City Council

From: davidgiacalone Subject: Summary of Pump Station Briefing - More Council Action is Needed Date: June 21, 2020 at 7:17 PM To: Samanta R. Mykoo smykoo@schenectadyny.gov Dear Members of the Schenectady City Council, Earlier this week, I was able to listen more closely to the North Front Street Pump Station Briefing, given at your June 1, 2020 Committees Meeting, which is available at the Video on Demand site, short URL https://tinyurl.com/NFSPSbriefing. Reviewing the 50-minute video segment allowed me to take more comprehensive notes. Below are imporant take-aways from that Briefing, which has not been covered in the press or by the Stockade Association. I hope you will review this Summary of the Briefing and conclude that further action is needed. I listened to the Briefing with the following key points in mind, which formed the core of the resident concerns that led to the Briefing: The Council’s June 2017 Clarifying Resolution (2017-179) clearly states: “any overflow into Riverside Park will be minimized to no wider than 30 feet, including needed landscaping and buffering for a new pump station.” [See Appendix 2 for full text] The Resolution also declares that, “Without a full public hearing on such design the City Council shall approve no contract for the construction of a new pump station, and no construction shall be approved if the design requires taking a portion of parkland extending more than 30 ft to the west of the current pumping station fence into Riverside Park.” All prior renderings of the Project shown to the public and Council (1) depicted the New Station situated to allow the façade of the Old Pump House to be seen from the West Lawn of the Park and other locations west of the New Station, and (2) show the preservation of the healthy century-old silver maple tree after the construction process. CONCLUSIONS: Here are what appear to me to be virtually unavoidable conclusions, along with my Comments, after close review of the Briefing video. See the APPENDICES at the end of the document for relevant materials and images. For example, Appendix 1 shows and compares the design plats for the May 2019 and October 2017 plans. 1] MILLER & LAFOND CLEARLY SHOW THAT EVEN THE ABOVE GROUND PORTION of the MAY 2019 PLAN VIOLATES COUNCIL Res. 2017-179 and CONTINUES to be INCONSISTENT WITH IT — in words and images, it is clear that part of the New Pump Station Lot encroaches 34 feet into the Park. ABOVE GROUND. At 30:30 to 31:40] Miller admits the encroachment of the design made after consulting with the contractors is "roughly 34 feet on the north side, 21 ft on the back side” Miller candidly explains [at about 38:00] that "The only specific guidance we had was not moving the fence line more than 30 ft. Into the park". That raises the question as to why he, Lafond and Mayor McCarthy nonetheless endorsed a plan with a section of the fencing 34 ft to the west of the old fencing. As Miller suggests, the only way to stay within the 30-ft limit with the current plan is to move the ornamental fence from ten feet away to only 6 feet from the new pump station’s west wall. They do not say they actually will bring the fence closer to be consistent with their “guidance” from the Council in Res. 2017-179. Would placing the fence so close to the Pump Station raise safety, maintenance and aesthetic issues? E.g., Miller says [30:36] we were assuming setting ornamental fence 10’ from structure to protect the building; prevents tagging it. Also, BELOW GROUND: [31:50] encroachment of “roughly 50 feet” [See below for the argument that there is no Below Ground exemption from the 30-foot limitation.] Although Miller told Karen Z-W that the dimensions of the underground portion have not changed, he did not clarify that the underground portion is at least 15’ farther into the Park than with the October 2017 Plan, where the underground portion butted right up on the 30’ mark (that is, used all the overflow inches they thought were allowed). Shouldn’t we assume that they stopped the overflow of the underground portion at 30 feet in the 2017 design plan because they understood the limit applied both above and below ground? 2] NO NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WAS GIVEN TO THE COUNCIL OR NEIGHBORHOOD, despite the changes in the October 2017 plan having been made as early as 2018, and despite constant communication with City Hall and with Stockade Association leaders. INADEQUATE EXCUSES: a) Miller says he told Lafond and the Mayor. [34:23]; b) I have never gone back to a Council or Board in 25 years of municipal projects. c) We’ve had lots of communication with Carol and Suzanne (SA presidents) and we answer residents’ questions. d) In terms of land accessible to the public, there is going to be "very negligible impact”, calling 15’ a “small shift”  calling 15’ a “small shift” But: Telling Lafond and the Mayor cannot justify not telling the Council. CHA/Miller/Lafond may never have had a specific Council Clarifying Resolultion prior to this project requiring a review, but they surely knew the Clarifying Resolution existed. They are very careful to refer to “Guidance" rather than a Council Resolution with strong wording and limitations. Shouldn’t we presume that the failure to mention the May 