreatingmoremicroplasticpollution.Oursharedplanetisalreadysurpassingthe1.5Celsiusthresholdbeyondwhichglobalwarmingmaybeirreversible.WearealreadyexperiencingabnormalweatherpatternsrighthereinIthaca.Iamanaturalist,hikerandscubadiverandIseefirsthandthedamagefromplasticpollutionintoourbodiesofwaterandmarinelifeandwildlife.Ithacahasareputationforbeinginterestedinsustainabilityandworkingtowardcarbonneutrality.Howcaninstallingmoresyntheticturfhelpachievethatgoal?IimploretheTownPlanningBoardtostopharmingoursharedenvironmentwithplasticpollution.Keepingathleticplayingfieldsnaturalwouldsetanexampleandgivepeoplehopethatifwereduceouruseofplastics,maybewecanrestoresomehealthtooursoil,ecosystemsandourselves.ConnieStirling-Engman120WarrenRd.IthacaNYArtificialturfisasignificantthreattoourcommunityandtheenvironment.Keyconcernsinclude:•Microplastics:Turfreleasesharmfulmicroplasticsintotheenvironment.•HealthRisksforAthletes:Soccergoaliesareespeciallyatriskduetotheirclosecontactwiththeground,withharmcompoundingovertime.•ToxicAlgaeBlooms:Turfcontributestoharmfulalgaegrowth.•IndustryMyths:Claimsofwatersavings,reducedpesticideuse,andlessfuelconsumptionforlawnmaintenancehavebeendebunked.1 •PFASandOtherToxins:ArtificialturfoftencontainsPFAS(“foreverchemicals”)evenwhenlabeledas“PEAS-free.”Moreover,syntheticturfincludesthousandsofothertoxicchemicalsinitscorriponents.2 From:Sent:To:Subject:Attachments:AmandaPark<amandaparkfh@gmail.com>Sunday,November17,20248:47PMTownOfIthacaPlanningCornellFieldHockeySupportLetterCornellFHsupportletter.docx**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURL(inks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentHello,Ihopeyouaredoingwell.AttachedisaletterinsupportoftheconstructionofthenewfieldandfacilitiesforCornellFieldHockey.Thankyouforyourconsideration!Sincerely,AmandaEc DearTownPlanningBoardMembers,MynameisAmandaPark,andIamacommittedfieldhockeyplayerfortheclassof2029atCornell.MymajorwillbeEconattheCollegeofArtsandScience.FieldhockeyhasbeenanimportantpartofmylifeeversinceImadethedecisiontojoinmyclubteam.IcurrentlyplayforLoneStarFHCinDallas,Texas.FieldHockeyisimmenselyimportanttomebecauseitprovidesasafeplaceformeregardlessofanythingelsethatisgoingoninmylife.MyteamismysecondfamilyandIamtrulygrateful1madethedecisiontostartplayingtofillmysportsrequirementin7thgrade.WhenIstartedtogetrecruitedbyCornell,IimmediatelyknewIwantedtoplaythere.ItisanextremelystrongprogramandtightknitjustliketheteamIcurrentlyplayon.AlthoughCornellisanacademicallyimpressiveschool,whenIvisiteditwascleartomethatathleticswereequallyasstrong.EversincemysophomoreyearIknewIwantedtospendmyfouryearsofcollegeonateam.Arrivingatcollegewithagroupofpeoplelikeafamilywasalwaysadreamandgoalofmine.CommittingtoCornellhasmadethatcometrue.IwanttocontinueplayingthesportIlovewithateamIlove.ThatiswhyImadethedecisiontocomehere.Ialsobelieveplayingasportcanbuildcharacterinsomanyways.FieldHockeyhaskeptmedisciplined,focused,andgroundedintimesImaynothavebeenhadInotplayed.Ithasmademeamuchbetterpersonandhastaughtmetheimportanceofhardwork.IlookforwardtocontinuinggrowingasapersonandplayerwhenIarriveinthefallof2025.WhenIdiscussedarrivingasanathletemyfreshmanyear,ourheadcoach,Andy,explainedhisexcitementtowardstheconstructionofanewfacility.Thiswasamazingtohearbecauseasaplayerwhoseschoolplaysongrass,itmakesatremendousdifferencetoplayonanicefield.Thebestprogramsareundoubtedlyonesthathavesyntheticturf.Itisbasicallyessentialtobeingsuccessful.Thegamemovesmuchfasterandismuchcleaneronthattypeofturfratherthanaregularfieldturforgrassfield.Playersandteamsthatpracticeonasyntheticturfenduphavingmuchmoredevelopedskillsatspeed.Thismakessensebecausetheyareconsistentlypracticingatahigherspeed.Whenfieldhockeywasplayedalongtimeago,itstartedongrass,thenprogressedontofieldturf,untiliteventuallydevelopedtobeplayedonsyntheticturf.EveryDivision1schoolhasasyntheticturfexceptone.Thatschoolfallsinthebottom20offieldhockeyprograms.ItisbestthatasaprogramCornellmovesforwardratherthanbackwardsintime.ThatiswhyIaminstrongsupportoftheconstructionofthenewfacilitiesandfieldbyfallof2025.Ihopethatusasplayersandourprogramaretakenintoconsideration.Thankyousomuchforyourconsideration!Sincerely,Amanda JuliaRamsey<jmr569@cornell.edu>Sunday,November17,20249:09PMTownOfIthacaPlanningCornellFieldHockeyFacility,1)c/Zt)**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearTownPlanningBoardMembers,MynameisJuliaRamseyandIamasophomoreontheVarsityFieldHockeyteamatCornellUniversitystudyingintheCollegeofArtsandSciences.FieldHockeyhasalwaysbeenahugepartofmyLifegrowingup.CornellFieldHockeyisaveryspecialprogram.Beingapartofthisteamhasallowedmetogrowasnotonlyaplayerbutaperson.IwouldnotbethepersonIamwithoutCornellFieldHockey.ManyskillsIhavedevelopedthatwillhelpmewithlifeafterCornellisduetoCornellFieldHockey.Buildingasyntheticturfsurfaceisessentialforourprogramtogrowanddevelop.Thisprogramhashelpedtoshapesomanyyoungwomenintothesuccessful,confidentanddrivenwomenthattheyaretoday.Thisfieldwillhelptakethisprogramtothenextlevel.Therefore,wewouldreallyappreciateyoursupportinthisdevelopment.Thankyoufortakingthetimetoreadmyemailandthankyouforyourconsideration.Sincerely,JuliaRamsey1From:Sent:To:Subject: CFFrom:ColombaInfante<colombainfantelO@gmail.com>Sent:Monday,November18,20249:25AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:SupportforCornell’sNewFieldHockeyFacilityProjectr*WARNlNG**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearMembersoftheTownPlanningBoard,MynameisColombaInfante,andIamanincomingfreshmanatCornellUniversity,classof2029.IwillbemajoringinEconomics,andIamproudtojoinCornell’sFieldHockeyteamnextfall.IamwritingtoexpressmystrongsupportfortheproposednewfieldhockeyfacilityonGameFarmRoad.JoiningCornell’sfieldhockeyprogramhasbeenadreamcometrue,andIamexcitedtorepresenttheuniversitybothathleticallyandacademically.IbelievefieldhockeyatCornellwillbeakeystoneofmypersonalandprofessionalgrowth.Beyondphysicalhealth,fieldhockeysupportsmymentalandemotionalwell-being,especiallyalongsidetherigorousacademicchallengesofuniversitylife.Itisanoutlettomanagestress,fosterasenseofroutine,andoffersasupportiveteamenvironmentwhereIcanbuildmeaningfulconnections.Iunderstandthetrade-offsinvolvedindevelopmentprojectslikethisone.Concernsaboutenvironmentalimpacts,lightpollution,andincreasedtrafficarevalidanddeserveaffention.However,thepositiveimpactofthisprojectonthestudent-athleteexperienceandCornell’sbroadercommunitycannotbeoverstated.Thenewcomplexwouldelevatetheuniversity’sfieldhockeyprogram,attracttalentedrecruits,andsolidifyCornell’sreputationasaleaderincollegiateathletics.Besides,ItrustthatCornellwilltakethoughtfulmeasurestoaddresstheseconcernsresponsibly.Fieldhockeyrequiresaspecializedwater-basedsyntheticturfsurfacetoensureconsistentplay,reduceinjuryrisk,andmaintaincompetitivestandards,somethingthatnaturalgrassorolderturfsystemscannotprovide.Thisfacilitywouldnotonlyenhancethequalityoftrainingandcompetitionbutalsoprovideaninspiringhomeforfuturestudent-athleteslikemyself,thatwouldserveasacenterforteamcamaraderieandcollaboration.Itwouldbeanenvironmentwherewecouldconnectasteammatesandbuildlastingrelationships.Thesenseofprideandbelongingfosteredbyhavingadedicatedhomeforourprogramwouldcontributetoouroverallwell-beingandsuccessbothonandoffthefield.Iwholeheartedlysupportthedevelopmentofthenewfieldhockeyfacilityandencourageyoutoapprovethisproject.Thankyoufortakingthetimetoconsiderthevoicesofstudent-athleteswhowillbenefitfromthisinvestment.Sincerely,ColombalnfanteCornellUniversity,Classof20291 AndrewSmith<as3935@cornell.edu>Tuesday,November19,20244:32AMTownOfIthacaPlanningCornellFieldHockeyProjectfr*WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearPlanningBoard,IamwritingastheHeadCoachoftheFieldHockeyteamatCornelltoaskforyoursupportinbuildinganewfacilityatGameFarmRoad.Itisnotourchoicetoleavecentralcampus,itisachoicethathasbeenforcedonusbythebuildingonthenewMenigFieldHouse.Wehaveawonderfulartificialturfinthemiddleofcampuscurrentlythathasserveduswelloverthelast16years.However,itistimeforreplacementsoaftercarefulinputithasbeendecidedthatthelogicalplaceforanewFieldHockeyFacilityisGameFarmRoad.CornellhashadaFieldHockeyteamfor50years.TheonlywayforFieldHockeytocontinueatCornellistoplayonaWater-BasedNon-InfillArtificialSurface.ThisisthestandardforFieldHockeyallovertheworld.IfwewereforcedtoplayonanyothersurfacetheprogramwouldnotbeaviableDivision1program.ThefacilityatGameFarmRoadcouldbeworldclass.LookattheBaseballfacilitythatwasconstructedoveratEllisHollow.Imaginethisleveloffacilityforateamoffemalestudent-athletes.ThiswouldbeafirstforCornellasastandalonefacilityofthislevelthatsupportsanexclusivelyFemaleSportandamassivestepintermsofgenderequity.ThefacilityatGameFarmRoadwouldprovideopportunitiesforhundredsifnotthousandsofstudent-athletesoverthenextdecades.Theadageof“Ifyoubuildit,theywillcome”hasneverbeensocorrecthere.Theprogramhasbeenontheprecipiceofmassivesuccess(Top15Ranking,2’placefinishesintheIvyLeague).WiththeconstructionofthisnewfacilitytheopportunitiesareendlessfortheFieldHockeyProgram.Notonlywillthefacilityimpactourstudent-athletesbutwillalsoimpactthegeneralstudentpopulationwiththeclubteamandthecricketteam.Myvisionofthisfacilitywouldbeforittobenefitthelocalcommunityaswell—theformationofalocalclubteam,perhapscommunityeventstogetherwithourannualsummercampsthatbringpeopletoIthacafromall,overtheworldtoseethebeautyofcampusandthesurroundingareas.ThebuildingofthiscompletefacilitysendsamassivemessagetotheyoungwomenofCornell.Itsays,“WeCare,WeValue,WeSeeYouandaboveall.elseWeSupport1From:Sent:To:Subject:(I/I/iLPO You”.Cornellhaveputanamazingconstructionprogramtogetherandworkedtirelesslytofindcreativewaystogetthisprojectdone.Wecannotdoitwithoutyourinputandapproval.Pleaseapprovethisprojectatyourearliestconvenienceandplayyourpartinmakingourdreamsbecomeareality.Thankyoufortakingthetimetoreadthisnote,pleasedonothesitatetocontactmeifIcanprovidefurtherinformation.AndySmithAndySmithIHeadFieldHockeyCoachCornellUniversityI208BartelsHaIl,554CampusRoad,Ithaca,NY14853C:(510)384-8529I2 EmmyHomer<emmyhornerl@gmail.com>Monday,November18,20248:52PMTownOfIthacaPlanningALetterofSupportforCornellFieldHockeyFacility(FiRfr*WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearTownPlanningBoardmember,MynameisEmmyHomerandIamasenioratEmmausHighSchoolinPennsylvania.Inthefallof2025,IplantoattendCornellUniversity.IamexcitedtobeattendingtheCollegeofArtsandSciencesandmajoringinEconomics.Inadditiontothis,IwillbeplayingforCornell’sfieldhockeyteam.Cornell’scompetitivefieldhockeyprogramwasahugefactorinmydecisiontochooseCornellasmynexthome.Myyearsplayingfieldhockeyhavetaughtmemanylessonsthathaveplayedanenormousroleinmylife.Tonameafewthings,Ihavelearnedresponsibility,ahardworkethic,andtimemanagement.Justassignificantly,fieldhockeygreatlyaffectsmyphysicalandmentalwell-being.Icanstayinshapeandkeepmybodyhealthythroughdailypractice.Asabusystudent,IfinditveryhelpfultohaveasetblockoftimeeachdaywhereIamcommittedtogettingagoodworkout.Onthementalside,fieldhockeyservesasanoutlettomeandgetsmeoutofaslumpwhenIamhavingaroughday.Ithashelpedmecreatemanyofmyclosestfriendshipsandbestmemories.Ihaveplayedfieldhockeyonvarioussurfacesovertheyearsincludinggrassfieldsinmiddleschool,fieldturfduringhighschool,andastroturfinmyclubseasons.AsIgotolderandplayedmorecompetitivefieldhockey,IrealizedtheimportanceoftheturfonwhichIwasplaying.Fieldhockeyisagameplayedwitharelativelysmallball.Ifyouarenotplayingonaflat,compactturf,theballwilltakeunexpectedbouncesandgreatlyslowdownthegame.AsIprogressintotheworldofDivision1fieldhockey,Iamlookingforwardtoanadvancedlevelofcompetition.Aproperturffieldisessentialtothis.Thenewfacilitywouldalsoprovideaconsiderableadvantagetoourteambyallowingusaccesstoatop-tiertrainingfacility.WhenIwentthroughmyrecruitingprocess,schoolswithfacilitiessimilartotheoneCornellisplanningtoputinservedasahugesellingpoint.ThisfacilitywouldbeabigdrawforfuturerecruitsandcouldhelpCoachAndybringinplayerswhichwillsignificantlyincreasethelevelatwhichourteamcouldplay.AtCornell,Iplantoplayatthemostcompetitivelevelpossible.Thenewturfandfacilitywouldhelpmyteammatesandmeachievethis.IsupportthisprojecttobenefittheCornellFieldHockeyteamandhopeyoucanseehowmuchthisprojectwillhelpmyfutureteammatesandme.Iappreciateyourconsideration.Sincerely,EmmyHomer1From:Sent:To:Subject: FRLaurieKonwinski<Laurie.Konwinski@dor.org>Monday,November18,20242:46PMTownOfIthacaPlanninginfo@zerowasteithaca.orgCommentforNov19meetingonArtificialTurf**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/onattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearMembersofthePlanningBoard,InmycapacityasJustice&PeaceMinistrycoordinatorforCatholicCharitiesTompkins/Tioga,Iadvocateonissuesofenvironmentalsustainability,recognizingthatthedestructionofthenaturalenvironmentdisproportionatelyharmsthepoorestandmostvulnerablemembersofsociety.IamwritingtourgeyoutoopposeanyproposalsbyCornellUniversityoranyotherentitytoinstallartificialturffields.Idothisbecauseoftheobvious,provenharmssuchprojectscause.Scientificliteratureisfullofstudiesoftheriskstohumanandanimalhealthcausesbycontactwithandrun-offfromartificialturf.Tocitejustoneofthese,entitled“Environmentalrisksofbreakdownnanoplasticsfromsyntheticfootballfields”,publishedin2024,researchhasshownthatdrainagewatersamplesfromtheartificialturfmaterialscausehightoxicitylevelsinmarinelife.GivenIthaca’sproximitytoCayugaLakeandthemanycreeksandstreamsthatfeedintothelakefromaroundthearea,thedangertoourwatersupplyandnaturalenvironmentistoohightopermitthisunnecessaryprojecttogoforward.Asacancersurvivorandthespouseofacancersurvivor,letmeaddthat,onapersonallevel,Iamdismayedtoimaginethenumberofyoungpeoplewhowouldbeexposedtothetoxinsinartificialturfandthenfacemalignanciesandotherserioushealthissuesintheirfuture.Itisamatterofpublicresponsibilitytoensurethatthisdangerisnotpresentinourcommunity.Thankyouforyourconsiderationofthisrequest.Sincerely,LaurieKonwinskiCoordinator,Justice&PeaceMinistryinTompkinsCountyCatholicCharitiesTompkins/Tioga324WestBuffaloSt.IthacaNY14850607-272-5062,Press1forourIthacaoffice,thenExt.12Laurie.Konwinski@dor.orgStatementofConfidentialityThiselectronicmessagemaycontainprivilegedorconfidentiaLinformation.Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipientofthise-maiL,pLeasedeLeteitfromyoursystemandadvisethesender.EmailDisclaimer1From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject: V1912-4**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentTowhomitmayconcern:PleasereconsidertheuseofsyntheticturffortheproposedfieldhockeyfieldonGameFarmRd.Syntheticturfposesseriousenvironmentalandhealthrisks,includingthereleaseofmicroplastics,exposuretotoxicchemicalslikePFAS,andcontributionstoharmfulalgaeblooms.Exposurefortheathletesisalsoharmfulduetotheirclosecontactwiththeground.Iadvocatefornaturalgrasswhichprovidesenvironmentalandmentalhealthbenefits,includingimprovedairquality,reducedurbanheat,supportforbiodiversity,andacalming,naturalenvironmentthatpromotesmentalandphysicalwell-being.Therearenomajorenvironmentalorganizationsthatsupportartificialturf.GroupslikeSierraClub,GAlA,BeyondPlasticsandthePlasticPollutionCoalitionallopposeit.Sincerelyyours,Dr.LouiseMygattZeroWasteIthacaref:https://docs.cjoocjle.com/documentld/19cjSqRdKSPBKYdPn8kMifFHyGr2sZxvlmdRpuWeZIU/edit?tab=t.O#heading=h.op5kf5whOhft1From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:LouiseMygatt<louisemygatt@gmail.com>Monday,November18,20243:27PMTownOfIthacaPlanninginfo@zerowasteithaca.orgSyntheticTurf PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner DATE: November 13, 2024 RE: Site Plan and Special Permit – Verizon Wireless “Sunny View Site” Personal Wireless Service Facility (Telecommunications Tower), 111 Wiedmaier Court Please find enclosed additional materials related to the consideration of Site Plan and Special Permit for a personal wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79. The following materials are attached: 1. Supplemental consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, titled “Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Services Facility - RF Site Review for Verizon Wireless / Sunny View Site,” dated November 4, 2024 2. A copy of the deed restrictions and plans associated with 2007 Wiedmaier Court Subdivision 3. Written public comments received after the 10/29/24 PB meeting, in time for the mail out for the 11/19/2024 meeting Not included in the attachments are: 1. Additional Verizon materials associated with alternative site analysis requested by the Planning Board at the 10/29/24 PB meeting. Based on a phone conversation between Verizon and Planning staff on Friday, November 8, the applicants are still in the process of preparing the requested documents. Town staff will forward those documents to the Planning Board as soon as they are received (expected by Thursday, November 14). They will also be uploaded to the town website at the same time for the public to view. 2. Proposed draft resolutions associated with the project, which are currently being reviewed by the Attorney for the Town. These will be forwarded along with the additional Verizon materials and uploaded to the town website as well. The Planning Board began their review of this project at the October 1, 2024, Planning Board meeting but postponed the SEQR determination and decision to a future meeting, when the applicant could provide additional material, and the consultants hired by the town could revise their report. The Board met again on October 29, 2024, after receiving revised application materials and a revised consultant report. After more than four hours of discussion, including an open and closed public hearing, the board issued a negative determination of environmental significance for the project but postponed consideration of site plan and special permit. At the meeting on October 29, 2024, the Planning Board directed staff to work with the town’s consultants to identify alternative sites within the Verizon coverage area that would potentially be less intrusive than the proposed site. The attached letter provided by the town’s consultants (dated November 4, 2024), answers the directive by the board. Planning staff provided this information to Verizon, who are expected to provide additional information by Thursday, November 14 (see highlighted note above). The purpose of the November 19, 2024, Planning Board meeting is for the Planning Board to consider Site Plan approval per Town Code §270-188, and to make Special Permit findings per Town Code §270-200. The Planning Board will also need to make findings on the criteria listed in Town Code §270-219.R (Special Permit criteria specific to personal wireless service facilities). The Special Permit criteria from both sections of Town Code have been enumerated in the draft resolution(s) for the project – the language is listed under the resolved clause numbers “1” and “2” (bottom of page one to middle of page four on the attached draft resolutions). As noted in the highlighted section of the memo, these draft resolutions will be forwarded to the board as soon as the Attorney for the Town has reviewed them. Please call me at (607) 273-1721 or email me at cbalestra@townithacany.gov with any questions regarding this project. Cc: Brett Morgan, Airosmith Development, Inc. Jared Lusk, Esq., Nixon Peabody, LLP S. Roberts WC Land, LLC William P. Johnson RF Engineering Consultant PO Box 20263 Rochester, NY 14602 November 4, 2024 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Attn: Ms. Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Services Facility - RF Site Review for Verizon Wireless / “Sunny View” Site 111 Wiedmaier Court (Tax Parcel No. 56-4-1.22) Proposed 134’ New Monopole Tower plus 4’ Lightning Rod (138’ overall) Dear Ms. Balestra, On October 29, 2024, the planning board asked for our collaboration to develop some ideas regarding alternatives for Applicant’s proposed “Sunny View” site. In addition, discussions with the town’s attorneys today has clarified my more restrictive interpretation of the Town Code §270-219 R (1) (c) [2] regarding identification of a “significant gap” and preferred frequency bands. Their explanations have reconciled the meaning of the Town Code and my interpretation with the engineering issues associated with reliable wireless communications. This report will address (1) the finding of a “significant gap” in the target improvement area and (2) scenarios for alternate approaches to remedy the “significant gap” for your consideration. SIGNIFICANT GAP Our revised preliminary report hesitated to acknowledge a “significant gap” as we interpreted Town Code §279-219 R (1) (c) in a manner that was, on review by town counsel, narrower than intended. Applicant’s propagation plots for low-band (700/850 MHz) showed usable signal strength in some of the target improvement area. We therefore concluded that, if there is a gap, it may not be a “significant gap.” By contrast the dropped call data shows more than 11% dropped calls which exceeds the 1% national goal. While there are likely several factors that are causing such a high dropped call rate, one of the causes is due to lack of mid-band RF coverage in the target improvement area. Calls in progress using mid-band spectrum will Town of Ithaca Planning Board, November 4, 2024 Page 2 of 4 drop when a mobile user enter the area where there is no mid-band RF coverage. As a result, part of the 11% dropped call rate is due to an RF coverage gap in mid-band. Mid-band spectrum accounts for about 90% of Applicant’s licensed spectrum and is necessary to avoid dropped calls as mobile users enter the coverage gap area. Given the high dropped call rate it is arguably reasonable to then conclude that there is a “significant gap” in mid-band RF coverage. That gap is confirmed by the propagation plots in application materials Exhibit H. By way of explanation, our over-interpretation that was corrected by town counsel derived from the statement that “[a] significant gap cannot be established simply because the applicant's personal wireless services operate on a frequency which is not the frequency most desired by the applicant. An applicant's claim of need for future capacity does not constitute evidence of a significant gap.” Town Code §279-219 R (1) (c) [2] [a]. Therefore, based on town counsel’s explanation of the meaning of the section quoted above in light of an excessive dropped call rate, as is the case here, results from some form of a coverage gap. Whether the gap is the result of weak low-band signals in building or vehicles as noted in our last report, or whether it is the result of mid-band calls-in-progress dropping as a mobile user enters the target improvement area, the results point to a “significant gap” regardless of reference to a preferred frequency band. The remedy for the “significant gap” requires a new base station or other hybrid solution in the vicinity of the target improvement area that can provide sufficient low-band and mid-band RF signal strength to initiate, maintain and hand-off voice telephone traffic. Sufficient signal strength and capacity will also facilitate availability of data services since both the transmission and reception use the same LTE technology to allow two-way exchange of information. POTENTIAL “SUNNY VIEW” SITE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS As evidenced by the high-level view of Applicant’s wireless network, huge geographic areas can be serviced by many relatively small-diameter “cells” that allow sufficient signal levels and user capacity for safe and reliable voice communications. Where there are large numbers of wireless users, cells must be small to allow enough user capacity for reliable service. This is called “network densification.” Network densification adds additional user capacity and targeted signal strength improvement in areas such as business centers and sport complexes where wireless subscribers congregate. Network densification often takes the form of splitting an existing cell into several smaller cells with commensurately smaller support structures or co-location on, for example, existing buildings or utility poles. In addition to network densification for capacity there are times when zoning considerations and aesthetic concerns could benefit from a similar approach. Town of Ithaca Planning Board, November 4, 2024 Page 3 of 4 In the present case, the alternate sites considered by Applicant are in close proximity to each other. Town Code §279-219 R (1) (c) [5] and following address the aesthetic impacts, property values, community character, and mitigation of those affects through siting, location and design. These items were discussed in the revised preliminary report last month. During the October 29th meeting, the planning board concluded that the close proximity of alternate sites did not offer much advantage to mitigate aesthetic concerns expressed during hearings. While Applicant did not offer any additional possible approaches identified by their site acquisition personnel, we offer some scenarios for the benefit of the planning board’s consideration that have been found to work in other situations where (1) land control can be obtained and (2) technical performance was adequate when zoning a proposed macro site did not fit comfortably into the community. We offer these scenarios for possible consideration and comparison to the proposed site to assess whether the proposed site meets the minimum intrusion into the community test. First, there are parcels closer to Route 79 in the search area identified by Applicant on the south side that have hills on which a structure might be located that has a view through the Route 79 valley and has potential for RF propagation from a similarly sized tower. We acknowledge that those parcels may not improve some of the issues of concern since there are homes in the area, but the locations may offer a shorter tower structure. With the advice of town planners, it is possible that one or more of those parcels might provide some improvement to the proposed “Sunny View” location – at least for minimum intrusion comparison purposes. This approach will need RF analysis by Applicant to determine the minimum height to achieve acceptable RF coverage, assuming land control is possible. Second, the land features to the north of Route 79 provides a backdrop of foliage in the vicinity of the search area that, arguably, could provide a backdrop for a stealth tree structure. Normally a structure that is dramatically taller than the existing tree canopy is not a good candidate for a stealth tree, but in this case there are similarities to a stealth tree that was deployed on the east side of Lake George where a ridge provided a foliage back drop when viewed from the lake. From the middle of the lake, it was nearly impossible to pick out the structure that was taller than surrounding trees from the backdrop canopy. The observer’s viewpoint will affect the perception of the stealth structure, but we offer this suggestion in case there are locations where the balance of other concerns may overcome the concerns for the proposed site. Third, we note that it is generally desirable to provide area coverage from a single site for impact on the broader community (i.e. one tower to mitigate rather than multiple although somewhat shorter towers, each with its own set of concerns) and cost of deployment. In the present case, the target improvement area is mainly located along Route 79 and the areas slightly to the south. Two properly positioned shorter base stations long or near Route 79 would likely have the ability to illuminate the Route 9 valley and provide some RF Town of Ithaca Planning Board, November 4, 2024 Page 4 of 4 coverage to the south despite the lack of need for enhanced capacity that would be provided by two sites. Fourth, there has been much information about the pros and cons of small-cell deployment. The limitation of equipment facilities, susceptibility to damage to utility pole wiring from wind gusts and falling trees, and the coverage limitations from a low-mounted set of antennas might balance the aesthetic concerns of residents while providing some reasonable service along Route 79, nearby roadways, and residences in the vicinity. We recognize that none of these options are likely preferred by Applicant, and that they have not proposed any of these options. We offer these scenarios to allow the planning board and staff to consider which, if any, might be viable and then allow Applicant to address their viability to the board. The result will provide the board an opportunity to assess the minimal intrusion on the community and decide whether the proposed site or another approach is preferable. We will be glad to assist as the board deems appropriate. Very truly yours, William P. Johnson RF Engineering Consultant to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board MEMORANDUM To:Town of Ithaca Planning Board From:The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board -Environmental Review Committee Date:11/9/2024 RE:Telecommunications Tower on Verizon's "Sunny View"site We draw your attention to the "aerial map with proposed overlay"("Sheet Number ESC-1")on page 16 (of 25)of the supplemental application materials for a new telecommunication tower located at 111 Wiedmaier Court.The map also shows up as page 64 of 177 in the document titled "PB packet-Wiedmaier cell tower-10-29-24."It represents a "tree line,"and "forested land" used repeatedly in other planning maps in the application:the "overall site plan"labeled "Sheet C1-A,"the "road plan and profile"labeled "Sheet C-1B,"the "existing conditions plan"labeled "Sheet ESC-2,"and the "proposed site plan and enlarged site plan"labeled "Sheet ESC-4." Describing the wavy white line as an "EXISTING TREE LINE,"and the area outside it as "EXISTING FORESTED LAND (TYP),"does not accurately represent the site. The forest was cleared and has not been restored as woods.A pervasive “range land”and invasive shrubs extend considerably beyond the purported "tree line,"and are not part of the natural topographic and vegetative profile of a forested area.A Conservation Board visit to the site found no "forest"in the area that was supposed to be restored as woods in the Planning Board's Resolution No.2008 -013,which called for "planting approximately 250 trees."At the far outside edge of the compacted bulldozed area labeled "forest"in Verizon's plans, approximately 2 dozen landscaping trees appear to have survived an inadequate "restoration." More photos from the Conservation Board's October 8th visit to the site can be found at: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMcPty327JAiHCtth6J7EFQiZVuvXSxhvjsHT7mLeYonIo TuGNQgYWjWGmyzOs8cg?key=S1h0NkRseDU2dThjV185NEppWmhUamlRLVl6c2Z3 The revised site detail plans continue to fail to address how this project will: Minimize visual intrusion on the character of the area. Identify the existence of invasive plants and take steps to reduce their presence.There should be an invasive species removal and management plan. Select native plant species to restore a woodland that indeed should occupy the area Verizon incorrectly identifies as "forested land." Take steps to preserve wildlife habitats and biological corridors. We continue to recommend not approving a special permit or site plan for this 134 foot Telecommunications Tower project.We will reconsider if the applicant shares with us how they will address the concerns we have raised. Respectfully submitted, Lori Brewer Lindsay Dombroskie James Hamilton Eva Hoffmann Michael Roberts Frank Cantone Ingrid Zabel 1 Chris Balestra From:Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2024 10:24 AM To:Chris Balestra Subject:FW: Contact from website From: Town of Ithaca Contact Form <noreply@townithacany.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 3:04 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Subject: Contact from website **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 Daniel Seib Left a comment for your department. If you reply to this message it will be sent to: danielcseib@gmail.com Message follows: Hello, I want to thank the Planning Board again for their efforts last night with the SEQR and the Site Plan hearings. It was a marathon session, and still not done. I obviously don't agree with the SEQR vote passing, but I am encouraged with your deliberation so far with the Site Plan. Will the hearing on November 19th be open to the public? I hope so, even if the public comment portion of the meeting is closed. Public attendance at these meeting on this issue has dramatically increased from the first to the second meeting...which should be an indication of its importance. I am urging you to vote to reject their site plan for the Wiedmaier Court location based on the lack of actual need for this coverage (I live there and my service is fine), as well as the damage that this will cause to the residential character of this neighborhood (it is a neighborhood, we have a vibrant community here), reduction to property values, and damage to the viewshed of people entering Ithaca from the NY-79 corridor. I was encouraged by the board asking Verizon to propose alternative locations. I think they should look for sites which are more remote. The fact that so many people showed up to protest this tower being built here should guide your vote on the location of this tower. I don't oppose building a cell tower somewhere, just not where there's a bunch of people already living. When you have a planning board meeting with no one protesting, then you know you've found the right place. I hope Verizon takes that into consideration, instead of choosing a lot 200 feet away from this one and then trying to tell us all that there's simply no other spot and you have to allow them to do it. Thank you for all the time and attention you are giving to this issue. It sounds like some members of the board also have cell towers near their homes. I am sorry that happened to them, but you have a chance to keep it from happening to other families in the Ithaca community. One board member mentioned a cell tower that was put in the 'right' place; one that was almost hidden from view. That's what I am hoping 2 for with this cell tower, if it has to go in. The Wiedmaier Court location is not the right place, though...it would be an eyesore, and the wrong message to send for Ithaca. Thank you, Daniel Seib 1 Chris Balestra From:Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2024 10:08 AM To:Chris Balestra; CJ Randall Subject:FW: Large Tower Does Not Meet Codes' Requirement In #6 From: Nathan Walz <walzstreet@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 10:02 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Subject: Large Tower Does Not Meet Codes' Requirement In **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 To the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members: I oppose the large tower which does not meet our codes' requirement for Verizon to find the "least intrusive means" to fill their small gap in service. They can go further from homes, and/or just use a single small tower to cover the service gap. The NH Commission has been clear that towers should be 1640 feet from homes. Please protect the health of our community members. Respectfully, Nathan Walz 9 Evergreen Lane (Town of Ithaca Resident) Ithaca, New York 14850 -- journeytooptimalhealth.com 1 Chris Balestra From:Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2024 10:20 AM To:Chris Balestra Subject:FW: Large Tower Does Not Meet Codes' Requirement Importance:High From: Lindsay Lustick Garner <linzallo@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 5:10 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Subject: Large Tower Does Not Meet Codes' Requirement Importance: High **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 To the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members: I opposed large tower which does not meet our codes' requirement for Verizon to find the "least intrusive means" to fill their small gap in service. They can go further from homes, and/or just use a single small tower to cover the service gap. The NH Commission has been clear that towers should be 1640 feet from homes. Please protect the health of our community members. Respectfully, Lindsay Lustick Garner 9 Evergreen Lane (Town of Ithaca Resident) Ithaca, New York 14850 1 Chris Balestra From:Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Sent:Tuesday, November 12, 2024 8:46 AM To:Chris Balestra; CJ Randall Subject:FW: Contact from website Abby Homer Administrative Assistant Planning Department 607-273-1747 From: Town of Ithaca Contact Form <noreply@townithacany.gov> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 10:36 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Subject: Contact from website **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 Daniel Seib Left a comment for your department. If you reply to this message it will be sent to: danielcseib@gmail.com Message follows: Hello, I am writing to you in regards to the Verizon Wireless “Sunny View Site” Personal Wireless Service Facility (Telecommunications Tower), at 111 Wiedmaier Court. I am writing to object to it. My property is within 500 ft of it, and I don't want to see that outside my window every day. I am worried that it will lower my property's value, and I don't see a need for it....I have Verizon myself and my signal here is fine! Verizon's proposed large tower does not meet our local codes' requirement for Verizon to find the least intrusive means to fill their small gap in service. They can go further from homes, and/or just use a single small tower to cover this service gap (which as I said before, does not appear to affect my area). I am concerned that Verizon just wants a larger pole to make more money to rent out space to other companies. I have been told that the NH Commission states that towers should be 1640 feet from homes. My home is closer than this. I do not want this tower near my home, and everyone around me doesn't either. We all 2 can't make it to the public meeting, but I will be there to represent myself, my family, and my neighbors. Please ask Verizon to find an alternate location away from peoples' homes. Thank you, Daniel Seib 1581 Slaterville Road 1 Chris Balestra From:Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 5, 2024 11:39 AM To:Town Of Ithaca Planning; CJ Randall; Chris Balestra Cc:Abby Homer Subject:BEFORE looking at other cell tower sites... **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 Planning Board members, Thank you for listening to your fellow citizens at the last meeting and agreeing to look at alternate sites for Verizon's proposed cell tower. BEFORE you start to look at new sites, we want to make sure that a 138' tower is the "least intrusive means" to remedy the small gap shown on the drive tests (attached). Because if a 138' monopole is NOT needed to remedy the gap, then that will likely open up new, less intrusive site possibilities. Our concern is that Verizon is using this small gap as the justification to build a much taller/larger pole than necessary, not only for other things (like fixed wireless broadband), but also, as stated, to collect rents from other carriers (i.e. make more money). If, as the consultant suggested, you look at the dropped connections and access failures map in Exhibit Z (which is the only ACTUAL data we have to determine the gap - significant or otherwise), it runs 2.5 miles along Coddington and roughly the same distance on 79. This distance across is roughly a mile. So the whole "gap" area is roughly 2.5 square miles. A small cell antenna using Verizon low-bands (or even multi-band with the mid-band) can easily cover this gap, and these frequencies easily pass through trees and buildings (as the RF consultant affirmed in Tuesday's meeting). This is precisely what small antennas are great for - fixing a small gap, particularly in this topography. We highly recommend asking the independent consultant IF a small antenna might be the least intrusive means to remedy this gap. If so, you will have many more site options. Also, while you can't use this as a reason to deny having a tower, we ask you to keep in mind that the New Hampshire Commission of experts that studied cell radiation--after combing through the thousands of studies showing harm to human health--recommended that towers should be at least 500 meters (1640 feet) from a residence. As RF Consultant William Johnson attested, this tower can be a large distance from any gap area - a couple of miles - and still provide the necessary service. (If that means they need to go to another area and thus another municipality for approval, so be it.) Finally, Verizon has said that they are a public utility, insinuating that this gives them some kind of automatic right of way. This is misleading - Verizon, the company, is NOT a public utility. Under NY case law, cell towers are deemed to be "public utilities" for the limited purpose of relaxing the legal 2 standard to obtain a zoning "use" variance, NOT an "area" variance. The "public utility" legal standard does not apply to the Planning Board's consideration of the applicant's request for site plan approval and a special use permit. Rather, this only applies to requests for use variances under zoning law. So while Verizon might use this as a way of muscling their way in, it does not give them leverage in your decision. They are a private company motivated primarily by profit, not the public good. So, though we don't likely need this large tower to fill a small gap in coverage, Verizon wants to do so as it is in their best financial interest. We urge you to utilize the consultant to clearly ascertain the least intrusive means to fill the existing gap, honoring what is in the best interest of Ithaca's citizens. Thank you for your thoughtful dedication to our beloved Town. Kind regards, Marie and Andrew Molnar 1 Chris Balestra From:Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2024 8:52 AM To:Chris Balestra; CJ Randall Subject:FW: Oppose Verizon’s Tower From: Ravindra Walsh <raviwalsh@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 8:06 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Subject: Oppose Verizon’s Tower **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 Thank you for considering the real impact of the proposed cell tower for Ithaca. The research is clear that we don’t NEED this tower anywhere in Ithaca! BEFORE you start to look at new sites, we want to make sure that a 138' tower is the "least intrusive means" to remedy the small gap shown on the drive tests. Because if a 138' monopole is NOT needed to remedy the gap, then that will likely open up new, less intrusive site possibilities. Our concern is that Verizon is using this small gap as the justification to build a much taller/larger pole than necessary, not only for other things (like fixed wireless broadband), but also, as stated, to collect rents from other carriers (i.e. make more money). If, as the consultant suggested, you look at the dropped connections and access failures map in Exhibit Z (which is the only ACTUAL data we have to determine the gap - significant or otherwise), it runs 2.5 miles along Coddington and roughly the same distance on 79. This distance across is roughly a mile. So the whole "gap" area is roughly 2.5 square miles. A small cell antenna using Verizon low-bands (or even multi-band with the mid-band) can easily cover this gap, and these frequencies easily pass through trees and buildings (as the RF consultant affirmed in Tuesday's meeting). This is precisely what small antennas are great for - fixing a small gap, particularly in this topography. We highly recommend asking the independent consultant IF a small antenna might be the least intrusive means to remedy this gap. If so, you will have many more site options. Also, while you can't use this as a reason to deny having a tower, we ask you to keep in mind that the New Hampshire Commission of experts that studied cell radiation--after combing through the thousands of studies showing harm to human health--recommended that towers should be at least 500 meters (1640 feet) from a residence. As RF Consultant William Johnson attested, this tower can be a large distance from any gap area - a couple of miles - and still provide the necessary service. (If that means they need to go to another area and thus another municipality for approval, so be it.) Finally, Verizon has said that they are a public utility, insinuating that this gives them some kind of automatic right of way. This is misleading - Verizon, the company, is NOT a public utility. Under NY 2 case law, cell towers are deemed to be "public utilities" for the limited purpose of relaxing the legal standard to obtain a zoning "use" variance, NOT an "area" variance. The "public utility" legal standard does not apply to the Planning Board's consideration of the applicant's request for site plan approval and a special use permit. Rather, this only applies to requests for use variances under zoning law. So while Verizon might use this as a way of muscling their way in, it does not give them leverage in your decision. They are a private company motivated primarily by profit, not the public good. So, though we don't likely need this large tower to fill a small gap in coverage, Verizon wants to do so as it is in their best financial interest. We urge you to utilize the consultant to clearly ascertain the least intrusive means to fill the existing gap, honoring what is in the best interest of Ithaca's citizens. Thank you for your thoughtful dedication to our beloved town. Kind regards, Ravi Walsh. 