City Council

CLOSE CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS City Council Meeting City Council Room December 16, 2022 Special City Council: Liberty Housing SEQR 01:00 PM P.H. - Liberty Affordable Housing - Amend Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Maps Print 1:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL SALUTE TO FLAG PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD / 15 MINUTES PRESENTATION(S): 1. Liberty Affordable Housing Update EXECUTIVE SESSION: CONSENT AGENDA MAYOR’S DEPARTMENT 1. D/V: Authorization for Mayor to Sign Contract with E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP for Legal Services relating to Response to TRO (Purchasing Approval Pending) ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT 1. Discussion and Vote: SEQRA Evaluation for Liberty Affordable Housing 2. Discussion and Vote: Approval of Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments FINANCE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT SUPERVISORS ADJOURN Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 December 16, 2022 CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Special City Council Meeting City Council Meeting Room 474 Broadway 1:00 P.M. PRESENT: Ron Kim, Mayor Minita Sanghvi, Commissioner of Finance Dillon Moran, Commissioner of Accounts James Montagnino, Commissioner of DPS EXCUSED: Jason Golub, Commissioner of DPW STAFF PRESENT: Stacy Connors, Deputy Commissioner of Accounts Jason Tetu, Deputy Commissioner of DPS Anthony Izzo, City Attorney Susan Barden, Principal Planner OF COUNCIL: Mark Schachner of Miller, Mannix, Schachner & Hafner, LLC. EXCUSED STAFF: Angela Rella, Deputy Mayor Heather Crocker, Deputy Commissioner of Finance Joseph O’Neill, Deputy Commissioner of DPW (on leave of absence) RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS The proceedings of the meeting were taped for the benefit of the secretary and public record. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for- word transcript. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kim called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Moran stated the City Council would begin going through the SEQRA evaluation and a vote would be taken during the December 20, 2022, City Council Meeting when there would be a full and complete City Council in attendance. Moran stated this meeting is the eighteenth public meeting on the Page 1 of 16 Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 Liberty Affordable Housing Project. Commissioner Moran stated SEQRA procedures were as follows: 1. An application had been made and included a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). 2. A determination of type of action had been made – Type 1 the highest standard of review. 3. Review had been coordinated with other involved agencies. 4. All materials submitted and reports requested. 5. The City Council would determine whether the significant impacts resulting in a negative declaration or positive declaration. Commissioner Moran stated Susan Barden and Mark Schachner would go through the Part 2 form, read the questions and proposed answers to the SEQRA. Moran recommended the Council to ask questions throughout the process. Moran stated Assistant City Clerk Barbara Brindisi to be supporting the Secretary to the Council and would be maintaining the official Part 2 Form. Commissioner Moran explained if all impacts were small to moderate, there would be a negative declaration. Moran stated if any impact were moderate to large and cannot be mitigated, then there would be a positive declaration and requirement of producing an Environmental Impact Statement. Commissioner Moran stated if a significant adverse impact Is likely to occur, and Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) is prepared to explore ways to avoid or reduce adverse environmental impacts or to identify a potentially less damaging alternative. Moran stated if the determination made state the proposed actin would not significantly impact the environment, then a negative declaration is prepared and ends the SEQR process. Commissioner Moran stated workforce housing is important to the economy of the City by giving affordable housing to those who work locally. Fran Ludwig Montenegro of Clubhouse Drive, Saratoga Springs, stated the community of Clubhouse Drive Estates were not to be against workforce housing and only concerned about the environmental impact. Ludwig Montenegro stated Clubhouse Estates own property at the corner of Crescent Avenue and Jefferson Street. Ludwig Montenegro stated some of the concerns are whether there will crosswalks and stop signs installed. Ludwig Montenegro stated the concern extends to the watershed. Ludwig Montenegro stated National Grid had informed the Clubhouse Estates the underground wires are so wet that special treatment is required for their property. Ludwig stated Jefferson Street has cracks in the road. Amy Durland of Sustainable Saratoga, Saratoga Springs, stated Sustainable Saratoga fought hard for economically diverse housing opportunities. Durland stated during 2016-2017 Sustainable Saratoga made efforts for inclusionary zoning programs. Durland stated the program would have integrated affordable housing in all new housing projects. Commissioner Moran stated the decision by the City Council of this magnitude required the full representation of the City Council to be present and Commissioner Jason Golub was not present. Moran stated Mayor Kim concluded the Public Comments on Liberty Affordable Housing Amendments and Comprehensive Plan Maps at 1:16 p.m. and kept it open. CONSENT AGENDA There were no Consent Agenda presented for the Special City Council Meeting. Page 2 of 16 Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor Kim opened the public comment period at 1:16 p.m. No one spoke Mayor Kim closed the public comment period at 1:16 p.m. PRESENTATONS Liberty Affordable Housing Update Attorney Stephanie Ferradino on appeared on behalf of Liberty Affordable Housing to give an updated presentation of the project with the use of a PowerPoint Presentation. Stephanie Ferradino stated her clients were not present for the presentation due to illness. Ferradino stated there were few minor changes to the project. Ferradino stated the intent is to have the parcel zoning changed to the UR4 Zone, which would stay in keeping with the surrounding area. Ferradino stated the aesthetics had been modified from the 2008 proposal keeping with the recommendation of the City Planning Board. Ferradino stated the project is not located within the city’s county overlay. Ferradino stated as part of the review process with the Planning Board, the most significant addition to the 2022 concept plan is the conserving of 19.88 acres under a conservation easement. Ferradino stated 9 of the 19 acres are wetland and the project is voluntarily putting the usable proportion into the conservation easement. Ferradino stated