2019 Plan was intentional, given the many opportunities to inform the Stockade? The “May 2019” Plan was "distributed to regulatory agencies in 2018”, and was part of the final Environmental Assessment by GOSER, but the GOSER review in 2019 was done to assure that the City had a commitment to maintain the Old Pump Station. The public was never told of the shift in location of the New Pump Station relative to the Old One. 3] THEIR JUSTIFICATIONS FOR EXCEEDING 30 FEET DO NOT HOLD WATER: Thus, THEY SAY: We did not move the new building farther than the 30 ft agreement But: The Clarifying Resolution does not contain the word “building” and explicitly states that the overflow “shall be minimized to no wider than 30 feet, including needed landscaping and buffering for a new pump station.” Moreover, an underground building is still a building. The overflow was ”roughly 28 foot average on that structure.” But: Average Encroachment is not a concept found in or suggested by Res. 2017-179, which speaks of an encroachment “extending more than 30 ft” and “minimized to no wider than 30 feet.” Miller and Lafond created a new “average encroachment” standard in order to disguise violating the actual standard in the Clarifying Resolution. The Agreement and Guidance only concerned above-ground, green space But: There is no distinction in the Resolution between above and below ground encroachment, nor mention of green space, or use by the public. It states that "no construction shall be approved if the design requires taking a portion of parkland extending more than 30 ft." An underground “taking” can require alienation of the parkland above. The October 2017 Plan appears to recognize this fact, by limiting the “encroachment” of the below ground portion to 30 feet from the original fence. As the person who wrote the 1st draft of the Clarifying Resolution, after sitting at the table when the agreement was made at City Hall, I (David Giacalone) can say unequivocally that there was no discussion distinquishing between above and below ground structures. "We always talked to the Mayor" in terms of where the fence is now and where it is going to be [27: 18], so that it related to available Park space for the public to use. At the very least, the issue of below ground overflow is ambiguous, and the Council should have been allowed a chance to clarify. The October 2017 design plat keeps the underground portion within the 30-ft limit, and that suggests CHA and Lafond believed underground encroachment was important. Mopreover, the Mayor had no authority to take the issue away from the Council. 4] NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS GIVEN THAT THE VIEW OF THE OLD PUMP STATION IS BLOCKED FROM THE WEST UNDER THE NEW PLAN, a significant change from the 2017 Plan. . . above: 2017 renderings show views from east and west of the relative locations of the old and new pump stations. . See Appendix Item #5, which shows the same relative positions on the cover of the GOSR Final Environmental Assessment, May 9, 2019. Miller and Lafond knew residents complained the New Plan blocked the view of the Old Pump House from West of the New One, but the issue is not addressed in briefing despite Marion Porterfield noting that it was positioning that concerned One, but the issue is not addressed in briefing despite Marion Porterfield noting that it was positioning that concerned residents. An Obstructed View of an Historic Resource is considered an adverse impact which must be removed or mitigated under our Environmental Review law. Miller says [at about 16:42] that the Contractor "actually wanted to bump the station an additional 15’ north; we told them that could not be accommodated.” However, we are never told how far north the New Station was “bumped” or how the view of the Old Pump Station changed. This side-by-side comparison by David Giacalone shows details from the two site plans, with the north face of the New Pump Station farther north (closer to the River) than the façade of the Old Pump House in the May 2019 Plan, but south of it in the 2017 Plan. MOCKING REFERENCE TO "BETTER VIEWING OPPORTUNITIES" is the only reference by Miller to Reduce View Issue: [34:10] We are told the wider space between the old and new station "gives better viewing opportunities” of the Old Pump Station as you walk down the pedestrian path or on a boat. But: This is only true when standing or boating directly in front of the space between the two buildings. Otherwise, if you are west of the New Pump Station, unlike in the October 2017 plan, the view of the Old Pump Station façade and a portion of its west wall is totally blocked. THE NEW RENDERING IS IRRELEVANT to the issues raised. Miller was asked for a new rendering analogous to this one from Oct. 2017, which showed the positioning of the two pump stations (with the visible façade of the Old Pump House), and location of the new fence, along with preservation of the Grand Old Maple Tree. The purpose of the requested new rendering was Graphically Depect the Changes in the new juxtaposition of the two buildings, position of the new fence, and the fate of the Tree. October 2017 Rendering Instead, the Council and public were merely shown a side-by-side comparison of the October 2017 design with the May 2019 current design of the New Pump Station, and were given the immaterial assurance that “the two structures are remarkably similar”. [19:04] June 2020 Rendering VANISHING PUMP STATION: Whether done intentionally or not, this image shown during the Briefing [at 14:11] further obscures the significance of the new juxtaposition of the New and Old pump Station, with the north façade of the Old Pump House so faint as to be almost invisible, making it difficult to see that the front face of the New Station is now northwest of the Old Pump House, blocking its view from the West.  