HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2009-05-13BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Committee of the Whole Meeting 4:45 p.m. May 13, 2009
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Commissioners (5) - Jenkins, Brock, Schlather, Tripp, Wykstra
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney - Hoffman
Superintendent of Public Works - Gray
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
Common Council Liaison – Zumoff
Information Management Specialist - Myers
Director of Planning and Development – Cornish
City Engineer – West
Alderperson Schuler
EXCUSED:
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel
DAC Liaison – Roberts
Water Supply DEIS Comments – Finish Discussion of the Environmental Impact
Statement
Director of Planning and Development Cornish and O’Brien & Gere Consultants Rick
Gell and Steve Eckler joined the Board for the discussion.
The discussion focused on comments and responses in the document beginning where
they had left off at the last meeting with page 55, comment #6. Mr. Gell stated that they
received City Attorney Hoffman and Commissioner Schlather’s comments. Mr. Eckler
reported that they only had time to update the document with the requested changes
discussed last week. They will update the complete document accordingly so that
references to various sections are accurate in the interest of consistency throughout the
whole document.
Page 55, response #5 City Attorney Hoffman stated that his notes indicate that there
has been no definitive resolution. Mr. Eckler responded that there has been no
resolution and that they will contact Alderperson Cogan for clarification.
Page 56, response #1 City Attorney Hoffman stated that his understanding under the re-
build option is that there would be more pumping required. He wondered why the
response indicates there will be no additional noise from pumping. Mr. Gell responded
that all the pumps will be located inside buildings and there should not be any elevated
noise levels outside the building; unless the emergency generators are needed. The
Board felt that the response provided was adequate.
Page 57, response #4 – City Attorney Hoffman suggested that if in fact staging
operations are separate from water plant operations, that should be stated in document
and then will not be needed in the DEIS. The Board supported that language.
Page 58, response #6 – Commissioner Brock requested that response be clarified so as
not to mislead reader that the use of chemicals will only be half what it is now. Mr.
Eckler will draft language.
Page 59, response #9 – regarding dam stability. Commissioner Schlather suggested the
following language – “The City is initiating a study to evaluate dam stabilization needs
and alternatives regardless of which option is selected”. The Board supported that
language.
The Board requested that the consultants reformat the document so that responses are
all placed in the response section.
2
May 13, 2009
Page 59, response #10 – Commissioner Schlather stated that if responses are removed
from the comments sections and placed in the responses section that should suffice for
this and make it clear that the reason it is not being analyzed has not been defined as to
whether it is practical or not (regarding flushing).
Page 60, Commissioner Schlather stated that he would reference the reader to
response #9 for comments #12, #13, and #14. Asst. Supt. Whitney reported that dam
safety inspections are required every ten years by the State.
Page 61, response #15, City Attorney Hoffman explained that the Natural Areas
Commission asked for the methods that would be used to restore the natural areas after
emergency work is performed; the response is vague and general. Commissioner
Wykstra suggested that the reader be referred to the Natural Areas Commission
proposed guidelines for natural areas that will be considered by the Board, for further
information on restoration methods. Discussion followed on the floor regarding
appropriate restoration methods and the condition of both access roads to the
watershed area. City Attorney Hoffman stated that the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
contains a section (114-6) regarding Natural Areas which states the city’s commitment
to restoration of the natural areas and he feels the response should refer the reader to
the City Code for further information. The Board supported that language.
Page 61, response #18 – City Attorney Hoffman stated that the response didn’t seem to
respond to the issue the commenter raised. Mr. Eckler responded that it was difficult to
answer in this document. Commissioner Schlather suggested the following language
“Each option presents its own, unique vulnerabilities to contamination. See Section ___
regarding water system redundancy as a way of reducing the impact of unexpected
water loss.” The Board supported that language and O’Brien and Gere consultants will
incorporate that language into the document.
