HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1986Minutes of the
Evanston/University Research Park Environmental Oversight Committee
April 10, 1986 Meeting
Members Present: Doris Wolin, Craig Cain, Elmer Lewis
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Judith Aiello, Assistant City Manager
Others Present: Bob Brett, Evanston Review
Presiding Official: Doris Wolin
Summary of Action:
I. Call to Order
The first meeting of the Environmental Oversight Committee for the
Evanston/University Research Park met on Thursday, April 10, 1986, at 8 P.K. in
the Evanston Civic Center.
Chairman Wolin began the meeting by asking each of the members to give a little
background as to their experience and expertise. Chairman Wolin then reviewed
for the Committee what she believed would be the agenda for that evening.
1. Charge of the Committee
2. Issues to Discuss
3. Other groups investigating the issue
4. A time frame
The first question that was raised, was how to define "environment". It was the
consensus of the Committee that the focus would be on the issues of air
emissions, solid Waste disposal, and would not discuss issues such as traffic.
The Committee discussed the two charges which were given to them by Mayor Barr:
(1) to ascertain that all the necessary procedures and regulations were followed
in regard to environmental matters connected to the Research Park; and (2)
recommend any additional measures that may be necessary to protect the
environment that are not covered by Federal, state and local law or the
Statement of Understanding. Understanding their charge, the Committee then
began to discuss the issues that they felt needed to be addressed.
II Issues to Discuss
1. Review of the level of assessments Which are required for the development of
the Park and the individual developments within the Park.
The Committee discussed the possibility of seeking input from representatives of
the Federal and State Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and
Health Act (OSHA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
2. The Committee will consider the creation of a mechanism if necessary to make
sure that as the Park develops the necessary environmental assessements occur at
varying thresholds of development.
3. Consideration will be given to determine from above what is required and
what will be desired.
4. Another consideration would be the ways in which the report of the Committee
can allay the fears of the community and to separate fact from fiction.
III. Other Groups Investi aB ting This Issue
The Chairman informed the Committee that they have been invited to attend the
Evanston Environmental Control Board's meeting, which will be April 17, 1985, at
7:30 P.M. The Environmental Control Board will be reviewing the Research Park
development at that time. In addition, the Chairman announced that
Representative floods Bowman has also appointed a Committee that will be
reviewing the Park and that the Chairman will be meeting with Representative
Bowman to discuss his Committee.
The Committee also discussed the Park Watch Committee and Issues Committee of
the Democratic Party, both of which are concerned about the Research Park.
IV. Time Frame
The Committee determined that they would like to conclude their review and
report within a six month time frame to the City Council. At the Committee's
next meeting they would like to receive some input from either one or more of
the following groups: Research Safety Committee from Northwestern university;
representatives of the Federal or State Environmental Protection Agency; or the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In addition, the Committee would like to receive
information regarding the required Federal, state or local laws. A review will
be made of the communities which have Research Parks similar to ours to
determine how some of these issues have been addressed. Finally, a brief review
of private research facilities will be undertaken in order to understand the
total scope of issues relevant to the Evanston/University Research Park. It was
the Consensus of the Committee that they would hold off on any discussion of the
munitions issues.
V. Next Meeting Date:
The next meeting of the Committee was tentatively set for May 1. 1986, 8 P.M.
VI. Adjournment
With no further business, the Committee adjourned at 9:35 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted: ;X-f-,
Assistant City Manager
JAA:lr
cc: Joel M. Asprooth
Minutes of the
Evanston/University Research Park Environmental Oversight Committee
May 8, 1986 Meeting
Members Present: Doris Wolin, Craig Cain, Elmer Lewis
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Judith A. Aiello, Assistant City Manager
Others Present: Ron Kysiak, Evanston Inventure
Bob Brett, EVANTON REVIEW
Jeff Fort
Presiding Official: Doris Wolin. Chairman
Summary of Action:
I. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wolin at 8:00 P.M. in the Evanston
Civic Center.
II. Staff Report:
Staff reviewed for members of the Committee the various individuals with whom
contact has been made regarding the possibility of coming to speak to the
Committee. Pending at this time is representatives from the Federal EPA Office
who will come to talk about the EPA requirements, in addition to representatives
from Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne National Laboratory representatives
have offered to talk to the Committee regarding both the environmental and
socio-economic impacts analysis. Committee indicated that their focus was
environmental and they were not interested in socio-economic impacts at this
time. Staff reviewed the information from the Argonne representative regarding
the three levels of review that they undertake. Level one includes a review for
a determination if there is a chance of an impact. This is the level of review
that was provided for the GIRL lab and a determination was made that there would
be no environment impact with GIRL, and therefore, did not warrant any further
analysis. The second level of review is the environmental assessment, which if
a project meets various threshholds then the third level of investigation is
conducted which is a full environmental impact statement. Staff was directed to
pursue representatives of Argonne to speak to the Committee with the
understanding that the Committee is not interested in soliciting a proposal, but
just informational purposes only. Another individual which staff spoke with,
was a representative from the Division of Energy and Water Resources, which is
responsible for doing environmental economic impact analyses when the state is
going to issue new regulations. Finally, staff spoke with Jacob Dumelle, who is
the Chairman of the Illinois Pollution control Board, who informed staff that
there will be new state regulations for toxic air emissions issued very shortly,
and will forward a copy to the City as soon as it is available. Mr. Dumelle
indicated that he believes that these new state regulations would be on the
cutting edge for the nation and that they would provide additional safeguards
for the City of Evanston. Staff was directed to continue to pursue scheduling
the following speakers for future meetings. (1) Federal EPA representatives
including representative from the Central Regional Research Lab, Mr. Curtis
Ross, to indicate how they handle waste and whether or not other precautions are
taken. In addition, the EPA representative should be able to provide the City
staff with information regarding the four levels of lab designations and how it
relates to private and publicly funded laboratories. (2) Representatives from
Argonne Laboratory, what Argonne does in the way of environmental assessments
and how they can provide us with additional information. (3) Someone from the
State EPA and what the impact is on the environment of the particular
development, in addition to the threshhold that the Illinois EPA undertakes.
(4) Jeff Fort, an Evanston resident who is an environmental attorney, who will
provide some legal framework for the Committee. (5) A representative from a
private industry laboratory to compare the public vs. the private safeguards.
III. Reports:
Ron Kysiak, Executive Director of Evanston Inventure, was introduced to the
Committee and Mr. Kysiak provided the following information to the Committee.
Mr. Kysiak had recently attended a University related Research Park symposium in
Tempe, Arizona, and there were representatives from approximately forty
universities and thirty countries at various stages in the development of
Research Parks. For the majority of these entities the numerous State, Federal
and local regulations, which are in place have satisfied whatever existing
concerns there were in the various communities regarding the environment. Mr.
Kysiak also reviewed the efforts that he was familiar with in the cities of New
Haven and Milwaukee, as they related to environmental issues as parks were
developed. Mr. Kysiak reviewed for the Committee that the majority of companies
which are currently looking at the Evanston/University Research Park, are not
looking for wet laboratory space and that they are mostly companies who want to
have some connection with either BIRL or Northwestern. This he said is very
similar to ocher Research Parks which have identified their focus and are
marketing themselves with a defined use. In response to Chairman Wolin's
question, Mr. Kysiak indicated that the employment breakdown for BIRL would be
60 principal investigators, 65 technicians, and 65 support positions. 'Thus
following the one-third, one-third, one-third trend, of technical to
non -technical people for employment within the Park. Mr. Kysiak advised the
Committee that he felt that prior to imposing any new and/or additional
requirements regarding environmental issues, that the Committee and the City
should be cognizant of the concerns that they want to address and set up the
system so that those concerns can be monitored. The imposition of any
additional and/or unnecessary regulations may deter some of the potential
tenants, but that indeed if safety is the issue, then there should be the
investigation of what restrictions can be placed to ensure the safety of the
Evanston citizens. Staff was directed to determine under what circumstances, if
any, the City would lose their rights to inspect private laboratories and/or
publicly funded laboratories and/or laboratories in which classified research
was being conducted. The Committee then focused on a discussion of the
possibility of incorporating the Federal standards of laboratories P1 through
P4, as feasible regulations for the Park. Staff was directed to ask the EPA for
additional information regarding these regulations, and if any regulations
currently exist in the City of Evanston for this. It was the consensus of the
Committee that although the economic issues are important they would not be at
the expense of the safety of the citizens of Evanston. Mr. Kysiak concurred and
also advised the Committee that he would have further discussions with
representatives from the Philadelphia Park and other urban parks to glean
additional information for us. Finally, the Committee agreed to schedule a tour
of Northwestern`s Tech Building, in addition to further scheJuling of meetings.
Next Meeting Date:
The next meeting of the Committee will be Wednesday, May 14, 1986, followed by
Thursday, May 29, 1986.
Adjournment:
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted:
sist�itger
JAA:lr
cc: Joel M. Asprooth
Minutes of the
Evanston/University Research Park Environmental Oversight Committee
May 14, 1986
Members Present: Doris Wolin, Craig Cain, Elmer Lewis
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Judith Aiello, Assistant City Manager
Others Present: Jeffrey Fort
Presiding Official: Doris Wolin, Chairman
Summary of Action:
I. Call to Order
The meeting of the Environmental Oversight Committee was called to order on May
14, 1986, at 8:05 P.M. in the Evanston Civic Center.
II. Minutes
The minutes of the meeting of May 8, 1986 were corrected to include the
Committee's interest in setting up a tour of the Central Research Lab in
Chicago. With this correction the minutes were approved.
III. Reports
A. Staff Report
Staff reviewed for the Committee the contacts made to date and the individuals
scheduled for future meetings:
1. A tour of Northwestern University Technological Institute has scheduled for
May 28, 1986, 8:30 A.M., with members of the Committee meeting in front of the
Tech Building.
2. Federal EPA - staff has been discussing this issue with Mr. William Franz of
the Environmental Review Branch, who would be willing to come and speak to the
Committee on May 29, 1986, and will confirm shortly. Staff indicated that Mr.
Franz was not familiar with the Pi to 4 designation but will try to assist us in
finding additional information regarding this. Mr. Franz is going to send some
recent procedures which have been issued in the Federal Register by the Council
on Environmental Quality regarding assessments. This new procedure revises
previous activities in which the worse case scenario was considered and
protections implemented to safeguard such a situation. The new process outlines
four steps in which to deal with assessments.
3. State EPA - staff reported that contact had been made with Mr. Haschmeyer,
who is the Deputy Director of the Illinois Environment Protection Agency, and
who directed staff to three individuals in the Chicago area office.
-2-
Representatives from the Water and Sewer Connection Division, the Air Emissions
Division, and the Land Pollution Division were contacted and each gave
information regarding their specific area of expertise. Staff will seek from
Mr. 8aschmeyer either commitment for attendance at one of our meetings by
someone from the Illinois State EPA, who would be able to provide overview as
opposed to the specific areas of responsibility.
4. Argonne National Laboratory - staff reported that Ms. Elizabeth Skull with
the Environmental Assessments section of Argonne National Laboratory is
scheduled to appear before the Committee May 29, 1986, and provide an overview
of NEPA and briefly review environmental assessments.