SHPO gave its conditional approval of the site plan for aesthetics and historical sensitivity based on the specific drawings in the October 2017 site plan. It never reviewed any design after October 2017 to judge the viewshed of the Old Pump House. SHPO considers the obstruction of the viewed of an Historic Resource, such as the Old Pump Station, to be an adverse environmental impact that must be removed or remediated. See 4th Item in the Appendix below for two photographic views of the Old Pump House from the West Lawn. BTW: Although Mr. Miller later assured Karen Z-W that the above-ground footprint was the same, the new station is in fact 2’ wider and 2’ longer than in the October 2017 plan - It was 42x57 in 2017 renderings; and is currently at 44'x59’; "because the lower wall was made thicker” [19:30] 5] THE FATE of the CENTURY-OLD SILVER MAPLE TREE WAS KNOWN in EARLY 2018 AND NEVER REVEALED to the public in the two years before it was chopped down. NOTE: The Grand Silver Maple that reigned over the north west corner of the West Lawn was depicted in every rendering shown the public. Nonetheless, it was cut down on Earth Day, 2020, with no specific warning to the Stockade community before that day, and only a vague reference to it a couple weeks earlier in a project report. HOWEVER, MILLER told the Council in the Briefing that “ . . it was not necessarily picked up in early renderings, but as we advanced the design of the project, we determined back in the early part of 2018 that we would have to take it down.” [45:16] Note: There is no indicatiion that, due to the value of the beloved tree (shade, beauty, filtering of air and water, memories, etc.) an arborist was ever consulted to determine whether action could be taken to save the healthy tree, even if a portion of its roots were severed during construction. See Appendix 3 below for images of The Grand Old Tree, which was healthy, with a diameter of 60 inches, when taken down. 6] THE STOCKADE ASSOCIATION BOARD’s EXONERATION of CHA & CITY SHOULD BE GIVEN LITTLE WEIGHT On May 8, 2020, the Board of the Stockade Association sent a Letter to City Council and the Mayor calling communication problems “a snag”, denying claims by some neighbors there was a “bait-n-switch”, and concluding that the May 2019 Plan is consistent with the Council’s Resolution 2017-179. Mr. Miller points to the Letter as supporting his claim of consistency with the Clarifying Resolution. [34:56] For several reasons, very little weight should be given to the Board’s Letter and conclusions. Acted on their Own. The SA Board never consulted with the rest of its members, much less the broader Stockade community, or the residents who had raised the questions about the secret May 2019 plan, before rushing to draft and send the Letter. The Board conclusion relies heavily on the fact that the Clarifying Resolution purportedly contains the phrase “building overflow,” citing it twice in its own Board resolution. However, SA President Suzanne Unger has never responded to my email letter to her and the Board, also dated May 8, 2020, in which I advise her that "The term 'building overflow' never occurs in Res. 2017-179. It is not even in the document on the SA site: City council 30ft resolution 6.12.17; nor is the term used in the official City of Schenectady Code version [at 46-47].” I also added: "And, of course, the words 'building overflow' do not rule out underground construction”. I have asked Ms. Unger twice, but have not been told, the source of the word “building”. Is it only a coincidence that Mr. Miller and Mr. Lafond stress that only encroachment of an above-round building that is banned by the Council Resolution? SA Board sought no DRAFTER/PARTICIPANT Input. Because I participated fully in the discussions at City Hall leading to the June 2017 agreement about the location of the new pump station, and drafted the first version of the Clarifying Resolution, I also reassured Ms. Unger that "There was never a distinction made between above and below-ground construction and overflow beyond the original fence”. The lack of response from the Board suggests they do not have a counter-argument about the intent at the time of the Agreement, as opposed to a retroactive excuse given now to gloss over the excessive encroachment and the failure to notify and seek input from the Council and the public. In addition, in the Clarifying Resolution, the 30-foot limit includes any buffer or landscaping - parkland that will not have a building on it above ground. In the 2017 Site Plan, the concrete slab and the underground construction go right up to the 30’ line, clearly suggesting that anything past it would be in the prohibited zone. Too Submissive? When I voiced the opinion to a key member of the SA Board that the Letter to City Hall was far too submissive for a neighborhood advocacy group, I was told that it was appropriate, given the “on-going relationship with City Hall.” Many decades as a mediator and lawyer suggest to me, to the contrary, that a respectful relationship requires politeness, but also frank assertion of rights and responsibilities. The Letter seems more aimed at maintaining a future supplicant relationship, than at discerning the actual intention of Res. 2017-179. 