PRESENT: Chair: M. Kaplowitz. Members: V. Pinto; J. Maisano.

LEGISLATORS: K. Carsky

Staff: R. Hoch, C. Ryer, Sec’y.

ALSO PRESENT: William P. Harrington, Paul Fleming (GE); Gina D’Agrosa (Plng. Dept.); Nancy Seligson (Save the Sound); Ann Cohen, Marian H. Rose (Sierra Club/CWCWC); Marge Gaffney (League/Consv. Voters); Fedora DeLucia (Somers); Gudrun LeLash (FCWC); Stacey Dolgin-Kmetz (Law); Holly Bukofser (Env. Adv. Comm.); Jonathan Kornblatt; Hon. Ron Bianchi (Harrison Mayor); Alan Scheinkman (County Attorney); Bill Randolph (CEO).

Chair Kaplowitz called the meeting to order at 3:20 p.m.. The minutes of October 6^th were approved on the motion of Legislator Pinto, seconded by Legislator Kaplowitz with a vote of 2-0 (Legislator Maisano was out for the vote.) Chair read an announcement from the DEP, a notice of public meetings to receive comments on potential sites for the Croton water treatment plant project. There are 3 meetings scheduled as follows: October 26^th, at the Westchester County Center; October 28^th, at Manhattan College; and October 29^th, at the Yorktown Community and Cultural Center Theater (7-9 pm). Chair continued discussing the schedule of upcoming meetings when during this discussion, the Mr. Schienkman requested that the Committee move into Executive Session. The purpose of today’s discussion is on two parts; (1) to get, for the record, an Administrative position on the GE Hangar proposal, and (2) to go through the SEQR process. On the motion of Legislator Pinto, seconded by Legislator Maisano, at 3:30 p.m., the Committee and the County Attorney moved into Executive Session for legal advice on scheduling the positive/negative declaration in regard to the GE Hangar.

On the motion of Legislator Pinto, seconded by Legislator Maisano, with a vote of 3-0, the meeting reconvened at 3:55 p.m..

Mr. Scheinkman stated that last year the Board approved a negative declaration and authorized the execution of a lease for the GE Hangar.

Those actions were invalidated by the court, which deferred the matter to the Board for further consideration. For SEQR purposes, the Board is the lead agency and the matter is pending within the jurisdiction of the Board of Legislators. It would be inappropriate for the County Executive to interfere, in any way, with the Board’s deliberation on this matter, as advised by the County Attorney. The County agencies and departments involved with this issue, are ready and available to provide technical assistance to the Board. As County Attorney and liaison between the County Executive and Legislative Branch, Mr. Scheinkman suggested that if the Board has specific questions for Administrative agencies, to submit them to him and he will make sure that the Administration provides a response in a timely fashion. Legislator Maisano wanted to clarify the new GE plan currently under consideration, expressing that the only action the Administration and the agencies have taken is to receive and file without taking a look or a review. Mr. Scheinkman added that it is not the Administrations job or responsibility to take a look, it’s a legislative function. He reiterated that it is not the County Executive or the Administration’s jurisdiction to interfere with what is a process committed to the jurisdiction of the Board. He also agreed, that since the first of the year, the Planning Department has received and filed the GE Submission, but took no significant action. However, a Committee of the Whole meeting was conducted as a public hearing with representatives from the Administration. Chair Kaplowitz continued the discussion and informed Mr. Scheinkman that the Legislators will start preparing their questions. The Mr. Scheinkman excused himself attend another appointment.

Chair addressed to Gina D’Agrosa who handed out two forms: (1) Part 2 – Project Impacts and their Magnitude – Responsibility of Lead Agency, and (2) Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 – Project Impact Categories (Copy on file.) and explained the use of the forms that will assist with the questions for submission as a lead agency. Ms. D’Agrosa also explained

the criteria for positive and negative declaration. The positive declaration is required for an environmental impact statement, and the lead agency would determine that the action may include the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact. In order to approve a negative declaration, the Board needs to determine that there will be no adverse environmental impacts, or that the identified adverse environmental impacts will not be significant. To help the Board with making a determination, there are criteria outlined in the regulations that the environmental impacts can be evaluated against. The Part-2, Environmental Form outlines the subject areas to be evaluated against criteria to determine their significance in various categories. As the Lead Agency, the instructions explain that in identifying an impact that is potentially large, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is significant. Each impact needs to be evaluated to determine their significance. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has published a SEQR Handbook, which has a section on evaluation and the importance of impact. The handbook mentions, that the project as proposed includes mitigation measures that would eliminate the potential significant impact or reduce it to a point where it would no longer be reasonably considered significant. In that particular case, a negative declaration would be appropriate. When an impact is evaluated at first glance, it may appear to have significant impacts, but after a review of the project in its entirety, the proposed mitigation measures should also be reviewed and evaluated in total, to fully determine the significance of the impact. The current EAF addendum (June 1998), was used to reference the one-page roadmap (Part-2). Chair Kaplowitz thanked Ms. D’Agrosa for her presentation.

Holly Bukofser asked Ms. D’Agrosa if the materials handed-out at this meeting could be made available to other interested environmental agencies and organizations. Ms. D’Agrosa replied that the Planning Department submitted the materials to the Board of Legislators to await their direction as the Lead Agency. Bill Harrington interjected that if the County needs additional copies of the materials, GE will make them available.

Legislator Maisano asked Ms. D’Agrosa to clarify Mr. Scheinkman’s statement that no one in the Administration has taken a look at the new 1998 plan, and the "roadmap" sites all the new GE plan for 1998. Ms. D’Agrosa explained that Mr. Scheinkman’s statement was saying there has been no substantive review of the material or formulation of an opinion on what has been submitted. Legislator Maisano then asked if there has been a modification since the plan of 1997 and Mr. Harrington responded yes, that GE would no longer de-ice in the hangar, and de-icing will be done at the County facility.

Rob Hoch handed out a list of questions that the Committee would like to present to the Administration through the County Attorney, which will be distributed to different departments for their feedback. Chair asked that the Committee review the questions, add to it, change it and/or give their comments, and return it to Rob (285-4388). The questions will be answered by DPW (along with Health and Planning Departments) for efficiency. Ms. Rose asked if the Board would consider hiring extras to give an expert opinion on the litigation plans, and suggested that the Board hire an expert in the field. Chair suggested that Ms. Rose put her question in writing and submit it to Rob to be included with the other questions being presented.

Chair then mentioned the stormwater treatment draft plan, and stated that there will be an upcoming meeting with the Committee and the Planning Department on this issue.

With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m., on the motion of Legislator Maisano, seconded by Legislator Pinto.