Finally, staff is trying to contact Dr. Larry Hecker, who is a certified
Industrial Hygenist from Abbott Lab, and will try to schedule him at an upcoming
meeting. There was a consensus that With this scope of individuals being
contacted to present information to the Committee that we are gaining the
necessary background in order to complete our review of the Evanston/University
Research Park.
B. Jeffrey Fort
Th,t Committee then heard Mr. Jeffrey Fort, who is an Environmental Attorney with
the firm of Martin, Craig, Cheater and Sonnenschein. Mr. Fort is a resident of
Evanston and has agreed to share with the Cn—ittee his expertise in
environmental law. It was Mr. Fort's opinion chat to date everything that is
required to be done under the Federal and State regulations have been done as it
relates to the GIRL Laboratory. He did indicate that the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency in dealing with a research lab asked different questions then
if GIRL was a production facility. He felt that the City needs to maintain an
enlightened and self-interest approach so that we can be assured of the precise
steps to be taken to safeguard the environment and to provide the framework for
future assessments as the Park develops. Mr. fort then reviewed the three
general approaches by which environmental reviews are undertaken. The first
approach is the Command control which has been used traditionally by the V.S.
EPA, and looks at experimental and production facilities Co determine what
activities may result from processes occurring and to assume that all have to be
controlled prior to any implementation of design. In essence one assumes the
worst case scenario and designs a facility to meet that Worst case scenario
upfront. You assume the maximum protection, and therefore, design to take all
those extreme cases into account. The second approach is co set standards and
then enforce them. This is what is typically used in Illinois with regulations
and enforcement being carried out by the Illinois Pollution Control Board and
the EPA. Finally, the third model which is discussed, is the economic payment
approach by which the recognition that pollution may occur and if so, entities
are paid for the damage that it may cause. This was not a model that was
recommended to be even as we move forward. Mr. Fort then indicated that there
was a fine line between the Command Control and the Set Standards and Enforce.
Mr. Fort raised the issue of liability insurance, and that RPI may be liable for
any accidents which may occur within the Park. In addition, environmental
impairment liability insurance is something which is available, but is very
expensive and may be difficult to obtain. A local provider, Shand Morhan
Insurance Company has recently gotten out of that business. The Committee
indicated it might be helpful to seek someone from Shand Morhan to discuss the
environmental impairment liability insurance matter.
4
10 *%
•
-3-
Mr. Fort suggested that the Committee may want to consider an audit concept, by
which a periodic audit would be conducted that would take into consideration all
of the various elements of the environmental issues such as solid waste,
hazardous waste, air emissions, waste water, etc. Environmental audits have
been done for the past sevezal years and combine a scientific and legal
expertise. The Committee discussed the various issues related to audits as to
proprietary research, safeguards. classified research safeguards and
interpretation and use of the audits once completed. Discussion and comparison
of the University's safety system and a possible audit followed with the
recognition that audits can be done in a variety of ways, either independently
and/or within a specific agency. The key is to keep it objective and to take
into consideration the financial resources required; other resources that would
be available, and the political aspect of an audit finding. There was a general
consensus of the Cotsstittee that one has to keep in mind that within these audits
there may be procedures and/or information Which is documented, which to the
layman may sae= alarming but is not alarming from the scientific sense. In
addition, consideration must be given as to how an audit is required so that it
does not create a negative business climate as we begin to market the Park.
Chairman Wolin thanked Mr. Fort for his comprehensive and cogent presentation
and asked that if he would be willing to provide some of his comisents to us in
writing and invited his to attend our future meetings, and to offer whatever
insights he would have throughout our process.
IV. Next NeetinR Date
The next meeting of the Comittes will be May 29, 1986, at which time
representatives from Argonne National laboratory are scheduled to be in
attendance. '
V. Adjournment
With no further business the tweeting was adjourned at 9:55 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted:4
ssistant City Manager
JAA:lr
cc: Joel X. Asgrootb -
Minutes of the
Evanston/University Research Park Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee
May 29, 1986
Members Present: Doris Wolin, Craig Cain, Elmer Levis
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Judith A. Aiello, Assistant City Manager
Others Present: Thomas Nowicki, Larry Hecker, Marshall Grust,
Pearl Hirschfield, William Hoyer, Richard Stillerman,
Bob Brettschneider
Presiding Official: Doris Wolin, Chairman
Summary of Action:
I. Call to Order:
The meeting of the Evanston/University Research Park Environmental Affairs
Oversight Committee was called to order on May 29, 1986, at 8:10 P.M. in the
Evanston Civic Center by Chairman Wolin.
I1. Minutes:
The minutes of May 14, 1986, were corrected to eliminate from page 2, paragraph
one, the word "and" between "enlightened and self interest". With this
correction the minutes were approved.
III. deports:
Mr. Thomas Nowicki, Environmental Engineer with the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, spoke to the Committee regarding Federal EPA and
environmental reviews required by law under the National Environmental
Protection Act. Mr. Nowicki said that the role of EPA in regard to
environmental impact statements is consultative. The agency funding any given
project decides whether an EIS is necessary based on criteria established by the
specific agency. In the case of BIRL, the department of Energy made a finding
of "No Significant Impact", and he therefore assumes that the project did not
trigger the criteria set to mandate an EIS.
Mr. Nowicki further explained that as EIS deals with a wide range of impacts,
including air, land, water, social, economic, displacement and dislocation, etc.
The funding agency aided by Federal EPA's Environmental Review Bureau, if so
requested, does what is called "scoping"; that is, the agency tries to discover
what the public will care about since the purpose of an EIS is to provide a form
for the public to review the many ways the project being considered will impact
an the community and its residents. The content of an EIS is thus determined by
discussions with many people from the agencies, the project developer and the
2-C
community, after which the EIS is open for public comment. The EIS is, in
essence, a tool in the decision -making process.
The Committee next heard a presentation from Dr. Larry Hecker, who is an
Industrial Hygenist with Abbott Laboratories and a past Board member of the
National Association of Industrial Hygenist. Dr. Hecker began his remarks by
saying he was not representing Abbott Labs and that he was speaking as an
individual offering his own opinions. He discussed the difficulty in
considering an Environmental Impact Statement when the individual components of
the Park are unknown. However, he stated that as the project proceeds various
reviews could and should be required. Dr. Hecker suggested we must ask what
sort of things we are willing to put into our air, water, and land; if any of
these would be dangerous, then methods of protecting against them must be used.
For example, it is possible to build a research building with holding ranks to
clean effluents before discharging them into the sewer system. If no such tanks
are incorporated into a building, then the type of research must be limited to
that which can be safely done without such a tank.
In a discussion of scale as a safety factor, Dr. Hecker agreed that small scale
could lead to safety if the delution was sufficient. He explained that toxicity
(the degree of poisonness) plus the likelihood (of exposure to the toxic
pollutant) would equal risk. Therefore, the likelihood of environmental
contamination is less when small amount of materials are used and increases as
the quantity increases.
Whert asked how one could safely control a research lab, he stated that be
believed it likely that safety issues will be carefully regarded because it was
too dangerous not to do so. In addition to the personal risk to the individuals
conducting the research, he believes that there would be the risk of legal
liability to both the City_ and Northwestern University. Therefore it would be
prudent for all concerned to be mindful of all possible safety factors. Many
safety regulations are mandated by law, that. is by various local, State, and
federal statutes and regulations; the others are mandated by self-interest of
everyone concerned.
To insure precautions are being taken in the planning stage, Dr. Hecker
recommends the Park Board require approval of plans by some expert such as a
licensed industrial hygenist or by a qualified engineer, so that efficent safety
features are planned for in advance. Thus the Park Management could offer, as a
service which it would provide along with other services, some mechanism to
ensure continuing adherence to environmental safety standards. Such an ongoing
audit service would be needed by the individual Research Park users both for
their own safety and also for insurance purposes. This service could be
provided for by an entity within the University, the City, or by turninz to an
outside independent group. This service would be used to discover problems
which needed to be corrected and not to harrass publicly any Park users. Dr.
Hecker indicated that the cost for such an audit could run anywhere from $500.00
to $1,000.00 per day per member of a team.
The Committee then provided for questions from the audience to the guest. These
concerned several areas such as sewer retention basins, how to approach DOE, and
the fact that a Research Park in a downtown location might increase risk to the
people and therefore must take extra precautions to ensure safety.
-3-
IV. Next Meeting bate:
The Committee then discussed and set their schedule of meetings for the month of
June. It was decided that —une 26 meeting would be a Public Hearing so the
Committee could receive comments trom the residents regarding their views on the
Research Park. Finally, staff was directed to contact an individual from the
MSD to see if someone could talk to the Committee about MSA's role in the
Research Park plan and permit process. In addition, efforts are to be made to
seek someone from the Department of Energy and from a private environmental
audit company to speak to the Committee.
Respectfully Submitted: 4
s istant City Manager
cc: Joel M. Asprooth
L.
01
Minutes of the
Evanston/University Research Park Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee
PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
June 26, 1986
Members Present: Doris Wolin, Craig Cain, Elmer Levis
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Judith Aiello, Assistant City Manager
Others Present: Pearl Hershfield, Jeff Fort, Dianne Locandru,
Christopher Fort, Nancy Yalowita, Al White, Jacob Arnav,
Bob Brettschneider
Presiding Official: Doris Wolin, Chairman
Susmmary of Action:
Chairman Wolin began the Public Hearing by stating that this was a Public
Bearing of the Evanston/university Research Park Environmental Affairs Oversight
Committee, with the purpose of receiving testimony from the citizens of Evanston
regarding the environmental issues of the proposed Research Park. Chairman
Wolin r9stated the Committee's charge and that testimony on issues not related
to the Committee's charge would not be reviewed that evening.
The first speaker was Mr. Alvin White, who .raised the question of: Whew is a
Park not to play in; when is a building not a park; and when is a City not
livable. Mr. White raised the issue of the City's Nuisance Ordinance and the
fact that the Ordinance does not allow for the use or transmittal of toxic
substances but that Northwestern university was a "registered hazardous waste
generator." Mr. White believes that the City must respond to this fact. Mr.
White further stated that the City does not have the equipment to test air
and/or water and questioned horn the City could respond to violations of the
Nuisance Ordinance. Mr. mite concluded his remarks by stating that he believed
that the Committee needed to address this matter.
The second speaker was Mr. Jeff Fort, who began his remarks by stating that he
was an environmental attorney, and would focus his remarks on issues of
environmental law. Mr. Fort stated that he believed that the key issue of the
law is ultimately what the people believe it should be. Mr. Fort raised the
issue of Environmental Impact Statements and felt that the Committee would be
surprised at what an EIS does not do. He believes that the Committee and the
City should be guided by enlightened self-interest and suggested that the
Research Park governing body have a regular environmental audit of what is going
on in the facilities. The audit would be the way to assure that the mechanisms
were in place within the various facilities for proper procedures and monitoring
and that such plans, i.e., disaster plans, were in place. An environmental
audit would allow for theoretical and on-line monitoring. Mr. Fort concluded
his remarks by stating that there were sways in which to manage the environmental
issues of the Research Park.