7] THE "VERY ENGAGED COMMUNITY” & COUNCIL APPEAR TO BE THE REASON FOR SILENCE ABOUT THE SECRET PLAN. Not “cherry-picked”. Mr. Miller insists that the initial community group selected to advise on the Location Issue was not “cherry- picked”. Nonetheless, that group, along with the Stockade Association Board, acquiesced in the selection of the beautiful and serene West Lawn of Riverside Park as the location of the New Pump Station, and they kept the choice to themselves for months rather than tell their neighbors. (Note: No one on the location selection advisory committee had property along the west end of the Park). Were Mr. Miller, et al, surprised to learn that the rest of the community was outraged at the thought of taking away the West Lawn? The community insisted that the Old Pump Station Lot be used instead (while preserving the Old Pump House). City Council members were also angry at being left so far out of the loop, after being given the impression that the Old Lot would be the location of the New Station. (You can refresh your memory of that fight to save the West Lawn in the posting “strong, thoughtful Opposition to Pump Station in the Park”.) Frankly, the Stockade Association Board had to be embarrassed into fighting the West Lawn placement. Tto its credit they fought hard once aroused and re-purposed. However, since then, various Board members have often told me they have “controversy fatigue”. It appears, in addition, that favors they want from City Hall (i.e., streetscape dollars) dims their advocacy. This situation makes Mr. Miller’s assertion [51:00] almost comical that "I don’t think anyone would accuse the Stockade Association of taking it easy on us. Not those who are truly familiar with the record, and understand what is needed for this type of complex project.” Frequent communication tells us little about healthy communication. It seems that Mr. Miller and Mr. LaFond needed to be asked the correct questions before even considering full disclosure. Therefore, I have no doubt that Mr. Miller, Mr. Lafond, and the Mayor appreciate "that we had a very engaged community”, and what they might call an “engaged Council.” But, I have to wonder whether it was apprehension over the active engagement of Community and Council, together with the long experience of minimal opposition to the will of the Mayor and the autonomy of “contractors”, that gave birth to the strategy that created a Secret Plan in May 2019. That Secret Plan was, in fact, never divulged until its ramifications blossomed into the demise of a grand old tree, and concerned/angry neighbors began asking hard questions. IN CONCLUSION, I hope the Council will assert its primacy in setting policy and budgets with the Mayor and his Administration, and IN CONCLUSION, I hope the Council will assert its primacy in setting policy and budgets with the Mayor and his Administration, and continue to press this matter. For example, is there still time to insist that the New Pump Station be moved back farther from the River, so that we and future generations will be able to view the picturesque historic façade of the Old Pump House from west of the new pump station? Or did Mike Miller filbuster and sidestep long enough to make it impossible to undo the location in his Secret Plan? The Council should ASAP ask for a construction hiatus and ask the State Historic Preservation Office to review the May 2019 plan’s placement of the new pump station. Another issue that needs consideration is whether 25 years of working with the City has made CHA's relationship too cozy with City officials. Ignoring Council resolutions and offering less-than-useful-and-frank “briefings” should not tolerated. For a full account of the issues raised by the Secret Plan, including images and links to materials, see https://tinyurl.com/RenderingRuse Thank you for your time and interest. Please let me know if you have questions or comments. David Giacalone, Schenectady Stockade APPENDICES [1] The next image shows the relative position of the New Pump Station and the Old Pump House under the two plans, using the Old Tree and the Old Pump House (which do not move) as reference points. [2] The “CLARFYING RESOLUTION”, Res. 2017-179 (June 12, 2017). [3] This collage shows views of the Grand Old Tree (photos by David Giacalone, over several years). [4] This image shows views of the Old Pump House from the West Lawn. [5] The Cover Image of GOSR Final Environmental Assessment for the North Ferry Street Pump Station, May 9, 2019, is a rendering still showing the north face of the New Pump Station positioned south of the façade of the Old Pump House, and the Old Silver Maple preserved after construction. Cover Image above enlarged: