Responsiveness summary
for Public Hearing
on Clinton St. CSO Abatement Facilities Plan
and
Environmental Information Document Document
Date of Hearing: February 22, 2006
Location: Museum of Science and Technology, Syracuse
A full transcript of the hearing was taken and is available (click here). The transcript includes a full accounting of the questions and comments given by the public at the hearing.
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to
summarize comments made on the plan and give formal
responses to questions and comments raised by the
public.
Sue Miller, Deputy Director of the Lake Improvement
Project Office, served as Hearing Officer for the
hearing. A list of persons present for the public
hearing is included in the attached Appendix.
Comment: Shared the following concerns about the County's plans:
-
Feels the County's selection of the Trolley Lot is due solely to the fact that the project would cost less than at the Dickerson Site.
-
Trolley Lot site uses valuable waterfront property for plant site.
-
Mentions other projects going on in the area like the creekwalk and potential for Trolley Lot.
-
An alternate site exists - the Dickerson Site on the other side of the creek.
-
Will submit Mayor's letter on topic.
(Click here to request a copy of this letter.)
Response: Selection of the Trolley Parking
Lot (Clinton Station site) in comparison to the
Dickerson Site as the preferred site for the Clinton
RTF was not due solely to cost.
Concerns with utilizing the Dickerson Site also included:
-
Greater risk of settlement to surrounding structures
-
Tighter construction site
-
Relocation of households and active businesses
-
Reduction of City and County property tax base
-
Extensive utility relocations
-
Temporary elimination of access to the Rescue Mission gymnasium
-
Higher probability of existing environmental contamination
-
Higher probability of pre-contact historical artifacts
-
Impact on Rescue Mission operations and residents
See also comments and response below (Hanford
Manufacturing Company and Rescue Mission).
The proposed Clinton Street CSO Abatement Project will
improve the environment and result in a cleaner creek
and harbor that will encourage future development
along the creek as well as the Syracuse Inner Harbor.
The Clinton Station Site has been a potential site for
the Clinton RTF for over 6 years. During this
period, the City has consistently changed its reasons
for concern about the project. For example, at one
time the City's primary objection was the use of a
technology that results in an above ground facility.
Then the City objected to any technology that utilized
a treated discharge option. Then the City accepted a
treated discharge technology and an above ground
facility as long as the project moved to the west side
of Onondaga Creek. Now the City opposes use of the
Trolley Lot site because it is "valuable undeveloped
waterfront property" in the downtown area. However,
the City of Syracuse has never included this property
within the Empire Zone boundaries. The City also has
not indicated that it has approached any developer or
business to consider locating a project within the
Trolley Lot and the City has not identified any
developer or business that has expressed interest in
locating any development project within the Trolley
Lot.
Regarding the creekwalk, since the beginning of the
Clinton project in 2000, Onondaga County has
repeatedly offered to coordinate with the City on the
Clinton CSO project and the City's proposed Creekwalk
Project.
Comment: Major infrastructure projects like
this one can have significant impacts on a small
business district like Armory Square. Whether the
facility is on the east or west side of creek, the
conveyance pipes will still be in the same location
and their construction will impact the Armory Square
area. We appreciate anything the County can do to
lower those impacts. Specifically encouraged the
following two mitigation efforts related to parking:
-
County should assist in relocation of monthly
parkers within Armory Square when construction
disturbs these lots and consider providing some
incentive.
-
Replacement parking needs to be built on the
east side of the railroad embankment in close
proximity to Armory Square
Response: The County will provide temporary
replacement parking for monthly parkers during
construction of the conveyance pipe through the two
impacted parking lots within Armory Square.
Replacement parking spaces or a garage for the
permanent replacement of existing parking on the
Clinton Station Site would be located near Armory
Square.
Comment: Requesting that the County look into
providing rent assistance to Armory Square business
tenants who are impacted by the construction to offset
business losses during the construction period.
Response: The County did look into the
possibility and was advised by the County Law
Department that the provision of such direct financial
assistance would be in violation of New York State
law; therefore the County cannot provide direct
financial assistance to businesses such as rent
subsidies as mitigation for construction impacts.
Comment: Also want to make sure that the
interests of Hanford are addressed as well as they are
a major employer in the area.