The third and final speaker was Mr. Jake Arnov, who began his remarks by stating
that he felt that there needed to have been more publicity for the Public
Hearing. Mr. Arnov expressed his fear of defense related research and the
University's relationship with Commonwealth Edison. He believes that the City's
agreement with the University should be amended to prohibit defense, nuclear
research and the use of toxic chemicals. Mr. Arnov concluded by stating that be
believed that there were too many unknowns, and that the City does not know what
could happen.
With the conclusion of the final speaker, Chairman Wolin concluded the Public
Bearing and stated that the Committee would accept additional comments in
writing and that anyone wishing to submit a statement, could do so by forwarding
it to her in care of the City Manager's Office. She stated that she hoped that
the Evanston Review would inform the community about this opportunity. The
Chairman informed the Committee that the Committee's next meeting was Wednesday,
July 2, 1986, and that the speakers would be Mr. Jim Pilich, an Environmental
Auditor, and Mr. Dick Lanyon, Director of Research and Development for the
Metropolitan Sanitary District.
With no further business, the meeting was
Respectfully Submitted:
JAA:1r
cc: Joel M. Asprooth
adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
sistant'Crty Manager
f
Minutes of the
Evanston/University Research Park Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee
July 2, 1986
Members Present: Doris Wolin, Elmer Lewis, Craig Cain
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Judith Aiello, Assistant City Manager
Others Present: Jim Polich, Dick Lanyon, Bob Brettschneider
Presiding Official: Doris Wolin, Chairman
Summary of Action:
I. Call to Order
The meeting of the Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee was called to order
on July 2, 1986 at 8:02 P.M. by Chairman Wolin in the Evanston Civic Center.
II. Minutes
The revised minutes of the June 25, 1986 meeting were approved.
II. Reports
A. Mr. Jim Polich, Environment Resources Management
Mr. Jim Polich, principle of Environment Resources management, an Environmental
Audit Company, opened his remarks with some background material on his company.
He stated that environmental audits while they are the state of the art are
subjective. He stated that many things can't be audited due to a variety of
factors, especially if one was not involved in the design and construction of a
facility that one is asked to audit. An environmental audit is a snapshot in
time and 1002 safety cannot be guaranteed becatise of those circumstances.
However, there are issues that one can address if they are considering
implementing an environmental auditing procedure. First, one must determine the
purpose of the audit. If the purpose is to show compliance, then one must
recognize that such compliance is only for that period in time in which the
audit was conducted. If one's purpose is compliance, then consideration must be
given to time monitoring rather than auditing, but one must recognize the
significant cost and flaws within the time monitoring system.
Second, an issue for consideration is the use of an audit once it is completed.
The use of the audit for enforcement purposes must be considered and should the
lack of action on any deficiencies be uncovered, a procedure for remedial action
should be in place. As with any consulting process, one must be confident of
the qualifications of the professional team hired.
EURP Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee Minutes
July 2, 1986 Meeting
Page 2
Mr. Polich pointed out that an alternative to an environmental audit might be
the development of other mechanisms to insure the safety of the facildities.
This might include a process review which would include the handling, storage,
and operation of the facility, and the establishment of an approved disaster
plan. In addition, consideration might be given to a heavy reliance on existing
regulatory agencies who are equipped to monitor through routine inspections.
Again, he stated that audits would only give the community a picture at a
certain point in time rather than 1002 safety. The best way to assure safety
would be with on—line monitoring for air and water issues but that the City
could consider the prohibition of certain chemicals and/or use in only limited
quantities.
The Committee members expressed their concern with Mr. Polich's comments and
that given his feelings about the limited value of audits, questioned how he
could conduct audits and attest to their validity. Mr. Polich again stated his
belief that environmental audits are the state of the art, but that a community
must clearly understand that an audit is not a 100% guarantee. The Committee
stated that nothing in this world is a IOOZ guarantee, and thanked Mr. Polich
for joining the Committee for the evening.
B. Mr. Dick Lanyon, Assistant Director of Research and
Development for the Metropolitan Sanitary
District (MSD)
Mr. Lanyon joined the Committee and began his remarks with a description of the
MSD's role in the regulatory process. The MSD has set general guidelines and
has adopted regulations for specific industrial categories but not for research
facilities. No regulations have been promulgated in this regard, but they rely
upon their experience with other research facilities. The MSD is concerned
about the quality of waste that is put into the sanitary system. The GIRL lab
received the necessary permits for hook up to the MSD system. In the case of
GIRL, no retention tanks were required because of the minimal magnitude of the
waste and the MSD's history with research facilities. They could not conceive
any public health hazard. If there was a spike or slug of chemicals into the
system, the size and scope of the MSD plant which services Evanston would be
able to handle the situation.
Mr. Lanyon reported that any user of more than 50 gallons cumulative of
chemicals is required to report this to the MSD. The MSD charges user fees
based upon flows rather than magnitude of pollutants. Mr. Lanyon provided the
Committee with copies of MSD's Sewage and Waste Control Ordinance as amended
September 5, 1985. With no further questions of Mr. Lanyon, Chairman Wolin
thanked Mr. Lanyon for his participation.
Chairman Wolin concluded the meeting with a report on her discussions with the
Cook County EPA Air Pollution Specialist. Ms. Wolin discussed air dispersion
modeling and that she had requested additional information.
EU$P Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee Minutes
July 2, 1986 Meeting
Page 3
1V. Next Heetin:{
The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for Thursday, July 10, 1986, at
which time the Committee would receive a presentation by the City's attorney
regarding the Nuisance Ordinance.
V. Adjournment
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.H.
Respectfully Submitted: (41'Y-�`t. G
Afsistant City Manager
JAA:Ir
cc: Joel M. Asprooth
�r
Minutes of the
Research Park Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee
July 10, 1986
Members Present: Doris Wolin, Craig Cain, Elmer Lewis
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Judith A. Aiello, Assistant City Manager
Others Present: Herb Hill, Bob Brettschneider
Presiding Official: Doris Wolin, Chairman
Su-TWsary of Action:
I. Call to Order
The meeting vas called to order at 8:07 P.M. in the fourth floor Conference Room
of the Evanston Civic Center.
II. Discussion
Chairman Wolin began the meeting by discussing with the Committee a recent
letter i7 the Evanston Review by Dr. Stephen J. Kz%,ka. Chairman Wolin felt that
the letter was in error in its reference to previous meetings and discussions
t:hicf were held, and sought is:or�.a:io :7c= the Co=ittee as to their desired
action. It was the consensus of the Co=ittee that a letter to the Editor of
the Evanston Review should be sent as soon as possible to correct the
misinformacion that had been presented in Dr. Kavka's letter. Craig Cain
o=fered to draft the letter which he would get to the Committee members over the
c:eekend, so that it could be forwarded to the Review and hopefully included in
next week's edition of the newspaper.
111. Reports
The Co=ittee received a report from First Assistant Corporation Counsel Herbert
Bill, who presented an overview of the City's nuisance Ordinance. Mr. Hill
began his remarks by stating that it was the City experience that we have had
few complaints under the huisanLe 07dinance or the environmental related
sections of the Code. When tere have been issues, we have utilized Federal,
State or County agencies who are authorized to carry out such enforcement of
regulations. The City's Nuisance Lac: is very broad is based upon co -non lac:; he
noted that specific references in the Ordinance concerned issues of an earlier
time. However, he did say that based upon the general language the City may
take action if it is brought to our attention that a certain activity is
presenting a nuisance. However, the mere fact that a certain substance is on
the premises does not automatically constitute a hazard or a nuisance. When
asked how the City would enforce these regulations, Mr. Hill stated that the
City may seek a temporary restraining order or injunction. Mr. Hill further
EURP Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee Minutes
. July 10, 1956 ::ceting
Page 2
stated that nuisances are defined either: (1) per se, meaning that ar activity
itself is so har-_`ul that it is not tolerable and when it does occur, it is a
nuisance; (2) a nuisance in fact - the actual circumstances cause harm to the
public. If an activity or conduct were deemed in violation of Federal or State
regulations than •.e could issue citations for creation of a nuisance under the
Citv's Nuisance ordinance.
Mr. Hill than reviewed Section 4-10-10-2 of the City Code as it relates to Air
?ollution, and reviewed some case law as it related to the court's determination
of what is defined as a pollutant. He stated that he believed that there is a
possible difficulty in trying to prosecute on a nuisance complaint if there were
indeed Federal or State regulations on this matter. A community would need to
prove that there was a hazard - or unreasonable interference with the
co_muinity's healthlsafety. it vas Mr. Hill's belief that the Courc cases
showed that an en=ity must prove that har= has occurred; and that this is often
difficult to prove. It was Mr. Hills belief that utilizing Federal and State
regulations and the:_ appropriate regulatory agencies, is the most effective and
efficient manner in which to ensure the environmental safety. fie did state,
however, that the City, if it so desired could adopt more specific ordinance
with standards clearly articulated, if there were no Federal preemptions as it
relates to the environment. The City does have =ore stringent regulations in
other areas; _.e., long ter= care and landlord;_enant provisions.
When asked if var:ous laws could be enacted and enforced specifically for a;•1v
those occupants c; the Evanston/University Research Park, Mr. Hill replied that
generally the law would have to be administered City-wide applicable to all
businesses and could not be enforced just for the Research Park. He also
cautioned that one must Keep in mind the cost of new regulations and
enforcements, and that if.other agencies could ac_ as the enforcement arm- of the
City, that that might be more beneficial and efficient. It was his feeling that
in this area a case by case determination as to what is producing the harm has
to be proven and that it is most difficult to set up specific guidelines. It
was the consensus of the review of the Nuisance Ordinance that the City of
Evanston's Nuisance Ordinance is very general and that in order to create
additional regulations, one would also have to create our own enforcement
program and this would have to be applied across the board to all businesses.
With that conclusion, the Committee thanked Mr. Hill for his presentation.
The Committee then reviewed status to date of several outstanding items, and
discussed the possible rescheduling of the Thursday, July 24 meeting to
Wednesday, July 23.
With no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted:
JAA:lr
cc: Joel M. Asprooth
Assistant City Manager
4.
Minutes of the
Evanaton/University Research Park Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee
July 17, 1986
Members Present: Doris Wolin, Elmer Lewis, Craig Cain
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Judith A. Aiello, Assistant City Manager
Others Present: Dr. Norman Nochtrieb, Jeffrey Fort, Bob Brettschneider
Presiding Official: Doris Wolin, Chairman
Summary of Action:
I. Call to Order
The meeting of the Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee was called to order
on July 17, 1986, at 8:07 P.M. by Chairman Wolin in the Evanston Civic Center.
II. Minutes
The minutes of the June 26, 1986 Public Hearing and the July 2, 1986 meeting
were approved.
III. Reports
A. Dr. Norman Nochtrieb
Chairman Wolin introduced Dr. Norman Nochtrieb, Professor of Emeritus of
Chemistry, University of Chicago and the University Laboratory Safety Officer.
Dr. Nochtrieb began his remarks by stating that he was acquainted with the
procedures of Northwestern University's Research Safety Office and the
activities of Mr. David Miller and Ms. Gail Shipley, because the University of
Chicago is a member of the Big Ten consortium of Safety Affairs, as is
Northwestern. He believes that Northwestern, like most of the Big Ten schools,
runs a very good lab safety program. He stated that, while all the programs are
similar, there are some small differences in how each university operates its
program. The University of Chicago, for example, has a decentralized program,
where as Northwestern has a highly centralized program. He reiterated that
Northwestern has a good program in place.
