Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2008-09-02BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Special Meeting 5:00 p.m. September 2, 2008 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Commissioners (5) - Jenkins, 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 Acting Director of Planning & Development - Cornish Information Management Specialist - Myers O’Brien & Gere Consultants – Rick Gell and Steve Eckler EXCUSED: DAC Liaison – Roberts Continuation of Discussion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the City of Ithaca Water Supply Acting Director of Planning and Development Cornish and O’Brien & Gere Consultants Rick Gell and Steve Eckler joined the Board for the review of the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Ithaca Water Supply. O’Brien & Gere Consultant Eckler explained that anything the Board wanted clarified in the executive section of the statement would be carried over throughout the document. Review of the document began on page 15 and concluded on page 114. Extensive discussion included the correction of typographical errors throughout the document, clarifications of references as to whether areas near the project site are city- owned, town-owned or county-owned. Further discussion followed on the following items: The document implies that the impoundment behind the 30’ dam and would be available as a raw water supply back up. Staff explained what it would take to make that water available in an emergency and suggested that an explanation be included in the document. Descriptions of work that would be involved during dredging is referenced to provide a more detailed description of how sediment would be removed. Clarification of what type of construction activities if any, would occur and what work if any, would take place in the natural areas for each option. Whether the identification of the “involved agencies” should include the Board of Public Works, Common Council and the South Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission in parenthesis. The Board agreed to leave the document as is. Page 39 – the graph/table needs to have something other than yes or no answers regarding the issue of redundancy since those answers could be misleading. The Board agreed to remove the “yes” answers and keep the bulleted items. Defining the final cost to the City of Ithaca for either option. 2 September 2, 2008 Clarification of how 20% of the trails would be accessed by equipment and how those areas would be defined. O’Brien & Gere Consultant Eckler explained that the document mentions “typical” area because some areas would not need to be accessed until repairs are needed and may change depending on specific conditions. This work would be defined during the design process of the project once an option has been chosen and what was included in the document was to provide an example of what could take place in certain areas. Discussion of possible questions that would be received from the public about new trails being created in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area and how current trails would be changed or affected and the need to provide some specific descriptions in anticipation of those questions. Restoration of the wetlands when work needs to be done in the Six Mile Creek area and how that work would be done when it is necessary to access those areas for equipment repair work. The intent is to avoid the wetland area because a permit from the Federal Government would be needed and they are not issued if there is a way to do the work with lesser impacts to the wetland area. The document will be changed to reflect that. Temporary impacts resulting from dredging work. Plans for back-up/emergency water sources during times of drought and impacts of previous droughts in the area, the effects of global warming, and how to reflect that information in the document. Whether the description of demolition/site clearing/drying beds for both options in the Six Mile Creek Area referred to on page 94 should be taken out and included in the description on page 96. The Board agreed that should be done. The Board requested that on page 96, table 12 there be a description of the Six Mile Creek Natural Area to describe the area and acreage. The proposal to construct a communication structure to accommodate an antenna, what it would look like, where it would go, and what the visual impacts would be in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. Acting Director of Planning and Development Cornish displayed an example of the antenna that would be installed. It would only be approximately 15” tall and could be located on the existing gatehouse and 40’ up the hill. Commissioner Tripp left the meeting at 6:55 p.m. The Board requested the following additional language “of new utility structure and antenna adjacent to” be included on the list of figures on page 2 and the following additional language “with one proposed antenna located to left of structure or arrow to highlight where the antenna would be located on the structure” be inserted on page 25 in figure 9. The historic districts that would be affected by either proposal and whether or not it is required to list them in the document since they are not within the project. The fact that if Six Mile Creek is no longer a water source, there could be additional public access for recreational opportunities around the upper reservoir, and how those possible impacts could affect the area. The Board discussed the access road down from Route 79. The consultants were trying to capture that the road can be minimal, even a green road, but that as part of the re- build option there would need to be an access road. 3 September 2, 2008 Acting Director of Planning & Development Cornish explained that the project description and action includes the access road so it is part of what is being evaluated regardless of what people may think. O’Brien & Gere Consultant Steve Eckler noted that there was a discussion regarding the access road and that its surface was to be constructed with impervious pavement and as “green” as possible. Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the electric cost for both options. Landslide possibilities in the current Six Mile Creek area and the history of landslides, the effect on the pipeline, and how areas would be accessed to make repairs. O’Brien & Gere Consultant Gell stated that a factual statement of past experience would be included for both options in the document. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the description of the Six Mile Creek Natural Area of the uniqueness and special qualities that the public have come to know. The Board agreed that this discussion would continue with the consultants at their Committee of the Whole meeting on September 3, 2008 and that they would vote on the resolution at their regular meeting on September 10, 2008. ADJOURNMENT On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson Information Management Specialist Mayor