The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Packet 2025-01-07 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, January 7, 2025 6:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Persons to be heard. 2. Consider establishing the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as Lead Agency in the environmental review for the 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 rest room/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 project is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. The Planning Board declared their intent to be the Lead Agency in the environmental review of the project at their November 19, 2024, meeting. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio, Applicant/Agent. 3. Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson for 2025. 4. Approval of Minutes. 5. Other Business. 6. Adjournment. C.J. Randall Director of Planning 607-273-1747 Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings in person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom videoconference at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments directly to the Board during Persons to be Heard and/or Public Hearing. To watch the meeting live, please visit www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7NQ/live. Recorded meetings are viewable at YouTube.com/TownofIthacaVideo. Written comments can be addressed to the Planning Board via email until 3:00 pm ET the day of the meeting at Planning@townithacany.gov or by mail or in-person to Town Hall. Comments addressed to the Board will be distributed to all Board members and Applicant(s). Comments received after the posting of the agenda packet (five business days prior to the meeting) are distributed to the Board on the day of the meeting. Comments are public and become part of the project file. Applications and associated project materials are available on the Town’s website at https://townithacany.gov/meeting-calendar- agendas/ under the calendar meeting date. From: Mary Alm Sent: Friday,January 3, 2025 10:48 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: cell tower decisions Dear Planning Board members, I understand there is a request for a re-vote concerning a proposed large cell tower installation in Ithaca. I also understand that some information on detrimental effects of cell phone technology has also been sent to you. I'm requesting that these be taken with the upmost seriousness due to the size of the impact these decision have. Appreciatively, Mary Alm From: Irina Peress Sent: Friday,January 3, 2025 9:40 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: For Planning Board: Re-Vote on Wiedmeier Court proposed tower Dear Planning Board Members, I am writing to urge you to re-vote on the Wiedmeier Court proposed Verizon cell tower. The planning board process that took place prior to the vote so far does not seem ethical or appropriate and violates the Town's code for proposed cell towers. It also sets a bad precedent for industry to force dozens of future towers into our town. As a Town of Ithaca homeowner, I value the unspoiled natural beauty of our town, and it is heartbreaking to see it destroyed by unnecessary industry like cell towers. The site that would need to be cleared for a tower would destroy habitat for wildlife and destroy trees. If small cells can fill any gap in service, that would be less destructive to our area. Cell tower radiation kills birds, bees, and trees, and wireless radiation is also harmful for human health as evidenced by thousands of peer-reviewed studies. Use your role in public office for the greater good and leave a record you can be proud of by revoting on this extremely important issue. Sincerely, Irina Peress From: marieuhx@twcny.rr.com Sent: Monday, December 30, 2024 10:34 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: proposed radio tower at Burns Rd and Rte 79 T-TIMMIXIMMUM Dear Planning Board Members, It has come to my attention that large radio tower is being considered for placement in the area of Burns Road and Route 79 in the Town of Ithaca. This is a request for you to reconsider your plans and NOT ALLOW placement there. From my perspective this area is dead center of ecologically valuable land and waters worthy of protection from such an intrusion. Thank you for this consideration. Mary S. Eldridge Mrs. F.L. Eldridge ( TNC Eldridge Wilderness) From: Jill Ullian/ Dennis Anello Sent: Thursday,January 2, 2025 11:55 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: Verizon's application for a large cell tower at Wiedmeier Court Dear Planning Board members, At the last Planning Board meeting the Board approved Verizon's application for installing a large cell tower at Wiedmeier Court. I believe this approval was based on erroneous information, and request that this Verizon application be re-voted on, with the erroneous information corrected. It is my understanding that Ithaca codes require proof that their 138' tower is the least intrusive means to fill the gap in service coverage. Verizon claims that it is the least intrusive means to fill the gap. This despite independent consultants attesting that small cell antennas would be able to provide viable solutions to filling the gap. It is Verizon's burden to demonstrate that this large scale cell tower is in fact the "least intrusive means of filling the gap" by providing credible proof that small cell antennas could not viably fill the gap. I am therefore requesting that the board re-vote on this issue, and deny Verizon's application, since they have not met Ithaca codes at this time. I ask that the Board members re-read the 2 articles I submitted earlier (copied below) before making any final decision. As I stated in my earlier email to the Board, though I do not live in the vicinity of the new proposed Verizon tower, I do live in the Town of Ithaca, and am concerned about my neighbors' being exposed to unnecessary levels radio frequency radiation. Sincerely, Dennis Anello Former Physics Teacher (high school), Former Adjunct Faculty, Physics & Math (Springfield Technical Community College) Ithaca On 9/30/2024 2:43 PM, Jill Ullian / Dennis Anello wrote: Re: Verizon's application to place a new large tower in the Town of Ithaca at 79 and Burns Road Hello, Though I do not live in the vicinity of the new proposed Verizon tower, I do live in the Town of Ithaca, and am concerned about my neighbors' health and safety. Please see the below 2 resources, which I believe give reason for prudent caution on the addition of this new large tower. I am a former physics teacher, and I would like to ask that you read these resources, and that they be included in the information you make available to the public. 1. WITH GOOD REASON radio program interview with Deborah O'Dell, professor of biology at the University of Mary Washington: "Does the radiation emitted by our cell phones harm us?" https://www.withgood reason radio.org/episode/do-cell-phones- cause-cancer-2/ Does the radiation emitted by our cell phones harm us? Professor Deborah O'Dell recently finished a study that found cell phone radiation can cause changes to our cells. 2. Article from The Nation magazine: How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase— behind the 5G and cell tower rollouts. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-big-wireless-made- us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/ I am requesting that Verizon's application to place a new large tower in the Town of Ithaca at 79 and Burns Road be denied. Thanks for your work on this issue. Dennis Anello Former Physics Teacher (high school), Former Adjunct Faculty, Physics & Math (Springfield Technical Community College) Ithaca From: Ithacans For Responsible Technology Sent: Monday,January 6, 2025 11:04 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: Public petition for the Town Planning Board T-TIM51161MMUM Ithaca Town Planning Board members, We the undersigned 115 concerned citizens of Ithaca are urging you to re-vote and deny the Wiedmeier Court cell tower application before the Zoning Board's January 28 meeting. At the November 19 Planning Board meeting, the Board members were given incorrect information that denying the cell tower would be 'effective prohibition' when in fact, Verizon had not shown any proof, as our codes require, that their 138' tower is the least intrusive means to fill the gap in service coverage. In fact, this large, obtrusive monopole is likely not the least intrusive means of filling this gap in service when there is the option of small cell antennas, which are viable solutions as attested to by independent consultants. Verizon "respectfully disagreed", referring to their 'evidence' in Exhibit GG, which was simply conclusory statements that small cells were not viable to achieve "the necessary coverage goals sought by VZW" (not for remedying the gap). Tellingly, neither Verizon employees ever explicitly said that small cells could not remedy the gap in service. Thus, it was highly misleading for Verizon to claim that denying their tower would constitute effective prohibition, given that they never showed proof that small cells couldn't remedy the gap. Given what we heard at the meeting, we are concerned that Board members' decision to approve was based on this false knowledge, especially since a majority of the Board said they were going to deny the tower before Verizon's statement about effective prohibition. It seemed like some Board members felt that it was a done deal and that they couldn't deny the application. Ultimately, it is the Planning Board's responsibility to ensure that due diligence and adequate proof has been shown for a tower that will negatively affect countless Ithacans. Additionally, a re-vote would ameliorate what seemed like an unprofessional and biased process. In the meeting, a straw poll indicated a majority of the Board was in favor of denying the tower, but then the Board inexplicably changed from working off the 'denial' resolution to working off the `approval' resolution. Board member Cindy Kaufman even questioned this saying, "I don't understand why we're reviewing the approval [resolution]." She was ignored. Unfortunately, it seemed that Chairperson Fred Wilcox's words/actions were biased in favor of approving the resolution, for example when he said, "I'm concerned right now that members of this board are trying to find reasons to say no when the answer is YES." This behavior is unethical and an embarrassment to our town. Therefore, we ask the Planning Board to right this error, re-vote, and deny the cell tower. SIGNED: Andrew Molnar Natalie Lester Jeff Zorn Marie Molnar Cara Robertus Madeline McCann Dennis Anello Jill Ullian Lisa Bertuzzi Jill Kellner Mary Murphy Sherri Bennette Brittany D Johnson Lisa Robinow Jennifer Heatley Eamonn Murphy Amanda Moretti William Gauger Pam Millar Leeny Sack Mary Archin Louise Mygatt Josie Judge Emma Peila Ashley Schiller Natasha Keller Caroline Ashurst Wendy Ives Anna Sidor Jessie Vassallo Bob Babjak Dara Riegel Rigel Bissonette Barbara Harrison Molly Donovan Sujata Gibson Lillian Tomik Tom Clausen Florinda Larkin Mary Alm Barbara Appel Vanessa Wood Henry Fitzgerald Alex Kowtun Molly Kornblum Dakota River I. Peress Judith Jones Isabel Rachlin Helena Cooper Lori Yelensky Adam Monzella Deborah Loewe Kelly Hook Joan Jedele Daryl Mclain Pat Shea Kaori Teramura Judith Barker Rebecca Sydney Angelo Abdalla Melissa Jackson Dianne Ferriss Florian Chaubet Amala Lane Jerone Gagliano Emmett G. James Riegel Jessica Lindsay Rhiannon Cobb Krisra Bellavigna Kelsey Hicks Nellie Wallace Colleen Cole Valletta Megan Allen Melissa Heslop Sara Garner Courtney Sullivan Kyra Coleman Christina Haltom Kalleen Grey Patricia Keen Alison Gelsleichter Alisa Shargorodsky Andrea Davis Amy Wiiki KJ Jin Jennifer Oursler Kristine Wills Kate Nicholson Suzanne Beltz Yuliya Kim Katherine Hayes Helena Prieto Sarah Bannister Rachael Tissot Karlem Sivira Gimenez Kenzey Simon Crystal Keller Justin Hicks Dani Ferriss Elizabeth Mcever Marion Gunderson Bethany LeBlanc Virginia Smithson Damaris Vazquez Abigail Sisson Anne Schneider Daniel Seib Shula Stern Francine Rivera Reynolds Kaide Magee Jennifer Whitaker Heather Fowler Aaron Rakow The original petition may be viewed at: https://www.change_orgip/please-re-vote-on-the-cell-tower From: Daniel Seib Sent: Monday,January 6, 2025 7:46 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: Re-Vote on Verizon Cell Tower on Wiedmaier Ct. • IQUIlIL91 • • - • Dear Planning Board Members, I am writing to add my voice to those asking for a re-vote on the Planning Board's decision to allow Verizon's cell tower on Wiedmaier Ct. I think the previous vote was unduly influenced by Fred Wilcox as there was enough information in the SEQR application to deny this project. I ask you to please bring this issue up for a re-vote given the strong public outcry and the irregularities of the first vote. Thank you, Daniel Seib 1581. Slaterville Road From: Caroline Ashurst Sent: Sunday,January 5, 2025 6:43 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Cc: Codes;Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department; CJ Randall; Chris Balestra; Marty Moseley; Rich Depaolo; Rod Howe Subject: Dear Planning Board Members (CC:Town Board, Zoning Board) R-TIMORUMMY01 Dear Planning Board Members: [NOTE: Please make sure this email is sent to all the planning board members as we recently were told that in order for them to receive these emails and have them in the official register, we have to specifically request that by addressing them directly. Here is my specific request in writing to assure their receipt and documentation in the Wiedmaier/Verizon docs. Thank you.] I am writing today to request the board to re-vote and reject the Wiedmeier Court cell tower application before the Zoning Board's January 28 meeting. At the November 19 Planning Board meeting, the board members were misled into believing that denying the tower would be an "effective prohibition." However, Verizon failed to prove, as required by code, that their 138' monopole is the least intrusive way to address the service gap. The town's independent consultant confirmed that smaller, less obtrusive solutions, such as small cell antennas, are viable alternatives—something Verizon never - actually- disproved in their burden of proof. Instead, they relied on vague claims without solid evidence, misleading the Board into approving the application. We are deeply concerned that the Board's decision was based on this misinformation, especially since a majority initially supported denying the tower before Verizon's misleading statements. It appeared some members felt pressured into approval rather than exercising their authority to deny. Additionally, I would like to point out that the town lawyer seems to deny this claim. She mentioned at the zoning board meeting that the residents here at that meeting overreacted to what occurred at that planning board meeting in question- which is plainly untrue and concerning. Why is the public's experience of this meeting being gaslit? We have the right to voice our observations of this process and the events of the meetings. Let it be known that the town lawyer is essentially claiming that a group of people who all experienced the same thing in that room/on that zoom are all exaggerating/misinterpreting the situation. Please do not further gaslight this community. We will not have it. The voting process seemed biased and unprofessional. A straw poll initially favored denial, yet the Board suddenly shifted focus to an approval resolution. Chairperson Fred Wilcox's comments, such as accusing members of "trying to find reasons to say no when you should be saying yes," revealed a troubling bias toward approval. This behavior undermines public trust. The town lawyer downplaying this whole incident is disturbing and we will not stay quiet about it. At timestamp 1:33 on 11/19's meeting, this is what was said: "I'm concerned right now that members of this board are trying to find reasons to say no when the answer is yes. And that concerns me. People are struggling right now to figure "how can i say no and get away with it". (Fred Wilcox) Fred then asked "Can a cell phone tower EVER be unobtrusive?" Caitlin said "Yes" and Fred started laughing when she was answering. Don't you find this concerning? I sure do. (Also, side note: why are there no meeting minutes available for that meeting on 11/19 available on the town website?) Here's something else that's alarming that I'm only sharing now as well: That day at that meeting on 11/19, one of the male members of the board came over to our group and started chatting with us. He encouraged us to contact the town papers, etc, to share our concerns. It was odd, and also gave us hope that he supported our case. We then asked him how he was voting. Do you want to know what he said? He said he was: "against it but I'll probably just vote for it because it's going to pass anyway." He told this to my face. What kind of attitude is that to have on the planning board? This man who is supposed to represent the community just admitted he caved into some agenda he was already aware of---and TOLD me? Unbelievable. At this point, for all of these reasons, we ask the Planning Board to correct this error, conduct a re-vote, and deny the cell tower application. You are in a position where you have to regain the public's trust because it has eroded significantly in this whole fiasco. EVERY MEMBER OF YOUR BOARD DESERVES THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN A WAY THAT REFLECTS THEIR TRUTH WITHOUT BEING BULLIED INTO THEIR DECISION. We are grateful for every one of you who tried to follow your truth and the values that guide our community here. You are on that board because you don't want to greenwash these agendas, and WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR YOU. RE-VOTE RE-VOTE RE-VOTE NOW. With Gratitude, Caroline Grace Ashurst, L.Ac., M.Ac. www.carolineashurst.com @restorativeharmony The Fertility Formula Functional Fertility Coaching + Restorative Harmony Acupuncture 20221202012019 Philadelphia Family LOVE Award Best Acupuncture in Philadelphia! *******©2024 Restorative Harmony Acupuncture, LLC. All rights reserved. This document is for educational and informational purposes only and solely as a self-help tool for your own use. I am not providing medical, psychological, or nutrition therapy advice. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat any health problems or illnesses without consulting your own medical practitioner. Always seek the advice of your own medical practitioner and/or mental health provider about your specific health situation. For my full Disclaimer, please go to https://www.restorativeharmony.com/legal- disclaimers From: Jerone Gagliano Sent: Sunday,January 5, 2025 11:22 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: Request Revote for Verizon's Large Cell Tower • • - • . Dear Planning Board Members, This message is for the upcoming Board meeting this week. I have watched and commented on the previous Planning Board meetings about the proposed large cell tower at Wiedmeier Court. I respectfully ask that the Planning Board do a re-vote on this application for the following reasons. Watching the meeting in Dec made it apparent that proper process was not being followed and it appears that the Board made their decision based on Verizon's misleading and false claim that denying this large tower would be an effective prohibition. Since it is very likely that smaller cell antennas would fill the gap in call coverage and be less intrusive and Verizon did not show proof that small cells couldn't remedy this gap, they did not meet our Code requirement of least intrusive means, and therefore, a denial of their application is NOT an effective prohibition. Additionally, I can only guess that the Board's decision was also influenced by the misleading statements from the supposedly independent RF consultant William Johnson. He appears to be biased toward Verizon with previous connections to the telecom industry. Lastly, I ask that Chairperson Fred Wilcox recuse himself from a re-vote given the blatant bias and unethical behavior he showed during that meeting in favor of approving the application. He ignored the proper procedure to work off the denial resolution given that the majority of the members wanted to deny the application, and ignored the board member who questioned this. He appeared to manipulate the process and pressure members to say why they were voting against it. Thank you, Jerone Jerone Gagliano PE, CEM PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Nomination and Election Planning Board Vice Chairperson 2025 Town of Ithaca Planning Board January 7, 2025 Moved ; seconded RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board does hereby nominate and elect __________________________ as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board for the year 2025. FURTHER RESOLVED, that said election shall be reported to the Town Board. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Nays: Abstentions: 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner DATE: December 26, 2024 RE: Cornell Game Farm Rd Field Hockey Field – Establish Lead Agency, Begin SEQRA 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 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 enclosures include: 1. Draft resolution establishing the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as Lead Agency in the environmental review 2. A copy of the Lead Agency concurrence letter to Involved Agencies, and agency response 3. Another copy of the letters from NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), dated October 18, 2024 & October 28, 2024 (included in November 19, 2024, meeting packet) 4. Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1, prepared by the applicant, and blank FEAF Part 2 5. Public comments received for January 7, 2025, meeting packet distribution The Planning Board classified this project as a Type I Action, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR Part 617) on November 19, 2024. As such, the project requires the completion of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) and a coordinated review amongst the agencies that have discretionary authority to approve certain aspects of the project. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board declared their intent to be the Lead Agency in the environmental review of the project on November 19, 2024. The attachments include a letter officially notifying Involved Agencies of this intent and requesting concurrence with the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as Lead Agency. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Involved Agencies have 30 days to respond to the notification (letter sent November 20, 2024 – agency responses required by December 20, 2024). The town received one response from an Involved Agency, which is attached. 2 The NYS OPRHP, another Involved Agency, previously issued comments on the project related to areas of potential archaeological interest, so the two letters associated with potential impacts to archaeological resources are also attached (these letters were also in the November 19, 2024, Planning Board meeting packet). The purpose of the January 7, 2025, Planning Board meeting is for the board to establish themselves as the Lead Agency and to begin discussing the environmental review. The board will need to pass a resolution (draft attached) to establish itself as the Lead Agency. Once established, the board must then begin to reasonably consider whether the project has the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact. At the November 19, 2024, meeting, the Planning Board agreed to hold off on making any SEQR determination on the project until the town received Cornell’s responding papers associated with the Meinig Fieldhouse Article 78 lawsuit. There are no prepared draft FEAF Parts 2 and 3 included in this meeting packet. To assist the board, the enclosures include a FEAF Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a blank FEAF Part 2, so the board can review and discuss the sections that need to be completed. 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: SEQR – Establish Lead Agency 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 January 7, 2025 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 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. At its meeting on November 19, 2024, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board proposed to establish itself as the Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above-referenced proposal. Potential Involved and Interested agencies were notified of its intent to serve as Lead Agency on November 20, 2024; 4. The Planning Board, on November 19, 2024, accepted a Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, 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, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above- described proposal. Moved: Seconded: Vote: PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Town Planning Project No.: DEV-24-10 TO: Involved Agencies: Katherine Borgella, Commissioner of Planning, Tompkins County Planning Department Elizabeth Cameron, Director of Environmental Health, Tompkins County Whole Health Dereth Glance, Regional Director, NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Region 7 Rod Howe, Town Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Town Board Ruth Pierpont, Director, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Jeffrey Smith, Director, Tompkins County Highway Department FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner DATE: November 20, 2024 RE: Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY STATUS The Town of Ithaca has received an application for Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project, which has been determined to be a Type I Action under both the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQRA), and Chapter 148, Environmental Quality Review, Town of Ithaca Town Code. In an effort to coordinate review under SEQRA, your Board or Agency has been identified as having “approval” authority over some aspects of this project. It is the Town of Ithaca Planning Board’s intention to act as Lead Agency in this review. Here is a link to a Full Environmental Assessment Form (Full EAF), Part 1, along with supplemental project information provided by the applicant : CU GFR Field Hockey Field. These are the minimum materials required under SEQRA for Lead Agency coordination. It is respectfully requested that you advise within thirty (30) days of your consent to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board serving as the Lead Agency for this project. The Planning Board will undertake Lead Agency status at that time, in the event that you do not respond within thirty (30) days. If you have any questions regarding the above matter, please contact me at (607) 273-1721, or by email at cbalestra@townithacany.gov. Enc. 2 cc: Bambi Avery, Town of Dryden Town Clerk Lori Brewer, Chair, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Ray Burger, Town of Dryden Director of Planning Leslie Schill, Cornell University Director of Campus Planning 1 Chris Balestra From:Scott Freyburger <sfreyburger@tompkins-co.org> Sent:Friday, December 20, 2024 12:27 PM To:Chris Balestra Subject:FW: Request for Lead Agency Status - Town of Ithaca Planning Board Attachments:CU GFR Hockey - letter to involved agencies - lead agency intent.doc Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Chris, Sorry about the delayed response. We at TCWH have no objecons to the Town Planning Board serving as the Lead Agency for this project. Thank you, Sco Freyburger, P.E., M. Eng. Public Health Engineer From: Elizabeth Cameron <lcameron@tompkins-co.org> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 4:17 PM To: Scott Freyburger <sfreyburger@tompkins-co.org> Subject: FW: Request for Lead Agency Status - Town of Ithaca Planning Board Hey Scott – Would you please handle this? Thanks - Liz From: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 3:13 PM To: Katie Borgella <KBORGELLA@tompkins-co.org>; Elizabeth Cameron <lcameron@tompkins-co.org>; Jeffrey Smith <jsmith@tompkins-co.org>; dereth.glance@dec.ny.gov; dep.r7@dec.ny.gov; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; fred.bonn@oprhp.state.ny.us Cc: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Subject: Request for Lead Agency Status - Town of Ithaca Planning Board [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, The Town of Ithaca has received an applicaon for Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project, which has been determined to be a Type I Acon under both the State 2 Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQRA), and Chapter 148, Environmental Quality Review, Town of Ithaca Town Code. Aached is a leer that includes a link to materials associated with the project. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has declared their intent to be the lead agency for the environmental review of this project and is requesng concurrence with that declaraon. Please let me know if you cannot open the link and I’ll find another way to send you the materials. Cheers, Chris (she/her) Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273-1721, ext. 121 cbalestra@townithacany.gov 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 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 Full EAF Part 2 (blank, with instruction sheet) - for Lead Agency 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review Full Environmental Assessment Form Purpose: The Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) provides an orderly and comprehensive means for evaluating the potential environmental significance of a proposed action. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The lead agency must use the Full EAF for Type I actions and may use it for Unlisted actions. The Full EAF consists of three parts and when completed it will serve as the determination of significance: Part 1 - Is completed by the project sponsor. Part 1 provides basic information including a description of the proposed action, proposed site location and its environmental resources. The information provided in Part 1 is later used by the reviewing agency to complete Parts 2 and 3. The questions in Part 1 are grouped in sections A-G: •Section A gathers information that identifies the project sponsor, the proposed action, and the proposed action’s location. •Section B requests information about government approvals or funding. •Section C requests information about planning, zoning and community services. •Section D requests information about the proposed action. •Section E requests information about resources on or adjacent to the proposed site. •Section F provides the project sponsor the opportunity for supplying additional information including project elements that may avoid or reduce impacts. •Section G is where the certifying signature of the preparer is provided. Part 2 - Is completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could be affected by a proposed action and to determine the potential size of the impact by providing a series of questions that can be answered using the information found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. Part 2 is designed to help a reviewer identify any element of a proposed project that may have a potentially significant adverse impact on the environment. Part 3 - Is completed by the lead agency. Part 2 questions where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact should be explored in a series of written, well reasoned statements in Part 3. The discussion of impacts in Part 3 will serve as the supporting documentation for the determination of significance. Page 1 of 10 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 - Identification of Potential Project Impacts Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could be affected by a proposed project or action. We recognize that the lead agency=s reviewer(s) will not necessarily be environmental professionals. So, the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that can be answered using the information found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. When Part 2 is completed, the lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity. If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Tips for completing Part 2: •Review all of the information provided in Part 1. •Review any application, maps, supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook. •Answer each of the 18 questions in Part 2. •If you answer “Yes” to a numbered question, please complete all the questions that follow in that section. •If you answer “No” to a numbered question, move on to the next numbered question. •Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact. •Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency checking the box “Moderate to large impact may occur.” •The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis. •If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact, it may help to review the sub-questions for the general question and consult the workbook. •When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity, that is, the Awhole action@. •Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts. •Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project. 1.Impact on Land Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, NO YES the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1. D.1) If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 2. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3 feet.E2d 9 9 b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater.E2f 9 9 c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface. E2a 9 9 d. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons of natural material. D2a 9 9 e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. D1e 9 9 f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). D2e, D2q 9 9 g. The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area.B1i 9 9 h. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 9 9 Agency Use Only [If applicable] Project : Date : FEAF 2019 Page 2 of 10 2.Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, NO YES minerals, fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2.g) If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, move on to Section 3. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Identify the specific land form(s) attached: ________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ E2g 9 9 b.The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a registered National Natural Landmark. Specific feature: _____________________________________________________ E3c 9 9 c.Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 9 9 3.Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water NO YES bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part 1. D.2, E.2.h) If “Yes”, answer questions a - l. If “No”, move on to Section 4. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may create a new water body.D2b, D1h 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water. D2b 9 9 c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from a wetland or water body. D2a 9 9 d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body. E2h 9 9 e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion, runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments. D2a, D2h 9 9 f.The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s) for withdrawal of water from surface water. D2c 9 9 g.The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s) for discharge of wastewater to surface water(s). D2d 9 9 h.The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. D2e 9 9 i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action. E2h 9 9 j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body. D2q, E2h 9 9 k.The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, wastewater treatment facilities. D1a, D2d 9 9 Page 3 of 10 l. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 9 9 4.Impact on groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or NO YES may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. (See Part 1. D.2.a, D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t) If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 5. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand on supplies from existing water supply wells. D2c 9 9 b. Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer. Cite Source: ________________________________________________________ D2c 9 9 c. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and sewer services. D1a, D2c 9 9 d. The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater.D2d, E2l 9 9 e. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations where groundwater is, or is suspected to be, contaminated. D2c, E1f, E1g, E1h 9 9 f. The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products over ground water or an aquifer. D2p, E2l 9 9 g. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources. E2h, D2q, E2l, D2c 9 9 h. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 5.Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. NO YES (See Part 1. E.2) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, move on to Section 6. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway.E2i 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain.E2j 9 9 c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain.E2k 9 9 d. The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage patterns. D2b, D2e 9 9 e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding.D2b, E2i, E2j, E2k 9 9 f.If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action, is the dam in need of repair, or upgrade? E1e 9 9 Page 4 of 10 g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 9 9 6.Impacts on Air NO YES The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. (See Part 1. D.2.f., D.2.h, D.2.g) If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, move on to Section 7. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits, the action may also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels: i. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2) ii.More than 3.5 tons/year of nitrous oxide (N2O) iii. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon equivalent of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) iv. More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) v. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of hydrochloroflourocarbons (HFCs) emissions vi. 43 tons/year or more of methane D2g D2g D2g D2g D2g D2h 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 b. The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more of any one designated hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous air pollutants. D2g 9 9 c. The proposed action may require a state air registration, or may produce an emissions rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs. per hour, or may include a heat source capable of producing more than 10 million BTU=s per hour. D2f, D2g 9 9 d.The proposed action may reach 50% of any of the thresholds in “a” through “c”, above. D2g 9 9 e. The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. D2s 9 9 f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 7.Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1. E.2. m.-q.) NO YES If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 8. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a.The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. E2o 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any rare, threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federal government. E2o 9 9 c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of any species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. E2p 9 9 d. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any species of special concern and conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government. E2p 9 9 Page 5 of 10 e. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect. E3c 9 9 f. The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any portion of a designated significant natural community. Source: ____________________________________________________________ E2n 9 9 g.The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging, or over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site.E2m 9 9 h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat. Habitat type & information source: ______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ E1b 9 9 i.Proposed action (commercial, industrial or recreational projects, only) involves use of herbicides or pesticides. D2q 9 9 j. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 8.Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1. E.3.a. and b.) NO YES If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 9. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System. E2c, E3b 9 9 b.The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc). E1a, Elb 9 9 c. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil profile of active agricultural land. E3b 9 9 d.The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10 acres if not within an Agricultural District. E1b, E3a 9 9 e. The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land management system. El a, E1b 9 9 f. The proposed action may result, directly or indirectly, in increased development potential or pressure on farmland. C2c, C3, D2c, D2d 9 9 g.The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland Protection Plan. C2c 9 9 h. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________9 9 Page 6 of 10 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in NO YES sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part 1. E.1.a, E.1.b, E.3.h.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, go to Section 10. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource. E3h 9 9 b.The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination or significant screening of one or more officially designated scenic views. E3h, C2b 9 9 c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points: i. Seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ii. Year round E3h 9 9 9 9 d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is: i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work ii. Recreational or tourism based activities E3h E2q, E1c 9 9 9 9 e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource. E3h 9 9 f. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed project: 0-1/2 mile ½ -3 mile 3-5 mile 5+ mile D1a, E1a, D1f, D1g 9 9 g.Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological NO YES resource. (Part 1. E.3.e, f. and g.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 11. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur E3e 9 9 b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory. E3f 9 9 c. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory. Source: ____________________________________________________________ E3g 9 9 a.The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any buildings, archaeological site or district which is listed on the National or State Register of Historical Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. Page 7 of 10 d. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 e.If any of the above (a-d) are answered “Moderate to large impact may occur”, continue with the following questions to help support conclusions in Part 3: i.The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part of the site or property. ii.The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property’s setting or integrity. iii.The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting. E3e, E3g, E3f E3e, E3f, E3g, E1a, E1b E3e, E3f, E3g, E3h, C2, C3 9 9 9 9 9 9 11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a NO YES reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. (See Part 1. C.2.c, E.1.c., E.2.q.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 12. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions, or “ecosystem services”, provided by an undeveloped area, including but not limited to stormwater storage, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat. D2e, E1b E2h, E2m, E2o, E2n, E2p 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource.C2a, E1c, C2c, E2q 9 9 c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area with few such resources. C2a, C2c E1c, E2q 9 9 d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by the community as an open space resource. C2c, E1c 9 9 e. Other impacts: _____________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 9 9 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical NO YES environmental area (CEA). (See Part 1. E.3.d) If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, go to Section 13. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. E3d 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. E3d 9 9 c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 Page 8 of 10 13. Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. NO YES (See Part 1. D.2.j) If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, go to Section 14. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network.D2j 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or more vehicles. D2j 9 9 c. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access.D2j 9 9 d. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations.D2j 9 9 e.The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods.D2j 9 9 f.Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 14. Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. NO YES (See Part 1. D.2.k) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 15. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation.D2k 9 9 b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a commercial or industrial use. D1f, D1q, D2k 9 9 c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity.D2k 9 9 d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when completed. D1g 9 9 e. Other Impacts: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. NO YES (See Part 1. D.2.m., n., and o.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, go to Section 16. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. D2m 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence, hospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home. D2m, E1d 9 9 c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day.D2o 9 9 Page 9 of 10 d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties.D2n 9 9 e. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing area conditions. D2n, E1a 9 9 f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 16. Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure NO YES to new or existing sources of contaminants. (See Part 1.D.2.q., E.1. d. f. g. and h.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - m. If “No”, go to Section 17. Relevant Part I Question(s) No,or small impact may cccur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed day care center, group home, nursing home or retirement community. E1d 9 9 b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation.E1g, E1h 9 9 c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation, or a completed environmental site remediation on, or adjacent to, the site of the proposed action. E1g, E1h 9 9 d.The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the property (e.g., easement or deed restriction). E1g, E1h 9 9 e. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health. E1g, E1h 9 9 f. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future generation, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the environment and human health. D2t 9 9 g. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste management facility. D2q, E1f 9 9 h. The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste.D2q, E1f 9 9 i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal, or processing, of solid waste. D2r, D2s 9 9 j. The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. E1f, E1g E1h 9 9 k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill site to adjacent off site structures. E1f, E1g 9 9 l. The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the project site. D2s, E1f, D2r 9 9 m. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 10 17. Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. NO YES (See Part 1. C.1, C.2. and C.3.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, go to Section 18. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action’s land use components may be different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use pattern(s). C2, C3, D1a E1a, E1b 9 9 b. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%. C2 9 9 c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. C2, C2, C3 9 9 d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use plans. C2, C2 9 9 e. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure. C3, D1c, D1d, D1f, D1d, Elb 9 9 f. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development that will require new or expanded public infrastructure. C4, D2c, D2d D2j 9 9 g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g., residential or commercial development not included in the proposed action) C2a 9 9 h. Other: _____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 18. Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. NO YES (See Part 1. C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, proceed to Part 3. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. E3e, E3f, E3g 9 9 b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire) C4 9 9 c. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where there is a shortage of such housing. C2, C3, D1f D1g, E1a 9 9 d. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized or designated public resources. C2, E3 9 9 e. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character. C2, C3 9 9 f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. C2, C3 E1a, E1b E2g, E2h 9 9 g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 From: Yayoi Koizumi Sent: Thursday,January 2,2025 8:00 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: New Year,Renewed Call for Accountability on Synthetic Turf Projects •• • • • • . • January 2, 2025 Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members, We are writing to express serious concerns about an apparent conflict of interest that may have compromised the integrity of the decision-making process regarding Cornell University's synthetic turf projects, specifically the "Meinig Fieldhouse Project"on Tower Road. While construction is already underway,we believe the integrity of the decision-making process warrants closer scrutiny, particularly given the potential conflict of interest involving Mitch Glass, the former chair of the City Planning Board, and Sasaki, the architectural firm representing Cornell. Glass worked for over a decade at Sasaki, from 2002 to 2012, at their headquarters in Watertown, MA—the same location where Trey Sasser, the Sasaki representative advocating for Cornell's plans, has worked for twenty-six years (Exhibit 1, 2). Given their overlapping tenure at the same location, it raises reasonable concerns that they knew each other professionally. While Glass's employment with Sasaki ended over a decade ago, such a long-standing professional relationship raises valid questions about impartiality.At a minimum, this connection should have been disclosed to ensure public trust and transparency in the decision-making process. The City Planning Board's issuance of a Negative Declaration for Cornell's Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) during a four-person meeting on September 3, 2024, raises additional concerns. The meeting barely made quorum and included a brand-new board member who may not have been fully informed about the nine months of public comments leading up to the decision. Shortly after this approval, Mr. Glass stepped down from the City Planning Board,which raises questions about whether the process had the full benefit of continuity, rigor and transparency. Another troubling element of this process involves Frank Rossi, a Cornell professor and director of the university's turf management program. Rossi submitted a letter to the City and Town Planning Boards on August 29, 2024, ostensibly in support of Cornell's synthetic turf proposals. However, his claims—including the recommendation of a 212-micron mechanical filtration system to capture microplastics—are inconsistent with current scientific understanding. Experts in plastics and microplastics science widely recognize that particles below 1 micron in diameter, including nanoplastics, are notoriously difficult to capture, raising questions about the accuracy of Rossi's assertions. Furthermore, emission of microplastics does not go only with water runoffs; air emissions and tracking by players on their shoes and clothes also need to be considered. Additionally, Rossi's involvement raises serious concerns about conflicts of interest. Cornell's turf management program collaborates with Penn State's synthetic turf research program,which partners with FieldTurf, a major synthetic turf manufacturer(Exhibit 3,4). While the exact funding relationship between FieldTurf and Penn State's program is unclear, this connection calls into question the impartiality of Rossi's advocacy for synthetic turf. Furthermore, Rossi has documented ties to Petro-Canada in relation to pesticide research (Exhibit 5), raising further concerns about his independence from the fossil fuel industry. In public interviews, such as with The Cornell Daily Sun, Rossi and Cornell's Meinig Fieldhouse Project Team have repeated industry narratives, including claims about synthetic turf reducing water use, fossil fuel emissions and pesticide reliance—claims that are increasingly contested by independent experts. While these affiliations may not inherently disqualify his input, they underscore the importance of transparency and critical scrutiny. Rossi's letter to the planning boards and his alignment with synthetic turf advocates highlight the need for critical scrutiny of the expertise and motivations influencing decisions on projects like these. His history of affiliations with a fossil fuel company undermines confidence in the objectivity of his contributions to this discussion. Furthermore, the references he makes in the letter lack citations, making it difficult to verify the accuracy of his assertions. To promote transparency and accountability in decision-making,we recommend that planning board members disclose their CVs with links on the board's main official pages (Town and City), including any past affiliations or ties to developers, architectural firms,fossil fuel companies, or universities. This measure would help ensure that potential conflicts of interest are visible to the public and provide greater confidence in the board's impartiality when evaluating projects. Such transparency is essential for fostering trust and maintaining the integrity of the planning process. We bring these issues up now not only to highlight the troubling precedent set by the Meinig "Fieldhouse" project but also to urge greater scrutiny for Cornell's new synthetic turf proposal on Game Farm Road. These projects were initially part of the same proposal before being segmented—a decision that raises its own environmental review concerns. Segmentation limits the scope of environmental assessments and prevents a holistic evaluation of the cumulative impacts, including environmental, health, and environmental justice issues. Cornell's approach to public concerns has been equally troubling. During the December 17, 2024, Town Planning Board meeting, Cornell representative Kimberly Michael dismissed community concerns claiming they"take one study and make it seem as though it's the whole world" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZA8Giktyyo&t=620s). This statement is a near repetition of remarks she made earlier during the May 28, 2024, City Planning Board meeting, demonstrating Cornell's dismissive stance. At the time of the Negative Declaration's approval in September 2024, Zero Waste Ithaca had submitted a 70-page bibliography of peer-reviewed studies and reputable sources addressing synthetic turf's risks. In contrast, Cornell's submissions relied on just 12 references to support claims about synthetic turf's safety(See page 33-34 (10-11)of"Additional Materials,April 2,_ 2024." No additional sources were cited in Cornell's highly problematic"Additional Materials, July 9, 2024"). During the May 28, 2024, City Planning Board meeting, Ms. Michael stated: "I shouldn't be speaking in the kind of granular way that this group is putting the information out there. ... there are holes in their science... they jump to conclusions... they make one study presented as if it's the whole world's study...they employ a lot of really great persuasive techniques." (Timestamp 2:03:00) (City of Ithaca Public Meetings. "Planning Board Meeting-May 28, 2024." YouTube video, 2:37:35, May 28, 2024, timestamp 1:40:00—2:14:00, https://www.yQutube.com/Watch?v=p dzzownm-Zc.) Her December remarks closely mirrored these earlier comments, suggesting a lack of meaningful engagement with the concerns raised by the community. These remarks attempted to discredit a webinar organized by Zero Waste Ithaca,which featured six independent experts, including PhDs, chemists, attorneys, and organic natural grass field specialists. The webinar was well attended with over 300 registrations, and helped defeat a proposed synthetic turf plan in a Wisconsin school district. This dismissive rhetoric undermines substantive discourse and fails to engage with the community's well-researched concerns. We urge the Town Planning Board to carefully consider the City Planning Board's handling of the Meinig Fieldhouse project as you evaluate Cornell's new synthetic turf proposal for Game Farm Road. This includes scrutinizing the imbalance in evidentiary submissions, reassessing reliance on potentially misrepresented studies, and ensuring that decisions affecting the community and environment are made transparently and equitably. In addition, we call on the Town Planning Board to request full disclosure of Cornell's financial or research partnerships with synthetic turf manufacturers and other industry stakeholders. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi PS: This letter has been shared with media outlets for transparency. Exhibits Exhibit 1: Mitch Glass's CV from Cornell's website, showing his tenure at Sasaki Associates in Watertown, MA Mitch Glass,ASLA Comell University,319 W Sibley Hall,Ithaca,NY 14853 mglass@cornell.edu Teaching Visiting Lecturer Experience Cornell University,3-Year Appointment,July 2017-Dec 2020 Department of City and Regional Planning;College of Architecture,Art,and Planning(AAP) Department of Landscape Architecture;College of Agriculture and Life Sciences(CALS) Courses+Academic Activities(2020-2021): CRP5072 Urban Design Workshop:"Kingsbury Run Nature Reserve" LA3010 LA Studio;"Discovering Indigenous Topographies in Ithaca" Faculty Advisor for ULI Hines Student Urban Design Competition Courses+Academic Activities(2019-2020): CRP5072 Urban Design Workshop;"Retrofitting the Mail:An Ithaca and Lansing Case Study' CRP5650 Urban Design Workshop;"MidTown Cleveland"(collaboration with LA) LA5970 LA Independent Study;"West Campus Landscape 6.0 Cornell University" LA6020 LA Studio;"MidTown Cleveland"(collaboration with CRP) LA7010 LA Studio;"Rural,Urban+Hydrological Convergence in the Genesee River Valley' Faculty Supervisorfor A5 Student Competition Challenge,Sanya,China Cornell Team Member,Home Say Kenya initiative for Rockefeller Food System Vision Prize Courses+Academic Activities(2018-2019): CRP5072 Urban Design Workshop;A Vision for Equity and Affordability in Lakewood,Ohio" CRP5850 Urban Design Workshop;"Post-Industrial Revitalization in Canafohade,NY" LA2020 LA Studio;`West Campus Landscape 6.0 Corned University" LA6010 LA Studio;`The Greening of Binghamton,New York" Secondary Advisor for ULI Hines Student Competition(Honorable Mention;Cincinnati,OH) Courses-Academic Activities(2017-2018). CRP5850 Urban Design Workshop;A Mixed-Use Waterfront for the City of Ithaca,NY" LA3020 LA Studio:11-81 Syracuse:Envisioning the Urban Landscape" LA6010 LA Studio;A Green Infrastructure Plan fora Resilient Coney Island,NY" Secondary Advisor for ULl Hines Student Competition(First Place Winner;Toronto,CAN) Professional Senior Urban Designer Experience Goody Clancy,Boston,Massachusetts,December 2012—May 2017 Senior Urban Designer and Landscape Architect for a 70-person architecture and planningfurban design firm,focusing on revitalizing downtowns and urban districts in the US. • 1-84 Hartford Project,Hartford,CT • Hill-to-Downtown Community Plan,New Haven,CT • Glenbrook/Spdngdale TOD Feasibility Study,Stamford,CT • Southwest Detroit Neighborhood Framework Plan,Detroit,MI • Potomac Hill Campus Master Plan,Washington,DC Senior Associate Sasaki Associates,Inc.,Watertown,Massachusetts,August 2002-August 2012 Senior Associate and Landscape Architect for a 250-person multi-disciplinary design firm; managing multi-national teams,budgets,schedules and designs for publiclurban,corporate, commercial and new community projects throughout the US and Asia. • Kunming City Framework Plan,Kunming,China • Yalong Say Master Plan,Sanya,China • Xiamen National Guest House,Xiamen,China • Chongming Island Design Competition,Shanghai,China • Jordan Dead See Vision Plan,Amman,Jordan • Thu Thiem New Urban Area Plan,Ho Chi Minh City,Vietnam • Gurgaon New Town,Gurgaon,India • Lulu Island Master Plan,Abu Dhabi,United Arab Emirates • U.S.Steel Southworks Master Plan,Chicago,IL https://aap.cornell.edu/sites/default/fi les/person/M Glass%20CV%2OSep%202020.pdf Exhibit 2: Trey Sasser's Linkedln profile, highlighting his 26 years at the Watertown, MA location of Sasaki Associates RV Trey Sasser-3rd Sasaki Associate: Senior Associate Greater Boston-Contact info p Clemson Universi 433 connections +Follow Mare Activity 435 Followers Trey Sasser commented on a post•iw Congratulations James. Trey Sasser commented on a post 1 mo Congrats Richard. Trey Sasser commented on a post•7mo Congrats Abby Show all comments Experience Sasaki Associates 26 yrs 5 mos Watertown,MA • Senior Associate Jul 2007-Present-17 yrs 6 mos • Associate Ju12005-Jun2007 2yrs https://www.linkedin.com/in/trey-sasser-73945bl 57/ Exhibit 3:Cornell Turf Program's webpage on synthetic turf, along with two webinars featuring Penn State's synthetic turf program director as a guest speaker, reflect the university's position and advocacy for synthetic turf. Frank Rossi is listed as Contact. Cornell synthetic turf webpage https://safesportsfields.cals.cornell.edu/synthetic-turf/ CornelICALS Im College ofAgricolture and Life Sciences Sports field management Maintaining safe sports fields Home,Synthetic turf Synthetic turf Is adding a synthetic Feld the answer? Many factors impact the capacity of a Contact sports field to handle high usage including. Frank Rossi the soil type,grass Associate Professor species,weather Extension Turfgrass Specialist conditions,kind of Horticulture Section sport,amount of School of Integrative Plant Science usage,management College of Agriculture&Life Sciences program,etc. Connell University Most school sports fsr3@comelf.edu fields are also used for y^a—V1Ayon so, n,124 noasamy,se-s ysau,eek. a Carl Schimenti gym class,band practice,community activities as well as practices and games.Native soil fields can Urban Environmental Scientist take just so much use before the turf thins and compaction becomes severe.Overuse css223@cornell edu does impact the function and aesthetic expectations of sports fields. Some managens have considered adding a synthetic turf field which can be played on essentially 24 hours a day,seven days a week.Having and using a synthetic turf field Co rn e L l Turf Tweets would allow native soil fields to be rested and have time to recuperate.These fields are especially useful in the spring and fall when temperatures are more moderate than posts from OCornell Turf in the heat of the summer. Cornell Turfgrass Show webinars on Synthetic Turf Management: X •Natural grass vs Synthetic turf decision making for K-12 schools IDr Andy McNittl •s thetic turf management principles(Dr.Andy McNitt) Nothing to see YauTube Q C 1 a.: � 1• r � �� Iuj�•� r Sports Turf Webinar 5:Synthetic turf with Andy McNitt,Penn State University CorneI151PS 2 Share '�°Glip Q Save .. 2a.tK subscribers 33@ views Apr 2S,2020 Cornell Turtgrass wehsite:https//turf.cals.cornell.edu/ Resources from this webinar: STMA Covid Resources:https://wwwsima.org/news/the-impact-... STMA synthetic and natural grass considerations:https://www.stma.org/synthetic-turf-o... PSU Synthetic Turf page:https://plantscience.psu.edu/research... PSU infill depth:https://extension.psaedu/evaluaticn-... PSU Synthetic ftber testing:https://plantscience.psu.adu/research... Andy Mcnitt's Twitter account: x/mcniturt PSU research on cleat safety:https://plantscience.psu.adu/research... OJ Pre ridmi Cornell Turfgrass Show 2021:Ep.17(Sports):Andy McNiff,High school priorities,synthetic turf SCornell SIPS 64 g D Share !•a�K rsstnrs: 357 views May IQ,2021 Andy McrdltL Penn State:PriorlUes for high schoolS,synthetic lurf consideraRms. More infarmaton hlipslfturf.aals.onrnetl.edul https://www.youtu be.com/watch?v=ug4sZZzwkjo Exhibit 4: Penn State's "Center for Sports Surface Research" partnership with FieldTurf, a synthetic turf manufacturer httpa.//plantscience.psu.edu/research/centers/ssrc/about PennState Department Graduate - The new Center for Sports Surface Research wiLL be an intercollege program managed within the College of Agricultural Sciences'Department of Plant Science. FieldTurf, Fenn State partner in new center for sports surfaces University Park Pa.--Penn State's College of Agricu Ltural Sciences and FieldTurf,which bills itseLf as the world-leader in sports surfacing,have partnered to develop the word's first facility dedicated to sports surface research,with a five-year commitmentthat will center around research on synthetic turf,running tracks and indoor sports surfaces.This research collaboration is expected to further accelerate safety within the synthetic sports surfacing industry. The new Center for Sports Surface Research witl be an intercollege program managed within the College of Agricultural Sciences'Department of Plant Science.The center will - be headed by Andrew McNiff,associate professor of soil science,who is regarded as a Pioneer in sports-surface research,particularly as it relates to natural and synthetic turf. His research focuses on athletic field surface characterization and goLf-green _ construction and maintenance- McNitt has been honored nationally by the GoLf Course Superintendents Association of America.,the Musser International Turfgrass Foundation,the Crop Science Society of America,the American Society of Agronomy and the Sports Turf Managers Association. He also serves as the technical advisor to the NFL Groundskeepers Association and is active with the Sports Turf Managers Association. A significant number of professional sports and collegiate sports groundskeepers are products of Penn State's prestigious trfgrass science program,which is considered one of the nation's finest. "Our partnership with Penn State brings the globaL synthetic turf leader together with the global research leader in aLL types of turf,"said Joe Fields,chief executive officer of FieldTurf-"The originaL inspiration for FieLdTurf was to provide a surface that would enabLe athletes to attain maximum performance white minimizing injuries,and we believe that this partnership wiLl help ensure that we continue to Lead our industry in deveLoping surfaces that deLiver unequaled performance and safety to the athletes that we serve-" "Penn State is excited aboutthe formalization of our research relationship with FieldTurf,"said Bruce McPheron,dean of the College of Agricultural.Sciences."Together.I beLieve we can improve the safety of all those participating in recreational activities,from the occasionaL softball player and school-aged children in physical education cLasses to collegiate and professional athletes.FieldTurPs commitment to quality research is commendable and the coLlege is looking forward to a productive future." Exhibit 5: Peer-reviewed studies (2021 and 2023) authored by Frank Rossi, which disclose his ties to Petro-Canada and potential conflicts of interest related to synthetic turf advocacy Bekken, Michael A. H., Douglas J. Soldat, Paul L. Koch, Carl S. Schimenti, Frank S. Rossi, Trygve S. Aamlid, Karin J. Hesselsoe, Torben K. Petersen, and Chase M. Straw, et al. "Analyzing Golf Course Pesticide Risk Across the US and Europe—The Importance of Regulatory Environment." Science of the Total Environment 874 (May 20, 2023): 162498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitoteny.2023.162498 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S 0048969723011142 Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Frank Rossi reports a relationship with Petro- Canada that includes: consulting or advisory. Acknowledgements Special thank you to Katherine Hochella, Dimi Schweitzer, Morgan Kitzerow, and Rachel Guagliardo for tremendous effort in the data entry of golf course pesticide application records and for helping in the construction of a turfgrass pesticide database. The authors would also like Bekken, Michael A. H., Carl S. Schimenti, Douglas J. Soldat, and Frank S. Rossi. "A Novel Framework for Estimating and Analyzing Pesticide Risk on Golf Courses." Science of the Total Environment 783 (August 20, 2021): 146840. https:Hdoi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146840 https://www.scienced irect.conVscience/article/pi i/SO048969721019100 TEBPM MdS.P11 ••• x 69%f sciencedirect.cam Original Draft. Douglas Soldat: Conceptualization, Methodology,Resources, Writing- Review& Editing,Supervision, Project administration. Frank Rossi: Conceptualization, Methodology,Resources,Writing- Review& Editing,Supervision, Project administration.... Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Michael Bekken,Carl Schimenti,and Douglas Soldat have no conflicts of interests to declare.Frank Rossi is employed part-time by Petro Canada who own Intelligro,the maker of Civitas Turf DefenseTM,which is discussed in this article.This relationship had no influence on this manuscript.... Acknowledgements 0 Addendum: Frank Rossi's research and educational involvement with CIVITAS Turf Defense and its developer, Petro-Canada, raise important questions about the product's actual sustainability and environmental impact. While CIVITAS is marketed as a "green" alternative to conventional pesticides, it relies on a petrochemical base and a micronutrient package that may provide short-term visual benefits like a "green up," but evidence suggests these components can have detrimental long-term effects on plant health. CIVITAS has been on the market for over a decade, yet it has faced criticism for its limited adoption and long-term effectiveness,with reports from turfgrass professionals indicating it has failed to deliver sustainable results in many cases. Rossi's educational outreach on turfgrass management appears to align with his broader advocacy for Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which focuses on reducing chemical inputs rather than eliminating them. In a study co-authored by Rossi,which developed a framework for quantifying pesticide risk on golf courses, petroleum- derived spray oils like CIVITAS were mentioned as an area where risk models remain unparameterized, highlighting the complexity of assessing their environmental impact. While the study did not explicitly recommend CIVITAS or similar products, it emphasized selecting lower-risk products as a strategy for reducing pesticide use. These issues, coupled with the marketing emphasis on sustainability that contradicts the petrochemical origins of CIVITAS, highlight the need for greater scrutiny of Rossi's role in this context and the broader claims made about the product's environmental benefits. 0 Yayoi c 1 N Koizumi cn' Zero Waste Ithaca I BYO-US Reduces Founder) IiNGCG Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOR-Nonprofit Incubator,a program of NOR INC,a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3)organization, EIN 81-5089505. Donations are tax-deductible where allowed by law. Learn more at https://thenopi_org. From: Daniel Swanson Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 2:14 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: Public Comment: Concerns Regarding Proposed Synthetic Turf Field on Game Farm Road • • 11111 1 11• • - • T-TIMMIUMMUM Dear Town of Ithaca Board Members, I implore you to deliver an Environmental Impact Assessment to Cornell in relation to their Meinig Fieldhouse Project as well as the other synthetic turf field they're planning on constructing around campus. Cornell hosts about its sustainability commitments on campus, but its utilization of synthetic turf essentially allows them to push their environmental cost/impact onto our community and the world at large. They will be contributing to the MILLIONS OF POUNDS of air pollution that are released from large scale plastic and synthetic rubber manufacturing plants. MILLIONS OF POUNDS of air pollution annually from this specific class of manufacturing plants alone. Synthetic turf is made with synthetic petrochemicals including but not limited to petroleum, natural gas, and other fossil fuels. These petrochemicals contain carcinogens, aka substances that cause CANCER in humans and animals. These carcinogens don'tjust become dormant or disappear after final production. They are essential and inherent to the final product. Cornell outlines in their sustainability commitment to having a carbon neutral campus by 2035, using solar panels, making buildings LEED certified, all to be leveraged for the "public good." While this all sounds great, it is purposely ignorant of the impact that outsourcing materials from other parts of the world has. While Cornell creates and maintains their own beautiful and expansive campus, and theoretically works towards becoming carbon neutral, there is seemingly no thought put into the global supply chain that they're apart of and utilize to build new facilities. I personally believe Cornell, is well aware of this, and chooses to just not talk about it or acknowledge it, therefore willfully suppressing the poor environmental impact they have on the world, in part by utilizing synthetic turf, which as I outlined before, is produced by manufacturing plants that release millions of pounds of pollution into our air on an annual basis. That's not even considering the carcinogens and forever chemicals found in the synthetic turf itself, which WILL POISON our local environment in the form of micro and nano plastic particles running off into our soil and water. So, does Cornell care about keeping their campus clean and environmentally sustainable? I think so because it's clearly in their financial interest in terms of attracting staff and students. But, does Cornell care about their contribution to keeping the world clean and environmentally sustainable? EVIDENTLY NOT. Just like just about every other corporation and private organization in our country, there is a poisonous, and frankly disgusting attitude that outsourcing pollution is acceptable and shouldn't be questioned. The proposed synthetic turf field on Game Farm Rd is just a small example of Cornell's hypocrisy, willful ignorance, lack of care, and lack of sense of urgency in supporting environmental sustainability in our increasingly polluted world. Thanks You, Daniel Swanson Daniel Swanson Coaching Coordinator NEPA& Binghamton (c)607.684.5532 (p)203.217.8140 soccershots.com/binghamton This Soccer Shots franchise is independently owned and operated. ceer Shots- From: Brian B. Eden Sent: Monday,January 6, 2025 11:48 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: Comment on Game Farm Road Synthetic Turf Project Attachments: Evolving Awareness of Environmenral and Public Health Threats of Toxic Chemical Contamination.docx; Letter from Director of Campus Planning.docx Please share my comments with Planning Board members. Thank you. Brian Brian Eden Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting January 7, 2025 Re: Cornell's Game Farm Road Synthetic Turf Project Evolving Awareness of the Environmental and Public Health Threats of Toxic Chemical Contamination At the risk of submitting my comments too late to serve as a positive influence on the environmental review of Cornell's Game Farm Road Synthetic Turf Project, I offer the following to urge a comprehensive review of the proposal. In the 1940s, Hooker Chemical in Niagara Falls buried 50,000 55-gallon drums of chemical byproducts from the manufacturing of dyes, perfumes, and solvents for rubber and synthetic resins in a dry canal bed and covered it with soil. A few years later, an elementary school was built on a part of the mound. What could go wrong? I worked with the Love Canal Homeowners and helped form a statewide organization to support communities in the cleanup of legacy contamination sites. We lobbied for the ultimate adoption of the NYS Superfund program. Locally, in 1987, it was discovered that Trichloroethylene (TCE) had leaked into soil and groundwater from an underground fire water reservoir at the Morse Emerson Plant on S. Aurora St. TCE is a nonflammable, volatile liquid that was commonly used for decades as an industrial metal degreasing solvent, Exposure to TCE is associated with several types of cancers in humans, especially cancer of the kidney, liver, cervix, and lymphatic system, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Recent research highlighted by the American Parkinson's Disease Association indicates there may also be a link between TCE exposure and Parkinson's disease, a neurologic movement disorder that affects the brain and causes difficulty with movements or motor symptoms. The authors of the report stated that further research is needed to evaluate a possible connection between TCE exposure and Parkinson's. The TCE contaminants had migrated down gradient into many basements along S. Cayuga St. TCE vapor intrusion has been found in many basements in this area. Was it surprising to learn that those chemicals disposed of in a hole behind the factory did not just disappear? Beginning in the 1950s, Cornell buried biological and chemical lab waste and low- level radiation research materials in trenches at two sites north of the Tompkins County airport. Disposal operations continued at these sites until 1978. Cornell's cleanup of the sites is being conducted in phases, following the steps of the site remediation process of the NYSDEC. The area in proximity to the former Ithaca Gun site has undergone multiple cleanups over the past 25 years. Lead shot was dumped from the Ithaca Gun Company property into the gorge and lead shot and lead contaminated soils have migrated onto the Ithaca Falls parcel via erosion from the gun factory. The site is currently being developed for housing. The Ithaca Falls parcel, which is owned by the City of Ithaca, is popular with local resident and visitors due to the scenic nature of the Fall Creek gorge area. Why do I review this history here? When I provided scientific information on the threat of plastics and PFAS contamination from the proposed installation of the artificial turf field at Ithaca College, it generated so little interest that the Town Planning Board was unwilling to consider that information in their environmental review. As we acquire more knowledge about the threat of toxic chemicals, wouldn't it be reasonable for a Planning Board member to wish to learn more about the dangers of PFAS? How many decades of our experience with incidents of toxic contamination before one would seethe wisdom of applying the precautionary principle. Much like our cavalier attitude in the handling of the toxic and hazardous materials in an earlier industrial era, we must now address the plastic pollution legacy. There are 13,000 known chemicals associated with plastics and their production, at least 3,200 have one or more hazardous properties of concern. Ten groups of these chemicals are of major concern, such as PFAS and phthalates. Of particular toxicity are a wide range of chemicals in plastics with endocrine- disrupting properties, which short-circuit the hormone system even in very low doses, leading to obesity, cancer, and other diseases. Our civilization's addiction to plastic has had a devastating impact on human health. I will not reprise my technical arguments that I have previously offered here. They are incorporated in the 19-page paper that I co-authored for submission to the City on the Meinig portion of this project which has been submitted by my co- author in this proceeding. There has been a problem in engaging planning staff on our scientific concerns. PFAS has only relatively recently received widespread public attention as a contaminant of concern. For example, the Cornell Office of Sustainability's mission is to protect a diverse, resilient, and beneficial set of natural systems for the enjoyment of people and maintenance of key ecosystem services and promote energy conservation. Why has that Office not provided advice to the Athletic Department on the best practice for aligning the artificial turf project with campus goals? Despite our requests to meet with the Athletic Director on the Meinig project to discuss matters of mutual concern which were advanced to Cornell staff in the current campus environment that encourages freedom of expression, she was unwilling to do so (See attachment). I'm a member of the County's Climate and Sustainable Energy Advisory Board. In 2022 several of us discussed our frustrations regarding the perceived lack of rigor in municipal planning boards reviews of projects involving more complex climate and environmental issues. We formed a subcommittee to review the adequacy of such reviews and to make recommendations for possible improvements. Among those participating was Ed Marx, the former Director of County Planning, as well as several former members of planning boards. Our goal was to develop some proposed Town Environmental Quality Review (TEAR) regulations and a best practice guidance document. There are many challenges to municipal planning boards achieving better substantive outcomes. I offer the below points as constructive recommendations for the Town Board and Planning Board to consider. • A Planning Board optimally requires diverse expertise (Achieving this goal is challenging as member recruitment is difficult; often boards are over represented with architects and planners). • Early access for residents to a project's planning process; provides the opportunity to influence plans before developers have invested significant money in them and who thereafter become defensive and highly resistant to any changes. • Address the resistance of planning staff members/Board members to spend added time and money on an EIS; an EIS would provide access to independent, qualified third-party information and analysis and avoid the reliance on the applicant's contractor as the sole source of technical information. How many EIS's have been required by the Planning Board in the past decade? • Often planning staff and the applicant have met several times before the project appears on a Planning Board agenda, resolved any differences, and the staff may have already prepared the relevant SEAR documents before residents are aware of the project. • The staff and Board may lack expertise with the potential climate impacts of fossil fuel use and energy inefficient building design and performance. • Unless residents follow closely online the Planning Boards agendas, residents may enter the process at a later date when the public hearing is noticed and by then are regarded as unwelcome intervenors that interrupt the smooth processing of project applications. • Many residents believe that their opportunity for public comment is at the public hearing. Unbeknownst to them, the SEAR determination of environmental significance has already been decided which completes the application process and must be accomplished prior to the public hearing and the receipt of public comments. • The fear of the unbudgeted costs for litigation with well-funded applicants. Town attorneys effectively protect their clients by ensuring that environmental review procedures are strictly adhered to. In an Article 78 Proceeding to challenge a Planning Board's determination, only procedural matters are litigated. Were the Planning Boards findings arbitrary and capricious? On the substantive issues, the Presiding Judge will defer to the expertise of the administrative body, the Planning Board. The subcommittee concluded, based upon its past interaction with elected municipal leadership, that such suggestions would not be well received. Our subcommittee decided not to pursue promoting a TEAR process. The Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation held a hearing on Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Contamination on November 21, 2024 to hear testimony, by invitation only, to examine PFAS contamination. PFAS compounds, which have been found to have harmful human health impacts, are commonly referred to as "forever chemicals" because of their resistance to degradation and their persistence in the environment. The purpose of the hearing was to examine PFAS contamination in ground, surface, and storm water, with a focus on the role of wastewater treatment plants in removing such contaminants. The general consensus from all participants, Legislators, DEC staff, and the staffs of participating environmental organizations was that the only option for preventing widespread contamination of the landscape was to control PFAS at its source. Once the green fields in this project receive artificial turf installations, they will never be returned to their natural status. There are many local resources available to assist members in better understanding the nature of the PFAS problem. Damian Helbling at Cornell has studied PFAS for more than ten years. See his website https://helbling.research.engineering.cornell.edu/ to view some relevant videos. Since the pandemic, anti-science beliefs have been expanding. From vaccination refusal to climate change denial, anti-science views are threatening humanity. Specifically, anti-science attitudes are more likely to emerge when a scientific message comes from sources perceived as lacking credibility, as in here, members of the public unknown to Board members. Dismissal of scientific evidence is not a new phenomenon. However, there are multiple accessible sources of relevant information aside from those of us providing testimony here from which to source support for a Board member to better understand this issue. I'm urging the Board members to exercise their critical thinking skills in support of a comprehensive environmental review of this project. Thank you. Dear bethany, Brian, Murray, Carver and Bruce, We appreciate your continuing interest in the Meinig Fieldhouse and outdoor field project. The municipal project review and approval process is set by state and local law, and requires a sequence and cadence of submittals, presentations, and responses.This makes a second line of dialogue about this ongoing project impractical. As shown by the significant submissions to the municipal planning boards, the project team has spent a substantial amount of time and effort to identify the best playing surfaces for the athletes and the environment that meets the project's programmatic needs. We will continue to work to ensure that the products installed comply with the plans we have presented to the planning boards and are protective of our student athletes and the community. Sincerely, Leslie Schill Leslie Schill Director of Campus Planning/ University Planner Office of the University Architect/ Facilities and Campus Services Cornell University leslie.schill@cornell.edu 607.255.5239 From: Constance Stirling-Engman Sent: Monday,January 6, 2025 1:34 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: Insights regarding installation of SynTurf on Game Farm Rd.for Jan. 7, 2025 meeting • • 11111 1 11•11 111 • - • T-TIMMIUMMUM Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I am writing to share insights regarding the proposed installation of synthetic turf on Game Farm Road, urging the board to carefully consider the resilience of natural grass and the environmental and cultural implications of prioritizing aesthetics over functionality. Grass species commonly used in sports fields are highly resilient. Research demonstrates that turfgrass can recover from stressors such as drought, wear, and even minor pest damage without chemical intervention. When left untreated, most grass fields regenerate with rain or moderate maintenance. This resilience has supported sports and recreational use for centuries, long before the advent of synthetic alternatives. The perception that a sports field must exhibit uniform, pristine green turf to be functional is not supported by evidence. Clover, dandelions, and other broadleaf plants, often labeled as weeds, do not impede playability when mowed to appropriate heights. These species contribute to soil health and biodiversity while reducing dependency on synthetic inputs. Historical sports and recreational activities thrived on natural fields with diverse vegetation, proving that perfectionism in turf management is more about aesthetics than necessity. Moreover, synthetic turf, while marketed as a low-maintenance solution, poses significant long-term environmental and health risks. It contributes to microplastic pollution, retains excessive heat, and cannot self-repair like natural grass. The ecological and financial costs of synthetic turf are incompatible with sustainable development goals, particularly when viable, cost-effective natural alternatives are available. Shifting from a chemical- and appearance-focused approach to a more ecological mindset benefits not only the environment but also the community. Encouraging the use of resilient, well-maintained natural grass fields aligns with sustainable values and promotes a healthier, more inclusive athletic culture. I urge the board to reconsider the reliance on synthetic turf and instead champion the benefits of resilient, ecologically managed natural grass fields. Such a decision would demonstrate leadership in sustainability and a commitment to the long-term well-being of our community. Synthetic turf begets synthetic turf. There are currently an estimated 19,000 artificial fields in the United States, with as many as 1,500 new fields installed each year, about half of which are replacing older turf, according to a 2024 report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A recent NBC report highlighted a California high school district's decision to reject converting their artificial turf field back to natural grass, citing concerns over two years of field displacement during reinstallation. This underscores the significant challenges—or convenient excuses—that make reversing synthetic turf installations difficult once they are in place. Such a scenario must not be allowed to happen here. The Game Farm Road location currently features natural grass fields that are both functional and visually appealing. Replacing them with synthetic turf would not only destroy these fields but could also allow Cornell University to justify avoiding any return to natural grass in the future. Preserving these natural grassfields is essential—not only to maintain their environmental and aesthetic value but also to uphold Cornell's stated sustainability goals of reducing fossil fuel reliance. Synthetic turf is the largest point source of plastic in outdoor environments and a major contributor to microplastic pollution. Halting the construction of additional toxic plastic turf fields, not limited to but especially outdoors, is imperative. As a hiker and scuba diver, I see enormous amounts of plastic waste and trash on land and especially underwater. During a recent dive trip, my husband and I picked up eight trash bags of plastic waste on the beach, because the place where we were staying was promoting trash pickup as part of an initiative called an Aware Dive. I also do this at Skaneateles Lake, which provides drinking water for the City of Syracuse. Thank you for your attention and thoughtful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Constance Stirling-Engman References: U.S. EPA and CDC/ATSDR. Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan Final Report. Part 2— Exposure Characterization (Volumes 1 and 2). (EPA/600/R-24/020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/ssystem/files/documents/2024-04/tcrs-exposure-characterization- volume-1.pdf. Huang, Bingru. "Recent Advances in Drought and Heat Stress Physiology of Turfgrass: A Review." In Acta Horticulturae 661. II International Conference on Turfgrass Science and Management for Sports Fields, 185-192. International Society for Horticultural Science, 2004. http5.//doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.661.23. Huang, Bingru. "Mechanisms and Strategies for Improving Drought Resistance in Turfgrass."Acta Horticu/turae 783: II International Conference on Turfgrass Science and Management for Sports Fields, 2008. httpa//doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.783.22. NBC Bay Area. Disposal of School's Artificial Turf Field Highlights Growing Environmental Concerns. Published December 31, 2024. https://youtu.be/cPYLL5Pabk0?si=AEGeM f9RJMgDtfy. Sun, Tianxiao, Weiliang Wang, and Zhulong Chan. "How Do Cool-Season Turfgrasses Respond to High Temperature: Progress and Challenges." Grass Research 4, no. 1 (2024): Article e010. Published online April 10, 2024. http5.//doi.org/10.48130 grares- 004-eOlo. Zero Waste Ithaca Artificial Turf Bibliography, accessed December 31, 2024. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gSgRdKSPBKYdPn 8kMifFHyGr2sZxvlmdRpuWe ZI U/ed it?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gSgRdKSPBKYdPn 8kMifFHyGr2sZxvlmd RpuWe ZIU/edit?usp=gmail Preview YouTube video Disposal of school's artificial turf field highlights growing environmental concems B I. t t f d . � a Disposal of school's artificial turf field highlights growing environmental concems From: Yayoi Koizumi Sent: Tuesday,January 7, 2025 2:05 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Cc: pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Subject: Microplastics,Synthetic Turf,and HABs-An Urgent Threat to Cayuga La ke R-TIMMAIMMY01 Dear Town Planning Board Members, I am submitting an op-ed I wrote for the Ithaca Times, published on October 18, 2024. The piece highlights the connection between harmful algal blooms (HABs) and microplastics, offering yet another example of how synthetic turf impacts both our health and the environment. For the record, I have also included the references used in writing the op-ed at the end of this submission. Microplastics, Synthetic Turf, and HABs- An Urgent Threat to Cayuga Lake Microplastics are not only a growing environmental threat but also a direct contributor to harmful algal blooms (HABs) in freshwater systems like Cayuga Lake. Research shows that microplastics serve as platforms for harmful organisms, enabling their proliferation in already stressed ecosystems. New studies indicate that both cyanobacteria and harmful algae, such as Pseudo- nitzschia thrive in the plastisphere—the ecosystem of microorganisms that colonizes plastic debris in the environment—creating significant risks for water quality. In Cayuga Lake, cyanobacteria are responsible for HABs that release dangerous toxins like microcystins, and the presence of microplastics could be making these blooms even worse. When I moved to this area in 2001 , 1 was struck by the fact that I couldn't swim in the lake with my young son due to harmful blooms. Yet, I have seen various organizations and entities continue to call Cayuga Lake "pristine." It's time we wake up. Locally, Professor Susan Allen at Ithaca College has been studying the toxicology of microplastics and PFAS in Cayuga Lake with some alarming results. Recently, Professor Karan Kartik Mehta at Cornell University raised similar concernsabout PFAS found in herbicides used to control hydrilla, an invasive plant. While hydrilla itself has notso far been shown to directly exacerbate HABs in New York, herbicide treatments and the decay of plant matter may contribute tonutrient release and oxygen depletion, creating conditions thatcould worsen HABs. The deluge of plastics entering our lake is alarming—some from local littering, but also from our own Ivy League university's artificial turf projects. A recent study in Toronto identified artificial turf as the largest contributor to microplastic pollution in the city, emitting 237 tonnes in 2020—surpassing other sources, including laundry fibers and car tire emissions. (For perspective, the annual tonnage of single-use foodware accessories, such as utensils, sent to the landfill from our county is about 300 tons, at conservative estimates, based on a calculation by Chart Reuse for our Skip the Stuff initiative.) Despite multiple public comments and scientific evidence presented to the City of Ithaca Planning Board—supported by national experts—the board approved Cornell's synthetic turf project on September 3. This decision, made by a four- person committee barely making a quorum, and lacking chemistry background, raises serious concerns. We wonder if the brand-new board member who joined at the September 3rd meeting fully reviewed the nine months of public comments— especially our 70-page bibliography_ (Note: Now 100 pages with new updates as of January 7, 2025) and a webinar with six independent experts that our grassroots organization, Zero Waste Ithaca, organized in April. The board's chair, Mitch Glass, left right after passing the flawed negative declaration for the environmental impact assessment. The 9/3 meeting took place after two canceled meetings in July and August due to a lack of quorum. We were even misinformed in an email communication about the date of the subsequent 9/26 planning board meeting by a city planning board staff member. This decision-making process is deeply concerning and does not reflect the level of care our community deserves. I am also concerned about the role that student-athletes played in the 9/3 Planning Board meeting. Carver Hauptman, the Vice President of Cornell Environmental Collaborative, and a Zero Waste Ithaca member, recently wrote a Letter to the Editor to Cornell Daily Suncriticizing the lack of adequate information on health and environmental impacts provided to students-athletes. These athletes were strongly encouraged to attend, yet many of them were not informed about the environmental and health impacts of synthetic turf. This was reported by the Ithaca Voice and was also confirmed in a conversation I had with a student athlete who wishes to remain anonymous, who stated that no information about the health risks was provided to them. This lack of transparency is troubling, particularly when students are being asked to participate in these meetings without being given the full context. Cayuga Lake is not just a pretty natural resource; it is our water supply. Microplastics, cyanobacteria, and associated toxins jeopardize our drinking water, harm wildlife, and threaten the local economy by damaging tourism. The impact of Cornell's artificial turf projects—several more are planned, which could make the total number of synthetic turf fields on Cornell's upstream campus around 11 —will only worsen these problems, adding to the plastic pollution that fuels these harmful blooms. Cornell's proposed mitigations—using plant-based infills, mechanical filtration with a pore size as large as 212 microns, and third-party testing for PFAS, without specifying the testing method, threshold, independent review, and absurdly_proposing to conduct the testing during construction—fail to address other toxins present in artificial turf and are far from sufficient. We have repeatedly argued this in our public comments and multiple calls for the recall of the negative declaration decision. Yet, the new chair of the board, Emily Petrina, bypasses these concerns and considers the projects insignificant in terms of environmental impact. I would like to draw attention to a significant development in California, where the state has recently filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against ExxonMobil for allegedly deceiving the public about the plastic pollution crisis. The lawsuit,joined by a separate lawsuit by Sierra Club and three other NGOs, highlights how fossil fuel producers have been misleading the public regarding the environmental impacts of plastics. This underscores the importance of addressing plastic-related issues— such as those posed by synthetic turf—honestly and transparently, rather than downplaying or ignoring the risks. In a related context, it is important to note that Cornell University, along with several other elite institutions, receives millions in donations from the fossil fuel industry, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest in its decision- making.As documented in Dharna Noor's recent article in The Guardian .