It is Dr. Nochtrieb's opinion that the level of activities within research labs
is small and any emergency which might occur would not constitute a major
hazard. Proper oversight can turn the Research Park into a great opportunity to
improve the lot of the people without harming them. He believes it is important
to know what is being planned for each part of the Park, to know who will
operate it and how they will do so, and then to work with the information. He
stated that he is "a fierce environmentalist" fully aware of the potential for
Environmental Affairs Cversight Committee Minutes Page 2
July 17, 1986 Meeting
problems which can arise and embarrassed by the sins of his profession. He
feels certain chat those supervising the Northwestern Office of Research Safety
feel the same way.
In order to explain the relative size of a lab operation, Dr. Nochtrieb told the
Committee that the University of Chicago has 500 labs, including the University
and its hospitals, which together generate approximately 4000-5000 gallons of
flammable waste annually. Ninety percent of the waste is disposed of by
incineration and the remaining ten percent is treated or removed for disposal.
Dr. Nochtrieb stated that this was a fairly typical quantity for a research
facility; an industrial facility would generate a vastly greater quantity. The
University of Chicago has a hazardous waste storage building on its campus,
approximately 30' by 30' in size, consisting of six rooms. All collected wastes
are brought to the storage building. Some are neutralized into inert materials
in an on -site lab. Others are stored in 55 gallon drums. segregated by type of
material to avoid hazardous reactions. The building is secured by limited
access and through use of an alarm system. Hazardous materials may remain in
the building for up to ninety days, as provided by EPA regulations, after which
they are transported to federally approved disposal sites.
Mr. Jeff Fort asked about the use of a mass balance system in which all
chemicals purchased are balanced against end products and waste materials. Dr.
Nochtrieb replied that while a mass balance system sounds good in theory, in
practice it is unworkable and that neither his university nor NU nor any other
private facility he knows uses such a system. Record -keeping of materials
purchased and waste materials is, however, essential.
In response to a question about air emissions, Dr. Nochtrieb stated his feeling
that the amount of waste emitted through lab hoods is quite small and would be
rapidly dispersed over the lake, so that risk to residents is remote. In the
case of a downdraft combined with a westerly wind, there might be some slight
problem, but it would not be significant because of the rapid diffusion. He
stated that the diffusion of gasses is his field of study and that, within 30
feet of a stack, dilution makes any effects from gas vented by lab hoods
difficult to measure. He stated his belief that air pollutants from lab hoods
would not be a threat to the residents of Evanston or to the lake. The risk, he
said would be "trivial" and the problems perceived have been magnified beyond
all reason, probably the fault of the media.
Dr. Nochtrieb made several recommendations. First, he recommended that wastes
be collected for disposal with no user's fee to Research Park occupants. This
would encourage proper disposal of leftover chemicals and other wastes. He also
recommended that a Scientific Advisory Committee be established consisting of
knowledgable people from the scientific community to set rules and regulations
for the Research Park. These standards and safety procedures should apply to
private companies as well as to NU labs and should be no less stringent Chan the
standards already in place at Northwestern. Dr. Nochtrieb believes that private
labs would be willing to abide by these standards and that any which would be
unwilling to do so would probably not be wanted in the Research Park. He said
he would recommend that participants in the Research Park be chosen very
carefully. He thought it imperative to limit the Park to research and not allow
manufacturing. He further recommended that extra scrutiny be given to those
entities using more toxic materials. He concluded by restating his belief that
the Research Park was "not a menace" to the City of Evanston.
Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee Minutes Page 3
July 17, 1986 Meeting
B. Jeff Fort
Mr. Jeff Fort gave the Committee an overview of Environmental Impact Statements
(EISs) relevant to the Research Park. The four EISs considered were from
Michigan and included three research parks in rural areas and an industrial park
in a metropolitan area. Mr. Fort found little in the EISs that would apply to
the issues raised in connection with Evanston's Research Park. The issues
raised in the EISs being reviewed dealt with (1) socio-economic issues, largely
the new jobs and taxes to be generated by the proposed projects and (2)
conservationist issues, including the taking of wetlands and farmland. Issues
such as air emissions. sewage discharge and hazardous waste were not much
discussed except in connection with a large-scale power plant and automobile
factory in the Oakland. MI, industrial park. Here the EIS suggested that if all
existing air pollution regulations were followed no impact would result. This
EIS advised risk assessment procedures "to manage the risks over time." This
would be comparable to environmental monitoring and audit procedures. These
EISs were conducted by HUD because the three rural projects involved the taking
of wetlands and farmlands and the fourth was an industrial facility larger than
500 acres.
Mr. Fort said that most of the EISs he has studied state the benefits of the
proposed projects and highlight the environmental issues which must be addressed
on an ongoing basis. Most contain quite general information rather than
specific standards. He concluded by saying that in the environmental area the
Committee is serving the function of an EIS, that is, it is highlighting the
issues which must be addressed and also making recommendations for management in
the future and that the Committee's recommendations might well be more detailed
than those found in an EIS. He believes that an EIS would have told us less
about the environmental issues than the Committee has learned in its
investigation.
IV. Next Meeting Date
The Committee discussed their next meeting date which was tentatively scheduled
for Wednesday, July 23, 1986, with Envirodyne Engineers to present additional
information about environmental audits and EISs. In addition, a meeting has
been tentatively set for Friday, July 25, 1986, with Mary Goodkind, an
environmental engineer and former member of the Environmental Control Board.
V. Adjournment
With no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted:
f Assistant City Manager
JAA:Ir
cc: Joel M. Asprooth
Minutes of the
Evanston/University Research Park Relocation Subcommittee
March 27, 1986 Meeting
Members Present: Aldermen Drummer, Warshaw, Rainey, Thiel, Nelson
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Judith A. Aiello, Assistant City Manager
Presiding Official: Alderman Drummer, Chairman
Summary of Action:
The meeting was convened by Alderman Drummer at 7:35 P.M. in Room 2404 of the
Civic Center.
In response to the Committee's inquiry regarding the people who are living
within the area to be relocated, staff indicated that we had complied a list
from the Voter's Registration and Building Department records regarding tenants
within the area. A total of 43 letters were sent by registered mail to
residents identified within the Park and 25 were returned undeliverable.
Previously staff indicated that we would attempt to get an intern who could
physically walk the location and try to acquire names of additional residents.
At this point the intern has not been obtained, but Aldermen Thiel and Drummer
have volunteered to do so and will be doing so within the next few weeks. Staff
further indicated that we had begun to discuss with various commercial property
owners their relocation needs and were attempting to provide them with
information regarding the buildings that were available at this time for their
relocation. Staff restated its hope that we would be able to relocate both
businesses and residents within Evanston, but that due to the availability of
both residential and commercial properties we may not be able to achieve 100Z
relocation within Evanston.
The Committee then discussed the draft of the relocation policy. Di5Cuabion
focused upon the fact of whether the Citv should reimburse tenants and owners
for their moving expenses. It was the feeling of the Committee that many of the
tenants could not afford to pay these costs upfront, and therefore, those moving
expenses should be paid for by the City. Alderman nelson suggested that the
City consider hiring an Evanston and/or minority business moving company as part
of the proposed project. The Committee agreed that they would pay the lowest of
three moving quotes but that it may not be practical to have the same moving
company for the residential and the businesses. Therefore, the policy will be
revised to include the flexibility of a commercial mover, if it is warranted by
the nature of the business.
The Committee had further discussion regarding the residential tenants and it
was suggested by Alderman Rainey that the City consider hiring a retired real
estate broker who would assist the City in the relocation of the residential
tenants. Again concern was raised as to whether or not comparable dwelling
units would be available within Evanston and staff indicated that we would be
seeking assistance from the Housing Department.
-x-
The Committee discussed the commercial tenants and the possible assistance the
City could provide. Alderman Rainey asked if Inventure might be able to provide
financial assistance, and staff indicated that they would look into that matter.
Staff also expressed the difficulty in determining the moving expenses due to
the variety of businesses.
he Committee continued discussion regarding the general relocation issues as it
related to specific properties and the concern as to the potential cost of the
relocation. However, it was the Committee's consensus that the City was
committed to providing relocation assistance and that we did not want the move
to cause undue hardship. After additional discussion on some technical and
grammatical revisions, the Committee concluded their discussion of the
relocation policy. Staff was advised to revise the draft and bring it forward
to the Committee shortly. The Aldermen of the Ward, Thiel and Drummer, will be
providing staff with completed forms of the individuals who they have identified
as tenants within the Research Park area.
With no further business the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting of the
Committee was not scheduled, but will be scheduled once the revised plan is
completed. It is the Committee's intent that every effort would be made to
individually notify each of the tenants and owners of the Research Park of the
Public Hearing.
Respectfully Submitted:
(� sistant City Manager
JAA:Ir
cc: Joel M. Aaprooth
Minutes of the.
Evans tonlUniversity Research Park Relocation Sub -Committee
Meeting of July 22, 1986
Members Present: Aldermen Drummer, Thiel, Nelson, Warshaw, Rainey
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Judith A. Aiello, Assistant City Manager
Presiding Official: Alderman Drummer, Chairman
Summary of Action:
I. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairman Drummer, who introduced
members of the Committee.
II. Minutes:
The minutes of the March 27, 1986 meeting were approved as submitted.
III, New Business:
Chairman Drummer began the meeting by informing the audience that the Committee
would be addressing the residential component of the Relocation Plan. He also
stated that there was a Relocation Assessment form which the City was attempting
to complete for all the tenants within the area and that he was hopeful that
these would be completed shortly. There were forms available at the meeting and
if any one had not completed one, they were requested to do so. Chairman
Drummer stated that he hoped the City could be very creative in the manner in
which they addressed the relocation issue. He stated that the Committee would
accept questions of the audience as they got into their full discussion of the
Relocation Plan.
Prior to any discussion on the Relocation Plan, Alderman Warshaw moved to
recommend to the City Council that the City remove the northern block of the
Research Park which would include the 1000 and 1100 block, of Emerson, East
Railroad Avenue and University Place from the Park boundaries and to remove the
south side of Church Street from the planned redevelopment area. Alderman
Rainey seconded the motion and confirmed that she believed that the Relocation
Sub -Committee was the appropriate Committee in which to bring this motion to the
City Council. Alderman Nelson questioned why eliminate the properties for any
reason beyond the confrontation that we are confronting at this point. Alderman
Warshaw responded she felt that the elimination of the present size would reduce
the City's economic risk and questioned our need to move forward since she
believed the project was not secure at this point in time. Alderman Rainey
further stated that the elimination of this area would not preclude private
negotiation, but it would eliminate the City's need for participation. Alderman
Thiel responded that she felt a private sale occurred was fine for the owners
but it provided no assurance of assistance for the tenants. It is her belief
Relocation Sub -Committee Minutes Page 2
July 22, 1986 Meeting
that it is the tenants for whom we must be most concerned. Alderman Nelson
stated that he felt that the reduction in the Park would adversely impact on the
integrity of the Park questioned if the reduction would not constitute a breach
of contractual obligations currently in place nor impenge upon our ability to
provide assistance in the future. After further discussion the motion to reduce
the size of the Park by eliminating the northern block bounded by University
Place, East Railroad Avenue, Emerson Street and Maple Avenue, and the south side
of Church Street, was defeated by a vote of three to two. Alderman Rainey
stated that although the Committee did not support this motion at this time the
Mayor had promised her that she would have an opportunity to discuss this
matter before the full City Council on Monday evening.
