Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1990-03-281 COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Special Meeting 7:30 P.M. March 28, 1990 PRESENT: Mayor Nichols Alderpersons (10) - Booth, Daley, Golder, Hoffman, Peterson, Blanchard, Schroeder, Johnson, Romanowski, Cummings OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney - Guttman City Clerk - Paolangeli Police Chief - McEwen City Controller - Cafferillo City Engineer - Gray Superintendent of Public Works - Thadani Director of Planning and Development - Van Cort City Judge - Sherman .� Community Development Administrator - Evans w� Board of Public Works Commissioners - Reeves, Connor, Berg PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nichols led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Hudson Street Project Alderperson Blanchard, Liaison to the Board of Public Works, read the following resolution that was adopted by the Board on March 28, 1990, with a 4 -2 vote: (600,11 "WHEREAS, this Board of Public Works has listened to the concerns of the residents of the Hudson Street neighborhood about the plans for the reconstruction of Hudson Street, and WHEREAS, this Board is committed to the maintenance of streets within the City of Ithaca that provide safety for vehicular traffic and pedestrians while maintaining to the maximum extent possible the historic and residential character of neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, this Board has come to the conclusion that the best interests of the City and neighborhood would be served by making additions and changes to the current construction, traffic control, and street tree plans, and WHEREAS, the addition and changes listed below can be made without subjecting the City to liability for a road reconstruction that does not meet standards of safety, without significant economic costs to the City, and without the risk that the project will not be completed this year; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That staff is directed to make provisions for the following policies, changes and additions: 1. The maximum number of trees shall be saved; 2. Every attempt shall be made to preserve the life of those trees that suffer damage during the reconstruction; 3. A tree planting program be instituted at the first possible planting season; 4. The areas between the sidewalks and curbs shall be maintained as grass; 38(► -2 March 28, 1990 5. The shall be the minimal possible taking of private property; 6. There shall be a STOP sign installed near the top of the hill at the entrance to the City; 7. There shall be an all -way STOP sign at the intersection of Hudson and Columbia Streets; 8. The YIELD sign at the intersection of Hudson and Aurora Streets shall be replaced by a STOP sign; 9. The design of the curves shall have the minimum radius within the constraint of safety requirements; 10. The width of the street between Hillview Place and the City line shall be a 27 foot design, and 11. The width of the street between Columbia Street and Hillview Place shall provide a transition to a 27 foot width design; and be it further RESOLVED, That in the future planning and design of major projects, such as the Elm Street Reconstruction, the early participation of the public will be sought in deciding the options to be considered as well as in the on -going process of choosing among specific design alternatives." Mayor Nichols asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address Council on the matter of the Hudson Street Project. Mr. John Swartz, 510 Hudson Street, addressed Council and read a petition that was signed by approximately 100 residents of the neighborhood and adjoining neighborhoods and presented the petition to the City Clerk for filing. The petition reads as follows: "We, the undersigned residents of Hudson Street and its immediate neighborhood, are concerned for the safety of all residents and especially for the safety of children attending schools in our neighborhood. The current threat to our safety is from traffic speeding on Hudson Street. We are concerned that a Hudson Street "improvement" project that provides a wider, straighter, and smoother road will encourage more speeding and thus increase rather than decrease this threat. We are also concerned that the "improvement" project will destroy the residential character and environment of our neighborhood. Thus we petition you to consider the following: 1. That the city proceed with its reconstruction of Hudson Street, limited to the necessary and reasonable elements of replacing the street's foundation and utility structures, correcting curve embankments, and adding four way stop signs at several points along the street; 2. That the city refrain from widening or straightening the street from Aurora Street to Coddington Road; 3. That the city take steps to insure that, for current and future municipal construction projects, citizens who are affected by such projects will be given the opportunity to be full participants in the entire planning and decision - making process." 