access to the housing site would be from the private road Bunny Lake Drive off Crescent Avenue, which is owned by Saratoga Casino and Raceway. Ferradino stated the casino had communicated through there attorney that Liberty Affordable Housing would be ensured access to the site via Bunny Lake Drive. Ferradino stated public input into the proposal for the project commenced in advance of the Application. Ferradino stated notification were went to neighbors within one thousand (1,000) feet of the project even though the requirement had been five hundred (500) feet. Ferradino stated the Liberty project conducted two (2) public meetings in June in advance of the project and had received no comments from the neighbors. Ferradino stated the building site is in the center of densely woodened area where some of the trees were coniferous. Ferradino stated there would be a buffer line of the coniferous trees in and throughout the site, which would help to buffer the neighboring communities. Ferradino stated the project had gone before the Zoning Board. Ferradino stated the Liberty proposal included sidewalks on Crescent Avenue and tie into the trail across the street. Ferradino stated the project would be required to pursue a NYSDEC Article 24 Permit which would address physical disturbance within wetland or buffer zone. Ferradino stated the project would only encroach on the wetlands by way of raised platform and helical piles to utilize the space for walkways and bridge through a small portion of the wetland. Ferradino stated this action not to be considered a wetland disturbance per NYSDEC standards. Ferradino stated the project had completed an endangered species study over three (3) years, which the study states there would be no impact to any endangered species. Ferradino stated SHPO has signed off on the Liberty project’s Phase 1A study, which states no additional archaeological work would be required. Ferradino stated additional SEQR issues were studied and addressed regarding traffic, water and sewer, impact on land, and open space and recreation. Ferradino stated the project to be a green-build project, and due to the project to receive partial funding through NYS the project is required to meet or exceed the Page 3 of 16 Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 2020 NYS Energy Code. Ferradino stated the City’s Comprehensive Plan has four (4) main goals, and the Liberty Development Project meets and complies with all of them. Ferradino stated community character is one of the goals of the City is to actively promote affordable housing, Ferradino quoted the guidance document, “affordable housing is the key to Saratoga’s future.” Stephanie Ferradino introduced Sara from LaBella to address municipal sewer and water runoff. Sara stated the project would not affect surrounding areas due to water runoff due to the conservation efforts and stormwater practices to be used on the project. Stephanie Ferradino stated Part II of the Evaluation Assessment Form is quite lengthy and the Liberty Project group assembled for the meeting to answer any questions consisted of engineers, architects, and legal advisors. Ferradino stated to be conservative in nature and had recommended to the City Council to proceed with the completion of part II and to hold the vote when there is a full City Council, which had been requested by the clients. Commissioner Montagnino asked who had supplied the traffic study. Stephanie Ferradino stated the traffic study had been completed by Creighton Manning. Montagnino asked about the sewer system. Sara from LaBella stated the project would connect to the sewer system on Jefferson Street that is part of the City’s sewer system and then would discharge to the pump station on the corner of Jefferson St. and Crescent Avenue which is owned by the County. Sara stated the project would connect to the city water system through Crescent Avenue. Sara stated the proposal for stormwater runoff to capture, detain, and treat the water through underground infiltration water system, which is the best solution in the eyes of the DEC. Sara stated the best practice is to send the water on its natural path into the ground. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Kim stated the City Council would go into attorney-client conference, as well as into Executive Session for union response to the Council’s proposal for the 2022 budget. Mayor Kim stated after the Executive Session, the Accounts Department Agenda would be moved up in sequence. Mayor Kim moved and Commissioner Montagnino seconded for the City Council to go into Executive Session to discuss a response to a union offer. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Absent – 1. Motion carried. City Attorney Izzo stated the Executive Session to be under Public Officers Law 105.E – collective negotiations. City Council went into Executive Session and attorney-client conference at 1:42 p.m. and returned at returned at 2:23 p.m. Mayor Kim stated the City Council had taken no action of the union counteroffer during executive session. Kim stated the attorney – client session had been with Mark Schachner. Page 4 of 16 Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 MAYOR’S DEPARTMENT 1. Discussion and Vote: Authorization for Mayor to Sign Contract with E. Stewart Jones Hacker, Murphy, LLP for Legal Services relating to Response to TRO (Purchasing Approval Pending) Mayor Kim moved and Commissioner Montagnino seconded to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with E. Stewart Jones, Hacker, Murphy, LLP for legal services relating to the response to the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) Commissioner Sanghvi and Commissioner Moran asked why the Accounts Department Agenda was not going before the Mayor’s Agenda, as Mayor Kim had stated before the executive session. Commissioner Montagnino stated the reason the Mayor’s Item needed to go before the scheduled Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA evaluation was because the responsive papers were technically due Sunday, December 18, 2022. Montagnino stated a partner in the law firm of E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy LLP is waiting for Commissioner Montagnino’s text to advise him of the Council decision on the discussion and vote. Montagnino stated the law firm is preparing and application in the Appellate Division that could end the litigation in an hour or so. Montagnino stated the law firm had been amendable to working over the weekend to finish the application. Montagnino requested the Mayor’s Item be handled before the SEQRA review. Commissioner Moran stated there had been discussion of Commissioner Golub attending the Council Meeting via videoconferencing. Moran stated the City of Saratoga Springs is under a winter weather emergency as well as Golub’s caregiving responsibility due to the closure of school, which would qualify as an extraordinary circumstance to meet the