607-220-6088 www.heartpathme.com Draft approval resolution PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Preliminary & Final Site Plan & Special Permit Verizon Wireless Personal Wireless Service Facility 111 Wiedmaier Court Tax Parcel No. 56.-4-1.22 Planning Board, November 19, 2024 WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a personal wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79. The proposal involves the construction of a 138' +/- monopole tower with nine antennas, two equipment cabinets, a generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50' +/- chain link fenced area. S. Roberts WC Land, LLC, Owner; Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on October 29, 2024, acting in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the Verizon Wireless Personal Wireless Service Facility proposal, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted and prepared by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by staff; 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on October 29, 2024, reviewed application materials dated November 13, 2023, and May 29, 2024, including Exhibits A-Y; additional application materials dated August 7, 2024, including Exhibits Z-EE; additional application materials dated October 22, 2024, including Exhibits FF and GG and revised drawings titled “Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems LLC d/b/a Verizon, Site Name: Sunny View WBS#: VZ-00049818.C.9341, MDG#: 50000072226,” with sheets T-1, AD-1, SB-1, C-1A, C-1B, C-2, C-3, C-4A, C-4B, C-5, and ECS-1 through ESC-7, prepared by Tectonic, dated 02/16/24 and revised 10/21/24; additional application materials dated October 28, 2024, including Exhibits HH and II; consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024, and revised October 21, 2024; and other plans and materials; 4. The Planning Board, at their meeting on November 19, 2024, reviewed and accepted additional application materials, including a letter from William P. Johnson (RF Engineering Consultant to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board), dated November 4, 2024, and a letter with Exhibits JJ, KK, and LL from the applicant, dated November 14, 2024; and 5. Project plans, and related information, were duly delivered to the Tompkins County Planning and Sustainability Department per New York State General Municipal Law §§239-l et seq., and such Department responded in a September 13, 2024, letter from Katherine Borgella, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, pursuant to §§239-l, -m, and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law, determining that the proposed action will have no significant county- wide or inter-community impact; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the project, finding that the Special Permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270-200, Subsections A – H, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: Page 2 of 7 A. The project will be suitable for the property on which it is proposed, considering the property’s size, location, and physical site characteristics. • The property is 12+/- acres in size, whereas the facility and all appurtenances will only encompass .46+/- acres. The proposed facility will be located on an existing cleared, previously disturbed, flat portion of the property; B. The proposed structure design and site layout are compatible with the surrounding area. • The site layout will not change. Access to the cell tower will utilize an existing gravel drive. The tower will be constructed on an existing cleared site. The closest residence is 578 feet from the proposed tower. Parts of the facility will be screened from most vantage points by existing and additional new vegetation; C. Operations in connection with the proposed use do not create any more noise, fumes, vibration, illumination, or other potential nuisances than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone. • During operations, the facility will not emit noise, fumes, vibration, illumination (other than one safety light) or other potential nuisances. D. Community infrastructure and services, such as police, fire and other protective services, roadways, schools, and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use. • There are no needed changes to existing infrastructure and services. All infrastructure to accommodate the existing use is in place and is of adequate capacity. E. The proposed use, structure design, and site layout will comply with all the provisions of the Town Code and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. • If the Zoning Board of Appeals grants an area variance for height, then the project will comply with all provisions of Chapter 270, Zoning, with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, all provisions of the Town Code. F. The site layout, with proposed vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access, traffic circulation, and parking and loading facilities, is sufficient for the proposed use and is safely designed for emergency vehicles. • There is no bicycle or pedestrian access permitted or associated with the proposed tower. There is no public access associated with the project – the existing gravel drive, slightly widened to accommodate the project, will provide appropriate access for emergency vehicles. The project includes a small parking area and turnaround area for such vehicles. G. The project includes sufficient landscaping and/or other forms of buffering to protect surrounding land uses. Existing vegetation is preserved to the extent possible. • There will be no loss to existing trees and vegetation. There is a very large no disturbance area of trees and vegetation surrounding the project site that will remain in natural growth in perpetuity as required by an existing deed restriction mandated by the Planning Board for a previous unrelated matter. The project includes additional landscaping around the base of the tower to screen equipment from adjacent residences. H. To the extent deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Chapter 270, Zoning. Page 3 of 7 2. That the Planning Board further finds that the requirements of §270-219.R(1) have been met, specifically: (a) The proposed personal wireless service facility complies with all relevant federal statutory and regulatory requirements, including all applicable Federal Communication Commission, Federal Aviation Commission, National Environmental Policy Act, and National Historic Preservation Act requirements. • Placeholder for discussion at the 11/19 PB meeting. This is consistent with the findings of the consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024 , revised October 21, 2024, with supplemental submission November 4, 2024. (b) The applicable standards in Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article XXIV (Special Permits and Special Approvals), § 270-200 (Considerations for approval) are met. • See #1 above; and (c) All of the following additional standards are met: [1] Public utility status. Services provided by the proposed PWSFs are considered public utility services, and the provider of such services is considered a public utility, in the State of New York. • Application materials Exhibit C provide information supporting this finding. [2] Need. The applicant has proven a compelling need to address any significant gaps in the applicant's personal wireless services (the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network) through the proposed facilities and not through any other solution, and the facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community. [a] To determine whether a gap is significant, the Planning Board shall consider, among other things, dropped call and failure rates, whether a gap is relatively large or small in geographic size, whether the number of the applicant's customers affected by the gap is relatively small or large, whether or not the location of the gap is situated on a lightly or heavily traveled road or in a sparsely or densely occupied area, and whether the applicant's customers are affected for only a limited period of time. A significant gap cannot be established simply because the applicant's personal wireless services operate on a frequency which is not the frequency most desired by the applicant. An applicant's claim of need for future capacity does not constitute evidence of a significant gap. [b] In making the finding of compelling need, the Planning Board shall consider the evidence of a significant gap, the applicant's consideration of other sites and other means of addressing the gaps, and the feasibility of addressing the gaps through the use of other sites or other means. • The following information shows a compelling need to address significant gaps in the applicant’s personal wireless services through the proposed facilities and not through any other solution, and it shows the facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community: • These statements in the consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024, revised October 21, 2024, with supplemental submission November 4, 2024, support this finding: 1. From Summary of Findings #2, September 20, 2024, report: “Based on the RF coverage threshold levels and the need to off-load traffic from certain neighbor sites, Applicant has demonstrated need* for RF coverage and additional traffic capacity from a base station facility in the general area of the proposed project site. [*footnote at bottom of page states “There are several ways by which a wireless telecommunications service provider can establish site need for a “covered service.” A “covered Page 4 of 7 service” is “a telecommunications service or a personal wireless service.” See “Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment,” FCC 18 -133, 85 FR 51867, at ¶ 37 and footnote 85 (October 15, 2018) (the FCC regulatory test for establishing an effective prohibition is whether “a state or local legal requirement materially inhibits a provider’s ability to engage in any of a variety of activities related to its provision of a covered service,” and this test is met “not only when filling a coverage gap but also when densifying a wireless network, introducing new services or otherwise improving service capabilities”)] 2. From Summary of Findings #12, September 20, 2024, report: “The proposed RF coverage shows that several coverage gap areas will remain in the area. Those gaps that remain after a proposed site is active imply the possibility that Applicant may decide to address those areas as part of their overall wireless network. At this time, it is recommended that the siting authority request information from Applicant to more fully understand the potential need to serve remaining gap areas and how approval of the currently-proposed site will influence the placement and height of future sites.” 3. From September 20, 2024, report, page 10 of 38: “In support of the application, Applicant has provided a series of RF propagation plots that show existing RF coverage and demonstrate how the proposed site fills the coverage need relative to the provision of wireless service to their subscribers. Exhibit H, pages 17 and 21 respectively, show the existing RF coverage in the vicinity of the proposed site for the 700/850 MHz low-bands and the 1900/2100/3900 MHz mid-band frequencies. The low-band plots indicate sufficient coverage at or above the -105 dBm level with multiple coverage gaps to the west and northwest provided there is sufficient user capacity available. The mid-band plots clearly show significant coverage gaps in the immediate vicinity of and surrounding the proposed site. The proposed site will minimize RF coverage gaps in the vicinity of the proposed site at mid-band and, by improving the signal level, allow mobile subscribers to access services in that band in addition to providing significantly improved low-band coverage.” 4. From September 20, 2024, report, page 11 of 38: “The drive test data includes maps that show received signal strength in dBm for each frequency band across various locations. The results indicate that there are large areas with poor or inadequate signal coverage in the 850 MHz band and very little coverage in the 1900 MHz and 2100 MHz bands, which constitute the majority of Applicant’s bandwidth. Between July 16 and July 31, 2024, the dropped call rate in the vicinity of the proposed site was recorded at 11.84%, significantly higher than what Applicant states is their “national standard of less than 1%.” The high rate of dropped calls and access failures further supports the need for the proposed facility. 5. From September 20, 2024, report, page 12 of 38: “Each operating band provides limited user capacity. In this case, distance, intervening terrain and other obstacles prevent strong mid-band RF signals from these neighboring sites from reaching the proposed coverage area. The lack of strong midband RF coverage leaves only the low-band services and associated limited capacity available to many service subscribers in the local area of the proposed site. This is evidenced by observing the FDV plots. Brooktondale Gamma and Ithaca HD Alpha sectors are well past maximum capacity in the low-band. While not all the traffic considered is from the area of the proposed site, a new site as proposed will draw off some traffic and provide local subscribers with their own server while relieving some excess traffic from each saturated low-band sector. In addition to relieving traffic congestion at low-band, the proposed site will introduce stronger mid-band service as evidenced by the propagation plots showing existing and proposed coverage shown on pages 17 and 18 in Exhibit H.” “The presence of significant RF coverage gaps predicted by the RF propagation plots for existing coverage and, when applicable, the actual and predicted trends toward maximum capacity of neighbor sites that provide service to the target area, tend to demonstrate need. Analysis of whether these gaps can be addressed by the proposed site or a less intrusive alternate site when balanced between the technical performance and aesthetic advantages serves to justify the proposed site.” 6. From September 20, 2024, report, page 13 of 38: “While considering the local impact, consider that any nearby alternate site location would probably require at least the same antenna height if the proposed site is nearly central to the existing gap area. Generally, base stations at the center of a coverage gap area result in the shortest antenna height requirement. When a base station must cover a gap from a non- central location, the height must usually increase to overcome terrain shadowing to provide comparable levels of RF coverage and maintain adequate connectivity to the adjacent neighbor cells.” 7. From September 20, 2024, report, page 15 of 38: “Noticeable coverage gaps open to the northwest and southwest of the proposed site and signal strength degrades to the southeast, adversely affecting service to the targeted improvement areas designated by Applicant. These areas include the intersection of Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road, the area on Slaterville Road in the vicinity of Bethel Grove, and vicinity of the intersection of Coddington Road and East King Road.” Page 5 of 7 8. From October 21, 2024, report, page 1 of 5: “Need. The applicant has proven a compelling need to address any significant gaps in the applicant's personal wireless services (the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network) through the proposed facilities and not through any other solution, and the facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community.” 9. From October 21, 2024, report, page 3 of 5: “In addition to the existing low-band RF coverage shown in Exhibit H pages 15 and 17, Exhibit Z slides 10 and 11 shows “dropped connections” and “access failure” locations for all frequency bands discussed in the exhibit. Low-band signals propagate with less loss than mid-band signals, but low-band spectrum represents only about 10% of Applicant’s bandwidth. These data are collected by the LTE controller using GPS data reported from the user’s mobile device. We note that the maps are titled “Dropped Connections” and “Access Failures” which, from an LTE perspective, may not be only voice call dropped connections or access attempts. However, the fact that LTE sessions were dropped or could not be initiated implies generally that voice calls in progress could also be dropped or attempts to dial out may not be successful. Based on the map locations markers, the dropped connections and access failures were in a mix of outdoor, in-vehicle and in-building locations along and between area roads and demonstrates the potential inability to place and receive phone calls for convenience and emergencies. The wireless communication environment is such that when unavoidable “fading” occurs, connections may be dropped, but it does not mean that every existing connection or access attempt will fail as long as conditions provide at least minimal signal strength and user capacity at the PWSF serving the area. The issue in either case is predictable reliability. The data shows that reliability is poor in the test area. We therefore conclude that Applicant has shown a “compelling need” since wireless reliability in the targeted improvement area is poor.” 10. From October 21, 2024, report, page 3 of 5: “Based on the information in Exhibit H for low-band, we would anticipate that low-band mobile device connections inside vehicles and inside buildings may be unreliable for in-vehicle and in-building users since penetration of vehicles and structures reduces signal strength. Applicants’ Exhibit Z page 9 states that the Dropped Call Rate (DCR) for the proposed service area is 11.84% compared to their standard DCR of 1%. The stated DCR is for both low-band and mid- band operation. If a call is in progress in mid -band frequencies when a user transits into an area the mid-band call will drop. If a user is already in an area that lacks mid-band service and there are either low-band capacity limitations or insufficient low-band signal strength (e.g., in-vehicle or in-building locations) it is likely that access will be denied or, if initiated, the connection may drop.” • Application materials Exhibits Z, AA, and BB contain drive test results and dropped call records. Applicant’s October 28, 2024, submission notes that, as stated at the October 1, 2024, Planning Board meeting, the dropped call data provided as Exhibit Z is for voice calls only. Wasif Sharif, Verizon RF Engineer who prepared these exhibits, reiterated on the record at the October 29, 2024, Planning Board meeting that the 11.84% dropped call rate experienced for the proposed service area, noted on page 9 of Exhibit Z, was for voice calls. • Application materials Exhibits H and HH provide propagation plots and analysis showing coverage gaps in significant portions of the area to be served by the proposed facility. There are coverage gaps along portions of heavily traveled NYS Route 79/Slaterville Road, and in a number of locations where there are residences. • Application materials Exhibits GG and II, and applicant’s supplemental submission dated November 14, 2024 (including Exhibits JJ and KK), show that the significant gap cannot be addressed through other solutions such as alternate locations, shorter towers, or one or more small cells. These materials also show that the facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community. Some of the alternate locations that are large enough to host the facility would require a higher tower, and many of these alternate locations would be closer to the nearest residence and require removal of more trees than the proposed Wiedmaier Court location and facility. The analysis in Part 3 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form section 9 (Impact on Aesthetic Resources), and the application materials on which the analysis is based, show that the project will be visible only from adjacent residences and by those travelling along NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road or Burns Road. One would need to deliberately look for the tower in order to see it while traveling in a vehicle on those roads. Additionally, per the consultant report written by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024 (page 13 of 38),“any nearby alternate site location would Page 6 of 7 probably require at least the same antenna height if the proposed site is nearly central to the existing gap area.” [3] Compliance with Chapter 270 (Zoning) and other Town Code requirements. Complies with all requirements of this § 270-219, with all other requirements of this Chapter 270 (unless expressly superseded by this § 270-219), and all other applicable Ithaca Town Code requirements. • See #1 E above. [4] Co-location on proposed towers. For non-SWFs, when construction of a tower is proposed, such a