Response: County has and will continue to
work with representatives of Hanford to address their
concerns about potential construction impacts on their
operation.
Comment: Thanked County for working with the
Downtown Committee for over 2-3 years on these issues
and taking the issues seriously.
Response: The County will continue to work
with the Downtown Committee and the Armory Square
Association on ways the County can mitigate
construction impacts on area businesses and residents.
Comment: Read letter from Bruce Block. See
transcript. Main points were:
-
Concern that the proposed facility will continuing to pollute Onondaga Creek and compromise the future economic development of our region.
-
Supports Mayor's letter.
-
There are better technologies that would keep all discharges out of the creek.
Response: Placement of the Clinton Regional
Treatment/Storage Facility will not continue to
pollute Onondaga Creek. In fact, the operation of this
facility will improve the water quality of the creek
and the lake and will meet the legal requirements of
the Amended Consent Judgment designed to bring the
County in compliance with Federal Clean Water Act
requirements.
There are no proven technologies that would result in
eliminating all discharges to Onondaga Creek. Storage
options that were investigated within the facilities
plan, would result in several untreated discharges of
combined sewage each year. Sewer Separation results in
greater than present volumes of untreated urban
stormwater being discharged into Onondaga Creek.
Comment: The Association has not taken a
formal stand on the technology nor the location of the
proposed facility. The Association has however formed
a Mitigation Committee with representatives of the
Downtown Committee and we have had good faith talks
with the County on many of the construction related
issues and mitigation of impacts on the Armory Square
area. Will submit letter for the record
for Association chart with the mitigation components
described.
(Click here to request a copy of this letter.)
Mentions funding assistance from the County
for the following four items specifically:
-
Public information program to inform public that area is still in business
-
Special Event Fund for events during construction to bring people to area
-
Beautification effort
-
Funds for maintenance and traffic signs, etc.
Response: County has appreciated the interest of the Association and the Downtown Committee and will continue to meet with the Mitigation Committee in
the planning phases and in construction phase of this project.
Comment: Questions the public participation process followed.
Response: Prior to preparing the final draft
Facilities Plan and Environmental Information Document (EID), Onondaga County had carried out a multiyear
public participation process. This process is
described in Section 9 of the EID. Section 9 of the
EID lists 43 public and informational meetings between
August 2001 and December 2004 and there were multiple
meetings prior to that time beginning in 2000.
Since December 2004, an additional seven or more
meetings on this project have been held with the
public and a variety of interested groups and
individuals including the following:
-
Armory Square Mitigation Advisory Committee - April 26, 2005
-
TNT Downtown Sector - May 11, 2005
-
Armory Square Association Public Informational Meeting - PJ Dorsey's - June 29, 2005
-
County Public Information Meeting - MOST - November 29, 2005
-
Armory Square Mitigation Advisory Committee - January 24, 2006
-
Representatives of the Rescue Mission re:25% design - February 6, 2006
-
Representatives of Hanford Pharmaceuticals re:25% - February 6, 2006
The Partnership for Onondaga Creek, that Aggie Lane
represents, participated in many of the meetings held
over the years including the public informational
meetings in 2005 held by the County and the Armory
Square Association as well as the TNT meeting.
Comment: Before public information meetings
and this public hearing, the County had awarded design
contracts for the conveyances and RTF.
Response: Onondaga County has authorized a
design contract to CDM/C&S for conveyances related to
a Clinton CSO abatement facility since the majority of
the conveyance alignments are identical regardless of
whether an RTF or full storage facility is located at
the Clinton Station site or the Dickerson Site.
Onondaga County has appropriated funds and authorized
only a preliminary design services contract to
Environmental Engineering Associates for the RTF. No
contract has been awarded for the RTF final
engineering design services due to the fact that the
final site has yet been determined. As of the hearing
date, the County Legislature had not appropriated
funds for the final design contract for the RTF and
was waiting for the public hearing to be held and the
responsiveness summary completed.
Comment: Hanford has been interested in this project since property they owned was identified as one of the possible sites for the facility.
