Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1989-08-14ff C J (M] <r. D 1 CO or Special Meeting PRESENT: Mayor Gutenberger Alderpersons (9) - COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK 5:30 P.M. August 14, 1989 Schlather, Nichols, Cummings, Lytel, Hoffman, Peterson, Killeen, Johnson, Romanowski ABSENT: Alderperson Booth (excused) OTHERS PRESENT: City Clerk - Paolangeli City Attorney - Nash Deputy Director Planning & Development - Mazzarella PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Gutenberger led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. RESOLUTION TO OVERRIDE MAYOR'S VETO By Alderperson Lytel: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That this Common Council votes to override Mayor Gutenberger's veto of Agenda Item 2.1 - Central Processing Facility at Commercial Avenue. Alderperson Romanowski stated that he has consistently opposed this particular site for the garbage baling station. He thought it inappropriate when it was first brought up, and he still feels that way. We can say "no, we don't want this ", no matter where the environmental process is. It makes no difference whether the County says this is a preferred place and we want it or don't want it. He thinks what the Council is trying to say is that we understand there is a process involved but we, as Council, and the taxpayers have a right to say "no" no matter what the outcome of environmental review. There are too many things that we see even without an environmental review process going on, that would indicate we don't want it there. Alderperson Romanowski said that he does not think it is a repudiation of the Mayor in particular. He thinks it is a repudiation of a site that has grown much larger than what was initially explained to Council. We are now talking about 17 acres and who knows what it might be next week. He just does not think this is the right place for a baling station. He said that he is willing to work as hard as he can with the County to find a location that would work out satisfactorily but it is not this place. Mayor Gutenberger stated that Alderperson Romanowski has been consistent in this matter. The record, even back as far as the March meeting with the County, reflect his opposition to this site. Alderperson Lytel read the following statement: "Tonight we meet to overrule the Mayor - -a very uncommon political event. The Ithaca Journal, as we know, is taking his side, representing the Mayor as the lonely voice of reason trying to stem the tide of an ill - informed mob, which we are allegedly to represent. Although both are trying to do the right thing both are quite wrong. 1Qq 2 August 14, 1989 The Mayor and his allies believe they are protecting the integrity of the environmental review process. But this is anything but a normal environmental assessment in a number of ways. In the case of a private development the project would be finalized before any environmental review began. In this case, the County has changed substantially the amount of space necessary to house what it will be building on the site. When first invited to comment on the County's proposed locations I urged them to look at the Commercial Avenue site. But since then the project has clearly and obviously outgrown the place they want to put it. Although we have their assurance that this would be the best run garbage baling and transfer facility in America the way they have gone about expanding it while they've been designing it doesn't give us much reassurance of that. Even compared with the County's previous actions to site the landfill itself the siting of the baling station has been abbreviated and unusual. Under the process they used for locating the landfill they gave substantially greater review to alternative sites before selecting the DR -7 parcel in Dryden. For the baling station they've taken one site to investigate in great depth rather than a number to evaluate simultaneously. Finally, in a normal environmental assessment we, the City of Ithaca, would have the ability to say no or to modify the project. In this case the developer is the County, over which we have essentially no control. All we can do is object strenuously in a public way if we believe putting a garbage processing facility of this scale and magnitude in the vicinity of restaurants and hotels is in error. Those of us who oppose the baling station near the Elmira Road are accused of being short - sighted and unwilling to do our part in finding a solution for a problem to which we all contribute. That's not true. Certainly the City of Ithaca had the first recycling program in Tompkins County. It is still by far the most progressive of any in the County. We took this action because it was judicious and responsible, not because we were threatened with fees to dump our garbage or with court orders or state actions. We're also criticized for protecting the interests of the Elmira Road residents and landowners. I guess we'd have to plead guilty to that charge. Business owners have every bit as much right to protection of the investment that they've made in their property as do home owners. In the case of the Elmira Road many businesses have made a substantial amount of investment in this neighborhood, which serves the community well. The argument for the baling station is that we'd save money on hauling our garbage to a less central location. But we'll be losing in order of magnitude more in property values and taxes than we'll be saving on trucking our garbage. We'd be derelict of duty if we allowed that neighborhood, or any other, to be dramatically compromised by an inappropriate land use. What does a garbage baling station fit with best? It should be located adjacent to land whose value the government is actively attempting to hold down, such as farm land or agricultural processing facilities. We have active and progressive efforts to keep land in cultivation rather than see it lost to non- agricultural uses. Those are the things that go best with the proposed baling station. Putting it in a neighborhood of dense urban land use just doesn't make any sense. Finally, the environmental review currently being conducted for the county will hopefully tell us many things. It is an important process for the discovery of information. Before the process of environmental review was formalized and incorporated ARM i oJ 3 August 14, 1989 into public decision - making, the potential impact of private and public actions frequently went unconsidered. But the outcome of the environmental review process yields something less than the word of God. It is but one thing to be considered in making a wise decision. As the West Hill neighbors, unhappy with the State's Route 96 decision pointed out to us a few nights ago, we can't let environmental concerns become the only criteria upon which a decision is based. The environment is more than trees and flowers. It is also people and neighborhoods. We've talked a great deal about making a major effort to build affordable housing in the area of Southwest Park. This proposed baling station would be a disaster for this neighborhood and essentially destroy any plans along those lines. Environmental review is no substitute for clear thinking and common sense. If the proposed land use doesn't fit, it doesn't fit, and forget about trying to find ways to make it fit. The .i.