Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2007-04-04BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Committee of the Whole Meeting 4:45 p.m. April 4, 2007 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Commissioners (6) - Jenkins, Dotson, Chapman, Schlather, Tripp, Wykstra OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney - Hoffman Superintendent of Public Works - Gray Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney Common Council Liaison – Coles Environmental Engineer - Gibson Director of Planning & Development - VanCort Executive Assistant – Grunder EXCUSED: Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel DAC Liaison – Roberts ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CITY’S WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS: Mayor Peterson stated that she met with Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish, Director of Planning and Development VanCort, City Attorney Hoffman, and Supt. Gray to conduct a conference call with Rick Gell and Steve Eckler from O’Brien & Gere to let them know the changes the Board proposed in Parts I and II of the environmental assessment forms last week. She explained they wanted to get their advice on the proposed changes related to the watershed area, dam safety, and dam maintenance. She wanted to know they should be added to the Bolton Point option. She further explained that Steve Eckler, from O’Brien & Gere is concerned about getting consensus on whether there is a significant impact on the environment with either option so the City can proceed with a positive declaration and environmental impact statement. Supt. Gray explained the City would make a positive declaration, proceed with a scoping session, and the Board would have an opportunity to talk about concerns regarding the watershed area, dam safety, and dam maintenance during that process. Mayor Peterson stated that both consultants from O’Brien and Gere felt the safety issues were completely separate issues outside of the legal environmental assessment form except for the 60’ dam as a water supply for the re-build option. She further stated that they reiterated Supt. Gray’s comments that during the upcoming information sessions the two options can be reviewed together to address the Board’s concerns. She explained that they are separate documents but they are inextricably linked in the work that has to be done. She further stated that dam safety needs to be addressed and will be addressed, and there are other items that won’t be in the environmental assessment forms such as governance. In addition the disposition of the watershed area if the Bolton Point option is chosen will need to be addressed separately. Director of Planning & Development VanCort stated that plants are emerging in the Six Mile Creek area and a Botanist needs to tour and study the area by next week. He strongly encouraged the Board to arrange for a Botanist on site as soon as possible because biological studies must be commenced immediately. City Attorney Hoffman stated that there is a concern about whether consideration of potential impacts of dam safety or dam maintenance measures can be done separately from the current environmental review of the two water source options. He explained that there is a concept under CEQR which is called segmentation where components or parts of an action are considered separately, segmentation is permissible under certain conditions; it’s not permissible under other conditions. He stated that he has reviewed case law and it is quite varied on this issue. He further stated that the City did ask Steve Eckler, from O’Brien and Gere, who has a lot of experience in environmental 2 April 4, 2007 review, and he offered the opinion that he didn’t think a successful segmentation claim could be maintained if the City were to consider the dam safety issues separately. He stated that the question is “is it reasonable to conclude that the decision the City needs to make on selection of a water supply alternative will create a material demand for other actions, i.e. the dam safety actions that would result in a potential significant impact on the environment”. His analysis based on what he knows of the situation is that the two are sufficiently independent that they can be considered separate environmental reviews. He stated that was his conclusion and Rick Gell, the other consultant from O’Brien and Gere agreed. He stated that Steve Eckler did caution the City that any involved agency could raise the issue of dam safety during the scoping session and require that it be included in the environmental review. However, that would change the scope of work that O’Brien and Gere would need to do and it would require study of the dams to determine their current condition and what would need to be done with regard to safety and stability issues. City Attorney Hoffman further explained that Steve Eckler thought the City would be protected by acknowledging at this time that maintenance and safety of the dams will be an issue no matter which course of action the City takes on its water source and that when maintenance and safety are addressed it will be done in a manner that is no less protective of the environment which is the language of the statute. That is the only guidance that the statute itself provides. He further stated that Steve Eckler stated that the first step with regard to looking at environmental impacts is to define the limits of study and the area that would be affected by the action or actions. City Attorney Hoffman stated that it is critical to do that with regard to plants, for example, because there is 700 acres in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area and the City needs to know which areas are likely to be disturbed. Mayor Peterson stated that the work from O’Brien and Gere has been focusing on the 60’ dam and not the 30’ dam and suggested adding a notation on the Environmental Assessment forms linking the two options. Commissioner Tripp stated that last week she proposed removing the bulk of the dam issues from both options and asked if that would be advisable. City Attorney Hoffman responded that he didn’t say it was impermissible to segment. He stated that based on case law research he has done to date and in conversations with O’Brien and Gere consultants, his position at the moment is