Response: Initial potential sites were
selected based on criteria contained within Section 3
of the Clinton Facilities Plan including vacant lands,
nearness to CSOs, minimal property acquisitions and
fewest proximate residences and businesses. Following
these initial identifications, the County further
investigated all of the sites and gathered information
which was considered in the final ranking the sites
including the Tully Street site mentioned by Mr.
Heath. The County reevaluated the Hanford owned site
when it learned from the Company that they needed to
retain that property for future expansion of its
manufacturing facilities.
Beginning in 2000, Onondaga County has met with
Hanford representatives on multiple occasions to
determine ways to reduce construction impacts to
Hanford. As design progresses, these meetings will
continue.
Comment: The alternative selected by the
County will cost the public more through higher
operation and maintenance costs. The County is only
considering initial construction costs that are paid
for with federal and state grants.
Response: The Clinton Facilities Plan
included the use of present worth analysis in order to
determine which alternative technology would provide
the County with the lowest combination of initial
construction costs coupled with expected operating and
maintenance costs over a 25 year useful life. In fact,
estimated annual operation and maintenance costs for
the vortex facility recommend by the County is
$1,026,000/ year. This is twice as much as Mr. Heath
stated. However, the vortex facility present worth
cost is $30,000,000 less than the storage option and
almost $84,000,000 less than full sewer separation. At
the present time there are no federal or state grant
funds available to construct the Clinton project.
Unless grant funds become available, all construction
as well as operation and maintenance costs will be
provided from rate-payers within the consolidated
sanitary district. The alternative selected by the
County results in the lowest initial and present worth
costs for total project including operation and
maintenance costs to the rate-payers.
A summary of a comparison among the recommended vortex
system compared to full storage and sewer separation
is as follows:
|
Technology
|
Initial project
costs
|
Annual O&M
costs
|
25 yr present worth
costs
|
|
Vortex
|
$ 71,300,000
|
$1,026,000
|
$ 85,900,000
|
|
Full Storage
|
105,900,000
|
656,000
|
115,300,000
|
|
Sewer Separation
|
169,000,000
|
46,000
|
169,700,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Clinton Street CSO Abatement Project Facilities Plan (Nov 2005), Tables 5-10,5-11 & 5-12.
|
Comment: Supports Mayor's letter and endorses
more sewer separation and underground storage for
protection of creek.
Response: See response to Tim Carroll, above.
Comment: As the Rescue Mission has
consistently stated, the placement of the RTF on the
Dickerson site would be detrimental to the homeless
and to the community and therefore the Mission is
opposed to the use of the Dickerson Site for the CSO
facility.
Response: Consideration of the proximity of
the Dickerson Site to the Rescue Mission and the
impacts of construction on its residents and operation
was one of the reasons why the Clinton Station site is
the County's recommended site for this facility, not
the Dickerson site. See response to T. Carroll.
Comment: The County needs to do a better job
to clean up the creek and should carry out mitigation
measures for the community in ACJ construction areas.
Response: Onondaga County is required to
reduce the impact of untreated combined sewer
overflows on Onondaga Creek and Onondaga Lake. The
City of Syracuse constructed the combined sewer system
many years ago. While the City still owns and is
responsible for maintaining the combined sewer system
throughout Syracuse, Onondaga County took ownership of
the principal combined sewer interceptors and the
combined sewer overflow structures from the City of
Syracuse in 1972. The County has worked since that
time to improve the system and reduce the number and
volume discharged from the CSOs. The County's
compliance with the combined sewer overflow
requirements contained within the Amended Consent
Judgement will significantly reduce pollutants
entering Onondaga Creek and will help to "clean up"
the creek as well as the lake. The City of Syracuse,
however, has responsibilities with respect to the
portion of Onondaga Creek within its borders and it is
within their responsibilities to clean up trash along
the creek bank as well as overgrown vegetation.
Similarly, the City has a duty to upgrade and maintain
its part of the combined sewer system throughout
Syracuse to ensure its compliance with the Clean Water
Act.
The County will continue to carry out discussions with
parties impacted by our ACJ construction projects
including the Clinton project on mitigation needs and
suggestions. The County continues to be committed to
making every area in which we have ACJ construction
projects, better than it was before construction
began.