Alderman Warshaw then moved that the Committee consider utilization of the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970
since she believed that it provided the necessary protection and flexibility.
Aldermen Rainey and Warshaw provided the Committee with a brief overview of the
Uniform Act including informuarion that the agency, which in this case would be
the City, must provide at least one comparable available unit and provide at
least a 90 day notice to existing tenants from the time of communication on the
initiation of negotiations and/or closing. The Uniform Act also allowed for
rental assistance payment which was $100.00 a month up to $4.800 or 48 months
for comparable units.
Alderman drummer recommended that the Committee add on to the Uniform Act the
various provisions from our plan, which included the addition of the utilization
of minority businesses to provide the actual moving for the tenants. The
Committee also discussed the possibility of amending the Uniform Act to increase
the number of days notification from 90 days to 180 days. After further
discussion the Committee unanimously approved the use of the Uniform Act as
amended.
Discussion then focused upon the property once it is acquired and the timeframe
for demolition. It was the consensus of the Committee that they should have
further discussion regarding a possible demolition policy or guidelines which
could be recommended to RPI and TOPCORP. In response to a question as to what
point will we have to acquire all the properties, staff responded that our
contract with the University indicates that both parties must have acquired all
the properties within a five year timeframe and that the closings must occur
within eight years. Alderman Drummer stated that he would like the Committee to
explore alternatives for the relocation which would include the acquisition of
properties and their renovation for the relocation of the tenants and/or the
construction of new housing that would prove adequate for the tenants.
In response to questions from the audience Alderman Nelson reviewed the Hasler
Plan and stated that this is a concept, but that the specific area in question
where the relocation will occur is targeted for housing, parking and some
commercial activity. Staff stated that the intent is for surface parking
initially on land currently owned by the City, but as development occurs a
parking garage will be constructed and one is planned for the north side of
University Place. The Emerson Street frontage will be developed as housing and
commercial use. Additional discussion was held by the citizens who believed
that there is a need to suspend any further acquisition due to the fact that the
plan is only a conceptual plan and at this point we do not have any tenants
and/or major corporations seeking space within the Park. Alderman Rainey than
Relocation Sub -Committee Minutes Page 3
July 22, 1986 Meeting
proposed a recommendation from the Relocation Sub -Committee to the City Council
that the City suspend any further acquisition in the Evanston/University
Research Paris area through condemnation for three years and that we withdraw our
current condemnation proceedings. After considerable discussion regarding this
motion and what it would do to the integrity of the Park and our efforts to meet
a fairly tight timeframe, the motion was approved four to one.
In response to a question from the audience regarding the taxes currently
contributed from that area, Alderman Nelson responded that it was his
recollection that it was approximately $125,000. Staff responded that we would
confirm that figure at the Committee's next meeting.
IV. Next Meeting Date:
The next meeting was set for August 6, 1986. where the Committee will review a
copy of the Uniform Act with its changes and possible alternative programs of
new construction and rehabilitation. In addition, a Public Hearing was set for
August 20, 1986 and we will begin to notify residents and owners of the Public
Hearing.
V. Adjournment:
With no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted: .
Assistant City Manager
JAA:lr
cc: Joel N. Asprooth
Minutes of the
Evanston/University Research Park Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee
July 25, 1986
Members Present: Doris Wolin, Elmer Lewis, Craig Cain
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Judith A. Aiello, Assistant City Manager
Others Present: Ms. Mary Goodkind, Jeffrey Fort
Presiding Official: Doris Wolin, Chairman
Summary of Action:
I. Call to Order
The meeting of the Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee was called to order
on July 25, 1986, at 4:00 P.H. by Chairman Wolin in the Evanston Civic Center.
II. Minutes
The minutes of July 10, 1986 were corrected to show the addition of the word
"and" in paragraph seven. With this correction the minutes were approved as
amended.
III. Reports
Chairman Wolin introduced Ms. Mary Goodkind, an Environmental Consultant. Ms.
Goodkind opened her remarks by stating that she wanted to focus on two major
areas of public concern: employee safety and environmental compatibility. She
believed that two functions of this Committee would be to ensure that whatever
facility comes into the Park must be aware of the areas for which they must be
responsible, and that an Oversight Committee should provide real assistance.
Chairman Wolin clarified that the function of this Environmental Oversight
Committee was to make recommendations to the City for an ongoing program, but
that this Committee would not be the permanent Oversight Committee.
Ms. Goodkind stated that the City might consider something as simple as a policy
statement which explained in significant detail a set of regulations and
standards by which any company locating in the Park would have to follow. The
company in turn would have to agree to make rigorous effort to comply with said
regulations. She believed that it was important that one works within the
available resources and within the existing regulations such as the Chemical
Safety Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, and the Employees Right
Co Know Act. She stated that any Oversight Board would want to look at a
company's emergency plan to ensure that an appropriate plan was in place. Ms.
Goodkind stressed that one should work within available resources and not try to
create regulations and/or monitoring agencies, and suggested the possibility of
Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee Minutes Page 2
July 25, 1986 Meeting
requesting that the Illinois EPA do the monitoring for the Park.
It was Ms. Goodkind's belief that for ninety-nine percent of the companies that
would be considering the Research Park, there are satisfactory regulations
on the books to assure the safety of the community. However, she stated that
the safety risk may be for those companies whose characteristics of experiments
go beyond the cutting edge and for that reason some additional risk assessments
Haight be desirable. The question was asked of Ms. Goodkind if there were
particular categories of research which should be banned due to its risk
potential, she responded that it would be advisable from her perspective to
categorically bann any particular research. Rather through appropriate means
one can keep a handle on environmental safety and even with classified research
one could get clearance for an environmental review.
The next general area of discussion related to air toxic issues and whether or
not existing regulations were sufficient. Ms. Goodkind stated that the Illinois
EPA has started a program by which they have listed which chemicals they believe
present the most risk, and she suggested that the Illinois EPA might be able to
review those chemicals which a company might list as the type and quantities
they would be dealing with within the Research Park. If Illinois EPA was not
able to, she felt that there were other qualified consultants who could do such
an analysis. In addition, she felt it would be possible to require that the
chemicals that were going to be used by a particular company would be on file
with the Fire Department who could also provide some monitoring for safety.
In developing a monitoring process Ms. Goodkind suggested that the Park
Committee require a knowledge of the raw materials that were going to be
purchased on an annual basis by a particular company, and that the annual
purchase record be made available to a restricted group such as the Research
Park, Inc. Board. In addition, she concurred with the Committee's consideration
of an environmental audit and felt that environmental audits are worthwhile
because they are done within a three to four day review period. During this
time one is able to review records of materials purchased, in addition to
documents showing compliance with various regulations for licensing, permits and
review of emergency plans, and any reports of accidents. When an audit is
conducted by someone like a certified industrial hygenist, they would be skilled
in order to interpret the records that they would review as its relates to the
various matters discussed. The audits and assessments are valuable because they
are not just an inspection of the physical plant, but also a detailed look at
records and listings of supplies purchased, emergency plans, accident reports,
and materials used.
After additional general discussion by the Committee and Ms. Goodkind, the
Committee thanked Ms. Goodkind for her appearance.
IV. Adlournment
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 P.M.
J�
Respectfully Submitted: L.=%✓
Assistant C ty Manager
JAA:lr
cc: .noel M. Asprooth
IR
Minutes
Evans too/Univers i ty Research Park Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee
Meeting of August 6, 1986
Members Present: Doris Wolin, Craig Cain
Members Absent: Elmer Lewis
Staff Present: Judith A. Aiello, Assistant City Manager
Others Present: Donald Bessy, Marshall Eames, Chief Sanders Hicks,
Assistant Chief Robert Schumer, Max Rubin, Bob Seidenberg
Presiding Official: Doris Wolin, Chairman
Summary of Action:
I. Call to Order
The meeting of the Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee was called to order
at 8:05 P.M. in Room 2404 of the Evanston Civic Center by Chairman Wolin.
II. Minutes
The minutes of the July 17, 1986 meeting were corrected to eliminate the word
"of" in paragraph one and were approved as amended. The minutes of the July 25,
1986 meeting were approved as submitted.
III. Reports
The Chairman introduced representatives from the City: Fire Chief Sanders
Hicks, Assistant Chief Robert Schumer, and Max Rubin, Director of Emergency
Services. The gentlemen were present to discuss with the Committee how each of
their respective departments would interact with the Basic Industry Research Lab
and the Research Park.
Chief Hicks begun his remarks by providing the Committee with an overview of
labs within the City of Evanston and stated that there are three labs at
Northwestern University, labs at the hospitals, Rustoleum, and the high school.
Due to the high priority nature of life -safety issues at the hospitals, the City
conducts a semi-annual inspection of the entire hospital including laboratories.
The Chief went on to say that laboratories at Northwestern University have a
good record and there have been only three or four incidents at the Tech
Building over the past 36 years, of which three were minor. He then went on to
say that the Fire Department is involved with the plan review process from its
inception so that any deficiencies as they relate to fire protection can be
corrected in the planning phase prior to construction. Plans are reviewed from
the zoning perspective, in addition to the Building Department for Code
compliance, and the Fire Department for Code compliance. The standards that
-B31-
Environmental Affairs oversight Committee Minutes
Meeting of August 6, 1986
Page 2
apply include the BOCA Building Code, the BOCA Fire Prevention Code, and the
NFPA 45 Standards for laboratories using chemicals. The Chief further discussed
the scope of the NFPA 45 Standards and the fact that a laboratory would be
reviewed for compliance with these standards. Prior to the occupancy of the
laboratory the Fire Department would be involved with the testing of all the
systems to be sure that they are in full operating order and that the building
is acceptable for occupancy. Once the lab was constructed the City would
inspect the building on an annual basis for compliance with the standards. In
addition, under the Illinois Chemical Act a company is required to provide the
City With a listing of the chemicals that they will be using and this list is
updated whenever these chemicals being used are changed or an annual basis,
whichever is more frequent. In conjunction with the list of chemicals, there is
requirements that a disaster contingency plan be provided to the City to assist
us in our emergency planning program. In response to a question by Chairman
Wolin, Chief Hicks clarified that these requirements for documentation on the
chemicals being used apply to private labs.
The Chief went on to provide further explanation of the fire protection system
which he believes will provide adequate safety for the community. The buildings
themselves will be sprinklered with automatic fire detection systems in place.
Max Rubin, the director of the City's Emergency Services, discussed the Illinois
Chemical Act which provides the opportunity for monitoring of laboratories that
use various chemicals. The State law requires that any lab with over five
individuals register their chemical usage. Chairman Wolin asked Mr. Rubin to
seek clarification from the State as to how they would classify the Research
Park, either as one entity or with each individual lab being required to submit
as emergency plan. Mr. Rubin said he would seek a clarification and explained
that this was relatively a new law which was only enacted in September of 1985,
so that plans have not been required to be submitted to the State until July of
1966. The clarification would be sought from the Illinois Emergency Services
and Disaster Agency. Any violation of the Act would be reported to the Evanston
Fire Department, which would determine if it was a violation of the City Code,
and if not, the violation would be reported by the City to the Illinois EPA,
which would do further investigation.