3�'1l 3 March 28, 1990 The following persons spoke to Council on the Hudson Street Project: Jim Houghton Don Hinman Don Miller Walt Amey Yaro Nelson Guy Gerard - 111 Hudson Street - 135 Hudson Street - 635 Hudson Street - 212 Hudson Street - Representing Ithaca - 140 College Avenue Bicycle Coalition Mayor Nichols, for clarification, stated that the project in its present form is the project that was approved by the Board of Public Works today. In December we recommended a negative declaration based on the information we received at the time. We were made aware of only limited neighborhood controversy. As you know, the CAC must evaluate a number of factors when considering a project. Safety, neighborhood character and air pollution are three that have particular relevance to this project. Although we were unenthusiastic about the proposal we felt that given the information that we had at the time, a negative declaration was justified. We did, however, have a number of concerns which we stated in our review. It now appears that the neighborhood is united in its opposition to the plan and that safety improvements could be achieved by less drastic measures such as STOP signs, traffic lights and improved banking of the road. Furthermore, mature trees, in addition to their obvious aesthetic advantages are significantly more effective in reducing noise and air pollution than are small ones and should be conserved wherever possible. The engineers have expressed their concern with providing for efficient flow of traffic into the City. However, the CAC feels that the City's first obligation is to its neighborhoods. Neighborhoods know best what is good for them and we are confident that the City will respect the neighborhoods while articulating concerns by revising the plan." Hudson Street Reconstruction Project Amendments By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Daley WHEREAS, the residents of the Hudson Street neighborhood have petitioned for certain changes to the Hudson Street Reconstruction Project as currently designed by John S. MacNeil Engineers, and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of Ithaca to preserve and enhance the quality of life in our residential neighborhoods, while maintaining our infrastructure consistent with reasonable safety standards; now, therefore, be it City Engineer Gray explained some of the technicalities of the project to the public and the Council and responded to questions. Mr. Eric Broberg, member of the Conservation Advisory Council, the read the following statement from Betsey Darlington, Chair of CAC: "The Conservation Advisory Council urges Common Council to work with the residents of the Hudson Street neighborhood to revise the plans for that street in ways that are acceptable to the neighborhood. We also urge greater enforcement of the speed limit, not only here but in other areas of the City where speeding is a problem. In December we recommended a negative declaration based on the information we received at the time. We were made aware of only limited neighborhood controversy. As you know, the CAC must evaluate a number of factors when considering a project. Safety, neighborhood character and air pollution are three that have particular relevance to this project. Although we were unenthusiastic about the proposal we felt that given the information that we had at the time, a negative declaration was justified. We did, however, have a number of concerns which we stated in our review. It now appears that the neighborhood is united in its opposition to the plan and that safety improvements could be achieved by less drastic measures such as STOP signs, traffic lights and improved banking of the road. Furthermore, mature trees, in addition to their obvious aesthetic advantages are significantly more effective in reducing noise and air pollution than are small ones and should be conserved wherever possible. The engineers have expressed their concern with providing for efficient flow of traffic into the City. However, the CAC feels that the City's first obligation is to its neighborhoods. Neighborhoods know best what is good for them and we are confident that the City will respect the neighborhoods while articulating concerns by revising the plan." Hudson Street Reconstruction Project Amendments By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Daley WHEREAS, the residents of the Hudson Street neighborhood have petitioned for certain changes to the Hudson Street Reconstruction Project as currently designed by John S. MacNeil Engineers, and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of Ithaca to preserve and enhance the quality of life in our residential neighborhoods, while maintaining our infrastructure consistent with reasonable safety standards; now, therefore, be it -388 4 March 28, 1990 RESOLVED, That the following changes to the Hudson Street Reconstruction Project be made: 1. WIDTH. The width for paving shall be narrowed from 30 feet to the approximate current width for the entire project length, from Aurora Street to the Coddington Road. 2. TREES. a) Tree removal shall be kept to 2 -5, as indicated on the March 23, 1990 Department of Public Works proposal. b) Earth disruption around remaining tree roots shall be done carefully, by hand if necessary. Appropriate protective fertilizing and pruning shall be done. Supervision will be provided by the city forester and Shade Tree Committee. c) A minimum of 38 additional trees shall be planted, including an allee from the Therm drive to the City line. 3. CURB LAWN. No pavers of brick, or any other material, shall be used between the curb and the sidewalk. Curb lawns shall be grass. 