Comment: Concerned that this project is not
the best use for this waterfront property. Didn't
think the Clinton Station site would stay a parking
lot forever. Has development potential. We need
opportunities along the creek for a culture trail or
creekwalk (from Nation to the Lake) instead of a
sewage treatment plant.
Response: The construction of the Clinton CSO
Regional Treatment and Storage Facility can be done in
full coordination with the development of the proposed
creekwalk and other potential improvements along
Onondaga Creek. As included in the responsiveness
summary comments to Mr. Carroll, the County has
proposed coordination efforts between the City and
County with regard to the City's creekwalk project for
a number of years.
Comment: His Council district covers both the
south side of the City and the downtown area including
Armory Square. Sympathetic to both areas. Concerned
that Midland area didn't get a mitigation package that
was on the table and now the County is talking to
Armory Square about a parking garage. Wants some
concrete mitigation at Midland.
Response: In addition to reducing the size of
the aboveground portion of the Midland RTF, placing it
further from proximate residences, and increasing
storage capacity at Midland, the plans for the Midland
CSO Facility include significant landscaping including
tree plantings and lighting around the facility after
construction is completed. Other restoration efforts
will also be carried out where the County has
disturbed the area due to construction.
Comment: Expected a presentation on the
project tonight with visuals and plans. Public should
have something to respond to.
Response: There have been visual
presentations given at previous public meetings on
this topic as well as at small group meetings with
affected businesses and residents. The Facilities Plan and
Environmental Information Document contain a variety of visuals and information
and have been available on the County's web site and
in the library. Fact Sheets have been mailed to
residents as well as descriptions of the project in
meeting and hearing notices. Conceptual drawings of
the facility have appeared in the Syracuse Post
Standard along with front page stories on the project.
The information has been out in the public since 2000
and the purpose of the February 22, 2006 public
hearing was again to hear comments from the public and
comply with appropriate environmental review
requirements.
Comment: You have to design for the whole
creek system, not just for eleven CSOs.
Response: The federal court order as
stipulated in the Amended Consent Judgment
specifically outlines over 30 projects that must be
completed by Onondaga County that will reduce
pollution to Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook and Onondaga
Lake. These projects call for very specific
improvements to the Metro wastewater treatment plant
facilities, a list of projects to abate combined sewer
overflows and require an extensive water quality
monitoring program to be conducted by the County. The
Clinton Street CSO Abatement Project is one of the CSO
projects specifically required by the federal court
order and designed to address eleven CSOs on the creek.
The County's responsibilities focus around the issue
of reducing sewage impacts. Other issues facing the
creek watershed and the lake are coordinated through
the Onondaga Lake Partnership made up of
representatives of local, state and federal
governmental agencies and other interested parties and
the groups.
Comment: Suggests the County consider using
large holding tanks at the source and therefore
eliminate the need for the conveyance pipes and a
treatment plant.
Response: As illustrated in Figure 1-1 of the
Clinton Facilities Plan, the Clinton Street Combined Sewer
Service Area includes a large part of downtown
Syracuse, parts of the Syracuse University Hill area
and a large area of the near west side area of the
city. Combined sewage from these large areas is
conveyed to the Main Interceptor Sewer which is
located along South Clinton Street and South Franklin
Street as it makes its way to the Metro Plant on
Hiawatha Boulevard. As flow is conveyed toward the
Main Interceptor Sewer it reaches its peak volume in
the downtown area. Any plan to store this flow would
need to place the storage tanks in the downtown area
in order to intercept this peak volume. The facilities
plan did include an analysis of full storage for this
flow. This alternative was not found to be as cost
effective as the recommended plan.
Comment: Is a resident and business owner in Armory Square. Presented the things the County has agreed to as part of mitigation efforts as follows:
-
Find best and least disruptive traffic rerouting as needed during construction and look for ways to keep streets open to traffic especially weekends and evenings.
-
Minimize amount of detours
-
Minimize time the construction would spend on Walton and Fayette Streets
-
Provide off-site parking for construction workers to keep spaces for visitors to Armory Square.
-
Will keep residents and businesses informed as design and construction progresses including use of liaison to the Association from the County during construction to respond to questions or problems.
-
Reduce overall construction time and specifically time in Armory Square relating to the placement of conveyance pipes as much as possible. Shutdown construction work in the Square area during the holiday season.