tower is designed to accommodate future shared use by at least two other PWSF providers. • Tower is such designed, per application materials Exhibit L. [5] Aesthetic impacts. The proposed PWSFs will not inflict a significant adverse aesthetic impact upon properties that are located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s) or upon any other properties situated in a manner that such properties might reasonably be expected to sustain adverse aesthetic impacts. • Although the project will be visible from immediately-adjacent properties on Wiedmaier Court, Burns Road, and NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road, it will not inflict a significant adverse aesthetic impact on said properties. The closest affected property is 578-feet from the proposed tower. Parts of the facility will be screened from nearby properties and vantage points by existing and proposed new vegetation. The project includes planting trees and bushes around the leased area to soften views and mitigate aesthetic impacts on immediately-adjacent residences. In most cases, one will need to deliberately look for the tower in order to see it while commuting in a vehicle. This is further explained in the application materials Exhibit Q, and the consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024, revised October 21, 2024, with supplemental submission November 4, 2024. [6] Impacts upon real estate values. The proposed PWSFs will not inflict a significant adverse impact upon the property values of properties that are located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s). • This finding is based on application materials Exhibits Y and CC. [7] Impact upon the character of the surrounding community. The proposed PWSFs will not be incompatible with the use and character of properties located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s), or with any other properties situated in a manner that the PWSFs might reasonably be expected to be incompatible with such properties. • This finding is based on the information and analysis in the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 Attachment, and per Special Permit findings in resolved clause #1 above. [8] Mitigation. The applicant has mitigated the potential adverse impacts of the proposed PWSFs to the greatest extent reasonably feasible through siting, location, and design. • Although immediately-adjacent properties on Wiedmaier Court, Burns Road, and NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road will be impacted by the project, the applicant has mitigated potential adverse impacts to the greatest extent reasonably feasible. The closest affected property is 578-feet from the proposed tower. Parts of the facility will be screened from nearby properties and vantage points by existing and proposed new vegetation. The facility is located on property that does not require clearing of trees or other vegetation and is not on a significant steep slope that requires significant grading. The facility is also situated as far from existing residences as is feasible on the property and at the shortest possible height to achieve the coverage needs of the applicant. Camouflaging the proposed tower as a “stealth” tree would increase potential adverse impacts rather than mitigate them. This is further explained in the application materials Exhibit Q, and the consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024, revised October 21, 2024, with supplemental submission November 4, 2024. Page 7 of 7 3. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed personal wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79, as described in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following conditions: a. Before issuance of a building permit, receipt of any necessary variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, b. Before issuance of a building permit, submission of revised plans that show a permanent physical barrier around the “no disturbance” zone, [Suggested by PB at 10/15/24 meeting] c. Before issuance of a building permit, submission of revised landscaping plans that show additional plantings of native trees located closer on the site to the closest-affected residences [Suggested by PB at 10/29/24 meeting – this condition may require language regarding deed restriction modifications so the applicant can plant inside the no -disturbance zone- to be determined] d. Any proposed fence slatting or boards (and other buffering materials) installed in fencing shall be made of wood or other natural materials, and shall be regularly maintained with natural coloration and surfaces that are congruent with surrounding flora, [Suggested by PB at 10/15/24 meeting], e. Before issuance of a building permit, approval of the Simple Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (SWPPP) by the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department; f. Before issuance of a building permit, submission of the required documents, permits, and fees listed on the Town Code Enforcement Department Comments list, dated 8-14-24; and g. Per the requirements of Town Code, §270-219 P (2), prior to the installation of any personal wireless service facilities, execution and filing with the Town Clerk of a bond or other form of security or undertaking which shall be approved as to form, manner of execution, and sufficiency for surety by the Attorney for the Town and the Town Engineer. Draft denial resolution PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Preliminary & Final Site Plan & Special Permit Verizon Wireless Personal Wireless Service Facility 111 Wiedmaier Court Tax Parcel No. 56.-4-1.22 Planning Board, November 19, 2024 WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a personal wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79. The proposal involves the construction of a 138' +/- monopole tower with nine antennas, two equipment cabinets, a generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50' +/- chain link fenced area. S. Roberts WC Land, LLC, Owner; Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on October 29, 2024, acting in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the Verizon Wireless Personal Wireless Service Facility proposal, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted and prepared by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by staff; 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on October 29, 2024, reviewed materials dated November 13, 2023, and May 29, 2024, including Exhibits A-Y; additional application materials dated August 7, 2024, including Exhibits Z-EE; additional application materials dated October 22, 2024, including Exhibits FF and GG and revised drawings titled “Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems LLC d/b/a Verizon, Site Name: Sunny View WBS#: VZ-00049818.C.9341, MDG#: 50000072226,” with sheets T-1, AD-1, SB-1, C-1A, C-1B, C-2, C-3, C-4A, C-4B, C-5, and ECS-1 through ESC-7, prepared by Tectonic, dated 02/16/24 and revised 10/21/24; additional application materials dated October 28, 2024, including Exhibits HH and II; consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024, and revised October 21, 2024; and other plans and materials; 4. The Planning Board, at their meeting on November 19, 2024, reviewed and accepted as adequate additional application materials, including a letter from William P. Johnson (RF Engineering Consultant to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board), dated November 4, 2024, and a letter with Exhibits JJ, KK, and LL from the applicant, dated November 14, 2024; and 5. Project plans, and related information, were duly delivered to the Tompkins County Planning and Sustainability Department per New York State General Municipal Law §§239-l et seq., and such Department responded in a September 13, 2024, letter from Katherine Borgella, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, pursuant to §§239-l, -m, and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law, determining that the proposed action will have no significant county- wide or inter-community impact; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that some of the Special Permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270-200, Subsections A – H, of the Town of Ithaca Code below, have not been met, specifically that: Page 2 of 5 A. The project [will][will not be] suitable for the property on which it is proposed, considering the property’s size, location, and physical site characteristics. • _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ B. The proposed structure design and site layout [are][are not] compatible with the surrounding area. • _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ C. Operations in connection with the proposed use [will][will not] create more noise, fumes, vibration, illumination, or other potential nuisances than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone. • _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ D. Community infrastructure and services, such as police, fire and other protective services, roadways, schools, and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use. • There are no needed changes to existing infrastructure and services. All infrastructure to accommodate the existing use is in place and is of adequate capacity. E. The proposed use, structure design, and site layout [does][does not] comply with all the provisions of the Town Code and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. • _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ F. The site layout, with proposed vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access, traffic circulation, and parking and loading facilities, [is][is not] sufficient for the proposed use and are not safely designed for emergency vehicles. • ____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ G. The project [does][does not] include sufficient landscaping and/or other forms of buffering to protect surrounding land uses. Existing vegetation is preserved to the extent possible. • ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ H. To the extent deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Chapter 270, Zoning. 2. That the Planning Board further finds that some of the requirements of §270-219.R(1) below have not been met, specifically: (a) The proposed personal wireless service facility complies with all relevant federal statutory and regulatory requirements, including all applicable Federal Communication Commission, Federal Aviation Commission, National Environmental Policy Act, and National Historic Preservation Act requirements. Placeholder for discussion at 11/19 PB mtg. This is consistent with the findings of the consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024, revised October 21, 2024, with supplemental submission November 4, 2024. Page 3 of 5 (b) The applicable standards in Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article XXIV (Special Permits and Special Approvals), § 270-200 (Considerations for approval) are not met. See #1 above; and (c) Some of the following additional standards are not met: [1] Public utility status. Services provided by the proposed PWSF are considered public utility services, and the provider of such services is considered a public utility, in the State of New York. Application materials Exhibit C provide information supporting this finding. [2] Need. The applicant [has][has not] proven a compelling need to address any significant gaps in the applicant's personal wireless services (the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network) through the proposed facilities and not through any other solution, and the facility [does][does not] present a minimal intrusion on the community. [a] To determine whether a gap is significant, the Planning Board shall consider, among other things, dropped call and failure rates, whether a gap is relatively large or small in geographic size, whether the number of the applicant's customers affected by the gap is relatively small or large, whether or not the location of the gap is situated on a lightly or heavily traveled road or in a sparsely or densely occupied area, and whether the applicant's customers are affected for only a limited period of time. A significant gap cannot be established simply because the applicant's personal wireless services operate on a frequency which is not the frequency most desired by the applicant. An applicant's claim of need for future capacity does not constitute evidence of a significant gap. [b] In making the finding of compelling need, the Planning Board shall consider the evidence of a significant gap, the applicant's consideration of other sites and other means of addressing the gaps, and the feasibility of addressing the gaps through the use of other sites or other means. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ [3] Compliance with Chapter 270 (Zoning) and other Town Code requirements. Does not comply with all requirements of this § 270-219, with all other requirements of this Chapter 270 (unless expressly superseded by this § 270-219), and all other applicable Ithaca Town Code requirements. See #1 E above. [4] Co-location on proposed towers. For non-SWFs, when construction of a tower is proposed, such a tower is designed to accommodate future shared use by at least two other PWSF providers. Tower is such designed, per application materials Exhibit L. [5] Aesthetic impacts. The proposed PWSF [will][will not] inflict a significant adverse aesthetic impact upon properties that are located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s) or upon any other properties situated in a manner that such properties might reasonably be expected to sustain adverse aesthetic impacts. _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 5 _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ [6] Impacts upon real estate values. The proposed PWSF [will][will not] inflict a significant adverse impact upon the property values of properties that are located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s). __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ [7] Impact upon the character of the surrounding community. The proposed PWSF [will][will not] be incompatible with the use and character of properties located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s), or with any other properties situated in a manner that the PWSFs might reasonably be expected to be incompatible with such properties. _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ [8] Mitigation. The applicant [has][has not] mitigated the potential adverse impacts of the proposed PWSFs to the greatest extent reasonably feasible through siting, location, and design.__ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 3. [Add if the applicant has asserted that a denial would constitute an effective prohibition, and the denial is based on 2(b) or (c) above] That the Planning Board further finds that §270- 219.R(2) below has not been met, as follows: [If the applicant asserts that a denial would constitute an effective prohibition, and the denial is based on a failure to comply with any of the standards in Subsection R(1)(b) or (c) above, then pursuant to federal law, the Planning Board must consider whether the proposed facilities are the least intrusive means of addressing a significant gap in the applicant's personal wireless services (the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network). A significant gap is not established simply because the applicant's personal wireless services operate on a frequency which is not the frequency most desired by the applicant. An applicant's claim of need for future capacity does not constitute evidence of a significant gap.] (a) The Planning Board shall consider, among other things, a) whether the proposed site is the least intrusive location at which a personal wireless service facility that remedies an identified significant gap may be located, and the applicant has reasonably established a lack of potential alternative less intrusive sites and lack of sites available for co-location, b) whether the specific location on the proposed portion of the selected site is the least intrusive portion of the site for the proposed installation, c) whether the height proposed for the personal wireless service facility is the minimum height necessary to remedy an established significant gap in service, d) whether a preexisting structure can be used to camouflage the personal wireless service facility, e) whether the installation mitigates adverse impacts to the greatest extent reasonably feasible, through the employ of stealth design, screening, use of color, and noise mitigation measures, and f) whether there is a feasible alternative to remedy the gap through Page 5 of 5 alternative, less intrusive substitute facilities, such as the installation of more than one shorter facility instead of a single facility. (b) If the Planning Board finds that the proposed facilities are the least intrusive means of addressing a significant gap in the applicant's personal wireless services, then pursuant to federal law, the Planning Board must grant site plan and special permit approvals. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 4. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby denies Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed personal wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79, as described in Whereas #3 above, for the reasons stated in the findings enumerated in Resolved clauses 1, 2 and 3 above. NIXON Nixon Peabody LLP Jared C. Lusk �- 1300 Clinton Square Partner PEABODYRochester, NY 14604-1792 Attorneys at Law nixonpeabody.com @NixonPeabodyLLP November 18, 2024 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND ELECTRONIC MAIL Planning Board & Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Attention: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner (cbalestragtown.ithaca.n�us) T / 585.263.1140 F / 866.402.1491 jlusk@nixonpeabody.com RE: Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless' application (the "Application") to the Town of Ithaca (the "Town") for a special use permit and site plan approval from the Planning Board and an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct and operate a 134' wireless telecommunications facility (with 4' lightning rod) on property located at 111 Wiedmaier Court (Tax Parcel No. 56.4-1.22) in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York (Verizon Wireless' "Sunny View" site) Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board: By application dated May 29, 2024 and supplemental applications dated August 7, October 22, October 28 and November 14, 2024, Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless") submitted the above -referenced Application to the Town of Ithaca in connection with the above -referenced project (the "Project"). On November 15, 2024, Town Planner Balestra and Town Attorney Brock requested additional information regarding Verizon's compliance with applicable federal requirements as outlined in § 270-219(G)(2)(h) of the Town Code. In response, enclosed are the following that collectively demonstrate that the Project complies with applicable FCC, FAA, NEPA and NHPA requirements: Exhibit MM1: FAA Analysis (commonly known as the Towair Report). Note that it indicates that notice to the FAA is not required. Exhibit NN: Correspondence from GSS Inc. regarding the status of the NEPA process. ' Lettered to follow Exhibits A-LL previously submitted. 4870-6419-1226.1 Town of Ithaca November 18, 2024 Page 2 • Verizon's FCC licenses for Tompkins County were previously provided as Exhibit J to the Application. Note that a couple of the FCC licenses have expired since our initial submission, so we have enclosed copies of the updated licenses; • Proof of compliance with the federal emissions requirements (originally submitted as Exhibit P to the Application). We believe the information referenced herein and enclosed demonstrates that the Project complies with all applicable federal regulations. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. n truly Lusk JCL/mkv Enclosures cc: Brett Morgan, Airosmith Developmen Jeff Twitty, Esq., Nixon Peabody LLP 4570-6419-1226A EXHIBIT MM * ANALYSIS REPORT ******************* * Federal Airways & Airspace * Summary Report: New Construction * Antenna Tower BITE ID: 2126343 TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LOCATION : Ithaca College, NY RURAL TOWER ID: 10612 LATITUDE: 421 24' 45.237" LONGITUDE: 761 27' 1.569" SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . . . . 825 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . . . 134 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . . . . 959 ft. NOTICE CRITERIA FAR 77.9(a): NNR (DNE 200 ft. AGL) FAR 77.9(b): NNR (DNE Notice Slope) FAR 77.9(c): NNR (Not a Traverse Way) FAR 77.9: NNR FAR 77.9 IFR Straight -In Notice Criteria FAR 77.9: NNR FAR 77.9 IFR Offset Notice Criteria FAR 77.9: NNR (DNE EMI Notice Screening Criteria) FAR 77.9(d): NNR (Off Airport Construction) NR = Notice Required NNR = Notice Not Required PNR = Possible Notice Required(depends upon actual IFR procedure) Review Air Navigation Facilities at bottom of this report. Notice to the £AA is not required The maximum height to avoid notice is 1025 ft. AMSL. OBSTRUCTION STANDARDS Civil airport imaginary surfaces FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE 499 ft. AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Airport Surface FAR 77.19(a): DNE - Horizontal Surface FAR 77.19(b): DNE - Conical Surface FAR 77.19(c): DNE - Primary Surface FAR 77.19(d): DNE - Approach Surface FAR 77.19(e): DNE - Transitional Surface Department of Defense (DOD) airport imaginary surfaces FAR 77.21(a)(1): DNE - Inner Horizontal Surface FAR 77.21(a)(2): DNE - Conical Surface FAR 77.21(a)(3): DNE - Outer Horizontal Surface FAR 77.21(b)(1): DNE - Primary Surface FAR 77.21(b)(2): DNE - Clear Zone Surface FAR 77.21(b)(3): DNE - Approach Surface FAR 77.21(b)(4): DNE - Transitional Surface Heliport imaginary surfaces FAR 77.23(b): DNE - Approach Surface VFR TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE FOR: ITH : ITHACA TOMPKINS INTL Type: A RD: 26361.41 RE: 1099.2 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE 499 ft. AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Height not greater than 200 ft. AGL. VFR Horizontal Surface: DNE VFR Conical Surface: DNE VFR Primary Surface: DNE VFR Approach Surface: DNE VFR Transitional Surface: DNE VFR TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE FOR: NO3 : CORTLAND COUNTY/CHASE FLD Type: A RD: 89637.36 RE: 1198.3 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE 499 ft. AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM VFR Horizontal Surface: DNE VFR Conical Surface: DNE VFR Primary Surface: DNE VFR Approach Surface: DNE VFR Transitional Surface: DNE MINIMUM OBSTACLE CLEARANCE ALTITUDE (MOCA) FAR 77.17(a)(4) MOCA Altitude Enroute Criteria The Maximum Height Permitted is 17615 ft. AMSL TERPS DEPARTURE PROCEDURE (FAA Order 8260.3, Volume 4) FAR 77.17(a)(3) Departure Surface Criteria (40:1) DNE Departure Surface PRIVATE LANDING FACILITIES FAC TYPE NAME IDNT BEARING To RANGE DELTA ARP FAA IFR FACIL IN NM ELEVATION NK72 AIR HENION PVT FLD 239.05 4.25 -341 No Impact to VFr Transitional Surface. Below surface height of 325 ft above ARP. NK05 AIR TOM N' JERRY 220.05 4.53 -531 No Impact to VFr Transitional Surface. Below surface height of 353 ft above ARP. AIR NAVIGATION ELECTRONIC FACILITIES FAC TYPE ST FREQ VECTOR DIST DELTA ST LOCATION GRD APCH IDNT AT (ft) ELEVA ANGLE BEAR ITH LOCALIZER I 108.7 350.38 31960 -118 NY RWY 32 ITHACA -.21 325 TOM ALP NDB I 24 233.13 105863 -328 NY ALPINE -.18 CFB VOR/DME R 112.2 137.68 125943 -624 NY BINGHAMTON -.28 BGM LOCALIZER I 110.3 119.43 143567 -672 NY RWY 34 GREATER -.27 340 BI BGM RADAR I 119.24 145857 -770 NY BINGHAMTON -.3 REGION UEK LOCALIZER I 109.1 232.38 146229 +5 NY RWY 06 ELMIRA/ 0.00 62 COR BGM ATCT I A/G 120.64 147189 -719 NY BINGHAMTON -.28 REGION KBGM RADAR WXL Y 162.47 121.77 147954 -772 NY BINGHAMTON -.3 AAJ LOCALIZER I 110.3 120.56 149636 -616 NY RWY 16 GREATER -.24 158 BI ITH ATCT I A/G 358.82 150079 -174 NY ITHACA TOMPKINS -.07 R ELM RADAR I 2750. 234.9 151520 -670 NY ELMIRA-CORNING -.25 RE ELM ATCT I A/G 232.72 151655 -79 NY ELMIRA/CORNING -.03 RE ELM LOCALIZER I 109.1 232.24 155681 +28 NY RWY 24 ELMIRA/ .01 242 COR ZNY CO Y A/G 193.95 178403 -592 PA SAYRE -.19 PYA NDB I 26 297.52 183772 +102 NY PENN YAN .03 ULW VOR/DME R 109.6 233.08 194031 -673 NY ELMIRA -.2 GGT TACAN I 117.8 50.55 216837 -1081 NY GEORGETOWN -.29 SECTION 2110 FAA EXTENSION, SAFETY AND SECURITY ACT - RURAL AREA ANALYSIS Warning! The object is within a rural area and not on agricultural land(View agricultural land -use image). Verification is required to determine if the studied location is adjacent to agricultural land.Please use the Rural Tower Analysis (RTA) certification tool to confirm the object is compliant with the Section 2110 FAA EXTENSION, SAFETY AND SECURITY ACT, is eligible for an exemption, or if additional actions are required. Agriculture Area Map Legend Non-agricultural land at this location CFR Title 47, §1.30000-§1.30004 AM STUDY NOT REQUIRED: Structure is not near a FCC licensed AM station. Movement Method Proof as specified in §73.151(c) is not required. Please review 'AM Station Report' for details. Nearest AM Station: WNYY @ 3064 meters. Airspace@ State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE@ and TERPS@ are registered @ trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace@ Copyright @ 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 8:12:11 * OBSTRUCTION CRITERIA SITE ID: 2126343 TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LATITUDE: 42' 24' 45.237" LONGITUDE: 76' 27' 1.569" SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . . . . 825 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . . . 134 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . . . . 959 ft. 77.17(a)(1) A height more than 499 ft. Above Ground Level (AGL). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************* THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IS: ....... 1324 ft. AMSL THE GROUND ELEVATION AT THE SITE IS: ... 825 ft. AMSL THE OVERALL CASE ELEVATION IS: ......... 959 ft. AMSL THE CASE IS BELOW THE ALLOWABLE BY: .... 365 ft. AMSL BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR ITH 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ ITH THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 1099.0 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..4.7416 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 175.611 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IS: ....... 1473 ft. AMSL 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> ITH <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 14/32 EXISTING RUNWAY 14/32 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 14/32 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 19614.33 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1099.2 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 17412.92 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 3111.938 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE NOT WITHIN APPROACH SURFACE AREA, OUT BY ....... 11502.392 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................19614.33 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 17412.92 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 14 IS: 50 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 50,000 feet with a 50:1 Slope for the first 10,000 feet and a 40:1 Slope for 40,000 feet. The obstacle approach surface is centered symmetrically along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Precision instrument procedures will have the greatest impact between the final approach fix (FAF) and the runway end. The FAF is located approximately 5 NM from the runway end. This type of approach usually has a non -precision and a circling approach also. A circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 15/33 EXISTING RUNWAY 15/33 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 15/33 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 20740.93 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1100.1 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 18866.89 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 2011.689 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE NOT WITHIN APPROACH SURFACE AREA, OUT BY ....... 13729.241 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................20740.93 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 18866.89 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 15 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE ********************************************* BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR NO3 ********************************************* 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ NO3 THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 1197.3 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..15.0341 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 223.952 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> NO3 <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 06/24 EXISTING RUNWAY 06/24 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 06/24 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 3479.601 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1198.3 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 89360.34 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 13654.05 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 39360.34 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................3479.601 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 89360.34 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 06 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use Terps@ Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE ********************************************* BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR 2N4 ********************************************* 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ 2N4 THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 1380.0 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..19.5038 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 175.361 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> 2N4 <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 11/29 EXISTING RUNWAY 11/29 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 11/29 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 115801.1 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1377 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 23547.2 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 2479.72 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE NOT WITHIN APPROACH SURFACE AREA, OUT BY ....... 108321.38 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................115801.1 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 23547.2 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 11 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR D82 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ D82 THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 1062.0 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..21.1302 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 133.54 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> D82 « . ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY O1L/19R EXISTING RUNWAY O1L/19R 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY O1L/19R THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 94338.38 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1088 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 86385.72 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 8763.572 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 36385.72 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................94338.38 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 86385.72 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 01L IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 01R/19L EXISTING RUNWAY O1R/19L 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY O1R/19L THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 93851.87 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1095 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 86164.84 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 8741.485 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 36164.84 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................93851.87 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 86164.84 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY O1R IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR BGM 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ BGM THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 1635.6 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..24.2730 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 300.466 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> BGM <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 10/28 EXISTING RUNWAY 10/28 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 10/28 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 83321.72 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1591.1 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 120106.8 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 18266.02 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 70106.8 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................83321.72 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 120106.8 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 10 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 16/34 EXISTING RUNWAY 16/34 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 16/34 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 69374.81 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1636 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 125413.4 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 19312.01 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 75413.4 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................69374.81 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 125413.4 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 16 IS: 50 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 50,000 feet with a 50:1 Slope for the first 10,000 feet and a 40:1 Slope for 40,000 feet. The obstacle approach surface is centered symmetrically along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Precision instrument procedures will have the greatest impact between the final approach fix (FAF) and the runway end. The FAF is located approximately 5 NM from the runway end. This type of approach usually has a non -precision and a circling approach also. A circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 10/28 PROPOSED RUNWAY 10/28 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 10/28 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 83328.66 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1591.1 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 119549.6 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 18182.45 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 69549.6 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................83328.66 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 119549.6 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 10 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use Terps@ Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 16/34 PROPOSED RUNWAY 16/34 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 16/34 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 69413.26 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1636 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 125489.4 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 19073.41 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 75489.4 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................69413.26 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 125489.4 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 16 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use Terps® Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE ********************************************* BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR ELM 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ ELM THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 955.1 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..24.8114 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 52.224 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> ELM <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 05/23 EXISTING RUNWAY 05/23 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 05/23 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 4849.441 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................944.2 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 148077.9 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 14932.79 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 98077.9 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................4849.441 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 148077.9 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 05 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 06/24 EXISTING RUNWAY 06/24 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 06/24 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 5072.341 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................954.3 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 146779.4 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 22516.92 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 96779.4 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................5072.341 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 146779.4 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 06 IS: 50 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 50,000 feet with a 50:1 Slope for the first 10,000 feet and a 40:1 Slope for 40,000 feet. The obstacle approach surface is centered symmetrically along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Precision instrument procedures will have the greatest impact between the final approach fix (FAF) and the runway end. The FAF is located approximately 5 NM from the runway end. This type of approach usually has a non -precision and a circling approach also. A circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************ DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 10/28 EXISTING RUNWAY 10/28 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 10/28 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 91590.84 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................944.5 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 118257.7 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 17988.66 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 68257.7 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................91590.84 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 118257.7 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 10 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as anon -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use Terps@ Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 06/24 PROPOSED RUNWAY 06/24 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 06/24 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 5065.283 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................955 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 146779.7 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 22266.96 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 96779.7 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................5065.283 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 146779.7 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 06 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use Terps@ Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 10/28 PROPOSED RUNWAY 10/28 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 10/28 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 91590.74 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................945 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 118257.7 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 17988.66 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 68257.7 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................91590.74 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 118257.7 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 10 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use Terps@ Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 23/05 PROPOSED RUNWAY 23/05 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 23/05 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 4849.499 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................945 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 148077.9 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 22461.69 ft. ************ *DOES NOT EXCEED ************** CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 98077.9 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................4849.499 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 148077.9 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 23 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE ********************************************* BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR CZG ********************************************* 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ CZG THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 832.7 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..25.4974 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 321.89 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> CZG <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 03/21 EXISTING RUNWAY 03/21 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 03/21 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 136548.3 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................826.5 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 70532.57 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 10829.89 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 20532.57 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................136548.3 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 70532.57 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY'03 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use Terps@ Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 03/21 PROPOSED RUNWAY 03/21 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 03/21 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 136550 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................826.2 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 70370.36 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 10805.55 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 20370.36 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS .........................136550 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 70370.36 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 03 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR PEO ********************************************* 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ PEO THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 988.0 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..29.9292 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 116.961 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> PEO <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 01/19 EXISTING RUNWAY O1/19 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 01/19 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 157920 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................990 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 86781.43 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 13267.21 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 36781.43 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS .........................157920 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 86781.43 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY O1 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsG Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 10/28 EXISTING RUNWAY 10/28 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 10/28 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 87464.44 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................903.2 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 158214 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 23982.09 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 108214 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................87464.44 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 158214 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 10 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR 6B9 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ 6B9 THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 1039.0 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..30.0728 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 180.807 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> 6B9 <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 04/22 EXISTING RUNWAY 04/22 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 04/22 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 75422.89 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1000 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 164795.1 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 16604.51 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 114795.1 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................75422.89 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 164795.1 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 04 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use Terps® Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 10/28 EXISTING RUNWAY 10/28 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 10/28 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 182018.9 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................994 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 12159.6 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 1340.96 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE NOT WITHIN APPROACH SURFACE AREA, OUT BY ....... 175677.94 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................182018.9 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 12159.6 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 10 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use Terps@ Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE ********************************************* BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR 4N7 ********************************************* 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ 4N7 THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 935.0 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..30.2109 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 282.651 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> 4N7 <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 07/25 EXISTING RUNWAY 07/25 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 07/25 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 143095.6 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................904 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 115063.7 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 11631.37 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 65063.7 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................143095.6 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 115063.7 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 07 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE ********************************************* BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR OG7 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ OG7 THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 491.8 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..31.8223 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 152.717 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> OG7 <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS RUNWAY 01/19 EXISTING RUNWAY 01/19 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 01/19 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 75535.83 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................490.7 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 175765.7 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 26614.85 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 125765.7 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................75535.83 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 175765.7 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 01 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 11/29 EXISTING RUNWAY 11/29 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 11/29 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 161199.4 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................465.7 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 105079.6 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 10632.96 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 55079.6 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................161199.4 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 105079.6 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 11 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use Terps® Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR 7N1 ********************************************* 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ 7N1 THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 962.4 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..32.9835 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 64.757 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> 7N1 <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 13/31 EXISTING RUNWAY 13/31 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 13/31 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 159911.4 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................956.9 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 120212.5 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 12146.25 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 70212.5 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................159911.4 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 120212.5 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 13 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use Terps® Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE Airspace@) State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE@ and TERPS@ are registered @ trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace@ Copyright © 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 6:12:11 * VFR - TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE ANALYSIS SITE ID: 2126343 TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LATITUDE: 42° 24' 45.237" LONGITUDE: 76° 27' 1.569" SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . . . 825 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . . . 134 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . . . . 959 ft. Traffic Pattern Airspace, a structure that exceed any of the following maximum allowable heights is considered to constitute a hazard to air navigation : 1. The height of the transition surface (other than abeam the runway), the approach slope, the horizontal surface, and the conical surface(as applied to visual approach runways). 2. Beyond the lateral limits of the conical surface and in the climb/descent area - 350' above airport elevation or the height of part 77.17(a)(2), whichever is greater not to exceed 499' above ground level (AGL). The climb / descent area begins abeam the runway threshold being used and is the area where the pilot is either descending to land on the runway or climbing to pattern altitude after departure. 3. Beyond the lateral limits of the conical surface and NOT in the climb/descent area of any runway. —Above Airport Elevation not to exceed 499' AGL. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ ITH FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Maximum height is 1473.16 feet AMSL. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. The structure is within VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace. Structures that exceed horizontal, conical, and / or traffic pattern will receive a hazard determination from the FAA. Existing Runway 14/32 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Existing Runway 15/33 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ NO3 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 06/24 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ 2N4 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): Does Not Apply. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 11/29 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ D82 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): Does Not Apply. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR —Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 01L/19R Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Existing Runway 01R/19L Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ BGM FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Proposed Runway 10/28 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Proposed Runway 16/34 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Runway 10/28 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Runway 16/34 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ ELM FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 05/23 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Existing Runway 06/24 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Existing Runway 10/28 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Proposed Runway 06/24 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Proposed Runway 10/28 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Proposed Runway 23/05 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ CZG FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 03/21 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Proposed Runway 03/21 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ PEO FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 01/19 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Existing Runway 10/28 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ 6B9 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 04/22 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Existing Runway 10/28 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ 4N7 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): Does Not Apply. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 07/25 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ OG7 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 01/19 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Existing Runway 11/29 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ 7N1 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 13/31 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. *************************************************************************** * * The above analysis was conducted using default parameters - Category C * aircraft and a maximum of 4 like category aircraft in the VFR -Traffic * Pattern at one time. * * * To view a graphical image of VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace for these * airports use Terps@ Professional Software. Open the airport and Airspace@ * study. From the Map Menu select 'VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace'. The * proposed structure, airport, and the traffic pattern will now be shown * together. Use this information to locate an alternate site if necessary. Airspace@ State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE@ and TERPS@ are registered @ trademarks of Federal Airways & AirspaceG Copyright © 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 8:12:11 * AIRWAY ANALYSIS * FAR 77.17(a)(4) (EN ROUTE CRITERIA) * MINIMUM OBSTACLE CLEARANCE ALTITUDE (MOCA) * MINIMUM ENROUTE ALTITUDE (MEA) SITE ID: 2126343 TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LATITUDE: 42° 24' 45.237" LONGITUDE: 76° 27' 1.56911 SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . 825 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . . . 134 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . . . . 959 ft. LOW ALTITUDE AIRWAY AIRWAY SEQUENCE LATITUDE LONGITUDE MEA LENGTH (NM) 982 60 42-28-00.76N 076-46-23.61W 18000 21.03 Q82 70 42-30-59.71N 076-18-15.43W 18000 Minimum Obstacle Clearance Altitude (MOCA) is: 18000 AMSL. Proposed structure is between the above points along Airway Q82.The Abeam distance from the course centerline is 5.20 NM. The proposedstructure is within the width of the secondary area of this airway. The width of the primary area is 8 NM and the width of the secondary is 2 NM. The maximum allowable height permitted by the secondary area MOCA of this airway at this location is 17615 feet AMSL. Airspace® State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE® and TERPSO are registered O trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace0 Copyright © 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 8:12:11 * IFR RUNWAY DEPARTURE SURFACE ANALYSIS SITE ID: 2126343 TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LATITUDE: 42° 24' 45.237" LONGITUDE: 761 27' 1.569" SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . . . . 825 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . . . 134 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . . . . 959 ft. An airport with at least one instrument approach procedure (IAP) will require all airport runways to be analyzed using 40: 1 criteria for Departure. FAA application of the 40: 1 screening criteria extendes 22.09 nautical miles and 1801 semi - circle area around the Runway centerline extended. Penetration of the 40: 1 surface will result initially in a determination of presumed hazard (NPH). An extended study is normally required to remove the NPH. A specified climb gradient (CG) greater than the standard (200 ft / nm) is sometimes necessary to allow acceptable obstacle clearance. Should the proposed location exceed the maximum height you may need to determine if there is a published climb gradient and conduct additional calculations to determine if the climb gradient will provide proper clearance for the proposed structure. Should you require additional assistance please contact Federal Airways & Airspace or another aeronautical consult to perform these calculations. Ident Dep Rwy Elev Distance 40:1 Max Hgt CG Rwy Status ITH 14 1099.2 26361 DNE Below DNE Existing Rwy ITH 15 1100.1 28174 DNE Below DNE Existing Rwy NO3 24 1198.3 89637 DNE Below DNE Existing Rwy 2N4 11 1377 118219 DNE Below DNE Existing Rwy D82 19R 1088 127788 DNE Below DNE Existing Rwy D82 19L 1095 127282 DNE Below DNE Existing Rwy BGM 28 1591.1 145972 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy BGM 34 1636 143828 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy BGM 28 1591.1 145520 DNE Beyond DNE Proposed Rwy BGM 34 1636 143913 DNE Beyond DNE Proposed Rwy ELM O5 944.2 148382 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy ELM 06 954.3 147093 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy ELM 10 944.5 149369 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy ELM 06 955 147093 DNE Beyond DNE Proposed Rwy ELM 10 945 149369 DNE Beyond DNE Proposed Rwy ELM 05 945 148382 DNE Beyond DNE Proposed Rwy CZG 03 826.5 154044 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy CZG 03 826.2 153971 DNE Beyond DNE Proposed Rwy PEO 19 990 179749 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy PEO 10 903.2 181494 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy 6B9 22 1000 181420 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy 6B9 10 994 182435 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy 4N7 25 904 183047 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy OG7 19 490.7 191221 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy OG7 11 465.7 192871 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy 7N1 13 956.9 199424 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy Airspace@ State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE@ and TERPS@ are registered @ trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace@ Copyright © 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 8:12:11 * NAVAIDS IN PROXIMITY OF CASE ******************************** FAC IDNT TYPE ST AT SITE ID: 2126343 LATITUDE: 42° 24' 45.237" SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . . STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . FREQ VECTOR DIST (ft) TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LONGITUDE: 76° . . 825 ft. . . 134 ft. . . 959 ft. DELTA ST ELEVA 27' 1.569" LOCATION GRD ANGLE APCH BEAR ITH GLIDE I 330.5 359.27 27270 -133 NY RWY 32 ITH -.28 325 SLOPE ITH UN I 122.95 355.55 28802 -140 NY ITHACA -.28 TOMPKINS I ITH DM R 111. 355.23 30146 -153 NY ITHACA -.29 ITH LOCALIZER I 108.7 350.38 31960 -118 NY RWY 32 -.21 325 ITHACA TOM NO3 UN I 122.80 43.99 91338 -238 NY CORTLAND -.15 CNTY/CHA NK09 UN I 122.70 268.42 99978 -521 NY EAGLE RIDGE -.3 ALP NDB I 24 233.13 105863 -328 NY ALPINE -.18 CFB VOR/DME R 112.2 137.68 125943 -624 NY BINGHAMTON -.28 D82 UN I 122.80 313.55 128392 -103 NY OVID -.05 NK49 UN I 123.05 151.29 128796 +52 NY OWEGO .02 9NY3 UN I 123.05 152.06 130149 +75 NY SUSQUEHANNA .03 42NY UN I 122.80 48.54 141510 -601 NY WALTERS FLD -.24 BGM LOCALIZER I 110.3 119.43 143567 -672 NY RWY 34 -.27 340 GREATER BI AAJ GLIDE I 335.0 119.71 145439 -663 NY RWY 16 BGM -.26 158 SLOPE BGM RADAR I 119.24 145857 -770 NY BINGHAMTON -.3 REGION UEK LOCALIZER I 109.1 232.38 146229 +5 NY RWY 06 0.00 62 ELMIRA/COR BGM ATCT I A/G 120.64 147189 -719 NY BINGHAMTON -.28 REGION BGM UN I 122.95 120.45 147491 -676 NY GREATER -.26 BINGHAMTO KBGM RADAR WXL Y 162.47 121.77 147954 -772 NY BINGHAMTON -.3 ELM GLIDE I 331.4 232.45 147991 +13 NY RWY 24 ELM .01 242 SLOPE AAJ LOCALIZER I 110.3 120.56 149636 -616 NY RWY 16 -.24 158 GREATER BI BGM GLIDE I 335.0 120.56 149751 -614 NY RWY 34 BGM -.23 340 SLOPE ITH ATCT I A/G 358.82 150079 -174 NY ITHACA -.07 TOMPKINS R ELM UN I 122..95 232.21 150806 +4 NY ELMIRA/ 0.00 CORNING RG ELM RADAR I 2750. 234.9 151520 -670 NY ELMIRA- -.25 CORNING RE ELM ATCT I A/G 232.72 151655 -79 NY ELMIRA/ -.03 CORNING RE UEK GLIDE I 331.4 232.38 153058 +23 NY RWY 06 ELM .01 62 SLOPE CZG UN I 122.80 141.89 154962 +126 NY TRI-CITIES .05 ELM LOCALIZER I 109.1 232.24 155681 +28 NY RWY 24 .01 242 ELMIRA/COR 06NY UN I 122.80 .51 156796 -141 NY MURPHY FLD -.05 PS81 UN I 123.05 186.84 158987 +179 PA ROBERT .06 PACKER HOS FAC TYPE ST FREQ VECTOR DIST DELTA ST LOCATION GRD APCH IDNT AT (ft) ELEVA ANGLE BEAR NK89 UN I 122.80 254.79 170040 -241 NY ULTRALIGHT -.08 FLIGHT ZNY CO Y A/G 193.95 178403 -592 PA SAYRE -.19 PEO UN I 123.00 296.94 181850 -29 NY PENN YAN -.01 6B9 UN I 122.80 .81 182746 -80 NY SKANEATELES -.03 AERO 4N7 UN I 122.80 102.64 183589 +24 NY GREENE .01 PYA NDB I 26 297.52 183772 +102 NY PENN YAN .03 OG7 VG I A/G 332.46 192315 +472 NY RWY19 TCH40 .14 GS300 OG7 UN I 122.80 332.71 193345 +467 NY FINGER LAKES .14 RGNL ULW VOR/DME R 109.6 233.08 194031 -673 NY ELMIRA -.2 OG7 VG I A/G 332.83 194776 +477 NY RWY01 TCH40 .14 GS300 7N1 UN I 122.80 244.77 200405 -3 NY CORNING- 0.00 PAINTED P GGT TACAN I 117.8 50.55 216837 -1081 NY GEORGETOWN -.29 NK71 UN I 122.80 6.83 219514 +109 NY MARCELLUS .03 THE NEAREST AIR NAVIGATION FACILITY TO CASE COORDINATES IS: ITH (GLIDE SLOPE) Airspace@ State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE@ and TERPSO are registered O trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace@ Copyright @ 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 8:12:11 175 355 * AM RADIO STATIONS * Disturbance of AM Broadcast Station Antenna Pattern * CFR Title 47, Part 1, Subpart BB SITE ID: 2126343 TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LATITUDE: 42° 24' 45.237" LONGITUDE: 76° 27' 1.569" SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . . . 825 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . . . 134 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . . . . 959 ft. CALL FREQ POWER ANT P DIST BEARING NAD83 NAD83 CITY ST SIGN KHz Watts MOD T Meters Degrees LATITUDE LONGITUDE WNYY 1470 5,000 D T 3064 220.73 42-23-30 076-28-29 ITHACA NY This station has a current license. The authorized directional antenna pattern is theoretical. This station is operating a directional type antenna system.The electrical height of the studied antenna is: 72'. The studied structure is not within 2039 meters of this AM station. 10 Wavelengths = 2039 meters. WHCU 870 5,000 D T 8646 47.62 42-27-54 076-22-22 ITHACA NY This station has a current license. The authorized directional antenna pattern is theoretical. This station is operating a directional type antenna system.The electrical height of the studied antenna is: 431. The studied structure is not within 3000 meters of this AM station. 10 Wavelengths = 3446 meters. WHCU 870 1,000 D A 13928 246.69 42-21-47 076-36-21 ITHACA NY The authorized directional antenna pattern is augmented. This station is operating a directional type antenna system.The electrical height of the studied antenna is: 431. The studied structure is not within 3000 meters of this AM station. 