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