Response: The County will continue to work
with the Mitigation Committee of the Association and
the Downtown Committee to see that these mitigation
measures are carried out.
Comment: Expressed his concern regarding the
loss of development potential for his property because
the County will go through his property with a
conveyance pipe. Also said he could not find an
engineer that would help him look at the Facilities Plan
and the impact of the pipe objectively because
every engineering firm that he contacted had a
conflict of interest because they've done work with
the County.
Response: The County will need a permanent
easement across Mr. Butler's property for installation
of the conveyance pipe. The placement of the pipe will
not change the property's existing use -as a surface
parking lot and would also be compatible with its use
as part of the City's creekwalk. After the hearing
John Clare spoke with Mr. Butler and suggested an
engineering firm that has not worked on any of these
projects and offered other names of firms if needed.
Also the County offered again to sit down with Mr.
Butler and discuss the details of the plan.
Comment: Have been in Armory Square for one
and one half years and is a member of the Armory
Square Association Board. Has only heard the plan was
a "done deal." Need to look for best technology and
make right decision to preserve the creek.
Response: During the last year and a half
numerous information meetings have been held on this
project. In fact, the Armory Square Association
sponsored one such meeting for its members on June 29,
2005. At this meeting the Armory Square Association
invited persons of various viewpoints including
Onondaga County to discuss this project. The County's
general public information meeting on November 29,
2005 was held at the Museum of Science and Technology
within the heart of Armory Square in order to make it
as convenient as possible for business owners and
residents of Armory Square to attend.
The County has thoroughly studied a variety of
technologies for handling these eleven CSOs and the
recommended plan is the most cost effective and
environmentally sound solution. It will not simply
"preserve" the creek as it is, it will improve the
creek by addressing the combined sewer overflows that
currently discharge into the section of the creek and
from there flow into Onondaga Lake. The project can
also be carried out in concert with creekwalk plans.
Comment: A health risk assessment or air
quality assessment needs to be undertaken to determine
if any airborne byproducts of the chlorination process
pose a public health risk.
Response: As Dr. Wolfson stated at the public
hearing, he posed this question to the County and to
NYSDEC at the public information meeting held on
November 29, 2005. The responsiveness summary from
that meeting states that the County requested a
determination from NYSDEC as to whether a health risk
assessment was required. A copy of this letter to
NYSDEC requesting this determination was attached to
the public information meeting responsiveness summary.
The County has been informed by NYSDEC that such an
assessment is not required and that the County would
receive a confirming letter from NYSDEC. On March 1,
2006 the County again requested this letter from
NYSDEC.
A letter dated March 28, 2006 from Steven Eidt, Regional Water Quality Engineer for Region 7 of NYSDEC was received and is available (click here).
The letter states that, "there is no
requirement for emissions permitting or health risk
assessments for wastewater discharges" as they are not
regarded as potential emission sources by the State
DEC or the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Comment: What will the County do for this
project and for the other projects like Midland and
Harbor Brook if it loses the eminent domain lawsuit in
federal court?
Response: To date, the courts have found in
favor of the County's position. No decision has yet
been rendered on the pending appeal; however the
County must meet court-ordered milestones for
completion of all ACJ projects and cannot wait to
proceed with design and construction of the ACJ
projects The ultimate completion date for all CSO
projects under the ACJ is January 1, 2012 - less than
6 years from now. With projects needing 2-3 years for
design and 2-3 years for construction, those projects
remaining are on a fairly tight time frame and so the
County must continue to move ahead.
Following the public hearing, the County held a Public
Comment Period that closed on March 23, 2006.
One written comment letter was received during the
public comment period. The letter dated 3/23/06 is
attached in full in the Appendix and is from Attorney
Joseph Heath on behalf of the Onondaga Nation. The
following summarizes his comments and offers the
County's response:
-
Should have additional analysis (a full
environmental impact statement) of the impacts on the
creek over the long term with the recommended
technology of vortex separation. Concerns mentioned in
Mr. Heath's comments include release of chlorination
and dechlorination byproducts, insufficient treatment
of suspended solids and nutrients, and possible
presence and release of metals and other stormwater
constituents.
Response:
Not necessary or legally required for this project.