In response to a question by Chairman Wolin, Chief Hicks stated that the City
likes to notify the owners of the laboratories p-=^r to City inspection. In
response to a question by Craig Cain, Chief Hicks and Assistant Chief Schumer
stated that City staff Would not be concerned with the proprietory or classified
nature of an experiment, but rather how the chemicals being used in an
experiment were being stored and handled. The Fire Chief clarified that
although a representative of the Building and Grounds Department of the
University or the supervisory personnel at Evanston Township High School or
Evanston Hospital may know that the City plans to do an inspection, an
individual operator of a particular lab is not aware of the time in which the
City plans to do their inspection. Mr. Rubin confirmed also that the Illinois
Chemical Act provides for the maintaining of the confidentiality of propriety
research, but that, as related to safety, they would have free access to
emergency plans and information regarding the building and chemical storage
procedures. This is essential so that, if an emergency occurs, the City's Fire
Department knows what kind of equipment and/or personnel are required to fight
such an emergency situation. With that the Chairman thanked Chief Hicks,
Assistant Chief Schumer and Max Rubin for their information and attendance at
the meeting.
-B32-
Environmental Affairs Oversight Committee Minutes Page 3
Meeting of August 6, 1986
Chairman Wolin then welcomed Mr. Bessy and Mr. Eames from Envirodyne Engineers.
Mr. Eames is the Chief Environmental Scientist in Envirodyne's Chicago office
with the primary responsibility for Environmental Impact Statements and
environmental assessments.' Mr. Don Bessy is the Project Manager for the
Hazardous Materials Laboratory which Envirodyne is designing for the State of
Illinois in Champaign -Urbana. Mr. Bessy proceeded to show slides and describe
the design phase of the laboratory which has been completed and how various
activities would be segregated to ensure the maximum safety. Included in this
laboratory will be a high hazard lab which will require maximum security and
protection, which Mr. Bessy reviewed for the Committee. This lab is being
designed in accordance with all the applicable regulations, including OSHA and
the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygenists. The exhaust system
will have a 24 hour monitoring system and scrubbers, an extensive ventilation
system. Approximately 1,150 square feet of ventilation equipment is required
for every 1,000 square feet of space within a laboratory. This sophisticated
equipment is necessary to protect the individuals inside the lab as well as the
environment. Mr. Bessy further stated that a laboratory would have to know what
type of work they were going to do and incorporate this into the design prior to
construction, due to the extensive retrofitting and costs that would be required
if a new level of research was to be done once a building was constructed.
In response to the Chairman's question regarding ongoing monitoring, Mr. Fames
stated that the cost involved in ongoing monitoring would depend upon the number
of times a lab was going to be inspected. For example, the City might want to
consider contracting with an environmental engineer or an industrial hygenist to
provide four inspections during the year or more if violations were occurring
during any of the inspections. These samplings should be done randomly and
unannounced so that you could catch any violations or inappropriate discharges.
Mr. Eames stated that an inspector could either be inhouse or contracted. The
Chairman clarified that it was her feeling that at this time it would be best to
have outside providers of such a service so that citizens could perceive
oversight was done by an impartial expert. Mr. Eames further stated that any
company that is dealing with any type of hazardous material would also be
audited by OSHA and the EPA, plus the Illinois EPA, in addition to the City of
Evanston Fire Department. These inspections would be for any company, even
those that were doing proprietory research. Mr. Eames further stated that if
some type of penalty s,ste~ :s being imposed it would need to be prohibitive
enough to discourage people from violating the law. This would include monetary
penalties, public disclosure of violations, and as a last resort, expulsion
from the Park. Mr. Eames clarified that Envirodyne Engineers does not do
environmental audits of laboratories, but they do other related environmental
work. He stated however that there are companies which do environmental audits
of laboratories and that we should not have difficulty in locating a firm to do
such an audit of a laboratory. It was suggested that we consider the use of the
State laboratory that they are designing in Champaign -Urbana as to some
assistance once we got to the monitoring stage. Mr. Eames stated that he would
provide City staff with a list of firms that would do environmental audits,
which he would obtain from the company's industrial hygenist.
The Committee then thanked the representatives from Envirodyne Engineers for
their information and stated that they felt that they help to clarify and
provide a better framework for some of the ideas that had been presented to them
in previous discussions.
-B33T
Environmental Affairs oversight Committee Minutes
Meeting of August 6. 1986
IV. Adjournment
With no further business the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted: - �,�,1�
asistant City Manager
JAA:ir
cc: Joel M. Asprooth
h
Page 4
—B34—
Minutes
Relocation Subcommittee
August 6, 1986
7:30 P.N.
Members Present: D. Drummer, J, Nelson, A. Rainer. R. Thiel and R. Warshaw
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: J. Aiello, R. Rudd, L. Talkington and C. Yonker
Presiding Official: D. Druomer
I. The meeting was called to order at 7:60 p.m.
II. Minutes of July 22. 1986
Nelson moved and Thiel seconded that the July 22, 1986 minutes be
accepted as submitted.
III. Come nications
There was a copy of a latter to Hertz, Pine Yard Restaurant, Dare's
Italian Kitchen.
IT. Information Meetings
Judy Aiello informed the Relocation Subcommittee that the August 20, 1986
public hearing notice had been published in the Evanston Review and the
Northshore Examiner.
No. Aiello also explained to the Committee that small group meetings had
been setup for residents. These meetings are designed to explain the
Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act to residents effected by the
Evanston/University Research Park. Ks. Aiello explained that the HUD
brochure was unclear and that staff had written a relocation guide based
on Evanston's modification to the Act.
Ald. Nelson asked what staff has done recently to get themselves up to
speed on the Uniform Relocation Act. Ms. Aiello explained that staff had
met with HUD and will be attending a training session on the Uniform
Relocation Act at the and of August. Ms. Aiello also explained to the
Coasrittae that staff had recently met with Rescorp. There was discussion
between staff and Relocation Subcomittee members concerning Rescorp and
how they handle residential relocation for their company. Rescorp does
not have experience in commercial relocation.
V. Old Business
A. Relocation Plan
He. Aiello began by briefly explaining the packet materials that
subcommittee members had received: Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970; cover memo explaining
Relocation Subcommittee Minutes
August 6, 1986
[vanston modifications to the Act; OUn explanatory brochures; and, a
staff -prepared Summary of Relocation Plan and Assistance (Summary). Ald.
Thiel sought a clarification on the following question posed in the
Summary, "What if the unit occupied is shared by a family. two or more
individuals, or a combination! Ald. Rainey pointed out the language and
intent of the Act and the following concept was agreed upon by the
subcommittee:
If two or more occupants of the displacement dwelling move to
separate replacement dwellings, each occupant is entitled to a
reasonable prorated share, as determine by the City. of any
relocation payments that would have been made if the occupants
moved together to a comparable replacement dwelling. However. if
the City determines that two or more occupants maintained separate
households within the same dwelling, such occupants will have
separate entitlements to relocation payments.
As. Aiello informed the Subcommittee that she and Laurel Talkington
had canvassed the Evanston/University Research Park in an attempt to
identify all residents who qualify for relocation payments. While
canvassing residents, staff learned that several elderly persons sight
be eligible for assistance through the Cook County Section S Elderly
Rousing Program. Ald Warshaw expressed a desire for staff to expedite
a relationship with the County, and furthermore, contact the
Leadership Council to see if they have any available certificates.
Subcommittee discussion then focused on the Transportation Canter and
Its link with the Evanston/University Research Park. The Uniform Act
applies to the relocation associated with the Transportation Center
because it will be federally funded; the Research Park is a separate
project and will only fall under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Act
if federal funds are used to assist in the redevelopment of the
area.Concerning residential relocation. Warshaw moved and nelson
seconded that the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Act of 1970 be accepted with the following modifications:
1. The City of Evanston will extend the 90 day notice to 130 days;
2. The City of Evanston will contract for a moving company to provide
the moving services for the residential owners and tenants;
3. The Relocation Subcommittee will serve as advisor to staff and
serve as the Board of Appeals for affected residents.
-2-
Relocation Subcommittee minutes
August 6, 1986
Ald. Warshaw asked what triggers assistance eligibility? Rainey
stated that she felt there were many options. Nelson asked his follow
subcommittee members for a recommendation. Rainey and Warshaw agreed
to study the matter and report back to the subcommittee.
Subcommittee members discussed problems associated with the City
buying residential properties: who will manage the properties; can the
current owners manage and collect rent on properties for a period of
time after the sale; can landlords require (through a lease agreemsat)
teuaats to turn over their relocation benefits to them? Nelson
reminded subcommittee maabers that there was precedent for the City
managing residential properties. Ald. Nelson cited the boiler
building as one example. Nelson moved and Warshaw seconded that the
relocation plan include a statement that no assignment or transfer of
benefits can occur between tenant and landlord. The rote was
unanimous. Subcommittee members asked staff to find out if the
relocation plan should be handled as a resolution or an ordinance?
The relocation process was discussed. Warshaw questioned at what
point in the process the 160 day period would begin. Rainey asked
staff to find out at what point in the process Rescorp began speaking
with tenants. Ald. Brady, from the audience, asked if it was City
policy to relocate residents within Evanston. She was told that it
was. She then asked if relocation benefits would be paid in the event
that a resident chose to move out of the City. She was told that they
would be.
Chairman Drummer then honored other questions/cowmnts from the
audience. firs. Betty Paden asked the City to issue a statement that
City staff would not be allowed to harass tenants. It was her belief
that city staff were going door-to-door, disguised as Northwestern
students, asking residents to sign a petition stating that they would
be willing to be relocated from the area. Thiel moved, Nelson
seconded that staff refrain from having any further contact with the
tenants. Contact was defined as correspondence or personal contact.
The vote as unanimous. Staff will cancel information meetings.
Mr. Stillerman suggested that uncertainty will force people to move.
He felt it was important that relocation assistance mechanisms be
triggered now.
Mrs. Phillips reported to the Subcommittee that someone was taking
photographs of her property that day. The person stated that he was
from the City. She further stated that if she must, she will sell her
property but she wants a fair price. She will be responsible for
notifying bar tenants.
-3-
Relocation Subcommittee Minutes
August 6. 1986
Mrs. Ipjian stated her belief that Northwestern University is using
the City as a scapegoat. She further stated that commercial owners
cannot relocate tenants for the price the City is offering on the
properties.
Nr. Lorant stated that no communication or correspondence should take
place with tenants until the property is acquired.
Ald. Brady expressed a word of caution. She believes the City must
protect the tenants.
T1. New Business
A. Tenant Information
The Subcossaittee then discussed whether their role included
acquisition involvemnt. Warshaw moved, and Nelson seconded. that the
role of the Subcommittee was restricted to relocation and that this
subcommittee will deal with benefits after acquisition.