� time to say no to the baling station on Elmira Road is now, because it just plain does not fit the space selected for it." Alderperson Cummings stated that she wants to applaud the Mayor ,..E' for his commitment to process and the integrity of government. t:... She believes all of Council shares that. However, she-sees the environmental review as a subset of the overall process of government. It is one part of the process; it is part of the larger process of rational and representative democracy. Rationally, from a planning perspective, it is an inappropriate use of urban land to place a baling station in the urban environment. That is rationale, common sense decision- making. That is not something which requires an environmental impact statement to tell you that we are a community land poor which has no space available to it for building affordable housing and work places other than this area of acreage. Alderperson Cummings said that we also have a responsibility under the democratic process to be representative. We have a responsibility to express those views which the broader.public is asking us to put forward and to speak on their behalf. We are elected to speak on their behalf and she is comfortable doing that on behalf of the residents, merchants and future residents of the Southwest area of our city. Alderperson Nichols stated that he would like to preface his remarks by saying that he also is appalled at the :knee -jerk reaction of our local monopoly newspaper, the Ithaca Journal. He thinks they have done a shoddy job of investigation on this problem. He said that the reasons for the decision of seven members of Common Council to inform the County now of their opposition of the location of the County's baling station on the Commercial Avenue site have been distorted by the Mayor. Many of us have demonstrated our support for local, as well as the world environment. It is particularly ironic that the Mayor talks of process. Although he has been involved personally in the discussions with the County, he has never presented the, latest proposal to the Council or any of its committees for action. As (400,1 a result, unless we speak out now, the decision may be inevitable. If we delay and the County does not immediately pursue the environmental studies of other possible sites, there will be no time for another location to be ready before the new landfill goes into operation. Alderperson Nichols stated this state of affairs is in contrast with the process that took place when the County stated months ago that its preferred site was the old NYSEG park, which of course, is also in the City. He said that with his wholehearted support Council agreed to accept that location. Subsequently, it was decided that a very much larger area is required, perhaps as much as 17 acres. With the limited land available in the City for housing or commercial development and the particular nature of the restaurants and motels near the proposed site, the 10() 4 August 14, 1989 situation has changed completely. The policy question of the placement of a project with the presently projected size and character in the proposed location is not one that can be answered by an environmental impact statement. Further, to wait for that statement and to pursue long discussions will prejudice any chance for full consideration of alternate sites. All members of Council agree with the need for such active consideration. Alderperson Nichols further stated that this is no time for political posturing and news conferences. The time to say no is now. Mayor Gutenberger stated he believes that the time to inform the County was the meeting held on May 22, 1989 at the public scoping session. He was there and a large number of the people in tonight's audience were there. He thinks that was the appropriate time to raise the concerns, not 3 or 4 weeks before the work is to be completed on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. He does not think any Council members were there and he does not think any Council members put any concerns to the County in writing. Alderperson Johnson stated that for him it is crucial that we have as much information as possible when we make decisions. We are not making decisions just for ourselves. We have tools to use but it appears that several people have decided not to use the environmental impact information. He considers this to be a crucial tool in the decision - making process. We have some information and a resolution was brought to the Planning & Development Committee but he does not know to what extent the information covers all that he needs to know. Alderperson Johnson went on to say that he thinks that to set this precedent will be poor decision making. It could lead to arbitrary or capricious decision making and he does not think we are looking out for the best interests of our constituents or the people in this City. He thinks it is incumbent upon us to utilize the environmental review process in a consistent way and he would like to know what the Council persons will be saying to the people who live around the DR -7 section that are going to be experiencing the landfill coming in soon. Alderperson Killeen stated that on June 19th he wrote to the Council and the Mayor stating "That as to the garbage baling station site for Elmira Road I am increasingly skeptical about this location because of the noise, the smell, and rodent polluting aspects of it." He said that he remains increasingly skeptical. That, he thinks, is the central issue. He further remarked that he wrote that from a Planning Board perspective that he thinks it is a poor use of this major undeveloped area of the City. To commit it to this purpose for an open -ended long term period just does not make any sense. The public scoping session of May 22nd, which apparently none of the Council attended, is long past. The memo he just read of June 19 was 2 months ago, we are now in mid - August. Nevertheless, a useful purpose is being served by this meeting, by the Mayor's action, by the elevation of the issue, even by the editorials of the Ithaca Journal. Public attention is being focused on a big, important item and presumably we will .have all the greater participation in this decision making. We are up front and in advance saying that the environmental review statements should be looked at rather critically and rather skeptically. He said that this is indeed all we are supposed to be doing. He thinks that is quite sufficient. The ultimate rationality, we have to hope, will prevail. There is no finality to insure that the environmental statement is going to preserve that land or that it is going to serve this community in the long run in its best interests. 