Page 62, response #25 – Commissioner Schlather stated that even if the purchase
option is selected the City should make sure future opportunity of using city water is not
lost. This would preserve the area in pristine manner in the event a future decision is
made to use it as the City’s water supply. Mr. Eckler questioned if that meant the City
would take on the maintenance costs to keep it pristine. Commissioner Schlather
responded that it says Six Mile Creek watershed and that is all he is referring to, he
wanted it as broad as possible in order to protect the area not just as a natural area but
because the city may need it for its water in the future. Commissioner Wykstra stated
that he pictures this as at least protecting the impoundments to maintain it as a water
source. Commissioner Brock asked if the City Code chapter on Natural Areas intends
that if the purchase option is chosen that the city would then be required to remove all
the structures and infrastructure. City Attorney Hoffman responded that in his opinion
the code does not intend that; if addresses restoration of new disturbances.
Commissioner Schlather suggested the following language “In terms of preserving the
opportunity for future redundancy, this could be a mitigating measure with respect to the
purchase option.” The Board supported that language and the consultants will
incorporate it into the document.
Page 63, response #27, Discussion followed on the floor about the response provided
and the Board agreed to the following suggested language from Mr. Eckler “note
comment and indicate future supply of water if rebuilt would rely on pumps”.
Page 63, response #32, Commissioner Schlather suggested the following language to
clarify for the reader that it is one time – “The commenter is referring to the one-time
demolition phase of the project” with additional clarification wording from Mr. Gell
explaining that the removal of materials would be treated the same because of
regulations for either option. The Board supported the proposed wording from
Commissioner Schlather and Mr. Gell.
Page 65, response #5 Commissioner Schlather proposed the following new language
"no substantial change in land use or adverse impacts (vs. existing conditions) is
proposed".
3
May 13, 2009
Mayor Peterson asked if there was a problem using the word "adverse"?
Mr. Eckler responded that he would hesitate to use the word "adverse" and instead say
"no change" because in the rebuild option there may be changes. The Board thought
the existing language was fine and Commissioner Schlather withdrew his suggestion
and agreed to keep the language as is.
Page 65, responses #8 and #9 – Commissioner Schlather stated that the commenter
makes the same comment six times basically and that he would refer the commenter to
response 5 for both comments and the Board agreed.
Page 66, response #10 – City Attorney Hoffman stated that the comment seems to ask
for mitigating measures for the increased area and bulk of a rebuilt water plant, and he
has not seen any mitigating responses. He questions under SEQR if the lead agency
can pass that responsibility on to another group or if it should suggest mitigating
measures where there will be impacts. Commissioner Schlather suggested referring
the commenter to response #5 because the entities charged with making the decision
will need to make the decision regarding mitigating measures and what Common
Council does with the Board’s recommendation is up to them. City Attorney Hoffman
stated that he does not believe this document answers the commenter’s question.
Commissioner Schlather noted that the Board cannot comment because Common
Council will make that decision if the rebuild option is chosen. He supports City Attorney
Hoffman’s suggestion that it just be “comment noted”. The Board agreed.
Page 67, response #1 – Commissioner Schlather suggested the following language
“Redundancy scenarios are discussed in DEIS Section 2.3.3 and Appendix B”. The
Board supported that language.
Green House Gas Impacts:
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the information from O’Brien & Gere that was
provided to the Board and Mayor on Monday, May 11, 2009. It was updated based on
the discussion of the May 6, 2009 meeting. Commissioner Schlather with the help of Mr.
Gell and Mr. Eckler explained the four or five changes that had been made to the
document to the Mayor. Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the GHG
impacts with dredging activities and how the document reflects the information.
Mayor Peterson explained that she is eager to move on but that she is not finished with
this document and has many questions.
Mr. Eckler stated that the City will go through a dam safety study which will provide
additional information for the decision. He further stated that they would have a
resolution to accept the environmental impact statement as final for the Special Meeting
which will be held on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. in Common Council
Chambers.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specialist Mayor