10 Wavelengths = 3446 meters. DEFINITIONS: SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION: A significant modification of a tower in the immediate vicinity of an AM station is defined in CFR Title 47, Part 1.30002, as follows; (1) any change that would alter the tower's physical height by 5 electrical degrees or more at the AM frequency; or (2) in addition or replacement of one or more antennas or trnasmission lines on a tower that has been detuned or base -insulated. The addition or modification of an antenna or antenna -supporting structure on a building shall be considered a construction modification subject to the analysis and notice requirements of this subpart if and only if the height of the antenna supporting structure alone exceeds the thresholds in paragraphs(a) and(b) of this section. CALL SIGN: The Call Sign of the station or application. For applications and construction permits which do not have Call Signs a value of 'NEW' is used. FREQUENCY: in Kilohertz POWER: The nominal power of the station, as defined in Section CFR 73.14. This is not necessarily the effective radiated power, the transmitter power, the antenna input power, etc. ANT MOD: Antenna Mode, The mode of the complete antenna system. Indicates directional or non -directional. (D = Directional and N = Non -Directional) If a station is directional at one time during a day and non -directional at another time it is considered to be directional for the purpose of Movement Method Proof. If the same station has multiple locations these are listed as separate AM stations with the same Call Sign. PT: The type of antenna pattern which has been notified to (or by) foreign countries. DIST Meters: This is the calculated distance (in meters) between your proposed site and the latitude/longitude coordinates specified by the FCC data. Bearing Degrees: This is the true bearing from your proposed site to the station. LATITUDE: This is the latitude of the AM Station in NAD 1983 coordinates. LONGITUDE: This is the longitude of the AM Station in NAD 1983 coordinates. ST: This is the state where the AM Station is located. The material in this report on AM radio stations was obtained from the FCC who provided the data on an 'as -is' basis. Therefore, Federal Airways & Airspace@ disclaims all warranties with regard to the contents of these files, including their fitness for your use. In no event shall Federal Airways & Airspace@ be liable for any special, indirect, or consequential damages whatsoever resulting from loss or use, data or profits, whether in connection with the use or performance of the contents of these files, action of contract, negligence, or other action arising out of, or in connection with the use of the contents of these files. Data conversion of the FCC data from NAD27 to NAD83 was accomplished using the USGS NADCON210 software program. Airspace@ State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE@ and TERPS@ are registered @ trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace@ Copyright @ 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 8:12:11 *PRIVATE LANDING FACILITIES IN PROXIMITY OF CASE* SITE ID: 2126343 TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LATITUDE: 42° 24' 45.23711 LONGITUDE: 761 27' 1.569" SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . . . . 825 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . . . 134 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . . . . 959 ft. FACIL TYP NAME BEARING RANGE DELTA ARP FAR IDENT To FACIL IN NM ELEVATION P77 NK72 AIR HENION PVT FLD 239.05 4.25 -341 NO NK05 AIR TOM N' JERRY 220.05 4.53 -531 NO NY55 AIR GRUND FLD 287.8 6.83 -494 NO NY18 AIR NENO 286.38 7.7 -324 NO 2NY9 AIR KAYUTAH LAKE/ 258 12.36 -426 NO JAMES &amp; HELENE D NY92 AIR COCHRAN 84.37 16.15 -321 NO NK09 AIR EAGLE RIDGE 268.42 16.45 -521 NO NK54 AIR MATEJKA FLD 210.9 16.49 -731 NO 6NY3 AIR AIRY -ACRES 318.26 18.51 +154 NO NK53 AIR DODGE/COPPOLA/ 228.83 18.89 -71 NO WHEELER NK24 AIR TILDEN 258.24 19.45 +59 NO NY29 AIR SCHUYLER 276.74 20.62 +89 NO NK35 AIR MARIWILL .82 20.65 -171 NO NK49 HEL OWEGO 151.28 21.2 +52 NO 9NY3 HEL SUSQUEHANNA 152.06 21.42 +75 NO NK74 AIR MATCH MATE 334.69 22.04 +119 NO 17NK AIR RE -DUN FLD 277.01 22.39 -392 NO 42NY AIR WALTERS FLD 48.55 23.29 -601 NO 38NY AIR GREENLAWN FARM 290.09 23.97 -51 NO 3NK9 HEL ARNOT OGDEN 221.7 25.11 +50 NO HOSPITAL 06NY AIR MURPHY FLD .52 25.81 -141 NO PS81 HEL ROBERT PACKER 186.83 26.16 +179 YES HOSPITAL 4NY8 AIR HARRIS HILL 228.78 26.63 -750 NO 94NY AIR ST BERNARD FLD 336.75 26.94 +419 NO PA33 AIR LARS/PRIVATE 182.98 27.78 -341 NO NK89 AIR ULTRALIGHT FLIGHT 254.79 27.98 -241 NO FARM 29NK HEL UHS WILSON TOWER 129.3 28.27 -26 NO 9NY1 HEL WILSON MEML RGNL 129.34 28.3 -20 NO MEDICAL CENTE 8NY4 HEL GUTHRIE CORNING 234.1 28.53 +58 NO HOSPITAL 1NK8 AIR CHENANGO BRIDGE 116.23 30.18 +19 NO 25NK AIR LOUCKS 272.91 30.33 -466 NO 4NK4 AIR WOODFORD AIRFIELD 36.96 31.19 -321 NO ONY6 HEL NEW YORK STATE 346.77 31.83 +359 NO POLICE 3NY5 AIR LUKE 136.85 32.06 -599 NO NY12 HEL AUBURN COMMUNITY 351.01 32.1 +229 NO HOSPITAL PN10 AIR CASH CREEK 184.6 32.94 -291 NO 6NY1 AIR OLD PORT ROYAL 237.51 33.67 -741 NO 9PN7 AIR VEIT 177.3 35.69 -401 NO NK71 AIR MARCELLUS 6.84 36.13 +109 NO FAA PROTECTED IFR PROCEDURE IFR Procedure FACIL TYP NAME BEARING RANGE DELTA ARP FAR FAA PROTECTED IDENT To FACIL IN NM ELEVATION P77 IFR PROCEDURE PN54 AIR AKM AIRFIELD 200.96 36.69 -434 NO 59PA AIR J P REILLY 146.19 36.86 -691 NO 5PN2 HEL ROBERT PACKER 179.91 37.65 +159 NO HOSPITAL - TOWAN NK12 AIR CANAAN FLD 229.33 37.72 -641 NO NY19 AIR WALLS 359.24 37.87 +349 NO 2NY7 AIR TOWNER FARM 242.49 38.13 -289 NO NY73 AIR MILLER FLD 98.79 38.29 -621 NO 7PA6 AIR CARRAR FARM 138.32 38.55 -588 NO NK76 AIR GRAMMAR 316.85 38.77 +204 NO 46NY AIR SAVANNAH 339.42 38.88 +494 NO THE NEAREST PRIVATE USE LANDING FACILITY IS: HENION PVT FLD HENION PVT FLD is an Airport type landing facility. landing facilities with IFR procedures are protected under FAR 77.17 (a) (3). Airspace@ State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE@ and TERPS@ are registered @ trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace@ Copyright @ 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 8:12:11 EXHIBIT NN ass INC. November 18, 2024 GSS Project #D24246-19-NY Ms. Katherine Jaeckel Verizon Wireless 1275 John Street Rochester, NY 14586 Submitted via email: katie.jaeckel@verizonwireless.com 1054 Texan Trail, Ste 300 Grapevine, TX 76051 Tel:682.651.0034 Fax:817.527.4081 ustxApassmidwest.com www.gssmidwest.com RE: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) STATUS — VERIZON SITE: SUNNY VIEW, FUZE PID# 2126343 111 WIEDERMAIER CT, ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY 14850 At the request of Verizon Wireless, GROUNDWATER SERVICE & SUPPLY INC (GSS) has prepared this NEPA Status Letter (Letter) for the below -referenced proposed wireless communications facility. This letter outlines the current stage of the environmental review process set forth in Title 47 CFD Part 1, Subpart I, rule sections 1.1301 to 1.1319. PROJECT INFORMATION Verizon Site Name: Sunny View Verizon Project ID: 2126343 Site Address: 111 Wiedmaier Court (0.17 miles SW of Slaterville Rd. and Wiedmaier Ct.), Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY 14850 Project Type: Raw Land Tower Type/Height: Monopole / 134' (Overall 138') Latitude/Longitude: 42°24'45.2376" N / 76°27'1.5696" W e-106 Number: 0011318208 TCNS Number: 285451 NEPA Process Summary Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) and Notification of Organization (NOO) The FCC TCNS process for tribal consultation was initiated on September 17, 2024. A Notification of Organization (NOO) was issued to tribal entities (Tribes) on September 20, 2024. Public Notice A public notice was issued on September 20, 2024, to inform the public of the proposed project and to invite comments regarding potential environmental and cultural impacts. The notice was published in Ithaca Journal, and the public comment period ended on October 20, 2024. No comments or concerns have been received. Notice of Initiation of the Section 106 Process Letter Notice of Initiation of the Section 106 Process Letters were sent to Landmarks Preservation Commission, City of Ithaca and History Center in Tompkins County on September 17, 2024, to inform the related parties the proposed project and to invite comments regarding potential environmental and cultural impacts. The comment period ended on October 17, 2024. No comments or concerns have been received. Section 106 Submission to New York State Historic Preservation Offices (NY SHPO) and Tribes Section 106 submission was made to the NY SHPO and Tribes on November 7, 2024. We are currently awaiting a response from NY SHPO and Tribes. NY SHPO has 30 days to review the submission, with the review period concluding on December 7, 2024. Any Tribes that have not responded by December 9, 2024, and December 17, 2024, will be referred to 1054 Texan Trail, Ste 300 Grapevine, TX 76051 Tel:682.651.0034 Fax:817.527.4081 5755 jzsstx(a passmidwest.com www.gssmidwest.com INC. the FCC to initiate the process to close out consultation. The anticipated tribal clearance date is January 4, 2025. However, this date is subject to change if significant events occur, such as requests for additional consultation, new findings, or unforeseen delays in the review process. GSS anticipates submitting the final NEPA report to Verizon Wireless on January 6, 2025. LIMITATIONS This Letter was completed according to the terms and conditions authorized by you. There are no intended or unintended third -party beneficiaries, unless specifically named. GSS is an independent contractor, not an employee of either the property owner or the project proponent, and its compensation was not based on the findings or recommendations made in this Letter or on the closing of any business transaction. Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance to Verizon Wireless. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephen J. Blazenko, CEO GSS, Inc. (jti4frJ%ACfl’/I’/L(_fecFrom:davidgallahan<davidgallahan@yahoo.com>Sent:Monday,November18,20241:40PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:VerizoncelltowerproposalToTownofIthacaPlanningBoardre:ProposedVerizontowernear79&BurnsRd.IcannotattendthemeetingNovember1gth,butwanttostronglyurgeyoutodenythepermit.The“gap”(whatVerizon’sdatashows)issmallenoughthatitcouldeasilyberemediedbyasmallcellantenna.Indeed,isanythingreallyneeded?Haveyoureceivedanycommentsfromthepublicrequestingmorecellularcoverage?Theproposedtowerisclearlynottheleastintrusivemeansavailable,whichiswhatourcodesrequire.Ifbuilt,thistowerwilldevastatethisneighborhood.Sincerely,DavidGallahanIthaca1 c(i/IIZ-From:Jaazaniah<jrzorn00l@gmail.com>Sent:Sunday,November17,20248:23AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:VerizonExemptionRequestandTuesdayMeeting**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURL(inks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentPleaseacknowledgereceiptofthismessageandthatithasbeensenttothemembersoftheboard.DearIthacaTownPlanningBoard,IamunabletoattendthemeetingthisTuesday,the19th,soIamsendingabriefnote.Thisisacrucialmeeting.Icannotemphasizethisenough.ThisisthemomentfortheboardtostanduptoBigTech(inthiscaseVerizon)andshowthatIthaca’slocallyproducedregulationsmeanbusinessandcannotbeby-passedbyapoorlyresearchedandwrittenrequestforanexemption.IftheTowndoesnot,atthismomentintime,showVerizonthatourregulationsmeanbusinessitwillopenthedoortomoreandmorepoorlyconcoctedexemptionrequeststhatwillcitethecurrentrequest(ifgranted)asabasisforfurtherexemptions.Donotletthishappen.Thecurrentproposedexemptionfailstomeet“the(eastintrusivemeans”sectionofourregulations.Whycan’ttheyfindaLessintrusivespotfortheirtower?Moreover,theproposedtowerfallswithin1640’ofexistinghomes,wheninordertosupporthumanshealthandtheaestheticsoftheareaitshouldbebeyondthatdistance.Doesthetownwanttoseehomevalues,andthusthetaxbasedecline,inordertosupportVerizon?Verizonhaddeeppockets,makethemuseittocomeupwithsomethingthatdoesnotmakeamockeryofourregulations.Sincerely,JeffJeffZorn202PineTreeRd.Ithaca,NY14850C:607-339-73281 (Omer/‘//9/zPFrom:GentlyborneMidwifery<gentlybornemidwifery@gmail.com>Sent:Sunday,November17,20249:03AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:CellTower**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentTotheBoard;IDONOTwanttheVerizoncelltowerasproposed.Pleasevotenoandlookatotheroptions.Thistoweristooclosetopeople.AsahealthcareproviderIamespeciallyconcernedabouttheexposuretochildren,babiesandpregnantwomen.Pleasebecarefulhere.ThankyouMonicaDaniel1 CarolineAshurst<hello@carolineashurst.com>Tuesday,November19,202411:59AMTownOfIthacaPlanning111WiedmaierCt.PWSFSitePlan(V1912-c)**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearPlanningBoardMembers,FirstIwanttothankyouforyourservice.Yourjobistime-consuminginyourbusylifeandoftenthankless.Itrulyappreciateandhonorwhatitmeanstobevolunteeringyourtimeinthiswayregularly.I’mwritingasaresidentof106WiedmaierCt.Iamadamantlyagainstthelocationofthisproject--butnotjustformyfamilyandthe20otherfamiliesinthisresidentialcommunity.Iamadamantlyagainstsettingaprecedentinourtownforbuildingtheseunnecessarymonolithtowers.Itisfirstimportanttore-iteratethatRobertBerg,Esq.hasestablishedthatanytowerbuiltoverthe50ft.limitestablishedinzoningbylawsisnolongerautilityandisacommercialendeavor.Verizonmeanstousethistowerasanincomemeans.Theywillauctionoffothercompaniestousethistoweraswell.IdissentthiscommercialuseofthisIthacaConservationBoards’deemednaturalconservationarea.Andinterestingly,theoriginalpropertyownerofthislandwasaconservationistwhodidnotwantanythinglikethiseverhappeningonthisbeautifulland.Verizonisenactingalandgrabrightinfrontofourveryeyes.Whatwillyoudecideforthefuturegenerationsofthiscommunity?Isitsoimportanttocavetotheircarelessness?Doyouwantthesewherevertheyseefitmovingforward?ThezoningbylawswerecreatedtoSTOPTHISMADNESSFROMEVERHAPPENINGHERE.IagreewiththeIthacansforResponsibleTechnology’ssentiment:VerizonshouldnotnowbeaffordedanypreferentialtreatmentbythePlanningBoard.Theyareacorporationwhosepurposeistomaximizefinancialgrowthwiththistower,i.e.buildsomethingaslargeaspossibletosupportasmuchrentalincomeaspossible.So,IaskthatthislanguageaboutVerizonbeingapublicutilityberemovedfromthedraftresolutions.Andfurthermore:areeachofyoupersonallypreparedtoaccepttheresponsibilityofharmingcountlesslthacansforyearstocome?Includingmydaugherandherbestfriendin107Wiedmaier??Asalicensedhealthcareproviderwhopreviouslythought“5gpeople”werecrazy,I’velookedattheresearchthatwasprovidedtomebyIRTandIamhorrified.Iamnowadamantlyopposedtothistowerbeingclosetoaresidentialcommunity(oranycommunity--becauseitisnotjustaboutme)--andthechildrenthatlivehere!I’vesinceheardaccountsofwomencompletelylosingtheirmenstrualcycleforyearsimmediatelyafterrelocatingtoasitenearalargecelltower(andreturningafterfleeingthearea).Thisisunacceptableforhumanlife!Asahormonalhealthexpert,Icannotimaginewhatthismeansforthewholepersonhealth.1From:Sent:To:Subject: Therearemanyotherplacestheycanputthistower,butsinceNOONEintheirresearchforotherlocationswantit(surprisesurprise),andtheownerofthislandhasalreadystruckadeal,theyaredeterminedtoputtheirstakedownhere.Theyarecryingliketheycan’tgoanywhereelse,buttheycanlookharder.AsIhavereadthetownzoningbylawsregardingthesetypesofstructuresandhavereadthecurrentreportbyyourengineeringconsultantMr.Johnson,itisclearthatyourapprovalofthisstructurewouldbetacitlybreakingthepartsofbylaws270-219:Again,Ire-iteratefrompreviousin-personstatementsIhavemade:1.Thisisnotanecessity.Thesizeofthistower(1640ft)isnotnecessary.Mr.Johnsonclearlysaysthatsmallcellswouldbeappropriateandpossible.Ifthisconsultationisn’tadheredto,itwillbehardforyoutomakeacasethatyouarenotindeedbreakingthebylawsstatingthatnotowersshouldbebuiltover50ft.2.ResidentialareasarespecificallyplacedasTHELASTplaceatowershouldbebuilt(andthat’sa50fttowermindyou!!!!!)Thisisclearlyaresidentialcommunity.Again,youwillbebreakingyetanotherzoningbylawifapprovingthisridiculouslocation...areyoureadytodothat?3.Theproposed138’towerdoesnotmeetourcodes’requirementforthe“leastintrusivemeans”tofillasmallgapinservice.Mr.Johnsonwasclearthatsmallcellswouldbeagoodoptiontomeetourcode’srequirementofa“leastintrusive”meansoffillinganygap:“hugegeographicareascanbeservicedbymanyrelativelysmall-diameter“cells”thatallowsufficientsignallevelsandusercapacityforsafeandreliablevoicecommunications....TwoproperlypositionedshorterbasestationslongornearRoute79wouldlikelyhavetheabilitytoilluminatetheRoute9valley.”Smallcellsoffersignificantlylessradiation.Weareopentootheroptions,butonesthataresafe.DONOTLETTHEMBULLYYOU!Theydon’tcareaboutus.WEhaveto.Howeveryouvote,itwillsendasignaltofutureapplicants-eitherthatourcodesdon’treallymatterORthatIthacaisathoughtfulcommunitythatupholdscertainvaluesandthattheyneedtocomereadytoworkcollaborativelywithus.I’maskingyoueachtotakeastandforourcommunity.Iamurgingyoutodotherightthing.Listentoyourdeepinnertruthandguidance.Youknowwhatthatfeelinginyourstomachistellingyou.Thisnaturallandissacredandsoareourchildrenandtheirfuture.IknowyouwantthebestforthemlikeIdo.Youhavethechoice.WithGratitude,CarolineGraceAshurst,L.Ac.,M.Ac.www.carolineashurst.com@restorativeharmony2 ElizabethSalon<elizasalon.np@gmail.com>Tuesday,November19,20248:01AMTownOfIthacaPlanningDenyproposed138VerizonCellTower\fQX2cn.(“/I9/2_C/**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentAsanursepractitionerhealthcareproviderinIthaca,andascofounderofthesuccessfulIthacaFreeClinic,Icareaboutourcommunity,andknowyoudotoo.ThusIimploreyoutoopposetheproposed138footcelltowerandshowyoucareaboutourcommunitytoo.Theconsultantconfirmedthattheycouldfillthe“gap”inservicewith1ormaybe2smalLceLls.Thus,theproposed138’towerdoesnotmeetourcodes’requirementforthe“leastintrusivemeans”tofilLasmallgapinservice.VerizonuLtimatelywantsalargerpolefortheircorporateinterests,notourcommunity’sinterests.-WithasmalLcelL,theyhavemanymoreoptionsforsites,NOT,asmanyofyoumentionedattheLastmeeting,restrictingittothatveryLimitedrandomhexagonalarea.-Withmanymoreoptions,theycangofurtherfromhomes.TheNHCommissionhasbeenclearthattowersshouLdbe1640feetfromhomes.Atthisdistance,notonlyhumanhealthwilLbesupported,butaestheticsandrealestatevalueswillbemuchbetterpreserved.ElizabethG.Salon,R.N.C.,M.S.,F.N.P.Farni/yNursePractitionerIntegrativeHealth108SouthAlbaiyStIthaca,NY14850607-277-2201eli7abethsalon-np.com1From:Sent:To:Subject: \JLônfFrom:BobBabjak<bobbybabjak@gmail.com>Sent:Tuesday,November19,202412:44AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:PlanningBoardproject:111WiedmaierCt.PWSFSitePlan**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLjlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentHelloPlanningBoardmembers,ILiveat106WiedmaierCt.,theclosestresidencetotheproposedproject.MyfamilyrecentlymovedherefromPhiladelphiabecausewelovethenaturalbeautyandstrongcommunityspiritofIthaca.ThisgigantictowerbeingbuiltinthemiddLeofthebeautifulmeadowbehindourhousewouLdbasicallybeagiantrefutationofbothofthosethings.Theareaof111WiedmaierCt.iswhollyunsuitableforaprojectofthisnature.Ifyouhaveneverbeentothesiteinperson,IamincludingavideoIshottheretheotherday.Itwillshowthat:•Theentiresitewillbeclearlyvisiblefromboth79andBurnsRd.,completelyalteringtheviewshedagainstthemajesticbackdropofSouthHill/Danby.Thereisnohidingastructureliketheoneproposed.•Theclosesttreesalltopoutaround30-40feetabovethegroundlevelwherethebasestationwillbe.Thatmeansthatthistowerwillbearound100feettallerthananyofthesurroundingnaturaLfeatures.•Thereisampleevidenceofmyriadanimalspeciescongregatingonthesite,provingitwilldisruptanestabLishedmeetingplace.•Thatthemandatedrestorationoftheillegally-gradedsitehasnotbeencompletedaspursuanttoConservationBoardResolutionno.2008-013,includingthe“plantingofapproximately250trees”•Thisprojectiscompletelyoutofcharacterwiththesurroundingarea,wildrasticaLlyalterthenatureoftheland,communityandperceptionofthetownofIthaca.1MG1489.MOVdrive.google.comIbelievetheevidencepresentedshowsthat(A)theprojectisNOTsuitableforthepropertyonwhichitisproposed.(B)TheproposedstructuredesignandsitelayoutareNOTcompatiblewiththesurroundingarea.Almostnoneofthefacilitywillbescreenedbyexistingvegetationasevidencedinmyvideo.(F)Theproposeduse,structuredesignandsitelayoutwiLlNOTcomplywiththeprovisionsofthetowncode-particularlytheprovisionson“leastintrusivemeans”.2.(c)[1]PublicUtilityStatusisnotmetbytheapplicant,aspointedoutbylawyerRobertBerginhisOctober28letter:“The“publicutility”legalstandarddoesnotapplytothePlanningBoard’s1 considerationoftheapplicant’srequestforsiteplanapprovalandaspecialusepermit.Rather,thetestappliesonlytorequestsforusevariancesunderthezoninglaw.”Inotherwords,thistowercanonlybeconsideredapublicutilitywhenbeforetheZoningBoardforavariance.Andthus,VerizonshouldnotnowbeaffordedanypreferentialtreatmentbythePlanningBoard.Further,theapplicantrefusesoutrighttoaddresssmallcellsandco-locationoptions.Theyobviouslydonotwanttodothatbecausetheycan’tmakeasmuchmoneybyinstallingsmallcells.Theywanttobuildagianttowerthathasthecapabilitytohouse9antennasthattheycanrenttoothercarriers.ThatisbecausetheyareNOTapublicutilityservingtheneedsofthecommunity,theyareapubliclytradedcorporationservingtheneedsoftheirshareholdersfirstandforemost.Inthereportsubmittedbyapplicant’slegalteam,theyerroneouslyclaimthattheproject“willnotinflictasignificantadverseaestheticimpactupon...propertiesthatarelocatedadjacentorincloseproximity”andthat“Onewouldneedtodeliberatelylookforthetowerinordertoseeitwhiletravelinginavehicle”.Thatislaughable,asthestructurewouldprotrudeover100feetHIGHERthanthetallesttreesaroundit.EvenStevieWonderwouldbeabletoseethat.AsmyvideoclearlyshowsthistowerwouldbeasignificantpresenceloomingoverallthelandliketheEyeofSauron.DoyouwanttoberesponsibleforturningIthacaintoMordor?Inclosing,thisproposaliscompletelyunsuitableonsomanydifferentlevels.Itisoutofcharacterwiththesurroundinglandandcommunity.ItisinviolationofseveraloftheTownCodes,inparticularofthoseinchapter270.Itisasignificantdisruptiontothelocalwildlifeandhumanlife.Itimmenselyexceedsinsizeandscalewhatisneededandwhatisallowed.Finally,IwouldjustliketoremindtheboardthatyouoweVerizonnothing.Youdonotneedtoappeasethem,theyhavetoappeaseyou.ItisincumbentupontheapplicanttoconformtotheestablishedTownCodes,nottheotherwayaround.Theyarenotentitledtowhattheyplease.IfVerizontrulywantstofillinacoveragegap,therearemanyothermethodsavailabletothemtoaccomplishthatgoal,asoutlinedbyWilliamJohnsoninhislatestreport.Unfortunately,Verizonisseeminglyonlyinterestedinonewaytoaddresstheirreportedgap.IftheyareunabletoworkwithintheestablishedguidelinesofTheTown,theboardhaseveryrighttomoveonfromthisproposalandfindanothercarrierwhowill.Ihumblyrequest,forthesakeofmy8yearolddaughterwhowillbesleeping500feetfromthisbehemoth;forthesakeofeveryonewholivesnearordrivespastthissite;forthesakeofallthenativeanimalandplantlifethatliveatthesite;forthesakeofallIthacaresidents,whosefutureswillbegreatlyaffectedbytheprecedentanapprovalofthisunnecessary,unwieldyandunethicalprojectwillset-PLEASEDENYTHISPROPOSAL!Thankyou,BobBabjak106WiedmaierCt.2 VuZcv’2()V4Lc4From:JillUllian/DennisAnello<judax214@gmail.com>Sent:Monday,November18,20249:28PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:Concernre:ProposedNewAntennasLocationfor5GHello,IamwritingtourgetheplanningBoardtoopposeVerizon’srequestedlocationforanewlargetowerintheTownofIthaca.Thesewerethepointsmadesupportingmyrequest:-TheconsuLtantconfirmedthattheycouLdfiLlthe“gap”inservicewithIormaybe2smallcells.Thus,theproposed138’towerdoesnotmeetourcodes’requirementforthe“Leastintrusivemeans”tofillasmallgapinservice.VerizonuLtimateLywantsaLargerpolefortheircorporateinterests,notourcommunity’sinterests.