The draft Clinton CSO Abatement: Environmental information document (Nov 2005) concludes that no detrimental impacts
that cannot be mitigated have been identified as a
result of the proposed project. Other than short-term
impacts related to construction, no significant
adverse environmental impacts have been identified
during the entire facilities planning and
environmental review process. The project will in fact
improve the environment.
Disinfection of wastewater by use of sodium
hypochlorite followed by dechlorination through the
use of sodium bisulfate is an approved method of
disinfection and dechlorination under both state and
federal water quality regulations. One purpose of the
dechlorination process is to reduce the production of
chlorine by-products. The residual level of chlorine
by-products in the effluent discharged from the
regional storage and treatment facilities will be well
within safe levels.
All applicable state and federal water quality
regulations will be met and adhered to in this
operation.
-
The discharges from the vortex separator will
interfere with the ability of Onondaga Creek to attain
its designated use. Suggests the use of underground
storage.
Response:
See response to #1 and #8 above. Underground storage
has been thoroughly investigated as part of this
facilities planning process and as a result of public
participation and input. Use of vortex separation is
still the most cost-effective and environmentally
sound solution and, therefore, the recommendation of the
facilities plan.
-
The vortex separator is not the most
cost-effective when operation and maintenance costs
are included in the calculations.
Response:
See response to Mr. Heath's oral presentation at the
hearing.
-
Use of the Trolley Lot should support
revitalization of the Creek.
Response:
It will improve the water quality of the creek and can
be part of the revitalization of the creek. Also is
compatible with creekwalk plans. See responses to
Carroll, Mather, and Callistro, above.
-
The Metro SPDES permit must be revised to reflect
this project.
Response:
The State Department of Environmental Conservation is
responsible for the administration of the SPDES
program and is fully involved and aware of the ACJ
program projects including the Clinton Street CSO
Abatement Facilities Plan. All questions about the
SPDES permit and modifications to such should be
addressed to the NYSDEC.
-
The ACJ does not preclude redesign of this
project. Should consider impacts and response to other
remedial measures planned.
Response:
The ACJ projects were agreed to following years of
technical studies and intensive litigation,
negotiations and public discussions culminating in
agreement to a CSO abatement plan that would satisfy
legal requirements in a cost-effective manner.
Following the full facilities planning efforts,
drafting of the EID and conducting of public
participation as well as state DEC input as the
project has progressed, the Clinton project remains a
downtown regional treatment and storage facility. Any
changes to the ACJ have mainly related to schedule and
have resulted from new information received, the
public participation process and technical reviews.
Major revisions are authorized only with the
involvement and approval of all the parties to the
ACJ—being the County, the State DEC, the State Attorney
General's office, Atlantic States Legal Foundation,
and in consultation with the USEPA. The ACJ has
provisions to allow those changes.
However, the County must meet milestone dates to
complete the requirements of the ACJ that are designed
to meet the federal and state clean water laws
relating to pollutants from wastewater and CSOs. We
must proceed with the Clinton Project if we are to
meet the deadline of January 1, 2012 and the project
is being done in full knowledge that other types of
remedial actions are planned to be undertaken to
improve Lake water quality unrelated to wastewater by
other parties. While the County cannot delay ACJ/CSO
projects pending development and completion of
remedial actions by other entities and projects, the
County hopes those projects are equally successful as
the ACJ program in making notable improvements to the
creek and the lake.