4. CURVES. The radius of the Therm curve shall be limited to the minimum legal standard. The current designs for the curves at Giles and the school are acceptable to the majority of residents. 5. STOP SIGNS. Stop signs shall be installed immediately in three locations: on Hudson at Aurora; a 4 -way on Hudson at Columbia; and at the top on Hudson where it will be deemed most effective, either at the Coddington Road or Therm Road /Hudson Place intersections, or below the Therm curve. 6. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. The city invites the South Hill Civic Association to form a working subcommittee to meet on a regularly scheduled basis with representatives from the DPW, the BPW, and the 2nd Ward Alderpersons to provide oversight for the duration of the Hudson Street Reconstruction Project. Alderperson Schroeder offered the following amendment to the resolution: RESOLVED, That a further Resolved clause be added to read as follows: RESOLVED, That in the future planning and design of major projects, such as the Elm Street Reconstruction, the early participation of the public will be sought in deciding the options to be considered as well as in the on -going process of choosing among specific design alternatives. No objection was made by the Council and the amendment was accepted. Alderperson Golder offered the following amendment to the resolution: RESOLVED, That a final Resolved clause be added to read as follows: RESOLVED, That appropriate steps be taken to designate Hudson Street as a bicycle route. Discussion followed on the floor. No objection was made by the Council and the amendment was accepted. Alderperson Cummings stated that at the Board of Public Works meeting today, staff indicated concern about safety standards on the street and the city's liability. She said that the three accident areas are being addressed by the project. The accidents at Giles Street are being addressed by the re- design of the Giles curves. The accidents at the intersection of Aurora are being addressed by the installation of a STOP sign there. The mid - block accidents would be affected by the re- design of the Giles `r ""l 10( % 5 March 28, 1990 curves. Alderperson Cummings emphasized that she does not believe the City to be remiss in designing for appropriate safety standards. Superintendent of Public Works Thadani spoke to Council regarding the reasons for the project. He stated that the primary goal of the project was to create a much safer situation on Hudson Street. The City recognizes that there is a dangerous condition on Hudson Street; it is incumbent upon the City, as we are going (400" into reconstruction of the street, to consider improving the safety. Unfortunately, with the parking lanes that exist on the lower part of Hudson Street, that means widening of the street. There is simply not enough space to park a car and for two other cars to pass one another. The margin of safety is extremely limited. It would be very difficult for the Department of Public Works staff to endorse a project that did not address that situation because all they would be doing would be endorsing an unsafe situation. �d1 Superintendent Thadani said that if the Council is saying that S { i the project ought to be done in the format that is before them, the Council is for all practical purposes telling him to cancel the project and in that case the City will have to assume the fiscal liabilities that go with that decision. Superintendent Thadani stressed to the Council that if they are telling him that they want the department to proceed with the project when the Council has been told, in his opinion, that the project is not safe, then he does not believe the department, the Superintendent nor the City Engineer can stand behind a project of that type. They would not want to compromise their professional integrity, their degrees, their licenses, to go ahead with a project of that nature and he would certainly (Mwov hesitate from signing off on this new set of drawings with the type of plans that the Council is suggesting tonight. Discussion followed on the floor with City Engineer Gray and the Superintendent of Public Works answering questions from Council members. Questions were asked of City Attorney Guttman regarding the liability of the City if the project were built the way the resolution so states at this time. City Attorney Guttman stated that if the Council wished to discuss the City's liabilities, he would prefer to do so in executive session. Further discussion followed on the floor with Supt. Thadani and City Engineer Gray responding to questions from several Alderpersons. Executive Session By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder RESOLVED, That the Common Council move into Executive Session to discuss the City's liability regarding the proposed Hudson Street (,woe, Reconstruction Project. Carried Unanimously The Common Council adjourned into Executive Session at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened into Regular Session at 9:55 p.m. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman RESOLVED, That in No. 1) WIDTH - the wording shall be as follows: The width for paving shall be changed to the approximate width of the existing road from Prospect Street to the Coddington Road and that an Item No. 7 be added to read as follows: The block from Aurora Street to Prospect Street be left at a 30 foot width but the realignment be re- designed to reduce the taking from the 6 March 28, 1990 downhill side and to solicit input from the residents of the 100 block in that re- design. Discussion followed on the amending resolution. City Engineer Gray answered questions from Council members. A vote on the amending resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (7) - Hoffman, Johnson, Schroeder, Daley, Cummings, Golder, Peterson Nays (3) - Booth, Romanowski, Blanchard Carried Discussion continued on the Main Motion as Amended with the Alderpersons stating their reasons for supporting or not supporting the resolution. Mayor Nichols stated, for the record, that it is his opinion that the Council, in voting for this resolution, is taking a real gamble. He said that it is not a gamble that he would take and he does not think it is one that the Council should be taking in the best interests of the people of the City. The whole City has to bear this cost. Mayor Nichols stated that he is certain that the Council will get a very positive reaction from the people in this audience and he will not be gaining any favor by saying this but he thinks the Council is making a big mistake at this stage of the game, in terms of the cost and the potential problems that we may have with this project. Main Motion as Amended A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Ayes (7) - Johnson, Golder, Cummings, Daley, Peterson, Hoffman, Schroeder Nays (3) - Booth, Romanowski, Blanchard Carried Recess The Council recessed at 10:45 p.m. and reconvened at 11:00 p.m. Alderperson Peterson left the meeting at 10:45 p.m. City Court Facilities By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski WHEREAS, the Ithaca City Court is currently housed on the fourth floor of the Hall of Justice building, located at 120 East Clinton Street in Ithaca, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 825 of the Laws of 1987, Representatives of the State Office of Court Administration have identified various deficiencies in the existing City Court Facilities, and WHEREAS, in compliance with Chapter 825, the City of Ithaca adopted a Court Facility Plan on August 3, 1989, outlining a proposed project schedule, and WHEREAS, pursuant to further direction of the Office of Court Administration, the City has been directed to designate the proposed site and location of such facility no later than March 31 of 1990; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby proposes in concept the construction of a new City Court Facility of approximately 6,000 square feet, to be located on East Clinton Street, across from the Hall of Justice, subject to all environ- mental and site planning considerations. 19 lr� IDS) i 7 March 28, 1990 Mayor Nichols read the following excerpt from a letter from City Judge Sherman: "Therefore, the site location most suitable to the Court would be site 2, as proposed in the study, the construction of a new facility on the lot across from East Clinton Street from the Hall of Justice. While some security problems are presented by separation from the remaining Police Station, these problems can be minimized by a connection between the two buildings as suggested in the study or some type of traffic control device to ensure safe and secure police crossing of East Clinton Street." Mayor Nichols stated that at the March 28, 1990 meeting of the Board of Public Works, the Commissioners endorsed the site on East Clinton Street. They included the recommendation that there be an underground connection between the two buildings. Alderperson Booth stated that as this resolution comes to the c� Council from the Budget and Administration Committee, this is an approval in concept only and it does not include endorsement of �) either a tunnel or a bridge across East Clinton Street. It does �) not foreclose that issue but does not endorse it as part of the concept. The Budget and Administration Committee, with the assistance of the Superintendent, concluded that the building of a new facility was significantly superior to either of the other two alternatives. He said that the Council is not bound to this site if they find factors that in fact determine that this site is not advisable to go forward with. Alderperson Cummings stated that one of the other possibilities examined in the study was the construction of a totally new building on the Park property as opposed to the City property. She asked if the problem with that possible site was that the (WO10" City does not own the land. Alderperson Booth stated that the City certainly has the power of eminent domain if we wished to pursue it and he does not think any of those things are foreclosed. However, we have a deadline we have to meet and the resolution we are voting on is a reasonable way to meet it. Alderperson Cummings stated that she would like to be on record as, indicating some interest in not discarding this site (the Park site) . Further discussion followed on the floor on alternate sites. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (9) - Cummings, Schroeder, Daley, Booth, Blanchard, Romanowski, Johnson, Hoffman, Golder Absent (1) - Peterson Carried Community Development Grant - Exception from HUD Conflict of Interest Rules By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Daley (600-.1 WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that a conflict of interest, as HUD defines it, exists because of the relationship between Alderman Dan Hoffman, a member of this Council, and the Eddy Street Cooperative Market (the Market), an applicant for a $10,000 loan from the Community Development Small Cities Economic Development Grant; and WHEREAS, the Citizens Advisory Committee, after a full hearing on the matter, has, by unanimous resolution of March 6, 1990, requested that the Common Council seek an exception to HUD's conflict of interest rules so that the Market may be included in the economic development portion of the Small Cities grant application; and 9 8 March 28, 1990 WHEREAS, the Common Council is fully aware of the nature of the relationship between Alderman Hoffman and the Market, which consists of: 1) Alderman Hoffman's membership until February, 1990, as an unpaid member of the Board of Directors of the Market; 2) Alderman Hoffman's position as a maker of a $1,000 personal loan repaid in full on March 28, 1990; and 3) Alderman Hoffman's position as a co- signer of a $15,000 loan for the Market from the Alternatives Federal Credit Union; and WHEREAS, the Common Council respects the findings of the Citizens Advisory Committee that: a) the Market's proposal is the kind of economic development proposal which is appropriate for a Small Cities Comprehensive Application in that it provides vital neighborhood services to a lower income neighborhood, creates jobs for low and moderate income residents of Ithaca's target areas and brings commercial space up to health and safety standards as required by Building and Housing Codes, and b) Alderman Hoffman's unique knowledge and experience in cooperative food retailing over an 18 -year period will not only assist the Market in its management and growth, but also assure the City that the below - market rate loan it may make will result in more competence on the part of the Market to repay the loan in the future; and WHEREAS, Alderman Hoffman has agreed to recuse himself from participation in and voting on the Community Development Grant application; and WHEREAS, the City Staff Attorney has ruled that the conflict involved here would not be a violation of any local or state laws; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council directs the Mayor to send a letter to HUD with a certified copy of this Resolution requesting that HUD grant an exception to its conflict of interest rules for the application of the Eddy Street Co -op Market. Alderperson Hoffman read for the record the following statement: "I was one of the people involved in organizing the Eddy Street Co -op in the Fall of 1988. In November I was asked to join the initial Board of Directors because of my experience in food cooperatives. I served on that Board of the non - profit corporation, without compensation, until the middle of February of this year when I resigned. In March of 1989 the Board made an effort to secure a fifteen thousand dollar loan from the Alternative Federal Credit Union and the Credit Union asked that in addition to signing as a Corporation, that at least one member of the Board co -sign as an individual. Two members decided to do that; I was one of them. That loan is for four years. It is secured by the equipment and the inventory of the co -op. The repayment began in May of 1989 and is continuing at this point. In addition, I made a personal loan of one thousand dollars to the co -op in March of 1989. I would like to state for the record that today I received full repayment of that loan. I will circulate the release that I signed and a copy of the check." Alderperson Hoffman stated that he also wished to make it clear that at no point has he encouraged the Board or the Co -op to apply for the Community Development loan and he does not intend to take part further in the discussion and he intends to abstain from any votes on this application as long as it contains this component. Discussion followed on the floor with Community Development Administrator Evans answering questions from the Council. 9 March 28, 1990 A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (7) - Cummings, Daley, Schroeder, Golder, Blanchard, Romanowski, Johnson Nay (1) - Booth Abstention (1) - Hoffman Absent (1) - Peterson Carried Adi ournment On a motion the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Callista F. Paolangell Benj min Nichols City Clerk Mayor �l �t_�i