that it would be defensible to remove the dam safety issues. He further stated that it would be advisable for the Board to acknowledge in writing for the record that those issues are going to be thoroughly reviewed and addressed as independent and subsequent issues. Commissioner Tripp asked if the Board could consider these two options as a series of components where one component is necessary for the re-building of the Water Street plant and its immediate environs, the drying sheds, etc., another necessary component is the expansion of Bolton Point, and another necessary component is the line between Bolton Point and the City hook-up. City Attorney Hoffman stated that the City wants the environmental assessment forms to be clear and understandable, and that in the Environmental Impact Statement process either option be reviewed. Commissioner Schlather responded to comments made by Director of Planning and Development VanCort’s statement regarding authorization for a Botanist to tour and review the Six Mile Creek Natural Area as soon as possible. He stated that in order to accommodate dam safety and maintenance, the access road would need to be re-built under either option and how extensive that work would be remains to be seen. He stated that it strikes him as a bit disingenuous if two documents are going to be created with one saying purchase option and one saying re-build option and the purchase option pretends that nothing will happen in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area, which is false. The Board should discuss and create these forms in terms of transparency and clarity, and make it clear exactly what will take place under either option. 3 April 4, 2007 Commissioner Dotson stated that she supports Commissioner Schlather’s comments about including any impact on the Six Mile Creek Natural Area in the Environmental Assessment forms. She further stated that she is approaching this environmental review assessment form as a legal document and also as a public document. She stated that it doesn’t feel fair to exclude any road improvements that may have to be made because it may give a misconception that if the City purchases water from Bolton Point, it would avoid effects on the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. She explained that including it gives the Board a chance to look at those issues carefully and to see how they can be mitigated. Mayor Peterson stated that she would rather recommend a statement or some kind of cover letter that clearly explains that the City intends to consider those issues for both options and submit it with the Environmental Assessment forms for both options instead of changing both documents. Director of Planning and Development VanCort explained that the SEQR process has specific time lines that need to be followed for each section of review and encouraged the Board to make a positive declaration in order to stay on schedule. He further stated that O’Brien and Gere could be requested to determine what it would cost to study the dam safety/maintenance issues to see how much more should be budgeted for completion of the environmental impact statement for future consideration by the Board if they wanted to proceed in that direction. Supt. Gray reported that he is working with O’Brien and Gere and Trowbridge and Wolfe to set up the biological studies in the water shed area within the next week. He stated that there are certain kinds of pictures that they can take now before everything leafs out which makes it a lot easier to re-locate things and provide a visual reference for future reference. He explained that dam issues have to stay in as part of the decision making process, the dams exist, they were there twenty years ago, and they are going to be there twenty years from now probably. He stated that they don’t have to be folded into the legal environmental assessment, however just like source water quality, system governance, and sustainability or system reliability, they are part of the decision making process and there are costs associated with them. He further stated that if the DEC doesn’t say you have to consider the dams as part of your environmental assessment, they can be carried forward as part of the decision making process just as the economics discussion, the liability associated with the dams and the costs associated with those dams will stay with the land owner. They need to be part of the decision making process but not necessarily through the environmental side unless the Board, as the lead agency, decides they want it there. He further stated that the City owns the 30’ and 60’ dams, the access road and watershed area and will need to maintain these areas separate from the issue of which water source option is chosen. Mayor Peterson stated that she supports Supt. Gray’s comments and explained that Rick Gell said that dam safety/maintenance is a completely separate issue from the environmental review which she was trying to convey to the Board last week. She further stated that if the water plant did not have to be re-built and a decision made regarding water source options, the City would still have to maintain the dams and access road. Commissioner Schlather stated that if the Bolton Point option were chosen the City would have to pay to maintain the Six Mile Creek Natural Area out of general municipal funds which would mean a fairly substantial change in the operating budget for the City. Discussion followed on the floor regarding what that change to the budget would mean to the taxpayers of the City. Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding water source quality and concerns that need to be considered for both options, issues relating to growth and character of community or neighborhood, public controversy, and potential impacts to the community. 4 April 4, 2007 Discussion followed regarding whether Board members would be able to meet prior to next Wednesday’s meeting to review updated documents that would include changes made to Parts I and II of the Environmental Assessment forms. The Board agreed to meet on Monday, April 9, 2007, at 4:45 p.m. and asked that staff provide updated information as soon as possible prior to the meeting. ADJOURNMENT On a motion the meeting adjourned. Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson Information Management Specialist Mayor