(September 19, 2024), the student-led analysis of six universities, including Fossil Fuel Cornell, highlights how these donations could influence university policies and projects. This is especially relevant given that synthetic turf is a product of the petrochemical industry. While corporate sponsorship for Cornell athletics is not publicly disclosed, the university's connection to the fossil fuel industry is well- documented and relevant to the ongoing debate about synthetic turf and plastic pollution. References: Casabianca, Silvia, Samuela Cappellacci, Maria Grazia Giacobbe, Carmela Dell'Aversano, Luciana Tartaglione, Fabio Varriale, Riccardo Narizzano, Fulvia Risso, Paolo Moretto, Alessandro Dagnino, Rosella Bertolotto, Enrico Barbone, Nicola Ungaro, and Antonella Penna. "Plastic-Associated Harmful Microalgal Assemblages in Marine Environment." Environmental Pollution, vol. 244, January 2019, pp. 617-626. https://doi.org/l0.1016/j.envpol.2018.09.110. Dougherty, Matt. "Cornell Faces Public Backlash Over Plans to Install Artificial Turf." Ithaca Times, June 27, 2024, updated July 4, 2024. https://www.ithaca.com/news/ithaca/cornell-faces-public-backlash-over-plans-to- install-artificial-turf/article 26d884c2-34ad-lief-9416-eb947ec65524.html. Dougherty, Matt. "Appellate Court Allows Challenge Against Permit Allowing Discharge of PFAS into Cayuga Lake." Ithaca Times, July 24, 2024. https://www.ithaca.com/news/tompkins county/appellate-court-allows-challenge- against-permit-allowing-discharge-of-pfas-into-cayuga-lake/article 02c5279c- 4al6-11 ef-b038-1710846el6f9.amp.html. Figueroa, Fernando. "City Planning Board Greenlights Cornell Synthetic Turf Field Over Concerns of Environmentalists." Ithaca Voice, September 7, 2024. https://ithacavoice.org/2024/09/city_planni ng-board-g reenlights-cornelI-synthetic- tu rf-field-over-concerns-of-environmentalists/. Fossil Free Cornell. Dissociate Cornell.A Review of Cornell's Fossil Fuel Ties. Developed and researched by Fossil Free Cornell, September 18, 2024. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1 iPBmvy6v3 5tmiPy1 iXJhTNdyBXAOzLF/view. Hauptman, Carver. "Letter to the Editor: We Deserve Full Disclosure on Synthetic Turf Health Risks." Cornell Daily Sun. October 1, 2024. https://cornellsun.com/2024/10/01/letter-to-the-editor-we-deserve-full-disclosure- on-synthetic-turf-health-risks/ Heisler, J., P.M. Gilbert, J.M. Burkholder, D.M. Anderson, W. Cochlan, W.C. Dennison, Q. Dortch, C.J. Gobler, C.A. Heil, E. Humphries, A. Lewitus, R. Magnien, H.G. Marshall, K. Sellner, D.A. Stockwell, D.K. Stoecker, and M. Suddleson. "Eutrophication and Harmful Algal Blooms: A Scientific Consensus." Harmful Algae, vol. 8, no. 1, December 2008, pp. 3-13. https-//doi.org/l 0.1016/j.hal.2008.08.006. Koizumi, Yayoi. "Microplastics, Synthetic Turf, and HABs: An Urgent Threat to Cayuga Lake." Ithaca Times, October 18, 2024, updated October 27, 2024. https://www.ithaca.com/opinion/guest opinions/guest-opinion-microplastics- synthetic-turf-and-habs--an-urgent-threat-to-cayuga-lake/article dfel a088-8bed- 11 ef-a3d7-9bc39ac7ee65.html. Li, Changchao, Jian Liu, Matthias C. Rillig, Michael S. Bank, Peter Fantke, Dong Zhu, Yong-Guan Zhu, and Ling N. Jin. "What Harmful Microbes Are Lurking in the World's 7 Billion Tonnes of Plastic Waste?" Nature, October 1, 2024. https://www.nature.com/articles/d4l586-024-03150-6. Mehta, Karan. "Intentional PFAS Herbicide Injection into Cayuga Lake." Ithaca Times, September 5, 2024. https://www.ithaca.com/opinion/guest opinions/guest- opinion-intentional-pfas-herbicide-injection-into-cayuga-lake/article Oea2cef87 6a68-1 l of-93dl-cfb995aab518.html. Milius, Susan. "A Toxin Behind Mysterious Eagle Die-Offs May Have Finally Been Found: A 20-Year Search of Water Weeds and Cyanobacteria Has Turned Up a Bird-Killing Toxin." ScienceNews, March 26, 2021. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bald-eagle-mysterious-die-offs-chemical-toxin- found. Noor, Dharna. "Elite US Universities Rake in Millions from Big Oil Donations, Research Finds: Student-Led Analyses Raise Concerns of Conflict of Interest at Six Universities, Including Princeton, Columbia, and Cornell." The Guardian, September 19, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/l9/oil- donations-universities. The People of the State of California, ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al. "Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, and Civil Penalties." Filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. 2024. https://climateintegrity.org/uploads/media/bonta- plastics-recycling-lawsuit-against-exxonmobil.pdf Sierra Club, Inc., Surfrider Foundation, Inc., Heal the Bay, Inc., and Baykeeper, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corporation, a New Jersey Corporation, and Does 1-10. "Complaint for Nuisance and Violation of California Unfair Competition Law." Filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. Case No. CGC-24-618321. September 23, 2024. httpa//www.cpmlegal.com/media/news/15193 2024-09-23%2000MPLAINT.pdf Visser, Petra M., Jolanda M.H. Verspagen, Giovanni Sandrini, Lucas J. Stal, Hans C.P. Matthijs, Timothy W. Davis, Hans W. Paerl, and Jef Huisman. "How Rising CO2 and Global Warming May Stimulate Harmful Cyanobacterial Blooms." Harmful Algae, vol. 54, April 2016, pp. 145-159. https-//doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2015.12.006. Zero Waste Ithaca. Artificial Turf Bibliography, updated January 7, 2025. A detailed resource with over 100 pages of references on artificial turf and its environmental impacts. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gSgRdKSPBKYdPn 8kMifFHyGr2sZxvlmd RpuWe ZIU/edit?usp=sharing Zero Waste Ithaca. "The True Costs of Artificial Turf: Experts Discuss Cornell University's New "PFAS-Free" Project" Webinar held on April 30, 2024. https://youtu.be/igk8Ss-8Bjk?si=fm4uSfUgol L4V56G Zhai, Xinyi, Xiao-Hua Zhang, and Min Yu. "Microbial Colonization and Degradation of Marine Microplastics in the Plastisphere: A Review." Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 14, 16 February 2023. https://doi.org/l0.3389/fmicb.2023.1127308. Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. "A City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution." Environmental Science & Technology. February 1, 2024. httpa//doi.org/l0.1021/acs.est.3c04348 o Yayoi c ,N Koizumi �cn Zero ®a Waste Ithaca I BYO - US Reduces Founder ) I7NACY Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOR - Nonprofit Incubator, a program of NOR INC, a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3)organization, EIN 81-5089505. Donations are tax-deductible where allowed by law. Learn more at https://thenopi_org. From: Brynn Schmitt Sent: Tuesday,January 7, 2025 12:53 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Cc: pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Subject: Please oppose Cornell's proposed synthetic turf expansion Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board members, I have recently learned of the grave risks posed by microplastics and plastic-associated chemicals to both environmental and human health. A December 2024 study by Soltanighias et al. revealed that the combined toxicity of PFAS and microplastics is far greater than their individual effects. This new study showed that combined exposure causes severe developmental failures,delayed sexual maturity, and reduced growth in Daphnia magna,a keystone species in freshwater ecosystems. The health implications of microplastics alone are equally alarming. A March 2024 study_ by Kozlove, featured in Nature, established a clear link between microplastic exposure and increased risks of heart attack, stroke, and death.Furthermore, a December 18, 2024 study_ by Chartres et al. analyzed data from 31 studies and linked microplastic exposure to adverse impacts on sperm quality, immune function,pulmonary health, and potential connections to colon and lung cancer. Just days later, on December 24,2024, Cropper et al. published findings estimating that in 2015, exposure to plastic-associated chemicals like BPA,phthalates, and flame retardants caused millions of cases of heart disease and stroke, thousands of deaths, and significant IQ loss,resulting in global health costs of$1.5 trillion. These studies underscore the mounting evidence of the harm caused by plastic and microplastic pollution,which continues to grow with new research emerging almost weekly. Synthetic turf is a well-documented source of microplastic pollution. The Barcelona study_ .(De Haan et al., 2023)found that up to 15% of larger microplastic fragments in the environment come from artificial turf. The Toronto study_(Zhu et al., 2024)identified synthetic turf as the largest contributor of microplastic pollution in the city, emitting approximately seven tons annually. The European Chemicals Agency_(ECHA,2020)also highlighted synthetic turf infill as the largest contributor to microplastic pollution in Europe. A 2023 study by Meegoda and Hettiarachchi emphasized the growing problem of microplastic and nanoplastic pollution, identifying artificial turf as a contributing source. Published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, the study highlighted the significant challenges of removing microplastics from the environment and underscored that source reduction is one of the most effective strategies to protect both human health and ecosystems. Despite this overwhelming evidence, and a lawsuit, Cornell University is pushing forward with plans to expand its synthetic turf infrastructure to a total of 11 or 12. This expansion will seal off living, ecologically vital ground—essential for wildlife, soil health, and carbon sequestration—under plastic. This fossil fuel-derived material exacerbates environmental and health harms throughout its lifecycle. Proposed mitigation measures, such as mechanical filtration systems,are superficial solutions that fail to address the full extent of the pollution and harm synthetic turf creates. Given the significant risks synthetic turf poses to ecosystems and human health,I urge the Planning Board to oppose Cornell's proposed expansion and advocate for sustainable alternatives that align with public health and environmental responsibility. Sincerely, Brynn Schmitt 134 Hornbrook Road Ithaca,NY 14850 References: Chartres,Nicholas, Courtney B. Cooper, Garret Bland, Katherine E. Pelch, Sheiphali A. Gandhi,Abena BakenRa, and Tracey J. Woodruff. "Effects of Microplastic Exposure on Human Digestive,Reproductive, and Respiratory Health: A Rapid Systematic Review." Environmental Science& Technology,December 18,2024. ho_s:Hdoi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3cO9524. Cropper,Maureen, Sarah Dunlop,Hudson Hinshaw, Philip Landrigan,Yongjoon Park, and Christos Symeonides. "The Benefits of Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 121,no. 52 (December 24,2024): e2412714121. httpa.//doi. De Haan,William P., Rocio Quintana,Cesar Vilas,Andres C6zar,Miquel Canals, Oriol Uviedo, and Anna Sanchez-Vidal. "The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments."Environmental Pollution 334(2023): 122094.https.//doi.org/I0.10 1 6/j.envpol.2023.122094. European Chemicals Agency. Opinion on an Annex XV Dossier Proposing Restrictions on Intentionally Added Microplastics. Helsinki,Finland: ECHA, 2020. https:Hecha.europa.eu/documents/I0162/23665416/restmicroplasticsopinionrac 16339en.pd f. Kozlove,Max. "Microplastics Linked to Heart Attack, Stroke and Death."Scientific American(Reprinted from Nature magazine).March 9,2024. https://www.scientificamencan.com/article/microplastics-linked-to-heart-attack-stroke- and-death/ Meegoda, J.N., and M.C. Hettiarachchi. "A Path to a Reduction in Micro and Nanoplastics Pollution." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20,no. 8 (April 18, 2023): 5555.https://doi.org/I0.3390/ijerph20085555. Soltanighias,Tayebeh,Abubakar Umar,Muhammad Abdullahi,Mohamed Abou-Elwafa Abdallah, and Luisa Orsini. "Combined Toxicity of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Microplastics on the Sentinel Species Daphnia magna: Implications for Freshwater Ecosystems."Environmental Pollution 363,no. 1 (December 15, 2024): 125133. https://doi.org/l O.10 16/j.envpol.2024.12513 3. Zhu,Xia,Matthew J. Hoffinan, and Chelsea M. Rochman. "A City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution."Environmental Science& Technology. February 1,2024. https:Hdoi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3 c04348 Zero Waste Ithaca Artificial Turf Bibliography,updated January 7,2025. A detailed resource with over 100 pages of references on artificial turf and its environmental impacts. Includes all the sources listed above. https:Hdocs.gQogle.com/document/d/19qSgRdKSPBKYdPn_8kMifFHyGr2sZxvlm&puW e ZIU/edit?usp=sha One attachment•Scanned by Gmail From: Chris Balestra Sent: Monday,January 6, 2025 11:36 AM To: Abby.Homer Subject: RE: Game Farm Road hockey field Hi Abby, We've got comments from the Town of Dryden about the field hockey field to send to the PB. Will you do the honors? (I am purposely including my response to Ray Burger) Chris Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (607)273-1721, ext. 121 cbalestra@townithacany.gov From:Chris Balestra <CBa lestra @town ithaca ny.gov> Sent: Monday,January 6, 2025 11:33 AM To: Ray Burger<rburger@dryden.ny.us> Cc:Chris Balestra <CBa lestra @town ithaca ny.gov>; CJ Randall <cjra nda I I @town ithacany.gov> Subject: RE: Game Farm Road hockey field Good morning, Ray, We had sent a GML for comments and review in November 2024 (followed up with the lead agency concurrence). I didn't hear back from you or your board, but here was the request with the link to materials: "Hello Ray and Bambi, The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has a project coming that is adjacent to the Town of Dryden/Town of Ithaca municipal border(Game Farm Road). The Cornell Field Hockey Field project will be located off Game Farm Road in the Town of Ithaca, adjacent to the existing soccer fields on the large set of parcels at Game Farm and Ellis Hollow Roads. As the project will be located within 500-ft of another municipality, this email is intended to provide notice of this proposal per GML 239-nn(3)(c). The volume of materials was too large to place in the email as a pdf, so here is a link to all the materials (including a staff memo and other town materials—the project was on the agenda for declaration of lead agency at the November 19th PB meeting:U 11-19-24 PB Packet - CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Lead Agency_,pdf Ray- we will also include similar information in a letter that will be in another email associated with SEQR lead agency concurrence (Dryden is not an involved agency in SEQR, but we send the concurrence letter as a courtesy since Dryden might be an interested agency). Please let me know if you have trouble with the attachments and I'll find another way to send the information to you!Another email will be sent soon regarding the concurrence with lead agency." Our Planning Board is *just* beginning their SEQR review of this project (they haven't established Lead Agency yet), so I will make sure your comments are received and considered by the board. They are meeting tomorrow (January 7, 2025) to being their SEAR review. Please call or email if you have more comments or questions. I am concerned that my email in November did not reach you, since I didn't hear back. Can you confirm that you got the email? Thanks! Happy New Year, Chris Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (607)273-1721, ext. 121 cbalestra@townithacanygov From: Ray Burger<rburggr@dryden.ny.us> Sent:Thursday,January 2,2025 3:12 PM To:Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany,gov> Subject: Game Farm Road hockey field MUNMI . . .. Hi Chris, Our Planning Board has not reviewed this project yet, but since I don't know your timeframe I want to pass on a few comments from the Town. There should be pedestrian facilities for those using the Dryden Rail Trail/East Hill Recway to access the field, as well as those approaching from Ellis Hollow. Providing a multi-use trail connection will help to preserve the safety of Game Farm Road. This is the first athletic field lighting installed in this residential area and deserves tight controls to mitigate impacts to nearby residences. In addition to sharp cut off features and attention to dark sky compliance there should be other measures to limit impacts. Committing to only having the field lights on when players are actively using the fields and having the lights off by 10 PM would help. While we appreciate that "A strong emphasis will be placed on using native, non-invasive plant material." (Project Narrative page 13) we would also like a commitment to no invasive species. Thanks for your consideration. When is the comment deadline? A Ray Burger, Director of Planning Town of Dryden 93 E. Main Street, Dryden, NY 13053 607-844-8888 x213 http://dryden.nm s From: ear1421@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday,January 7, 2025 1:03 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning; bstaff cityofithaca.org Subject: Re: Urgent Concerns on Synthetic Turf: Combined Toxicity PFAS and Microplastics Oops, forgot to sign it. Sincerely, Emily Jernigan Lab tech at the Cornell university insect collection and resident of Ulysses On Jan 7, 2025, at 12.59 PM, earl421@gmail.com wrote: Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members, A series of recent studies highlights the grave risks posed by microplastics and plastic-associated chemicals to both environmental and human health. A December 2024 study by Soltanighias et al. revealed that the combined toxicity of PFAS and microplastics is far greater than their individual effects. This new study showed that combined exposure causes severe developmental failures, delayed sexual maturity, and reduced growth in Daphnia magna, a keystone species in freshwater ecosystems. The health implications of microplastics alone are equally alarming. A March 2024 study_ by Kozlove, featured in Nature, established a clear link between microplastic exposure and increased risks of heart attack, stroke, and death. Furthermore, a December 18, 2024 study by_ Chartres et al. analyzed data from 31 studies and linked microplastic exposure to adverse impacts on sperm quality, immune function, pulmonary health, and potential connections to colon and lung cancer. Just days later, on December 24,_ 20243 Cropper et al. published findings estimating that in 2015, exposure to plastic-associated chemicals like BPA, phthalates, and flame retardants caused millions of cases of heart disease and stroke, thousands of deaths, and significant IQ loss, resulting in global health costs of $1 .5 trillion. These studies underscore the mounting evidence of the harm caused by plastic and microplastic pollution,which continues to grow with new research emerging almost weekly. Synthetic turf is a well-documented source of microplastic pollution. The Barcelona study_(De Haan et al., 2023)found that up to 15% of larger microplastic fragments in the environment come from artificial turf. The Toronto study_(Zhu et al.,2024)identified synthetic turf as the largest contributor of microplastic pollution in the city, emitting approximately seven tons annually. The European Chemicals Agency_(ECHA 2020),also highlighted synthetic turf infill as the largest contributor to microplastic pollution in Europe. A 2023 study by Meegoda and Hettiarachchi emphasized the growing problem of microplastic and nanoplastic pollution, identifying artificial turf as a contributing source. Published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, the study highlighted the significant challenges of removing micro-Plastics from the environment and underscored that source reduction is one of the most effective strategies to protect both human health and ecosystems. Despite this overwhelming evidence, and a lawsuit, Cornell University is pushing forward with plans to expand its synthetic turf infrastructure to a total of 11 or 12. This expansion will seal off living, ecologically vital ground—essential for wildlife, soil health, and carbon sequestration—under plastic. This fossil fuel-derived material exacerbates environmental and health harms throughout its lifecycle. Proposed mitigation measures, such as mechanical filtration systems, are superficial solutions that fail to address the full extent of the pollution and harm synthetic turf creates. Given the significant risks synthetic turf poses to ecosystems and human health,I urge the Planning Board to oppose Cornell's proposed expansion and advocate for sustainable alternatives that align with public health and environmental responsibility. Sincerely, References: Chartres, Nicholas, Courtney B. Cooper, Garret Bland, Katherine E. Pelch, Sheiphali A. Gandhi,Abena BakenRa, and Tracey J. Woodruff. "Effects of Microplastic Exposure on Human Digestive,Reproductive, and Respiratory Health: A Rapid Systematic Review." Environmental Science & Technology, December 18, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3cO9524. Cropper, Maureen, Sarah Dunlop, Hudson Hinshaw, Philip Landrigan, Yongjoon Park, and Christos Symeonides. "The Benefits of Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 121, no. 52 (December 24, 2024): e2412714121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412714121. De Haan, William P., Rocio Quintana, Cesar Vilas, Andres C6zar, Miquel Canals, Oriol Uviedo, and Anna Sanchez-Vidal. "The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments." Environmental Pollution 334 (2023): 122094. httpa.