1) Martha Bock
4975 Darien Drive
Liverpool, New York 13088
2) Thomas Bock
4975 Darien Drive
Liverpool, New York 13088
3) Gary Bonaparte (Partnership for Onondaga Creek)***
206 Gifford Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
4) Billy Buchanan
Concept Day Spa
441 S. Salina St.
The Galleries
Syracuse, New York 13202
5) Clark Burdick
4175 Canterbury Road
Syracuse, New York 13215
6) John Butler***
304 W. Jefferson Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
7) William Byrne (Byrne Dairy)
240 Oneida Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
8) Irene Callisto (Isadora)***
247 W. Fayette Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
9) Mitch Carmody
3830 Griffin Road
Syracuse, New York 13215
10) Ray Clark (Clark's Ale House)
122 W. Jefferson Street
Syracuse, New York 13204
11) Ruth Florey
P.O. Box 772
E. Syracuse, New York 13057
12) Samuel Gordon
317 Wellesley Road
Syracuse, New York 13207
13) Bob Haley (Ashley McGraw Architects)***
137 Buckingham Ave
Syracuse, New York 13210
14) Joe Heath (Hanford Pharmaceuticals)***
716 E. Washington Street
Syracuse, New York 13210
|
15) Tarki Heath (Partnership for Onondaga Creek)***
1900 Rittenhouse Square
Tully, New York 13159
16) Thane Joyal
164 Westminster Ave
Syracuse, New York 13210
17) Karyn Korteling (Pastabilities)
601 Scott Ave
Syracuse, New York 13224
18) Mike Kotowski
156 Oakland Street
Syracuse, New York 13210
19) Aggie Lane (Partnership for Onondaga Creek)***
340 Midland Ave
Syracuse, New York 13202
20) Teresa Lutoborski
107 Saybrook Lane
Dewitt, New York 13214
21) S. E. Mahammoth
30-6 Queens Way
Syracuse, New York 13031
22) Ben Mahoney
1802 W. Genesee Street
E. Syracuse, New York 13204
23) David Mankiewicz (Downtown Committee)***
109 S. Warren Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
24) Mick Mather (Cultural Resources Council)***
411 Montgomery Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
25) Kathryn Miranda
133 Walton Street, #132, 133, 134
Syracuse, New York 13202
26) Zach Moore***
1216 Westcott Street
Syracuse, New York 13210
27) Tony Ortega (MOST)
500 S. Franklin Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
28) Justin Park
224 Miles Ave
Syracuse, New York 13210
|
29) Chasz Parker (Rescue Mission)***
155 Gifford Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
30) Patrick Phillips (Central Parking System)
110 Harrison Place
Syracuse, New York 13202
31) A. Potamianos
618 S. Clinton Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
32) John Potamianos
175 Marshall Street
Syracuse, New York 13210
33) Steve Potter (Pastabilities)
497 Brattle Road
Syracuse, New York 13203
34) Joe Rainone (Armory Square Assn.)***
239 W. Fayette Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
35) Gloria Romeo ( ASA Member)
133 Walton Street, Suite 104
Syracuse, New York 13202
36) Vito Sciscioli (Syracuse 20/20)
500 S. Salina Street, 9th Floor
Syracuse, New York 13202
37) Bill Shea
247 W. Fayette Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
38) Lindsay Speer
7495 Northfield Lane
Manlius, New York 13104
39) Richard Sykes (RHS Holdings, LLC)***
108 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 300
Syracuse, New York 13202
40) Robert Tackman (Hawthorn Suites)
416 S. Clinton St.
Syracuse, New York 13202
41) Ann Tiffany
340 Midland Ave
Syracuse, New York 13202
42) Michael Wolfson***
627 Bradford Parkway
Syracuse, New York 13224
43) Peter Welge
133 Walton Street, #138
Syracuse, New York 13202
|
Dept. of Water Environment Protection
44) Susan Miller - Hearing Officer
45) John Clare
Office of the County Executive
46) James Albanese
Onondaga County Legislature:
47) Jim Corbett - 8th District
48) Bill Kinne - 15th District
49) Sam Laguzza - 16th District
U.S. Senate
50) Betsy Gwin - Sen. Hillary Clinton
NYS Senate
51) Chuck Murphy - Sen. John DeFrancisco
52) Collin Sullivan - Sen. David Valesky
|
NYS Assembly
53) Robert Gilka - Assemblyman William Magnarelli
From the City of Syracuse:
54) Tim Carroll - Mayor's Office***
55) Pat Hogan, Common Council - 2nd District
56) Tom Seals - Common Council
- 4th District***
57) Vince Esposito, Dept. of Public Works
58) David Michel, Economic Development
59) Steve Kearney - Economic Development
|
NYS DEC
60) Steve Eidt
61) John Weidman
CDM/C&S
62) Robert Albright
63) Robert Kukenberger
Environmental Engineering Associates, LLP
64) Donald F. Geisser
|
____________
*** Made a formal statement at the hearing.
|
Onondaga County Dept of Water Environment Protection