1 0!i 5 August 14, 1989 Alderperson Killeen said that we are working at it and that is the point but he wished that we didn't even have to have this meeting. There seems to be nobody from the County here, so once again we are talking to each other, but that is always a pleasure. Mayor Gutenberger stated for the record that the County did contact him as soon as they heard about this meeting, asking if they should have anyone present. He told the County "no" since it was only a meeting to override his veto. The Council would not be asking for input or plans. Alderperson Cummings asked if the County has agreed to the August 30th meeting. Mayor Gutenberger replied "yes ". Alderperson Hoffman stated that since the Council's vote last week, he has heard comments from numerous citizens, both pro and con, on the decision that the Council made and it is very clear to him, even more so now, that this is an issue on which citizens and even environmentalists can honestly disagree. He said that he appreciates the difficulty of those who want to represent City residents, particularly those in their ward who are going to be affected by this facility. Alderperson Hoffman said that it is clear to him that this facility is going have impacts, some of which are site specific to the Commercial Avenue area, some of which will occur wherever the facility is located. He understands those who want to express their concern about these impacts. For him, though, there is a larger issue of fairness involved in this situation. The central issue to him is not really the environmental review process although that is involved here. He said that he is quite familiar with the shortcomings of the environmental review process and he doesn't expect that those who are proposing to build a facility, whether it be a shopping mall or a highway or a trash processing facility are necessarily going to recognize all the impacts and are going to look at the issue in exactly the way that people who are opposed to it or going to be affected by it might want them to. Alderperson Hoffman said that he looks at this project as different from a shopping mall or something like that in that no one can dispute the need for this facility. It is a necessary part of the process. If we are going to have a landfill we need to separate as much material out of the waste stream so that we can increase the life time of the landfill and reduce the need for other landfills. Alderperson Hoffman further stated that the County has made a convincing argument to him that it would be most logical to locate this facility in a central area of the County, that it should be close to a main highway, Route 13 being the most obvious one. Some County Board members say this is not so important, that proximity to a railroad makes sense, when we are going to be recycling materials. They have also made a good argument to him that locating it at the new proposed landfill isn't necessarily logical because they hope this facility will outlast a particular landfill and that a central location therefor becomes more important in the long run. Alderperson Hoffman said that the reason that he brings up the issue of fairness is because some have argued very strongly that the City has enough density, it has enough buildings, it has enough businesses, it has enough cars and that for the sake of the environment and the citizens, we should somehow put a stop to additional development and growth. Others say that the City has a social responsibility that goes beyond the particular environmental impacts of a project. He thinks that those living outside the City would believe that the municipality that generates the most trash in the County should have some responsibility for the appropriate disposal of that trash. He thinks for us to exempt ourselves from the process at this point 108 6 August 14, 1989 is not constructive and could be seen as not fair for others in the County. The City clearly is a part of the solid waste problem. We have taken greater steps, and we can be proud of that, to try to address this problem through our recycling program. He believes that we should follow up on that good example by trying to cooperate with the County in finding the best location for a processing facility. He said that he thinks to do that we need to hear all the facts, we need to wait for all the facts, and we need to respect the process that has been laid out. His feeling continues to be that it is not constructive to pass a resolution of this type at this time when the County is in the middle of its process. Alderperson Hoffman further stated that for him to decide that the Commercial Avenue site should be ruled out, he needs to know what other sites are possible. He does not feel that he can say that an urban industrialized area, is necessarily a worse location for a processing facility than a suburban or an agricultural area or an area of open space. He needs to know exactly what the options are. The process has not been ideal. He has not seen detailed reports from the County on all the sites and City Council have not been completely involved in this process. He recognizes those problems but he does not think the answer to that is to retaliate by saying the City can't be considered or even that this site can't be considered at this point in the process. Alderperson Peterson stated that she believes the most serious error the County has made is in reviewing only one site at a time. Several sites should be analyzed at once, just as the Route 96 issues were examined. Many plans were thoroughly reviewed at once, thus enabling legislators to pick alternatives. Of course, just like the baling station, legislators pre -judge before the environmental work and recommendations were complete and she believes there is pre- judgment of both sides of this issue as well. Alderperson Peterson said that many people, including County legislators, have decided that the central processing facility must be in the City, not outlying areas. This has not been based on environmental review. People have decided that the small amount of green space in the City is less environmentally important than Town green spaces. That is an ultimate pre- judgment. She said that as an environmentalist, it is another tricky problem, as Alderperson Hoffman pointed out, similar to the Ithaca Falls, which was a dual environmental issue. Many say the City must share in the responsibility of dealing with the trash problem and she has no quarrel with that but balance and perspective are needed. The City already shoulders a heavy environmental burden. We are the County center, we support all the traffic and its air pollution. We give up green space for parking, we are the business center for the entire County and we receive the noise pollution of all its activity. She said that she is still willing to consider accepting other burdens as well. However, to the specifics, which is Commercial Avenue, it was never on her list of the top contenders. As someone looking out for the best interests of the City, she felt that a location, as Alderperson Nichols pointed out, more northerly was preferable, if one accepted the premise that it would be in the City proper. Because the population center is in the northeast area, it would make sense not to have those vehicles coming all the way into and out of the City but stopping at a more northerly location, turning around and going back out. Alderperson Peterson further remarked that in regard to the zoning designation, current use has fit more into a business - commercial classification with the restaurants, shops, motels, and car dealerships. Furthermore, potential future use of the area has not been expanding into industrial use but our discussion has been of housing and parks. To her that is a 0 0 it ) 7 August 14, 1989 crucial point. Other City sites are not adjacent to potential uses for housing and parkland. Regarding the environmental process, when the City first talked to the County about appropriate CPF sites, Commercial Avenue was included. Since then the site has grown, the usage has changed and the City plans for Southwest Park have become more strongly focused on housing. She said that she sees no problem with (600,� alerting the County of the inappropriateness of the site. There is nothing improper in letting the County know these things now. The administration's argument that we are interfering in the process doesn't sit well with her. It is one thing to interfere before something final takes place. On the other hand, the City has given the County the opposite message by allowing them to build the Mental Health Facility before environmental review is complete. We still have a major parking problem hanging over our heads. It is clear that the City and County should work better together but if the City Council feels this strongly about a site, even if the County is finished with its dEIS, it is responsible to say so. Alderperson Peterson reminded the Council �ufa that it is a request, we are requesting the County to do this. �t It is in the County's court now if we pass an override, to finish the dEIS, to drop the site or, as she hopes they do, to analyze some other sites at this point. Alderperson Schlather said that everybody here has spoken to the merits of this and he wasn't going to speak originally but its pretty clear that we understand this is not an environmental review question. This is a question of land use planning and we are speaking from a land use planning perspective, not from an environmental review. Therefore, environmental review is (Woo" unnecessary to be completed. Alderperson Schlather stated that since the last Council meeting he has been approached by two individuals who identified themselves and allowed him to identify them. There are other people out there who have other sites that, in fact, make some sense. He said that two men by the name of Munson came to him about a week or so ago and said that they believe that they have a good site. The site that they sketched out, in fact, is attractive. It is 138 acres, located on the Asbury Road, between Asbury Road and Farrell Road; it backs up almost to Farrell Road. It used to be an old gravel pit. It is more than 2 miles from the airport and from the end of the nearest runway. It is in route to the DR -7 site, in the Town of Lansing. It is not only wooded and shrouded and therefore kept from view but it is of adequate size that it could be used for a construction and demolition site which is also one of the requirements still hanging out there that the County must meet, separate and apart from the landfill and it is frankly must less costly. Alderperson Schlather remarked that this is just one example - he is not promoting this, but just explaining to Council that there is in fact something out there. The point is that we can do something constructive. We can recommend or ask the County to look at this site or some comparable site. Mayor Gutenberger asked Alderperson Schlather if he knows if those individuals have contacted the County. Alderperson Schlather replied that they told him they have spoken with County staff and were encouraged but that there was some reference to the fact that it is awfully late in the process. In other words, they have not spoken to any of the voting representatives. He suggested to the Munsons that they make a formal proposal. Mayor Gutenberger suggested to Alderperson Schlather that he send to the County the information that he has to make sure that they are aware of the site. Alderperson Schlather said that he would be glad to do that. 110 E:3 August 14, 1989 Alderperson Killeen stated, for the record, that as the Council representative on the Planning and Development Board, if a site is selected by the County within the City, he will certainly urge the Planning Board to ask for a full, complete, total Site Plan Review procedure on this site and would expect the County to submit to it. The matter of an override of the Mayor's veto on the Central Processing Facility at Commercial Avenue was duly put to a roll call vote which resulted as follows: Alderperson Nichols - Aye Alderperson Romanowski - Aye Alderperson Cummings - Aye Alderperson Hoffman - Nay Alderperson Schlather - Aye Alderperson Johnson - Nay Alderperson Lytel - Aye Alderperson Killeen - Aye Alderperson Peterson- Aye ( Alderperson Booth was excused from the meeting). Ayes (7) Nays (2) Carried ADJOURNMENT . On a motion the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 P.M. Callista F. Paolan eli City Clerk John C. Gitenberger `r k Mayor D ff C J (M] <r. D 1 CO or Special Meeting PRESENT: Mayor Gutenberger Alderpersons (9) - COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK 5:30 P.M. August 14, 1989 Schlather, Nichols, Cummings, Lytel, Hoffman, Peterson, Killeen, Johnson, Romanowski ABSENT: Alderperson Booth (excused) OTHERS PRESENT: City Clerk - Paolangeli City Attorney - Nash Deputy Director Planning & Development - Mazzarella PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Gutenberger led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. RESOLUTION TO OVERRIDE MAYOR'S VETO By Alderperson Lytel: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That this Common Council votes to override Mayor Gutenberger's veto of Agenda Item 2.1 - Central Processing Facility at Commercial Avenue. Alderperson Romanowski stated that he has consistently opposed this particular site for the garbage baling station. He thought it inappropriate when it was first brought up, and he still feels that way. We can say "no, we don't want this ", no matter where the environmental process is. It makes no difference whether the County says this is a preferred place and we want it or don't want it. He thinks what the Council is trying to say is that we understand there is a process involved but we, as Council, and the taxpayers have a right to say "no" no matter what the outcome of environmental review. There are too many things that we see even without an environmental review process going on, that would indicate we don't want it there. Alderperson Romanowski said that he does not think it is a repudiation of the Mayor in particular. He thinks it is a repudiation of a site that has grown much larger than what was initially explained to Council. We are now talking about 17 acres and who knows what it might be next week. He just does not think this is the right place for a baling station. He said that he is willing to work as hard as he can with the County to find a location that would work out satisfactorily but it is not this place. Mayor Gutenberger stated that Alderperson Romanowski has been consistent in this matter. The record, even back as far as the March meeting with the County, reflect his opposition to this site. Alderperson Lytel read the following statement: "Tonight we meet to overrule the Mayor - -a very uncommon political event. The Ithaca Journal, as we know, is taking his side, representing the Mayor as the lonely voice of reason trying to stem the tide of an ill - informed mob, which we are allegedly to represent. Although both are trying to do the right thing both are quite wrong. 1Qq 2 August 14, 1989 The Mayor and his allies believe they are protecting the integrity of the environmental review process. But this is anything but a normal environmental assessment in a number of ways. In the case of a private development the project would be finalized before any environmental review began. In this case, the County has changed substantially the amount of space necessary to house what it will be building on the site. When first invited to comment on the County's proposed locations I urged them to look at the Commercial Avenue site. But since then the project has clearly and obviously outgrown the place they want to put it. Although we have their assurance that this would be the best run garbage baling and transfer facility in America the way they have gone about expanding it while they've been designing it doesn't give us much reassurance of that. Even compared with the County's previous actions to site the landfill itself the siting of the baling station has been abbreviated and unusual. Under the process they used for locating the landfill they gave substantially greater review to alternative sites before selecting the DR -7 parcel in Dryden. For the baling station they've taken one site to investigate in great depth rather than a number to evaluate simultaneously. Finally, in a normal environmental assessment we, the City of Ithaca, would have the ability to say no or to modify the project. In this case the developer is the County, over which we have essentially no control. All we can do is object strenuously in a public way if we believe putting a garbage processing facility of this scale and magnitude in the vicinity of restaurants and hotels is in error. Those of us who oppose the baling station near the Elmira Road are accused of being short - sighted and unwilling to do our part in finding a solution for a problem to which we all contribute. That's not true. Certainly the City of Ithaca had the first recycling program in Tompkins County. It is still by far the most progressive of any in the County. We took this action because it was judicious and responsible, not because we were threatened with fees to dump our garbage or with court orders or state actions. We're also criticized for protecting the interests of the Elmira Road residents and landowners. I guess we'd have to plead guilty to that charge. Business owners have every bit as much right to protection of the investment that they've made in their property as do home owners. In the case of the Elmira Road many businesses have made a substantial amount of investment in this neighborhood, which serves the community well. The argument for the baling station is that we'd save money on hauling our garbage to a less central location. But we'll be losing in order of magnitude more in property values and taxes than we'll be saving on trucking our garbage. We'd be derelict of duty if we allowed that neighborhood, or any other, to be dramatically compromised by an inappropriate land use. What does a garbage baling station fit with best? It should be located adjacent to land whose value the government is actively attempting to hold down, such as farm land or agricultural processing facilities. We have active and progressive efforts to keep land in cultivation rather than see it lost to non- agricultural uses. Those are the things that go best with the proposed baling station. Putting it in a neighborhood of dense urban land use just doesn't make any sense. Finally, the environmental review currently being conducted for the county will hopefully tell us many things. It is an important process for the discovery of information. Before the process of environmental review was formalized and incorporated ARM i oJ 3 August 14, 1989 into public decision - making, the potential impact of private and public actions frequently went unconsidered. But the outcome of the environmental review process yields something less than the word of God. It is but one thing to be considered in making a wise decision. As the West Hill neighbors, unhappy with the State's Route 96 decision pointed out to us a few nights ago, we can't let environmental concerns become the only criteria upon which a decision is based. The environment is more than trees and flowers. It is also people and neighborhoods. We've talked a great deal about making a major effort to build affordable housing in the area of Southwest Park. This proposed baling station would be a disaster for this neighborhood and essentially destroy any plans along those lines. Environmental review is no substitute for clear thinking and common sense. If the proposed land use doesn't fit, it doesn't fit, and forget about trying to find ways to make it fit. The .i.� time to say no to the baling station on Elmira Road is now, because it just plain does not fit the space selected for it." Alderperson Cummings stated that she wants to applaud the Mayor ,..E' for his commitment to process and the integrity of government. t:... She believes all of Council shares that. However, she-sees the environmental review as a subset of the overall process of government. It is one part of the process; it is part of the larger process of rational and representative democracy. Rationally, from a planning perspective, it is an inappropriate use of urban land to place a baling station in the urban environment. That is rationale, common sense decision- making. That is not something which requires an environmental impact statement to tell you that we are a community land poor which has no space available to it for building affordable housing and work places other than this area of acreage. Alderperson Cummings said that we also have a responsibility under the democratic process to be representative. We have a responsibility to express those views which the broader.public is asking us to put forward and to speak on their behalf. We are elected to speak on their behalf and she is comfortable doing that on behalf of the residents, merchants and future residents of the Southwest area of our city. Alderperson Nichols stated that he would like to preface his remarks by saying that he also is appalled at the :knee -jerk reaction of our local monopoly newspaper, the Ithaca Journal. He thinks they have done a shoddy job of investigation on this problem. He said that the reasons for the decision of seven members of Common Council to inform the County now of their opposition of the location of the County's baling station on the Commercial Avenue site have been distorted by the Mayor. Many of us have demonstrated our support for local, as well as the world environment. It is particularly ironic that the Mayor talks of process. Although he has been involved personally in the discussions with the County, he has never presented the, latest proposal to the Council or any of its committees for action. As (400,1 a result, unless we speak out now, the decision may be inevitable. If we delay and the County does not immediately pursue the environmental studies of other possible sites, there will be no time for another location to be ready before the new landfill goes into operation. Alderperson Nichols stated this state of affairs is in contrast with the process that took place when the County stated months ago that its preferred site was the old NYSEG park, which of course, is also in the City. He said that with his wholehearted support Council agreed to accept that location. Subsequently, it was decided that a very much larger area is required, perhaps as much as 17 acres. With the limited land available in the City for housing or commercial development and the particular nature of the restaurants and motels near the proposed site, the 10() 4 August 14, 1989 situation has changed completely. The policy question of the placement of a project with the presently projected size and character in the proposed location is not one that can be answered by an environmental impact statement. Further, to wait for that statement and to pursue long discussions will prejudice any chance for full consideration of alternate sites. All members of Council agree with the need for such active consideration. Alderperson Nichols further stated that this is no time for political posturing and news conferences. The time to say no is now. Mayor Gutenberger stated he believes that the time to inform the County was the meeting held on May 22, 1989 at the public scoping session. He was there and a large number of the people in tonight's audience were there. He thinks that was the appropriate time to raise the concerns, not 3 or 4 weeks before the work is to be completed on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. He does not think any Council members were there and he does not think any Council members put any concerns to the County in writing. Alderperson Johnson stated that for him it is crucial that we have as much information as possible when we make decisions. We are not making decisions just for ourselves. We have tools to use but it appears that several people have decided not to use the environmental impact information. He considers this to be a crucial tool in the decision - making process. We have some information and a resolution was brought to the Planning & Development Committee but he does not know to what extent the information covers all that he needs to know. Alderperson Johnson went on to say that he thinks that to set this precedent will be poor decision making. It could lead to arbitrary or capricious decision making and he does not think we are looking out for the best interests of our constituents or the people in this City. He thinks it is incumbent upon us to utilize the environmental review process in a consistent way and he would like to know what the Council persons will be saying to the people who live around the DR -7 section that are going to be experiencing the landfill coming in soon. Alderperson Killeen stated that on June 19th he wrote to the Council and the Mayor stating "That as to the garbage baling station site for Elmira Road I am increasingly skeptical about this location because of the noise, the smell, and rodent polluting aspects of it." He said that he remains increasingly skeptical. That, he thinks, is the central issue. He further remarked that he wrote that from a Planning Board perspective that he thinks it is a poor use of this major undeveloped area of the City. To commit it to this purpose for an open -ended long term period just does not make any sense. The public scoping session of May 22nd, which apparently none of the Council attended, is long past. The memo he just read of June 19 was 2 months ago, we are now in mid - August. Nevertheless, a useful purpose is being served by this meeting, by the Mayor's action, by the elevation of the issue, even by the editorials of the Ithaca Journal. Public attention is being focused on a big, important item and presumably we will .have all the greater participation in this decision making. We are up front and in advance saying that the environmental review statements should be looked at rather critically and rather skeptically. He said that this is indeed all we are supposed to be doing. He thinks that is quite sufficient. The ultimate rationality, we have to hope, will prevail. There is no finality to insure that the environmental statement is going to preserve that land or that it is going to serve this community in the long run in its best interests. 1 0!i 5 August 14, 1989 Alderperson Killeen said that we are working at it and that is the point but he wished that we didn't even have to have this meeting. There seems to be nobody from the County here, so once again we are talking to each other, but that is always a pleasure. Mayor Gutenberger stated for the record that the County did contact him as soon as they heard about this meeting, asking if they should have anyone present. He told the County "no" since it was only a meeting to override his veto. The Council would not be asking for input or plans. Alderperson Cummings asked if the County has agreed to the August 30th meeting. Mayor Gutenberger replied "yes ". Alderperson Hoffman stated that since the Council's vote last week, he has heard comments from numerous citizens, both pro and con, on the decision that the Council made and it is very clear to him, even more so now, that this is an issue on which citizens and even environmentalists can honestly disagree. He said that he appreciates the difficulty of those who want to represent City residents, particularly those in their ward who are going to be affected by this facility. Alderperson Hoffman said that it is clear to him that this facility is going have impacts, some of which are site specific to the Commercial Avenue area, some of which will occur wherever the facility is located. He understands those who want to express their concern about these impacts. For him, though, there is a larger issue of fairness involved in this situation. The central issue to him is not really the environmental review process although that is involved here. He said that he is quite familiar with the shortcomings of the environmental review process and he doesn't expect that those who are proposing to build a facility, whether it be a shopping mall or a highway or a trash processing facility are necessarily going to recognize all the impacts and are going to look at the issue in exactly the way that people who are opposed to it or going to be affected by it might want them to. Alderperson Hoffman said that he looks at this project as different from a shopping mall or something like that in that no one can dispute the need for this facility. It is a necessary part of the process. If we are going to have a landfill we need to separate as much material out of the waste stream so that we can increase the life time of the landfill and reduce the need for other landfills. Alderperson Hoffman further stated that the County has made a convincing argument to him that it would be most logical to locate this facility in a central area of the County, that it should be close to a main highway, Route 13 being the most obvious one. Some County Board members say this is not so important, that proximity to a railroad makes sense, when we are going to be recycling materials. They have also made a good argument to him that locating it at the new proposed landfill isn't necessarily logical because they hope this facility will outlast a particular landfill and that a central location therefor becomes more important in the long run. Alderperson Hoffman said that the reason that he brings up the issue of fairness is because some have argued very strongly that the City has enough density, it has enough buildings, it has enough businesses, it has enough cars and that for the sake of the environment and the citizens, we should somehow put a stop to additional development and growth. Others say that the City has a social responsibility that goes beyond the particular environmental impacts of a project. He thinks that those living outside the City would believe that the municipality that generates the most trash in the County should have some responsibility for the appropriate disposal of that trash. He thinks for us to exempt ourselves from the process at this point 108 6 August 14, 1989 is not constructive and could be seen as not fair for others in the County. The City clearly is a part of the solid waste problem. We have taken greater steps, and we can be proud of that, to try to address this problem through our recycling program. He believes that we should follow up on that good example by trying to cooperate with the County in finding the best location for a processing facility. He said that he thinks to do that we need to hear all the facts, we need to wait for all the facts, and we need to respect the process that has been laid out. His feeling continues to be that it is not constructive to pass a resolution of this type at this time when the County is in the middle of its process. Alderperson Hoffman further stated that for him to decide that the Commercial Avenue site should be ruled out, he needs to know what other sites are possible. He does not feel that he can say that an urban industrialized area, is necessarily a worse location for a processing facility than a suburban or an agricultural area or an area of open space. He needs to know exactly what the options are. The process has not been ideal. He has not seen detailed reports from the County on all the sites and City Council have not been completely involved in this process. He recognizes those problems but he does not think the answer to that is to retaliate by saying the City can't be considered or even that this site can't be considered at this point in the process. Alderperson Peterson stated that she believes the most serious error the County has made is in reviewing only one site at a time. Several sites should be analyzed at once, just as the Route 96 issues were examined. Many plans were thoroughly reviewed at once, thus enabling legislators to pick alternatives. Of course, just like the baling station, legislators pre -judge before the environmental work and recommendations were complete and she believes there is pre- judgment of both sides of this issue as well. Alderperson Peterson said that many people, including County legislators, have decided that the central processing facility must be in the City, not outlying areas. This has not been based on environmental review. People have decided that the small amount of green space in the City is less environmentally important than Town green spaces. That is an ultimate pre- judgment. She said that as an environmentalist, it is another tricky problem, as Alderperson Hoffman pointed out, similar to the Ithaca Falls, which was a dual environmental issue. Many say the City must share in the responsibility of dealing with the trash problem and she has no quarrel with that but balance and perspective are needed. The City already shoulders a heavy environmental burden. We are the County center, we support all the traffic and its air pollution. We give up green space for parking, we are the business center for the entire County and we receive the noise pollution of all its activity. She said that she is still willing to consider accepting other burdens as well. However, to the specifics, which is Commercial Avenue, it was never on her list of the top contenders. As someone looking out for the best interests of the City, she felt that a location, as Alderperson Nichols pointed out, more northerly was preferable, if one accepted the premise that it would be in the City proper. Because the population center is in the northeast area, it would make sense not to have those vehicles coming all the way into and out of the City but stopping at a more northerly location, turning around and going back out. Alderperson Peterson further remarked that in regard to the zoning designation, current use has fit more into a business - commercial classification with the restaurants, shops, motels, and car dealerships. Furthermore, potential future use of the area has not been expanding into industrial use but our discussion has been of housing and parks. To her that is a 0 0 it ) 7 August 14, 1989 crucial point. Other City sites are not adjacent to potential uses for housing and parkland. Regarding the environmental process, when the City first talked to the County about appropriate CPF sites, Commercial Avenue was included. Since then the site has grown, the usage has changed and the City plans for Southwest Park have become more strongly focused on housing. She said that she sees no problem with (600,� alerting the County of the inappropriateness of the site. There is nothing improper in letting the County know these things now. The administration's argument that we are interfering in the process doesn't sit well with her. It is one thing to interfere before something final takes place. On the other hand, the City has given the County the opposite message by allowing them to build the Mental Health Facility before environmental review is complete. We still have a major parking problem hanging over our heads. It is clear that the City and County should work better together but if the City Council feels this strongly about a site, even if the County is finished with its dEIS, it is responsible to say so. Alderperson Peterson reminded the Council �ufa that it is a request, we are requesting the County to do this. �t It is in the County's court now if we pass an override, to finish the dEIS, to drop the site or, as she hopes they do, to analyze some other sites at this point. Alderperson Schlather said that everybody here has spoken to the merits of this and he wasn't going to speak originally but its pretty clear that we understand this is not an environmental review question. This is a question of land use planning and we are speaking from a land use planning perspective, not from an environmental review. Therefore, environmental review is (Woo" unnecessary to be completed. Alderperson Schlather stated that since the last Council meeting he has been approached by two individuals who identified themselves and allowed him to identify them. There are other people out there who have other sites that, in fact, make some sense. He said that two men by the name of Munson came to him about a week or so ago and said that they believe that they have a good site. The site that they sketched out, in fact, is attractive. It is 138 acres, located on the Asbury Road, between Asbury Road and Farrell Road; it backs up almost to Farrell Road. It used to be an old gravel pit. It is more than 2 miles from the airport and from the end of the nearest runway. It is in route to the DR -7 site, in the Town of Lansing. It is not only wooded and shrouded and therefore kept from view but it is of adequate size that it could be used for a construction and demolition site which is also one of the requirements still hanging out there that the County must meet, separate and apart from the landfill and it is frankly must less costly. Alderperson Schlather remarked that this is just one example - he is not promoting this, but just explaining to Council that there is in fact something out there. The point is that we can do something constructive. We can recommend or ask the County to look at this site or some comparable site. Mayor Gutenberger asked Alderperson Schlather if he knows if those individuals have contacted the County. Alderperson Schlather replied that they told him they have spoken with County staff and were encouraged but that there was some reference to the fact that it is awfully late in the process. In other words, they have not spoken to any of the voting representatives. He suggested to the Munsons that they make a formal proposal. Mayor Gutenberger suggested to Alderperson Schlather that he send to the County the information that he has to make sure that they are aware of the site. Alderperson Schlather said that he would be glad to do that. 110 E:3 August 14, 1989 Alderperson Killeen stated, for the record, that as the Council representative on the Planning and Development Board, if a site is selected by the County within the City, he will certainly urge the Planning Board to ask for a full, complete, total Site Plan Review procedure on this site and would expect the County to submit to it. The matter of an override of the Mayor's veto on the Central Processing Facility at Commercial Avenue was duly put to a roll call vote which resulted as follows: Alderperson Nichols - Aye Alderperson Romanowski - Aye Alderperson Cummings - Aye Alderperson Hoffman - Nay Alderperson Schlather - Aye Alderperson Johnson - Nay Alderperson Lytel - Aye Alderperson Killeen - Aye Alderperson Peterson- Aye ( Alderperson Booth was excused from the meeting). Ayes (7) Nays (2) Carried ADJOURNMENT . On a motion the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 P.M. Callista F. Paolan eli City Clerk John C. Gitenberger `r k Mayor D