The Subcossaittee briefly discussed cosevercial relocation. Rainey
stated that the Act is fair and has worked before. Staff was directed
to investigate how other communities have displaced commercial
businesses when they have not been bound by the uniform Act. Ald.
Nelson asked for a more definitive inventory of commercial
establishments. Ms. Aiello explained that the City has begun to
identify the needs of the commercial establishments. Two commercial
tenants have been shown properties that are on the market. Drummer
would like staff to make an effort to let landlords know that the City
is working with tenants. Drummer would like expert information of
commercial relocation.
B. Housing Alternatives
Ald. Drummer introduced Charlotte Walker of the Evanston Community
Development Corporation (ECDC). He believes that ECDC may be able to
assist in providing relocated residents with housing alternatives.
No. Walker discussed relocation assistance in conjunction with new
construction. She believes that the City will be hard pressed to find
replacement housing for low income persons; it simply is in too short
a supply. Ms. Walker then discussed a housing project that ECDC is
attempting to package; a duplex development at 1818 Emerson. The land
has been donated and ECDC is trying to secure material financing.
High School students will build the duplex. Further ECDC has three
(3) parcels and there is a possibility that seventy-two (72) units
could be constructed on the parcels at a cost of approximately $70,000
per unit.
-4-
Relocation Subcommittee
August 6, 1986
Robert Rudd, Director of Housing i Property Services for the City,
Informed the Subcommittee that the Housing Commission is studying the
possibilities for producing for low income housing units within the
City of Evanston. He suggested that it night be beneficial to ask the
Housing Commission to narrow their focus anti ..Oetifically look at low/
swderate income housing for the Research Park dislocatees. Ks. Aiello
stated that new construction should be housing of the last resort.
She advised Subcommittee members to separate the two issues:
relocation and provision of housing for low/moderate income persons.
Drummer stated that boarded up housing can be rehabilitated and
utilised. Drummer agreed that the Housing Commission should study the
possibility of programs to rehab existing structures for tenants of
the research park that will be displaced. In his opinion that City
has a perfect opportunity. Carol Heise stated that there is a 2-4
year timetable on rehabilitation; new construction would take even
longer.
V. I, dd„ ournment
The Relocation Subcommittee adjourned at 11:00 p.m. The next meeting of
the Relocation Subcommittee will be a public hearing on residential
relocation on Wednesday, August 20, 1986.
Staf f : dtuueicllsUa'.u. --
Laurel Talkington
116(60/64)
-5-
Minutes
Relocation Subcommittee
Wednesday, August 20, 1986
7:30 P.N.
Evanston Civic Center
Council Chambers
Members Present D. Druseaer, J. Nelson. A. Rainey, R. Thiel and R. Warshaw
Members Absent: Vane
Staff Present: J. Aiello, R. Rudd and L. Talkington
Presiding Official: D. Drummer
I. The meeting was called to order at 7.35 p.m.
II. Minutes
Ald. Nelson moved and Ald. Warshaw seconded that the minutes of August
6. 1956 be accepted as submitted. Notion carried unanimously.
III, nesting of Relocation Benefits
A memorandum dated August 18, 1986, concerning vesting of relocation
benefits, was submitted by Aldermen Rainey and Warshaw. It was their
recommendation that any residential tenant residing in a unit at the
time a 180 day notice to vacate (City's notice of intent to demolish
the property) is delivered be eligible to apply for relocation
benefits. They further 3uggeated that any live-in owner be eligible at
the time the title transfer to their property transfers to the city.
Goals to be accomplished by the vesting policy include;
1. It night prevent the premature displacement of tenants by
encouraging occupancy until demolition is necessary; and.
2. It might encourage occupancy through the sale of the property to
the City, and thus help to insure the income stream upon which the
current owners depend.
They believe that the goals will be accomplished only if owners assist
the City by transmitting a notice to their tenants, prepared by the
City, outlining the eligibility requirement and potential benefits.
Ald. Thiel expressed concern citing a situation in which a tenant
discontinues paying the rent as a potential problem area. Ald. Warshaw
reminded Ald. Thiel that the nonpayment of rent is covered by the
Residential Landlord/Tenant Ordinance; eviction is the avenue of relief.
Relocation Subcommittee Minutes
August 20, 1986
Mrs. Ipjian, speaking from the audience, asked why the Vesting
smandssent was not covered in the Summary of the Relocation Plan. It
was explained that the amendment was only available to staff and
subcommmittee members prior to the public hearing. Subcommittee members
smst agree on the resting policy before it is incorporated into any
document.
Aid. Collins asked if the amendment addresses the length of time the
tenant smnst have resided in the unit. Ald. Rainey stated that length
of time in the unit was not applicable.
Aid. Nelson stated that he supports the motion. However, he further
stated that it could be beneficial for tenants to grove in and overcrowd
the facility in order to benefit from the relocation policy. lid.
Warshaw answered by stating that it is highly unlikely that residents
will overcrowd any facility. In any event, it is not a significant
enough problem to worry about. There is no economic advantage to the
landlord to permit overcrowding.
Aid. Drummer stated that he was in agreement with the memo.
Aid. Thiel agreed with the memo. She further stated that the City must
depend on landlords since the City has agreed not to interfere with
tenants. The landlord must follow through.
Aid. Warshaw moved and Ald. Nelson seconded that the nesting of
Relocation Benefits Policy, submitted by Aldermen Warshaw and Rainey be
accepted and incorporated into the City of Evanston Relocation Plan for
the Evanston/University Research Park. !lotion carried unanimously.
IV. Citizen Comments
Aid. Drummer reminded citizens that comments should be restricted to
relocation.
Mr. Grisham, Park Watch coalition representative, submitted questions
to the Subcommittee that they wish to have answered prior to the next
meeting of the Relocation Subcommittee. Following are the submitted
questions:
1. On what date will the Federal Unified Relocation Act benefits
(moving costs, rent subsidies, etc.) be triggered?
2. Identify the sources, amounts and availability of relocation funds
(moving costs, rent subsidies, etc.) mandated by the Federal
Unified Relocation Act.
-2-
Relocation Subcommittee Minutes
August 20, 1986
3. Now such of these funds does the City of Evanston actually have
presently at Its disposal.
6. Do these funds currently exist in the City budget, or will new
revenues and or taxes be required. Please be specific regarding
the amounts.
S. Identity locations and number of units of comparable low income
housing, in Evanston, to replace that which will be eliminate in
the research park area.
6. Now many persons are now on the HUD waiting list for Section 8
housing in Evanston?
7. Presently, how many years is the average wait for Section 8 housing
in Evanston?
E. Why is the City Corporation Counsel still actively pursuing in
court the condemnation of some five (S) properties within the
research park eras.'
9. What is Ald. Drummer's explanation for portraying. in last week's
Sun Times:
a. that the tenants ".....would be eligible for rent subsidies
of up to woo..."'
b. the tenants of the research park as transient students?
10. When will the Relocation Committee bring their rote to halt
condemnation of all properties in the research park for action by the
full City Council?
11. What is the estimated sum -total of all relocation costs for owners,
tenants, businesses, and the Levy Center?
Mr. Grisham released a copy of the Park Watch Coalition questions after
Ald. Drummer assured his that there would be written answers to his
questions by the next Relocation Subcommittee meeting.
Mr. White spoke for several minutes against the Research Park.
Ultimately he asked the Relocation Subcommittee to vote a moratorium on
purchases, sales, etc. until the City has a relocation plan in place.
-3-
Relocation Subcommittee Minutes
August 20, 1996
Mr. Stlllerman read two affidavits submitted by Mrs. Betty Paden. Mrs.
Paden was out of tow and could not attend the sleeting. The affidavits
were signed by Mr. and wrs. Paden and Mrs. Frazier. They described the
appearance of two wigged women In the neighborhood, carrying petitions,
and informing people that they needed to get off the land. Mrs. Paden
believes these two women were city employees. Mr. Stillerman, on his own
behalf. stated his belief that preparing a relocation plan at this point
in time is premature.
Mrs. Phillips shared bar concerns for her tenants and her community with
the 'Relocation Subcommittee. She is against the Research Park. She
believes that gianston is worse off than South Africa. She doesn't want
everything she has worked hard for tossed away with the benefit going to
Northwestern University.
Mr. Haliburton explained his experience with government and how this has
taught his that the government trains people to lie. He described a bill
before Congress that would limit the size of a research park to 160
acres. He fears that Hvanston will attempt to enlarge their park to this
site. He also talked about radiation chambers at Northwestern University
and his suspicion that radiation is being dumped into the lake which has
forced Nortbwestera to prohibit fishing along their property.
Mr. Ipjlan asked the City to refrain from tailing his property. If the
City does acquire his property, he will inform his tenants. He likes
them. He also stated that he believes he was misquoted in the City
Council minutes.
Mr. Hill, representative from the NAACP, asked the Subcommittee to
refrain from taking any action on their relocation plan until his
cossaittee could review the final document.
Ms. Jennifer Qualls, tenant in the Research Park area, expressed her wish
that her child could remain in Orrington School.
Aid. Drussaer told Ms. Qualls that desire to remain within a given school
district will be considered when offering tenants relocation options.
Mr. Arnow stated that he is totally opposed to condemnation of property.
He also questioned why the City is advertising land for sale that they do
not own.
Ald. Nelson responded to Mr. Arnow by stating that there is a memo from
the City Manager that will answer that question. Staff will supply a
copy of the memo to Mr. Arnow.
-4-
Relocation Subcommittee Minutes
August 20, 1986
Aid. Collins offered a clarification to the information that was supplied
by Mr. Haliburton. She stated that there is a law pending in Congress
which restricts TIF bond financing to research parks that have a minimum
of 160 acres. If the legislation is passed, than it is going to cost the
City more to finance the project. The Research park will not be
expanded. The bill only addresses financing.
Sr. Phillips told the subcommittee that someone has been surveying her
property.
Aid. Drummer explained to Mrs. Phillips that he questioned that person
and found out that he works for a real estate company and not for the
City.
Aid. Nelson saved and Aid. Thiel setandad that the Relocation
Subcommittee defer voting on the residential relocation plan until their
next meeting. Aid. Rainey asked for discussion on the nation. She
stated her preference that the Subcommittee vote on condemnation be
forwarded to the City Council for action on August 25, 1986. and not be
held up because the residential relocation plan has not been approved.
Aid. Warshaw agreed and stated that each segment should be considered
separately. She would agree to hold action on the residential relocation
plan but would like other deliberations taken to Council.
Ald. ]Nelson doesn't believe that the vote on a moratorium on condesm ation
Is within the scope of the Relocation Subcommsittee.
,Aid. Rainey addressed the need to set a goal; establish a timetable.
Aid. Warshaw asked Mr. Hill, and his Committee to have a statement in
writing prior to the next Relocation Subcommittee meeting.
Ald. Thiel reminded the subcommittee that this was her final night on the
subcommittee. She asked if the subcommittee was going to be expanded?
It was determined that subcommittee appointments were a decision for the
Mayor to make.
Aid. Rainer moved that the recommendation for a moratorium be placed on
the Council agenda for August 25, 1986 and Aid. Thiel seconded. The vote
was 4-1. Voting nay: Aldermen Drummer, Rainey, Thiel and Warshaw.
Voting nay: Ald. !Nelson. The vote on the deferral of the residential
relocation plan was unanimous.