-Withasmallcell,theyhavemanymoreoptionsforsites,NOT,asmanyofyoumentionedattheLastmeeting,restrictingittothatverylimitedrandomhexagonalarea.-Withmanymoreoptions,theycangofurtherfromhomes.TheNHCommissionhasbeenclearthattowersshouldbe1640feetfromhomes.Atthisdistance,notonlyhumanhealthwillbesupported,butaestheticsandrealestatevalueswillbemuchbetterpreserved.-Verizondoesn’tWANTtodoanyofthat.BelowIamforwardinganemailthatIsentpreviously,withbackgroundinformationre:moreofmyconcerns.Thankyou.DennisAnelloFormerPhysicsTeacher(highschool),FormerAdjunctFaculty,Physics&Math(SpringfieldTechnicalCommunityCollege)IthacaForwardedMessageSubject:Re:Concernre:NewAntennasfor5GDate:Tue,10ct202409:15:58-0400From:JillUllian/DennisAnello<judax214cgmail.com>To:ChrisBalestra<CBalestra(townithacany.gov>Thankyou,Chris.1 On10/1/20248:59AM,ChrisBal.estrawrote:Hi,WehavereceivedyourcommentsandwillmakesuretosendthemontothePlanningBoard.Thankyou,Chris(she/her)ChristineBaestra,SeniorPtannerTownofIthacaP[anningDepartment215NorthTiogaStreetIthaca,NY14850(607)273-1721,ext.121cba(estractownithacany.govFrom:TownOfIthacaPlanning<planning@townithacany.gov>Sent:Tuesday,October1,20248:11AMTo:ChrisBalestra<CBalestra@townithacany.gov>Subject:EW:Concernre:NewAntennasfor5GAbbyHomerAdministrativeAssistantPlanningDepartment607-273-1747TOWNOFITHACANEWYORKFrom:JillUllian/DennisAnello<iudax214@gmail.com>Sent:Monday,September30,20242:44PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanning<planning@townithacany.gov>Subject:Concernre:NewAntennasfor5G**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontactthe19departmentURe:Verizon’sapplicationtoplaceanewlargetowerintheTownofIthacaat79andBurnsRoadHello,2 ThoughIdonotliveinthevicinityofthenewproposedVerizontower,IdoliveintheTownofIthaca,andamconcernedaboutmyneighbors’healthandsafety.Pleaseseethebelow2resources,whichIbelievegivereasonforprudentcautionontheadditionofthisnewlargetower.Iamaformerphysicsteacher,andIwouldliketoaskthatyoureadtheseresources,andthattheybeincludedintheinformationyoumakeavailabletothepublic.1.WITHGOODREASONradioprograminterviewwithDeborahO’Dell,professorofbiologyattheUniversityofMaryWashington:“Doestheradiationemittedbyourcellphonesharmus?”https://www.withgoodreasonradio.org/episode/do-cell-phones-cause-cancer-2/Doestheradiationemittedbyourcellphonesharmus?ProfessorDeborahO’Dellrecentlyfinishedastudythatfoundcellphoneradiationcancausechangestoourcells.2.ArticlefromTheNationmagazine:HowBigWirelessMadeUsThinkThatCellPhonesAreSafe:ASpecialInvestigationThedisinformationcampaign—andmassiveradiationincrease—behindthe5Gandcelltowerrollouts.https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-thatIamrequestingthatVerizon’sapplicationtoplaceanewlargetowerintheTownofIthacaat79andBurnsRoadbedenied.Thanksforyourworkonthisissue.DennisAnelloFormerPhysicsTeacher(highschool),FormerAdjunctFaculty,Physics&Math(SpringfieldTechnicalCommunityCollege)Ithaca3 TomStern<tstern952@gmail.com>Monday,November18,20247:09PMTownOfIthacaPlanningCelltowerpermitapprovalci•\JL(IZLr)_y_p’**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearPlanningBoardmembers,PleaserejectthepermitforVerizontoconstructa138foottower.Itisclearthe“gap”incellcoveragedoesnotrequiresuchanobtrusivetowerthatdoesnotmeetcodeandcertainlyisnotintheTownresident’sinterest.Thankyou,TomSternIthaca1From:Sent:To:Subject: ionFrom:Sent:To:Subject:marie<marieskweir@gmail.com>Monday,November18,20244:54PMTownOfIthacaPlanningWedon’tneeda138ftmonopole!**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearPlanningBoard,AfterthelastmeetingonthisWiedmalerCtCellTower,thetwokeypieceslefthangingwereto:•Getclarityfromtheconsultantthat,perourcode,this138’monopoleistheleastintrusivemeanstofillthegap,and•Explorealternatelocations.Tothatend:•TheconsultantconfirmedthatVerizoncouldfillthe“gap”inservicewith1ormaybe2smallcells.Thus,theproposed138’towerdoesflQtmeetourcodes’requirementforthe“leastintrusivemeans”tofillasmallgapinservice.**•Withasmallcell,theyhavemanymoreoptionsforsites,NOT,asmanymentionedatthelastmeeting,restrictingittothatverylimitedandunexplainedhexagonalarea.•Withmanymoreoptions,theycangofurtherfromhomes,whichismoresupportiveofnotonlyhumanhealth,butrealestatevalues,andthenaturalandaestheticconcernssharedbymany.•Verizondoesn’tWANTtodoanyofthat.We’vebeenflexibleandwillingtoconsiderreasonableoptions,andiftheyarenotwillingtoworkwithinourparameters,that’sok.Wedon’tneedtoallowthemtobullytheirwayin.Tome,theansweriscLear:We’reuphoLdingaclearboundarybasedonthoughtfuLLyconsideredcommunityvaLuesandpriorities,wewanttominimizenecessaryinfrastructureandcarefuLLyconsiderthebestoptionsforsuchanimpactfuLproject;VerizonissimpLyunwiLLingtohonorthat.AtaLL.It’sourresponsibilitytostandupforourcommunity...andit’stheirprerogativetorefuseoptionsandtobowout.Howeveryouvote,itwILLsendasignaLtofutureappLicants-eitherthatourcodesdon’treaLLymatterORthatIthacaisathoughtfuLcommunitythatuphoLdscertainvaLuesandthattheyneedtocomereadytoworkcottaborativeLywithus.I’maskingyoueachtotakeastandforourcommunity.Thankyouforyourcontinueddedication,MarieSkweir1 **lnhismostrecentletter,consultantJohnsonwasclearthatsmallcellswouldbeagoodoptiontomeetourcode’srequirementofa“leastintrusive”meansoffillinganygap:“hugegeographicareascanbeservicedbymanyrelativelysmall-diameter“cells”thatallowsufficientsignallevelsandusercapacityforsafeandreliablevoicecommunications....TwoproperlypositionedshorterbasestationslongornearRoute79wouldlikelyhavetheabilitytoilluminatetheRoute9valley.”2 MarileeMurphy<marileemurphy@gmail.com>Monday,November18,20244:53PMTownOfIthacaPlanningCellTowerApplicationJiionfc—i/**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentToPlanningBoardMembers;AsaTownofIthacaresidentwhoLivesintheEasternHeightsarea,IwritetovoicemycontinuedoppositiontoapprovingthecelltowerapplicationforVerizon.Theproposedtowerseemstoviolatethetown’sclearguidelinesrelatedtoresidentialproximity,andimpactaestheticallyinabeautifulareawhichisheavilytraffickedfornaturalrecreation.Itiscommonsensethatpropertiesintheimmediatevicinitycouldbeimpactedintermsofrealestatevalue.Itishardtoacceptthatthislargetowermeets“minimallyintrusive”criteria.Ifthisapplicationisapprovedandbecomesaprecedent,thenwhydidthetownbothertocarefullycraftsuchresponsibleguidelinestobeginwith?Pleasedonotsacrificeourneighborsandneighborhood.Giventhatthoseofuswholiveinthisvicinitydonotexperiencecellphonecoverageissues,itseemstomakesensetomovethetoweralittlefurtheroutwhereresidentsDOexperiencecoverageissuesandwhereLessresidentswouldbesocloselyimpacted.IfsmallcellscanmeettheTown’sgap,thenthatiswhatmakessense.OthertownscanmaketheirowndeterminationsforgapcoverageifthatisneededbeyondtheTown’sborders.PleasefollowtheTown’sguidelinessoclearlyestablishedthatwarrantsrejectionofVerizon’sproposedtower.Thankyou.MaryMurphy1From:Sent:To:Subject: vFrom:Marie/AndrewMolnar<marieandrew93@gmail.com>Sent:Monday,November18,20244:34PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningCc:CiRandall;ChrisBalestraSubject:Importantpieces**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentHello,I’vereadthroughtheupdatedmaterialsregardingthecelltower.IrespectfullywishtoconveythreecrucialthingstothePlanningBoardmembers:1.First,thetownresolutionscontinuetocontainthemisleadingstatementthatVerizonisapublicutility.AsexplainedinanNov.5email,thisisuntrue,asourlawyerRobertBergelucidatedinhisOctober28letter:“The“publicutility”legalstandarddoesnotapplytothePlanningBoard’sconsiderationoftheapplicant’srequestforsiteplanapprovalandaspecialusepermit.Rather,thetestappliesonlytorequestsforusevariancesunderthezoninglaw.“Inotherwords,thistowercanonlybeconsideredapublicutilitywhenbeforetheZoningBoardforavariance.Andthus,VerizonshouldnotnowbeaffordedanypreferentialtreatmentbythePlanningBoard.Theyareacorporationwhosepurposeistomaximizefinancialgrowthwiththistower,i.e.buildsomethingaslargeaspossibletosupportasmuchrentalincomeaspossible.So,IaskthatthislanguageaboutVerizonbeingapublicutilityberemovedfromthedraftresolutions.2.Thefirststatetoofficiallystudythehealtheffectsofcellradiation,NewHampshire,empoweredapanelofexpertsandscientiststolookthroughthethousandsofstudiesshowingharm.Afterafullyearofthoroughreview,theyfoundthat,indeed,cellradiationwasharmfultohumans,andthattowersshouldbeatleast500meters(1640feet)fromhomes.IfyouapprovethistowerinIthaca,areeachofyoupersonallypreparedtoaccepttheresponsibilityofharmingcountlessIthacansforyearstocome?3.Inhismostrecentletter,consultantJohnsonwasclearthatsmallcellswouldbeagoodoptiontomeetourcode’srequirementofa“leastintrusive”meansoffillinganygap:“hugegeographicareascanbeservicedbymanyrelativelysmall-diameter“cells”thatallowsufficientsignallevelsandusercapacityforsafeandreliablevoicecommunications....TwoproperlypositionedshorterbasestationslongornearRoute79wouldlikelyhavetheabilitytoilluminatetheRoute9valley.”Thus,theproposed138’towerdoesnotmeetourcodes’requirementforthe“leastintrusivemeans”tofillasmallgapinservice.Withasmallcell,theyhavemanymoreoptionsforsites,NOT,asmanymentionedatthelastmeeting,restrictingittothatverylimitedandunexplainedhexagonalarea.However,Verizon’smostrecentresponsehasrejectedanypossibilityofthis,demonstratingacompleteunwillingnesstomeetthetownanditscitizenshalfway.It’s“mywayorthehighway”withthiscorporation,anattituderoutinelydisplayedtoPlanningBoardsacrossthecountry.ThislackofgoodfaithontheirendmustnotberewardedbythePlanningBoard.Forthisreason,aswellastomaintaintheaestheticsandpropertyvaluesofthearea,IurgetheBoardrorejectthisapplication.Thankyou.AndrewMolnar1 1054 Texan Trail, Ste 300 • Grapevine, TX 76051 Tel: 682.651.0034 • Fax: 817.527.4081 gsstx@gssmidwest.com • www.gssmidwest.com November 19, 2024 GSS Project #D24246-19-NY Ms. Katherine Jaeckel Verizon Wireless 1275 John Street Rochester, NY 14586 Submitted via email: katie.jaeckel@verizonwireless.com RE: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) STATUS – VERIZON SITE: SUNNY VIEW, FUZE PID# 2126343 111 WIEDERMAIER CT, ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY 14850 At the request of Verizon Wireless, GROUNDWATER SERVICE & SUPPLY INC (GSS) has prepared this NEPA Status Letter (Letter) for the below-referenced proposed wireless communications site (the Site). This letter outlines the current stage of the environmental review process set forth in Title 47 CFR, Part 1, Subpart I, rule sections 1.1301 to 1.1319. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 established provisions to ensure that all federal agencies evaluate the potential impacts to the environment of projects under their jurisdiction. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) oversees the implementation of NEPA through the authorities of Title 40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508 which requires all federal agencies to develop rules for implementing NEPA and defines “major federal actions”. Major federal actions are defined in Title 40 CFR, Part 1508.18 as actions that include new or continuing activities, including projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules for implementing NEPA are found in Title 47 CFR, Part 1, Subpart I, rule sections 1.1301 to 1.1319. In addition, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 36 CFR Part 800, regulates assessment of cultural resources for all federal undertakings. The Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas (47 CFR Part 1, Appendix B) and the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process (47 CFR Part 1, Appendix C) further stipulate the review process for cultural resources and amend 47 CFR, Part 1, Subpart I, rule section 1.1307(a)(4) for projects under FCC jurisdiction. This NEPA Review was conducted pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1301-1.1319, as amended. The report includes the evaluation of project impacts to prehistoric and historic resources (archaeological sites, historic structures, and Indian religious sites), threatened or endangered species (protected listed, candidate, and critical habitat), migratory birds, wilderness areas, wildlife preserves, floodplains, and surface features (wetlands, water bodies and forested land). The FCC rules and regulations also address project impacts to humans from tower lighting and radiofrequency radiation which are evaluated by Verizon Wireless, the FCC applicant, and are not part of this scope of work. This NEPA Review has been completed based upon Verizon Wireless-provided site information, the review of readily available information obtained from commercial services, government agencies, and/or other sources as described herein. Throughout this report, the term “the Site” will be used to refer to the proposed site location and associated facilities, access, and easements. This NEPA Review identifies whether a proposed project will require the preparation and filing of an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with FCC rules and regulations. If any of the NEPA criteria evaluated in this review are found to be in the affirmative, an EA must be filed with the FCC to further evaluate the identified potential environmental 1054 Texan Trail, Ste 300 • Grapevine, TX 76051 Tel: 682.651.0034 • Fax: 817.527.4081 gsstx@gssmidwest.com • www.gssmidwest.com impacts. In the event that this Review results in the preparation and filing of an EA, the FCC must issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) prior to proceeding with the proposed project. This NEPA Review is based upon the application of scientific principles and professional judgment to certain facts with resultant subjective interpretations. Professional judgments expressed herein are based on the facts currently available within the limits of the existing data, scope of work, budget and schedule. To the extent that more definitive conclusions are desired by Verizon Wireless than are warranted by the currently available facts, it is specifically the Consultant’s intent that the conclusions and recommendations stated herein will be intended as guidance and not necessarily a firm course of action except where explicitly stated as such. The Consultant makes no warranties, expressed or implied, including, without limitation, warranties as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In addition, the information provided to Verizon Wireless in this report is not to be construed as legal advice. The Consultant is not engaged in environmental assessing and reporting for the purpose of advertising, sales promotion, or endorsement of any Verizon Wireless interests, including raising investment capital, recommending investment decisions, or other publicity purposes. Verizon Wireless acknowledges this report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Verizon Wireless and agrees that the Consultant’s reports or correspondence will not be used or reproduced in full or in part for such purposes, and may not be used or relied upon in any prospectus or offering circular. Verizon Wireless also agrees that none of its advertising, sales promotion, or other publicity matter containing information obtained from this report will mention or imply the name of the Consultant. Nothing contained in this report shall be construed as a warranty or affirmation by the Consultant that the Site and property described in the report are suitable collateral for any loan or that acquisition of such property by any lender through foreclosure proceedings or otherwise will not expose the lender to potential environmental liability. PROJECT INFORMATION Verizon Site Name: Sunny View Verizon Project ID: 2126343 Site Address: 111 Wiedmaier Court (0.17 miles SW of Slaterville Rd. and Wiedmaier Ct.), Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY 14850 Project Type: Raw Land Tower Type/Height: Monopole / 134’ (Overall 138’) Latitude/Longitude: 42°24'45.2376" N / 76°27'1.5696" W e-106 Number: 0011318208 TCNS Number: 285451 NEPA TOPICS 1. Wilderness Areas Will the facility be located in an officially designated wilderness area? No Source: Site observations, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle, U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) National Map (www.nationalmap.gov) and www.wilderness.net. Finding(s): The proposed Site is not located in an officially designated wilderness area. 1054 Texan Trail, Ste 300 • Grapevine, TX 76051 Tel: 682.651.0034 • Fax: 817.527.4081 gsstx@gssmidwest.com • www.gssmidwest.com 2. Wildlife Preserves Will the facility be located in an officially designated wildlife preserve? No Source: Site observations, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle, U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) National Map (www.nationalmap.gov) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Finding(s): The proposed Site is not located in an officially designated wildlife preserve. 3. Protected Species Will the facility affect listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitats? No Source: Site observations and consultation with or project clearance from the USFWS and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Finding(s): There are no federal or state listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat present at the Site that would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Verizon Wireless has included all feasible mitigating factors recommended by the USFWS in the Revised Guidelines for Communication Tower Design, Siting, Construction, Operation, Retrofitting, and Decommissioning (2013). Additionally, Verizon Wireless adheres to all current regulations regarding tower lighting as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 4. Archaeological and Historical Resources Awaiting a response from New York State Historic Preservation Office (NY SHPO) regarding whether the facility will affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture that are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. Public Notice A public notice was issued on September 20, 2024, to inform the public of the proposed project and to invite comments regarding potential environmental and cultural impacts. The notice was published in Ithaca Journal, and the public comment period ended on October 20, 2024. No comments or concerns have been received. Notice of Initiation of the Section 106 Process Letter Notice of Initiation of the Section 106 Process Letters were sent to Landmarks Preservation Commission, City of Ithaca and History Center in Tompkins County on September 17, 2024, to inform the related parties the proposed project and to invite comments regarding potential environmental and cultural impacts. The comment period ended on October 17, 2024. No comments or concerns have been received. 1054 Texan Trail, Ste 300 • Grapevine, TX 76051 Tel: 682.651.0034 • Fax: 817.527.4081 gsstx@gssmidwest.com • www.gssmidwest.com Section 106 Submission to NY SHPO Section 106 submission was made to the NY SHPO and Tribes on November 7, 2024. We are currently awaiting a response from NY SHPO and Tribes. NY SHPO has 30 days to review the submission, with the review period concluding on December 7, 2024. 5. Indian Religious Sites Awaiting a response from the Tribes regarding whether the facility will affect Indian religious sites. Section 106 Submission to the Tribes Section 106 submission was made to the Tribes on November 7, 2024. We are currently awaiting a response from the Tribes. Any Tribes that have not responded by December 9, 2024, and December 17, 2024, will be referred to the FCC to initiate the process to close out consultation. The anticipated tribal clearance date is January 4, 2025. However, this date is subject to change if significant events occur, such as requests for additional consultation, new findings, or unforeseen delays in the review process. 6. Floodplains The facility will not be located in a 100-year floodplain. No Source: Site observations and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Panel 3608510025C, 6/19/1985. Finding(s): No 100-year flood hazards are identified on the FIRM map for the proposed Site. 7. Surface Features Will construction of the facility involve a significant change in surface features (e.g. wetland fill, water diversion, or deforestation)? No Source: Site observations, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle, and USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map. Finding(s): Due to the scope of the proposed project activities, the current Site conditions and review of applicable source data, significant changes in surface features such as wetland fill, water diversion or deforestation will not be required at the Site. GSS anticipates submitting the final completed NEPA/Section 106 review to Verizon Wireless on or before January 6, 2025. 1054 Texan Trail, Ste 300 • Grapevine, TX 76051 Tel: 682.651.0034 • Fax: 817.527.4081 gsstx@gssmidwest.com • www.gssmidwest.com Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance to Verizon Wireless. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephen J. Blazenko, CEO GSS, Inc.