Public Officers Law Section 103-a. Moran stated it to be appropriate for Golub to attend the meeting via Zoom (videoconferencing). Moran stated City Attorney Izzo emailed a justification for not allowing Golub to videoconference in. Moran stated Mayor Kim participated via Zoom during the December 2, 2022, Special City Council Meeting and the legal notice for that meeting did not inform the public that extraordinary circumstances videoconferencing would or would not be used. Moran stated the Council need to be consistent. Moran stated to be disappointed Golub is not participating by videoconference. Moran stated the last time the topic of hiring an attorney to litigate the TRO, Moran and Golub had issue. Moran stated he was curious why the meeting with D.A. Heggen had not happened, which was to be the next step according to Moran’s recollection. Moran stated both he and Commissioner Golub questioned what happened to the proposed meeting with D.A. Karen Heggen. Commissioner Sanghvi asked the Council if there was an update on the meeting between City Council Members and D.A. Heggen. Mayor Kim stated the Council did not have a definite meeting with D.A. Heggen at this point. Kim stated there had been a concern that required to be researched where one of the City Council Member had been in touch with the D.A.’s Office outside the City Attorney and outside the Charter provision that says the Mayor’s Office is involved in intergovernmental relations. Kim stated before the City sent the letter requesting a meeting with the D.A, the Mayor’s Office wanted to review whether potential exposure had occurred because it had been the Mayor’s understanding that was a concern to District Attorney Heggen. Kim stated that had been the reason the City held back the invitation/request to meet with Heggen. Mayor Kim invited City Attorney Izzo to comment on the matter. City Attorney Izzo stated he would separate the two issues. Izzo stated regarding the meeting with D.A. Heggen it had been his understanding the meeting would be with a view toward establishing mutually agreeable procedures going forward when these situations happen. Izzo Page 5 of 16 Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 stated Heggen’s letter stated she may be open to modification of the order, which Izzo stated the City Council may want to have a law firm available to them to discuss their options. Commissioner Moran asked Attorney Izzo whether the language of the Temporary Restraining Order had been put in place with an end date or is open until in perpetuity. Commissioner Montagnino answered Moran’s question by stating the language of the order had no expiration date. Commissioner Moran asked Attorney Izzo whether it was mandatory for the City to formally respond by a mandated time frame. Izzo answered Moran’s question by stating if the City didn’t respond the injunction would be made permanent. Montagnino stated Attorney Izzo had been correct that Attorney Heggen had been open to modification of the TRO, and Heggen had also been clear she was not open to vacating the TRO. Montagnino stated even if the City representatives had a positive meeting with Heggen there would still be a TRO. Moran stated a mutually agreeable meeting with the D.A. may make her change her mind and vacate it. Montagnino stated Heggen stated in writing that she is not amendable to vacating the TRO. Montagnino stated it to be Friday afternoon and the order states the papers are due Monday. Montagnino stated Section 25 of the General Construction Law means that is the close of business Monday. Montagnino stated to had already talked to the law firm and they had already planned an appearance in the Appellate Division because it is the law firm’s belief the order is facially unconstitutional and should be vacated by the Appellate Division directly without further proceedings. Commissioner Moran stated the contract did not have the approval of the Purchasing Department and certain documents were proffered when asked. Moran asked whether E. Stewart Jones Law Firm had been part of the bid process. Mayor Kim stated the affirmative that E. Stewart Jones had been part of bid process. Kim stated the RFQ had been sent to five or six firms. Commissioner Sanghvi asked the Council is hiring counsel because the City needed to respond because if they did not the injunction would become permanent. Commissioner Montagnino answered Sanghvi by confirming the injunction becoming permanent would be the risk without responding. Sanghvi stated this contract happened at the last minute and had been receiving correspondence from the public that the City is not being transparent. Mayor Kim stated he had stated at a previous Council Meeting that the Mayor’s Office had not received a response from the RFQ and thought the reason had been due to the first three (3) pages being boiler point about Risk & Safety. Kim stated his office had then reached out to law firms that did not respond and called them. Kim stated it did take longer time to get counsel. Montagnino stated to know James Knox who is a partner in the E. Stewart Jones law firm, and Montagnino stated as an attorney-at-law he had sat through a multi-week trial with Mr. Knox. Mayor Kim moved and Commissioner Montagnino seconded to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with E. Stewart Jones, Hacker, Murphy, LLP for legal services relating to the response to the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Absent – 1 Motion carried. Mayor Kim stated Commissioner Moran would be able to put a motion on the table to include Commissioner Golub to videoconference into the meeting. Kim stated the Council was about to embark on an important and possible controversial topic, and the Council should keep the procedures as clear as possible to avoid possible lawsuits. Kim stated procedures matter. Kim stated he did not believe it to be procedurally correct to add Golub via videoconference. Kim stated to Commissioner Moran that the Council had been inconsistent with videoconference procedures. Mayor Kim stated he would vote Page 6 of 16 Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 against the motion to add Golub to the meeting via videoconference. Kim stated it not to be his intent to exclude Golub. Commissioner Moran stated he is not objecting to continue the meeting as is without Commissioner Golub. Moran stated there to be a need for consistency for all departments. Moran stated he agreed with Attorney Ferradino that there not to be a vote and would like to continue with the SEQRA process set for the meeting. ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT 1. Discussion: Approval of Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments. Commissioner Moran stated City Planner Susan Barden and Attorney Schachner being of counsel to the Mayor’s Department would lead the conversation of the Environmental Assessment Part II. Attorney Schachner stated the Council would be reviewing the Environmental Assessment Part II which is based on Part 1 of the Full Environmental Assessment submitted, signed, and fully completed on behalf of the applicants. Susan Barden asked whether the Council had any questions on Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form and the Council had no questions. The Full Environmental Assessment Form Part II process had started with the question being read and the City Council deciding together on the answer with the support of Mark Schachner, Susan Barden, and the Liberty Project team. Question 1: Impact on Land – Proposed action may involve constructed on, or physical alteration of, the land surface of the proposed site. The City Council stated their answer to be yes. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. Schachner stated since the answer had been yes, the Council would be required to answer the subsections. a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3 feet. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. d. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons of natural material. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Page 7 of 16 Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. g. The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. h. Other impacts: The City Council stated the other impacts would be incidental impacts typical of housing construction. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. Question 2. Impact on Geological Features - The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, minerals, fossils, caves. The City Council stated their answer to be no. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. Question 3. Impacts on Surface Water - The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). The City Council stated their answer to be yes. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. a. The proposed action may create a new water body. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from a wetland or water body. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion, runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. f. The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s) for withdrawal of water from surface water. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. g. The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s) for discharge of wastewater to surface water(s). The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. Page 8 of 16 Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 h. The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. k. The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, wastewater treatment facilities. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. Attorney Schachner advised the City Council that nothing was required to be entered into other impacts if there was nothing to note. Schachner advised the option of other impacts could remain empty. Question 4. Impact on groundwater - The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. The City Council stated their answer to be no. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. Question 5. Impact on Flooding - The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. The City Council stated their answer to be no. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. Question 6: Impacts on Air - The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. The City Council stated their answer to be no. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. Question 7: Impact on Plants and Animals - The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. The City Council stated their answer to be yes. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. a. The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. b. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any rare, threatened, or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federal government. Page 9 of 16 Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of any species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. d. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any species of special concern and conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. e. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. f. The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any portion of a designated significant natural community. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. g. The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging, or over- wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. i. Proposed action (commercial, industrial, or recreational projects, only) involves use of herbicides or pesticides. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. The City Council had decided not to add anything to other impacts. Question 8: Impact on Agricultural Resources - The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. The City Council stated the answer to be no. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. Question 9: Impact on Aesthetic Resources – The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. The City Council stated their answer to be yes. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. a. Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource. The City Council answered a small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. Page 10 of 16 Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 b. The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination, or significant screening of one or more officially designated scenic views. The City Council answered no impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points: i. Seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ii. Year round The City Council answered no impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is: i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work ii. Recreational or tourism-based activities The City Council answered a small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource. The City Council answered no impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. f. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed project: 0-1/2 mile, ½ -3 mile, 3-5 mile, 5+ mile The City Council answered a small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. The City Council had decided not to add anything to other impacts. 10. Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources – The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource. The City Council stated their answer to be no. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. 11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation - The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities, or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. The City Council stated their answer to be yes. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. Attorney Mark Schachner stated due to poorly worded questions, the answer to the larger question could be yes while the subsequent questions were able to be no, or small impact. a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions, or “ecosystem services”, provided by an undeveloped area, including but not limited to stormwater storage, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource. The City Council answered a small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. Page 11 of 16 Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area with few such resources. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by the community as an open space resource. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. The City Council had decided not to add anything to other impacts. 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas - The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area (CEA). The City Council stated their answer to be no. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. 13. Impact on Transportation - The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. The City Council stated their answer to be yes. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network. The City Council answered no, or small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. b. The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or more vehicles. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. c. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. d. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. e. The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. The City Council had nothing to add to other impacts when asked by Susan Barden. Commissioner Sanghvi asked if whether a moderate to large impact were to be forecasted how that would affect the project. Attorney Schachner stated a moderate to large impact would change the level of scrutiny to that issue and be further studied. Schachner stated the Environmental Assessment Form Part III would be required to detail the impacts identified as moderate to large. 14. Impact on Energy – The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of Page 12 of 16 Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 energy. The City Council stated their answer to be yes. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. a. The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a commercial or industrial use. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MW hours per year of electricity. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when completed. The City Council answered a small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. The City Council chose not to add anything to other impacts when asked. 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light – The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. The City Council stated their answer to be yes. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. b. The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence, hospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. e. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing area conditions. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. Page 13 of 16 Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 The City Council chose not to add anything to other impacts when asked. 16. Impact on Human Health – The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminants. The City Council stated their answer to be no. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. 17. Consistency with Community Plans – The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. The City Council and Attorney Schachner agreed the sentence is poorly worded with a double negative as well as not being a question. The City Council stated their answer to be yes. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. a. The proposed action’s land use components may be different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use pattern(s). The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. b. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town, or village in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. The City Council answered a small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use plans. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. e. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure. The City Council answered a small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. f. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development that will require new or expanded public infrastructure. The City Council answered a small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g., residential, or commercial development not included in the proposed action). The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. The City Council chose not to add anything to other impacts when asked 18. Consistency with Community Character – The proposed project is inconsistent with existing Page 14 of 16  Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 community character. The City Council stated their answer to be yes. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire). The City Council answered a small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. c. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where there is a shortage of such housing. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. d. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized or designated public resources. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. e. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character. The City Council answered no impact would occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. The City Council answered a small impact may occur. Vote: 4 – 0 – 1. The City Council chose not to add anything to other impacts when asked Attorney Mark Schachner stated the City Council took one hour and twenty minutes to review and answer the questions, which is an appropriate amount of time. Schachner stated the Council had identified ten (10) big picture questions in the affirmative and had the supporting questions were answered to be no, or small impact may occur. Schachner stated the Council had set the stage for a SEQRA Negative Declaration, which would be the inescapable conclusion to the process of this application. Commissioner Moran stated he would table the vote and add it as a Discussion and Vote to the Tuesday, December 20, 2022, City Council Meeting. Moran asked the Council whether there needed to be additional conversation. The City Council confirmed that application was ready for a vote at the next meeting with a full City Council. Commissioner Moran pulled item #2 of his agenda. ADJOURN Commissioner Sanghvi moved and Mayor Kim seconded to adjourn the meeting at 4:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Page 15 of 16 Special City Council Meeting Liberty Affordable Housing SEQRA December 16, 2022 Barbara Brindisi Assistant City Clerk Approved: April 4, 2023 Vote: 5–0 Page 16 of 16