//doi.org/�lO.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094. European Chemicals Agency. Opinion on an Annex XV Dossier Proposing Restrictions on Intentionally-Added Microplastics. Helsinki, Finland: ECHA, 2020. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23665416/restmicroplasticsopinionra c 16339en.pdf. Kozlove, Max. "Microplastics Linked to Heart Attack, Stroke and Death." Scientific American (Reprinted from Nature magazine). March 9, 2024. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/microplastics-linked-to-heart- attack-stroke-and-death/ Meegoda, J.N., and M.C. Hettiarachchi. "A Path to a Reduction in Micro and Nanoplastics Pollution." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 8 (April 18, 2023): 5555. https://doi.org/10.3390/ij erDh20085555. Soltanighias, Tayebeh,Abubakar Umar,Muhammad Abdullahi, Mohamed Abou-Elwafa Abdallah, and Luisa Orsini. "Combined Toxicity of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Microplastics on the Sentinel Species Daphnia magna: Implications for Freshwater Ecosystems." Environmental Pollution 363, no. 1 (December 15, 2024): 125133. htips.//doi.org/10.1016/J*.envpol.2024.125133. Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. "A City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution." Environmental Science & Technology. February 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04348 Zero Waste Ithaca Artificial Turf Bibliography,updated January 7, 2025. A detailed resource with over 100 pages of references on artificial turf and its environmental impacts. Includes all the sources listed above. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19gSgRdKSPBKYdPn_8kM*fFHyG— xvlmdRpuWe_ZIU/edit?usp=sharing From: Jill Kellner Sent: Friday,January 3, 2025 3:09 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: synthetic turf • T4 A I i TM I ff• - • . Dear Planning Board, I'm hoping you have received a flood of letters against the proposed installations of synthetic turf on Game Farm Road. As a resident of the East Hill, living on Ellis Hollow Road, not far from where the installation will be, I am particularly upset that you would consider installing something that is known to be detrimental to the health of the community and the planet. I am copying the letter that I'm hoping others have sent in the hopes that you will listen and do the right thing.... Sincerely, Jill Kellner 1321 Ellis Hollow Rd. Ithaca, NY Subject: Resilience of Natural Grass vs. Risks of Synthetic Turf: A Case for Game Farm Road This public comment addresses the Synthetic Hockey Field Plan proposed for Game Farm Road. Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I am writing to share insights regarding the proposed installation of synthetic turf on Game Farm Road, urging the board to carefully consider the resilience of natural grass and the environmental and cultural implications of prioritizing aesthetics over functionality. Grass species commonly used in sports fields are highly resilient. Research demonstrates that turfgrass can recover from stressors such as drought, wear, and even minor pest damage without chemical intervention. When left untreated, most grass fields regenerate with rain or moderate maintenance. This resilience has supported sports and recreational use for centuries, long before the advent of synthetic alternatives. The perception that a sports field must exhibit uniform, pristine green turf to be functional is not supported by evidence. Clover, dandelions, and other broadleaf plants, often labeled as weeds, do not impede playability when mowed to appropriate heights. These species contribute to soil health and biodiversity while reducing dependency on synthetic inputs. Historical sports and recreational activities thrived on natural fields with diverse vegetation, proving that perfectionism in turf management is more about aesthetics than necessity. Moreover, synthetic turf, while marketed as a low-maintenance solution, poses significant long-term environmental and health risks. It contributes to microplastic pollution, retains excessive heat, and cannot self-repair like natural grass. The ecological and financial costs of synthetic turf are incompatible with sustainable development goals, particularly when viable, cost-effective natural alternatives are available. Shifting from a chemical- and appearance-focused approach to a more ecological mindset benefits not only the environment but also the community. Encouraging the use of resilient, well-maintained natural grass fields aligns with sustainable values and promotes a healthier, more inclusive athletic culture. I urge the board to reconsider the reliance on synthetic turf and instead champion the benefits of resilient, ecologically managed natural grass fields. Such a decision would demonstrate leadership in sustainability and a commitment to the long-term well-being of our community. Synthetic turf begets synthetic turf. There are currently an estimated 19,000 artificial fields in the United States, with as many as 1,500 new fields installed each year, about half of which are replacing older turf, according to a 2024 report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A recent NBC report highlighted a California high school district's decision to reject converting their artificial turf field back to natural grass, citing concerns over two years of field displacement during reinstallation. This underscores the significant challenges— or convenient excuses—that make reversing synthetic turf installations difficult once they are in place. Such a scenario must not be allowed to happen here. The Game Farm Road location currently features natural grass fields that are both functional and visually appealing. Replacing them with synthetic turf would not only destroy these fields but could also allow Cornell University to justify avoiding any return to natural grass in the future. Preserving these natural grassfields is essential—not only to maintain their environmental and aesthetic value but also to uphold Cornell's stated sustainability goals of reducing fossil fuel reliance. Synthetic turf is the largest point source of plastic in outdoor environments and a major contributor to microplastic pollution. Halting the construction of additional toxic plastic turf fields, not limited to but especially outdoors, is imperative. Thank you for your attention and thoughtful consideration of this matter. Written comment submitted to the Ithaca Town Planning Board January 7, 2025 Re: Cornell's Proposal for Athletic Facilities at Game Farm Road Dear Ithaca Town Planning Board members: Following my comment submitted last month, I want to again underscore the importance of revisiting an inappropriate SEQR segmentation during tonight's discussion of declaration of lead agency. Last May, Cornell requested a SEQR segmentation for the current project at Game Farm Road and the Meinig Fieldhouse Project, on the assertion that the two projects are"functionally independent" of one another.At the 2024-05-21 Town PB Meeting.the applicant Ms. Michaels asserted that"these two projects aren't even necessarily dependent on each other" (8:06),that they"are on different timelines" (-10:30),and that(echoing the language of the law) "The City Planning Board's review and anticipated approval of the Fieldhouse project does not commit the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to approve the construction of the field hockey field (slide deck)."' At no point during the SEQR segmentation discussion did the applicant spell out the real relationship between the two projects.That relationship became immediately apparent when the applicant presented the Game Farm Road project later in 2024.At the November and December Board meetings, Cornell argued that their new proposed field at Game Farm Road (a) must be artificial turf due to field hockey regulations; and (b) must be completed before the Fall 2025 field hockey season.z Both points are only relevant because the Meinig Fieldhouse will destroy the existing women's field hockey pitch on central campus.The Game Farm Road Project can only be considered the second phase of this action,where the women's field hockey pitch is reconstructed at an off-campus site.' The degree to which Cornell now pressures the Board to greenlight yet another petroleum-based artificial turf field on their(Cornell's) own internal timeline is the same degree to which they violate their testimony that the two projects are functionally independent.If the Board's review continues on the pretense of SEQR segmentation,then it is inappropriate for the applicant to raise concerns specific to field hockey turf requirements or season start dates, and it is inappropriate for the Board members to consider them. These two projects are clearly different phases of the same action and should be considered as such for purposes of environmental review, according to NY State Law: "If an action consists of multiple phases,sets of activities, or if separate agencies are involved,SEQR requires agencies jointly consider these cumulative impacts during their review.Segmentation of an action into smaller components for an individual review contradicts the intent of the law and may result in legal action."This interpretation is supported by Attorney Brock's observations during the initial SEQR segmentation discussion in May 2024. She noted that the timing of the two projects suggest a single SEQR review because their timelines"are dovetailing so closely,"and that Cornell's"overall plan"makes these projects dependent because"by putting certain facilities on Central Campus,you are displacing other facilities elsewhere..." [-38:00]).3 I urge the Board to revisit the SEQR segmentation in order to uphold the integrity of environmental review and consider the full scope of cumulative environmental impact for all phases of Cornell's overall plan.' It is as much in the athletes'own interests as in the community's interests to conduct an adequate environmental review. Lest the Board feel pressured by the applicant's internal requirements around their field hockey season and NCAA requirements for plastic grass,let us remember that it is the applicant's responsibility to plan multiple phases of an action in a fully transparent and realistic manner so as to not hold the Planning Board hostage to a bad-faith timeline of allegedly"independent"projects. -bethany ojalehto mays, PhD ENDNOTES 1.The Planning Board engaged in a long discussion about this segmentation request,noting that the permissible grounds for SEQR segmentation include if the future phase is speculative or may not even occur (-21:00).Even at the time of segmentation,it was noted that some dimensions of this segmentation were unusual.During the May 21 Board meeting,when asked if they have an idea of when they would apply for the Game Farm Road field,the applicant answered:"We're targeting handing in an application for Game Farm Road at the end of June of this year(2024):'Town Planning Board staff member Chris Balestra noted that it's "a little bit concerning that the segmentation question is being asked now"because typically SEQR segmentation requests apply to other projects that would occur in the"way distant future,"but"in this case, it's almost simultaneous" (-16:15).In response to Board member questions,the applicant later asserted, "They are not functionally dependent on another:one does not have to happen in order for the other one to happen:there's no relationship there...there's another project on the way that is mildly related to this! (-23:00).This is inaccurate.Across multiple meetings,Susan Brock also noted that the environmental review must consider the environmental impacts of the entire project,regardless of whether part of the project is located within the Town or City of Ithaca(see Attorney Brock at 59:00 during the 2024-03-19 Planning Board Meeting). It is only appropriate to consider the impacts of all the artificial turf fields being proposed at Cornell through their athletics master plan.Speaking to a Board member's question about the implications of SEQR segmentation for the applicant,Ms Michaels responded:"If the City says it's not permissible,then they will be the lead agency for both projects and the schedule for the project gets further delayed,which starts to impact the timeline for athletics and the construction/completion for when a field can be ready...so that has implications for the athletic community" (-50:00).This was the perfect opportunity to spell out the real relationship. 2.In November 2024,Cornell informed the Town Planning Board that the women's field hockey team had played"their last game"at the central campus pitch and now must rush the current proposal in time to construct the new field in time for the women's field hockey season.They announced the same in an Athletics press release.Cornell's Athletics Coverage on October 25,2024 spells out the joint nature of the two projects: "The Big Red celebrated on the field,taking pictures and enjoying its 85th and final victory on Dodson Field before its move to Game Farm Road complex next season.' 3.Likewise,Planning Board staff Chris Balestra noted it's"a little bit concerning that the segmentation question is being asked now"because typically SEQR segmentation requests apply to other projects that would occur in the"way distant future,"but"in this case,it's almost simultaneous" (-16:15,May 2024 PB meeting). 4.As both Town and City of Ithaca Planning Board members stressed in earlier deliberations,the Boards have received historic volumes of credible,evidence-based concerns from community members,including experts, scientists,and faculty members (and here I cite only a small selection of comments).It is a disservice to the community's and scientists'legitimate concerns to rush this project through approvals without an EIS. From: nmkoschm16 Sent: Tuesday,January 7, 2025 1:37 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning; pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Cc: info@zerowasteithaca.org Subject: Urgent Concerns on Synthetic Turf: Combined Toxicity PFAS and M icroplastics Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members, A series of recent studies highlights the grave risks posed by microplastics and plastic-associated chemicals to both environmental and human health. A December 2024 study by Soltan igh ias et al. revealed that the combined toxicity of PFAS and microplastics is far greater than their individual effects. This new study showed that combined exposure causes severe developmental failures, delayed sexual maturity, and reduced growth in Daphnia magna, a keystone species in freshwater ecosystems. The health implications of microplastics alone are equally alarming. A March 2024 study_ by Kozlove, featured in Na ture, established a clear link between microplastic exposure and increased risks of heart attack, stroke, and death. Furthermore, a December 18, 2024 study by Chartres et al. analyzed data from 31 studies and linked microplastic exposure to adverse impacts on sperm quality, immune function, pulmonary health, and potential connections to colon and lung cancer. Just days later, on December 24,_ 20243 Cropper et al. published findings estimating that in 2015, exposure to plastic-associated chemicals like B PA, phthalates, and flame retardants caused millions of cases of heart disease and stroke, thousands of deaths, and significant IQ loss, resulting in global health costs of $1 .5 trillion. These studies underscore the mounting evidence of the harm caused by plastic and microplastic pollution, which continues to grow with new research emerging almost weekly. Synthetic turf is a well-documented source of microplastic pollution. The Barcelona study—(De Haan et al., 2023),found that up to 15% of larger microplastic fragments in the environment come from artificial turf. The Toronto study_(Zhu et al., 2024)identified synthetic turf as the largest contributor of microplastic pollution in the city, emitting approximately seven tons annually. The European Chemicals Agency_(ECHA, 2020)also highlighted synthetic turf infill as the largest contributor to microplastic pollution in Europe. A 2023 study by Meegoda and Hettiarachchi emphasized the growing problem of microplastic and nanoplastic pollution, identifying artificial turf as a contributing source. Published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, the study highlighted the significant challenges of removing microplastics from the environment and underscored that source reduction is one of the most effective strategies to protect both human health and ecosystems. Despite this overwhelming evidence, and a lawsuit, Cornell University is pushing forward with plans to expand its synthetic turf infrastructure to a total of 11 or 12. This expansion will seal off living, ecologically vital ground—essential for wildlife, soil health, and carbon sequestration—under plastic. This fossil fuel-derived material exacerbates environmental and health harms throughout its lifecycle. Proposed mitigation measures, such as mechanical filtration systems, are superficial solutions that fail to address the full extent of the pollution and harm synthetic turf creates. Given the significant risks synthetic turf poses to ecosystems and human health, I urge the Planning Board to oppose Cornell's proposed expansion and advocate for sustainable alternatives that align with public health and environmental responsibility. Sincerely, Nicole Koschmann 312 Hancock Street, Ithaca References: Chartres, Nicholas, Courtney B. Cooper, Garret Bland,Katherine E.Pelch, Sheiphali A. Gandhi, Abena BakenRa, and Tracey J. Woodruff. "Effects of Microplastic Exposure on Human Digestive,Reproductive, and Respiratory Health: A Rapid Systematic Review." Environmental Science & Technology, December 18, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c09524. Cropper, Maureen, Sarah Dunlop, Hudson Hinshaw, Philip Landrigan, Yongjoon Park, and Christos Symeonides. "The Benefits of Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 121, no. 52 (December 24, 2024): e2412714121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412714121. De Haan, William P.,Rocio Quintana, Cesar Vilas,Andres C6zar, Miquel Canals, Oriol Uviedo, and Anna Sanchez-Vidal. "The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments." Environmental Pollution 334 (2023): 122094. httpa.//doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094. European Chemicals Agency. Opinion on an Annex XV Dossier Proposing Restrictions on Intentionally-Added Microplastics. Helsinki, Finland: ECHA, 2020. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23665416/restmicroplasticsopinionrac l6339en.p df. Kozlove, Max. "Microplastics Linked to Heart Attack, Stroke and Death." Scientific American (Reprinted from Nature magazine). March 9, 2024. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/microplastics-linked-to-heart-attack- stroke-and-death/ Meegoda, J.N., and M.C. Hettiarachchi. "A Path to a Reduction in Micro and Nanoplastics Pollution." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 8 (April 18, 2023): 5555. http .//doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20085555. Soltanighias, Tayebeh, Abubakar Umar, Muhammad Abdullahi, Mohamed Abou-Elwafa Abdallah, and Luisa Orsini. "Combined Toxicity of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Microplastics on the Sentinel Species Daphnia magna: Implications for Freshwater Ecosystems." Environmental Pollution 363, no. 1 (December 15, 2024): 125133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.125133. Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. "A City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution." Environmental Science & Technology. February 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3cO4348 Zero Waste Ithaca Artificial Turf Bibliography,updated January 7, 2025. A detailed resource with over 100 pages of references on artificial turf and its environmental impacts. Includes all the sources listed above. https:Hdocs.gQogle.com/document/d/19qSgRdKSPBKYdPn_8kMifFHyGr2sZxvlm&puW e ZIU/edit?usp=sharing From: Caroline Ashurst Sent: Tuesday,January 7, 2025 3:47 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Cc: pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Subject: Cornell University's synthetic turf project proposal on Game Farm Road Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members, Hello, it's me again! This time I am taking a beat to send a note regarding the synthetic turf nightmare that Cornell is proposing not only on Game Farm Road, but their larger initiative to install 11 of these monstrosities on campus. Aga i n, as a licensed healthcare practitioner specializing in hormonal health (with a Master's degree education), I cannot stress ENOUGH how dangerous PFAS are for human and animal life! The studies are staggering. The wearing down of synthetic turf will create a plume of microplastics soaring around our air in Ithaca. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE this in our hometown. A March 2024 study by Kozlove,_featured in Nature, established a clear link between microplastic exposure and increased risks of heart attack, stroke, and death. Furthermore, a December 18, 2024 study by Chartres et al. analyzed data from 31 studies and linked microplastic exposure to adverse impacts on sperm quality, immune function, pulmonary health, and potential connections to colon and lung cancer. Just days later, on December 24, 2024, Cropper et al. published findings estimating that in 2015, exposure to plastic-associated chemicals like BPA, phthalates, and flame retardants caused millions of cases of heart disease and stroke, thousands of deaths, and significant IQ loss, resulting in global health costs of $1 .5 trillion. These studies underscore the mounting evidence of the harm caused by plastic and microplastic pollution, which continues to grow with new research emerging almost weekly. Synthetic turf is a well-documented source of microplastic pollution. The Barcelona study (De Haan et al., 2023) found that up to 15% of larger microplastic fragments in the environment come from artificial turf. The Toronto study (Zhu et al., 2024) identified synthetic turf as the largest contributor of microplastic pollution in the city, emitting approximately seven tons annually. The European Chemicals Ag y (ECHA, 2020), also highlighted synthetic turf infill as the largest contributor to microplastic pollution in Europe. How is Ithaca even considering this? Cornell is strangling the health of generations to come here in Ithaca for the sake of their Division 1 status? They should be ashamed of themselves. Despite this overwhelming evidence, and a lawsuit, Cornell University is pushing forward with plans to expand its synthetic turf infrastructure to a total of 11 or 12. This expansion will seal off living, ecologically vital ground—essential for wildlife, soil health, and carbon sequestration—under plastic. This fossil fuel-derived material exacerbates environmental and health harms throughout its lifecycle. Proposed mitigation measures, such as mechanical filtration systems, are superficial solutions that fail to address the full extent of the pollution and harm synthetic turf creates. Given the significant risks synthetic turf poses to ecosystems and human health, I urge the Planning Board to oppose Cornell's proposed expansion and advocate for sustainable alternatives that align with public health and environmental responsibility. Sincerely, Your friend Caroline Ashurst References: Chartres, Nicholas, Courtney B. Cooper, Garret Bland, Katherine E. Pelch, Sheiphali A. Gandhi, Abena BakenRa, and Tracey J.Woodruff. "Effects of Microplastic Exposure on Human Digestive, Reproductive, and Respiratory Health:A Rapid Systematic Review."Environmental Science&Technology, December 18, 2024. https.LLdoi.org/lo.1021/acs.est.3cO95a4. Cropper, Maureen, Sarah Dunlop, Hudson Hinshaw, Philip Landrigan,Yongjoon Park, and Christos Symeonides. "The Benefits of Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics."Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 121, no. 52 (December 24, 2024): e2412714121. https: do..org 10-1073/pnas 22412714121. De Haan,William P., Rocio Quintana, Cesar Vilas,Andres C6zar,Miquel Canals, Oriol Uviedo, and Anna Sanchez-Vidal. "The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments."Environmental Pollution 334 (2023): 122094. https: doi.org l0.l016 j.envpo1.2o23.12209_4.• European Chemicals Agency. Opinion on an Annex XVDossier Proposing Restrictions on Intentionally Added Microplastics. Helsinki, Finland: ECHA, 2020._ https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23665416/restmicroplasticsopinionrac i6339en.pdf. Kozlove, Max. "Microplastics Linked to Heart Attack, Stroke and Death." Scientific American (Reprinted from Nature magazine). March 9, 2024. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/microplastics-linked-to-heart- attack-stroke-and-death/ Meegoda, J.N., and M.C. Hettiarachchi. "A Path to a Reduction in Micro and Nanoplastics Pollution."International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 8 (April 18, 2023): 5555• https: doi.org io.339oLijerph2oo85555- Soltanighias,Tayebeh, Abubakar Umar, Muhammad Abdullahi, Mohamed Abou-Elwafa Abdallah, and Luisa Orsini. "Combined Toxicity of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Microplastics on the Sentinel Species Daphnia magna: Implications for Freshwater Ecosystems."Environmental Pollution 363, no. 1 (December 15, 2024): 125133. https: doi.org io.1oi6 j.envpo1.2o24.t25133- Zhu, Xia,Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. "A City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution."Environmental Science&Technology. February 1, 2024. httpsj jdoi.orglio.1021/acs.est.3C-0-43-4a Zero Waste Ithaca Artificial Turf Bibliography, updated January 7, 2025. A detailed resource with over ioo pages of references on artificial turf and its environmental impacts. Includes all the sources listed above. https: docs.google.com/document/d/lggSgRdKSPBKYdPn 8kMifFHyGr2sZxv1 mdRpuWe ZIU/edit?usp=sharing With Gratitude, Caroline Grace Ashurst, L.Ac., M.Ac. www.carolineashurst.com @restorativeharmony The Fertility Formula Functional Fertility Coaching + Restorative Harmony Acupuncture 20221202012019 Philadelphia Family LOVE Award Best Acupuncture in Philadelphia! *******02024 Restorative Harmony Acupuncture, LLC. All rights reserved. This document is for educational and informational purposes only and solely as a self-help tool for your own use. I am not providing medical, psychological, or nutrition therapy advice. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat any health problems or illnesses without consulting your own medical practitioner. Always seek the advice of your own medical practitioner and/or mental health provider about your specific health situation. For my full Disclaimer, please go to https://www.restorativeharmony.com/legal- disclaimers From: Louise Mygatt Sent: Tuesday,January 7,2025 5:07 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Cc: pbstaff@cityofithaca.org; Louise Mygatt Subject: Game Farm Road project Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members, I am very concerned about the synthetic turf athletic fields that Cornell is constructing or including the proposed new one on Game Farm Road. Synthetic turf well-documented source of microplas pollution, and I feel that it has no plac our community or really, anywhere. A please note that the site on Game Far Road is uphill from Ithaca's water supply, that is, the reservoir that feeds 6-M after study confirms the environmental problems associated with synthetic turf, and I am many times we need to read these reports to take them seriously. Here are 4 examples: 1. A 2023 study by Meegoda and Hettiarachchi emphasized the growing problem of mic] nanoplastic pollution,identifying artificial turf as a contributing source. Published in the International Journal of Environments Research and Public Health, the stud, highlighted the significant challenges removing microplastics from the environment and underscored that sc reduction is one of the most effective strategies to protect both human heal ecosystems. 2. The Barcelona study (De Haan et al., 2023)found that up to 15% of larger microplasti the environment come from artificial turf. 3. The Toronto study_(Zhu et al., 2024)identified synthetic turf as the largest contributor pollution in the city, emitting approximately seven tons annually. 4. The European Chemicals Agency_(ECHA, 2020)also highlighted synthetic turf infill contributor to microplastic pollution in Europe. Why is Cornell, a world-renown science research institution,going forward with plans tc synthetic turf fields?Is Cornell in complete denial of the science around plastic pollution at Cornell care about the obvious contradiction between the overwhelming scientific evic synthetic turf and Cornell's plans to increase its investment in this fossil fuel-derived, en) polluting,human and animal life-threatening material?And the contradiction between Cc build more synthetic turf fields and its own sustainability statement is stunning. That stat "We value our role in advancing solutions for a sustainable future and we recognize the c between people and the Earth, acting in ways to live and work sustainably". Proposed mi measures, such as mechanical filtration systems, are superficial solutions that fail to addr extent of the pollution and harm synthetic turf creates. Despite the overwhelming evident Cornell continues to push for more synthetic turf. If Cornell is not able to get real about what it's doing to the environment in our area,we 1 ourselves. I strongly urge the Planning Board to oppose Cornell's proposed expansion an sustainable alternatives that align with public health and environmental responsibility. Sincerely, Dr. Louise Mygatt References: Chartres,Nicholas, Courtney B. Cooper, Garret Bland, Katherine E. Pelch, Sheiphali A. Abena BakenRa, and Tracey J. Woodruff. "Effects of Microplastic Exposure on Human I Reproductive, and Respiratory Health: A Rapid Systematic Review." Environmental Sc Technology, December 18, 2024. https:Hdoi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c09524. Cropper, Maureen, Sarah Dunlop, Hudson Hinshaw, Philip Landrigan, Yongjoon Christos Symeonides. "The Benefits of Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Americ 52 (December 24, 2024): e2412714121. httpa.//doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412714121. De Haan,William P., Rocio Quintana, Cesar Vilas,Andres C6zar,Miquel Canals, Oriol I Anna Sanchez-Vidal. "The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Aquatic Environments." Environmental Pollution 334 (2023): 122094. https:Hdoi.org/�lO.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094. European Chemicals Agency. Opinion on an Annex XV Dossier Proposing Restr Intentionally-Added Microplastics. Helsinki, Finland: ECHA, 2020. https:Hecha.europa.eu/documents/10162/23665416/restmicroplasticsopinionrac l6339en� Kozlove, Max. "Microplastics Linked to Heart Attack, Stroke and Death." Scientih (Reprinted from Nature magazine). March 9, 2024. https://www.scientificamen can.com/article/microplastics-linked-to-heart-attack-stroke-ai Meegoda, J.N., and M.C. Hettiarachchi. "A Path to a Reduction in Micro and Nan Pollution." International Joumal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2C 18, 2023): 5555. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20085555. Soltanighias, Tayebeh,Abubakar Umar, Muhammad Abdullahi, Mohamed Abou-Elwafa and Luisa Orsini. "Combined Toxicity of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Microplastics or Species Daphnia magna: Implications for Freshwater Ecosystems." Environmente 363, no. 1 (December 15, 2024): 125133. https://doi.org/10.lol6/j.envpol.2024.1251 Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. "A City-Wide Emissior of Plastic Pollution." Environmental Science & Technology. February 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04348 Zero Waste Ithaca Artificial Turf Bibliography,updated January 7, 2025. A detailed resource with over 100 pages of references on artificial turf and its en) impacts. Includes all the sources listed above. https://docs.gQogle.com/document/d/19q SgRdKSPBKYdPn-8kM*I fFHyGr2sZxvlmdRpij usp=sharing Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOPI - Nonprofit Incubator, a program of NOPI INC, a Massacl nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, EIN 81-5089505. Donations are tax-deductible, by law. Learn more at https:Hthenopi_org. One attachment • Scanned by Gmail Re I Reply all You received this via BCC, so you can' Forward an emoji The Barcelona study-(De Haan et al.,2023)found that up to 15% of larger microplastic f environment come from artificial turf. The Toronto study_(Zhu et al., 2024)identified syi largest contributor of microplastic pollution in the city, emitting approximately seven ton European Chemicals Agency_(ECHA, 2020)also highlighted synthetic turf infill as the 1, to microplastic pollution in Europe. A 2023 study by Meegoda and Hettiarachchi emphasized the growing problem of microx nanoplastic pollution,identifying artificial turf as a contributing source. Published in the International Journal of Environments Research and Public Health, the stud,' highlighted the significant challenges removing microplastics from the environment and underscored that sc reduction is one of the most effective strategies to protect both human heal ecosystems From: In Shik Lee Sent: Tuesday,January 7, 2025 4:24 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Cc: pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Subject: Subject: Urgent Concerns on Synthetic Turf: Combined Toxicity PFAS and Microplastics • • - • . The evidence seems clear that plastic fields are not a good idea. Subject: Urgent Concerns on Synthetic Turf: Combined Toxicity PFAS and Microplastics Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members, A series of recent studies highlights the grave risks posed by microplastics and plastic-associated chemicals to both environmental and human health. A December 2024 study by Soltanighias et al. revealed that the combined toxicity of PFAS and microplastics is far greater than their individual effects. This new study showed that combined exposure causes severe developmental failures, delayed sexual maturity, and reduced growth in Daphnia magna, a keystone species in freshwater ecosystems. The health implications of microplastics alone are equally alarming. A March 2024 study by Kozlove,featured in Nature, established a clear link between microplastic exposure and increased risks of heart attack, stroke, and death. Furthermore, a December 183 2024 study by Chartres et al. analyzed data from 31 studies and linked microplastic exposure to adverse impacts on sperm quality, immune function, pulmonary health, and potential connections to colon and lung cancer. Just days later, on December 24, 2024,_ Cropper et al. published findings estimating that in 2015, exposure to plastic- associated chemicals like BPA, phthalates, and flame retardants caused millions of cases of heart disease and stroke, thousands of deaths, and significant IQ loss, resulting in global health costs of $1 .5 trillion . These studies underscore the mounting evidence of the harm caused by plastic and microplastic pollution, which continues to grow with new research emerging almost weekly. Synthetic turf is a well-documented source of microplastic pollution. The Barcelona study_ (De Haan et al., 2023)found that up to 15% of larger microplastic fragments in the environment come from artificial turf. The Toronto study_(Zhu et al., 2024) identified synthetic turf as the largest contributor of microplastic pollution in the city, emitting approximately seven tons annually. The European Chemicals Agency_(ECHA, 2020),also highlighted synthetic turf infill as the largest contributor to microplastic pollution in Europe. A 2023 study by Meegoda and Hettiarachchi emphasized the growing problem of microplastic and nanoplastic pollution, identifying artificial turf as a contributing sou rce. Published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, the study_ highlighted the significant challenges of removing microplastics from the environment and underscored that source reduction is one of the most effective strategies to protect both human health and ecosystems. Despite this overwhelming evidence, and a lawsuit, Cornell University is pushing forward with plans to expand its synthetic turf infrastructure to a total of 11 or 12. This expansion will seal off living, ecologically vital ground—essential for wildlife, soil health, and carbon sequestration—under plastic. This fossil fuel-derived material exacerbates environmental and health harms throughout its lifecycle.Proposed mitigation measures, such as mechanical filtration systems, are superficial solutions that fail to address the full extent of the pollution and harm synthetic turf creates. Given the significant risks synthetic turf poses to ecosystems and human health,I urge the Planning Board to oppose Cornell's proposed expansion and advocate for sustainable alternatives that align with public health and environmental responsibility. Sincerely, References: Chartres,Nicholas, Courtney B. Cooper, Garret Bland,Katherine E. Pelch, Sheiphali A. Gandhi, Abena BakenRa, and Tracey J. Woodruff. "Effects of Microplastic Exposure on Human Digestive,Reproductive, and Respiratory Health: A Rapid Systematic Review." Environmental Science & Technology, December 18, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c09524. Cropper, Maureen, Sarah Dunlop, Hudson Hinshaw, Philip Landrigan, Yongjoon Park, and Christos Symeonides. "The Benefits of Removing Toxic Chemicals from Plastics." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 121, no. 52 (December 24, 2024): e2412714121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412714121. De Haan,William P.,Rocio Quintana, Cesar Vilas, Andres Cozar, Miquel Canals, Oriol Uviedo, and Anna Sanchez-Vidal. "The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments." Environmental Pollution 334 (2023): 122094. https://doi.orgLI0.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094. European Chemicals Agency. Opinion on an Annex XV Dossier Proposing Restrictions on Intentionally Added Microplastics. Helsinki, Finland: ECHA, 2020. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23665416/restmicroplasticsopinionr ac16339en.pdf. Kozlove, Max. "Microplastics Linked to Heart Attack, Stroke and Death." Scientific American (Reprinted from Nature magazine). March 9, 2024. https://www.scientiflcamerican.com/article/microplastics-linked-to-heart- attack-stroke-and-death/ Meegoda, J.N., and M.C. Hettiarachchi. "A Path to a Reduction in Micro and Nanoplastics Pollution." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 8 (April 18, 2023): 5555. https://doi.org/10.3390/ij erDh200855 55. Soltanighias, Tayebeh, Abubakar Umar, Muhammad Abdullahi,Mohamed Abou-Elwafa Abdallah, and Luisa Orsini. "Combined Toxicity of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Microplastics on the Sentinel Species Daphnia magna: Implications for Freshwater Ecosystems." Environmental Pollution 363, no. 1 (December 15, 2024): 125133. https://doi.orgLI0.1016/j.envpol.2024.125133. Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. "A City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution." Environmental Science & Technology. February 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3cO4348 Zero Waste Ithaca Artificial Turf Bibliography,updated January 7, 2025. A detailed resource with over 100 pages of references on artificial turf and its environmental impacts. Includes all the sources listed above. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19-qSgRdKSPBKYdPn_8kMifFHyG— xvlmdRpuWe_ZIU/edit?usp=sharing Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOR - Nonprofit Incubator, a program of NOR INC, a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3)organization, EIN 81- 5089505. Donations are tax-deductible where allowed by law. Learn more at https://thenopi_org. Sent from my (S)!