511
Relocation Subcommittee Minutes
August 20, 1986
V. Other business
Ald. Nelson requested that tentative schedules for items such as a
nonresidential relocation plan be presented at the next sleeting of the
Relocation Subcommittee.
Ald. Thiel stated that if the City would have offered owners of Research
Part properties amounts which were comparable to the amount offered on
the sale of the first property. we would have avoided many of the
problems and emotionalism that we haw* had. She is sorry that we did not
do that in the first place.
11. Nest Meetint Date
The next meeting of the Relocation Subcommittee will be September 11,
1986.
VII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
S t of f : &a d& -r. JA604 rr�
Laurel Taltintton
116(+7/52)
-6-
Minutes
Evanston/University Research Park
Relocation Subcommittee
October 15, 1986
Evanston Civic Center
Room 2402 - 7:30 P.K.
Members Present: D. Drummer. J. Masuret, A. Rainey and R. Warshaw
Members Absent: J. Nelson
Staff Present: J. Aiello and L. Talkington
Presiding Official: D. Drummer
I. Declaration of Quorum
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M.
II. Minutes of September 11, 1996
The minutes of the September 11, 1986 meeting of the Relocation
Subcommittee were accepted as submitted.
I11. Request for Proposals
Proposals were submitted by the Vector Corporation, 0. R. Colan
Associates, and The Evanston Community Development Corporation (ECDC).
Ald. Drummer asked if the presence of those submitting proposals had
been requested for the meeting. Staff stated that their presence was
not requested. Ald. Drummer asked Ms. Charlotte Walker, Executive
Director of ECDC, to comment on the ECDC proposal.
Ms. Walker addressed the Subcommittee. She stated that ECDC has had
numerous discussions with other groups and agencies who have had
extensive experience with relocation. A successful relocation plan
must assure close rapport with those being displaced. She further
commented that although experience weighs heavily in favor of the
Vector Corporation that ECDC has the competency to carry out a
relocation effort.
The Subcommittee members agreed that potentially the O.R. Colan costs
were too high and that they appeared to be less competitive due to the
distance they would have to travel. Ald. Rainey moved, and Ald.
Masuret seconded, that the Vector Corporation proposal be accepted.
The vote was unanimous. The recommendation will go to City Council on
November 10, 1986.
Subcommittee members asked staff to contact Vector Corporation to
invite them to their October 29, 1986 meeting. They have several
questions about the Vector proposal:
Evanston/University Research Park
Relocation Subcommittee Minutes
October 15, 1986
1. Will Vector Corporation have staff permanently located on site*
2. How will cost overruns be handled?
3. What experience does the Vector Corporation have working with local
community groups?
4. Can the Vector Corporation assist the Subcommittee with their
cosswrcial relocation plan?
Members then briefly discussed the commercial relocation plan. There
was consensus that the Uniform Act should be used as a minimum for the
ccsmmrcial relocation plan. Further discussion was postponed until the
next sweting.
IV. Future xeetin&
The next meeting of the Relocation Subcommittee was scheduled for
Wednesday, October 29, 1986 at 6:00 p.m. The following topics gill be
discussed:
1. Commercial Relocation
2. Demolition
3. Management of Property
4. NAACP reconnendation
5. Answers from the Vector Corporation
No other meetings were scheduled.
V. Adiournsent
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Staf f : -
�rf�,
Laurel Talki'ngton
44
-2-
Minutes
Evanston/University Research Park
Relocation Subcommittee
Evanston Civic Center
October 29, 1986
Room 2e03 - 6:00 P.M.
Ald. Present: D. Drummer, J. Masuret, J. Nelson and R. Warshaw
Ald. Absent: A. Rainey
Staff Presentt J. Aiello, R. Rudd and L. Talkington
Presiding Official: D. Drummer
I. Declaration of Quorum
The meeting began at 6:15 p.m. A quorum was present.
II. Minutes
Belson moved and Warshaw seconded that the minutes of October 15. 1986
be accepted as submitted.
III. Continuing Ttesms
A. Answers from the Vector Corporation
Ms. Aiello began by informing the Subcoamittee that a separate
contract with the Vector Corporation for relocation assistance with
the Rodgers property will be executed by the City Manager's office.
The full contract with the Vector Corporation will go before the
City Council on November 10, 1986.
The following are the Vector Corporation responses to questions
raised by the Subcommittee at their October 15, 1986 meeting:
(1) Vector personnel will be on the project site, as required, during
the course of the project. There will be times when there trill be
two present, one processing commercial displacements and the other
working on residential displacements. The need for on -site
personnel to provide relocation assistance is directly related to
the scheduling and the completions of the acquisition aspect of the
program.
It is suggested that the City of Evanston should publish in the
local newspaper, when the relocation personnel would be in the area
and the telephone numbers where they may be contacted. Space in the
Evanston Civic Center can be provided for meetings with relocatees,
telephone discussions, and performing the routines of the relocation
process. To be efficient and effective, Vector representatives
require the office space be equipped with file cabinets, a telephone
and have access to a xeroz machine.
Evanston/University Research Park
Relocation Subcommittee - Minutes
October 29, 1936
Relocation programs start out very slowly and reach a peak of
activity. They then gradually slow down until the final work comes
in and is completed. The displacees also would be informed of our
home office telephone number, in order that they can call there in
the event no one would be available in the site office. This last
alternative is to assure that there would always be someone
available to answer the questions of the displacees.
2. Coat over -runs were discussed in Item 3, Contract Override of the
explanatory notes of the Cost Estimate Section of the Proposal
submitted for the Downtown II project.
3. gector Corporation would provide all the technical assistance
associated with the commercial relocation program. This technical
assistance would include explaining fully what are the eligible
relocation benefits and what is not eligible for reimbursement as a
relocation cost. This technical assistance would include the
various segments of the relocation benefit program including the
following:
A. Reimbursement for the moving costs associated with personal
property.
B. Fixed payment in lieu of actual cost for moving personal property.
C. Payment for substitute equipment.
D. Payment for direct loss of personal property.
E. Expenses for searching for replacement location.
The relocation program would include:
A. Reviewing of the documentation presented by the displacees.
B. Filing the claims for reimbursement.
C. Writing of letters of explanation for those items adjudged not
eligible for reimbursement.
4. Vector Corporation has had experience with working local community
groups during the performance of the relocation programs.
-2-
Evanston/University Research Park
Relocation Subcommittee - Minutes
October 29, 1986
The City of Wausau, Wisconsin has an association of business people,
primarily from the downtown area of the City, called the Wausau
Progress Association. Their function is supporting various
community programs and working with the go►ernmFent of the City on
programs for the betterment of the business community. During the
course of the relocation program there, where a 478,000 square foot
shopping mall was built in the east end of the downtown area of the
City, Vector Corporation, as the relocation agent for the City, had
the opportunity to work closely with this association concerning
aspects of the redevelopment program.
Vector Corporation had similar -experience in the conduct of its
relocation program for the City of Milwaukee when the shopping stall
,was constructed on West Wisconsin Avenue.
B. Demolition Schedule
Nelson spoke on behalf of the RPI Board on the subject of
demolition. Demolition will occur as soon as the structures are
vacant. The parcel will then be landscaped by RPI. This procedure
will enhance the opportunities for the success of the Park.
Immnediate demolition will also decrease liability and nuisance
problems for the City. An exception to this policy is the large
warehouse already owned by the City; it is a prime candidate for
rehabilitation or conversion.
C. NAACP Recommendation
Mr. Joe Hill spoke on behalf of the NAACP recommendations. He
stated that hiring a consultant was consistent with the NAACP
recommendation. The NAACP mould prefer to have a minority
component. Other discussion centered on boarded up house; a
clarification on rental assistance payments; and the mechanics of
the rental assistance payments. Mr. hill was concerned about
residents receiving a lump sum payment. Mr. Nyberg explained the
Vector Corporation's practice of walking residents to the bank and
assisting them in opening up a trust account.
D. Management of Property
Subcommittee members agreed that a Request for Proposal should be
prepared and that a entity separate from the City should be
responsible for managing acquired properties. Managed properties
will include three on Custer Street. Ald. Drummer suggested that
-3-
Evanston/University Research Park
Relocation Subconscittee - Minutes
October 29. 1986
ECDC be given the first shot at submitting a proposal. Ms. Walker
stated that ECDC is qualified to manage property and that ECDC's
community development proposal is flexible enough to allow ECDC to take
on this responsibility.
M New Business
A. Commercial Relocation
Ald. Nelson reiterated the need for flexibility when negotiating on
the commercial properties. Ald. Warshaw asked if the Transportation
Center boundaries could be expanded so that federal dollars might be
available for relocation assistance. Ms. Aiello will check to see
If, in fact, the federal government does provide financial
relocation assistance.
Subcommittee members requested staff to provide them with copies of
the Vector Corporation materials on business relocation. They will
then continue this discussion at the;r next meeting.
V. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. The next meeting of the Relocation
Subcommittee will be Tuesday, November 11, 1986 at 6:30 p.m.
Staff :(�,,
Laurel Talkie ton
a4(4/7)
-4-
Relocation Subcommittee Public hearing
After fir. Yelicti's explanation, members of the committee stated that the Uniform
Act was only the proposed plan and that the committee could recommend to the
City Courvcil provisions that were over and above the Uniform Act. To that and
the Committee summarized the issues that they would discuss at their next
meeting. They were the followings
I. Leasehold Improvements - It was the committee's intent to consider
provisions to provide expenditures for any lessehold improvements that would be
done by ■ business who has to relocate.
2. Six Month Deadline - Consideration would be given to extend the six month
provisions if someone has not been able to locate an adequate facility.
3. Rent Supplements - Consideration would be given for rental supplements
similar to residential paymenta.
4. Loss [If Business - Consideration would be given to some type of payment
plan.
5. Correct Zoning - Consideration would be given to be sure to recommend only
relocation sites that were the correct zoning for the businesses.
6. Last Resort Assistance - Some consideration would be given to provisions for
some type of last resort assistance.
7. Appeals Process - Consideration would be given to an appeals process for
commercial similar to residential.
With no further business the Committee scheduled their next meeting for January
15, 1987, at 7:00 P.M., at which time they will resume discussion on these
various points that were brought up.
With no further business the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted:
sistant City Manager
.IAA:lr -
cc: Joel M. Asprooth
Minutes of the
Relocation Subcommittee Public llearing
December 15, 1985
Members Present: Alderman Drummer, Masuret, Rainey, and Warshaw
Members Absent: Alderman Nelson
Summary of Action:
Chairman Drummer began the meeting by announcing that this was a Public !fearing
for the commercial owners and tenants of businesses located within the
Evanston.'University Research Park. The purpose of the Public llearing was
twofold. first, to introduce the City's consultant, the Vector Corporation, and
to have the vector Corporation explain the proposed plan for relocation
assistance. The second purpose of the meeting was to receive comments from the
commercial owners and tenants regarding the proposed plan. The Chairman gave a
brief history of the Relocation Subcommittee and stated that the residential
relocation plan was principally going to utilize the Uniform Act. In addition
for the commercial relocation, the initial plan was also to utilize the Unifo m
Act. However, the Committee's purpose tonight was to understand the needs of
each of the businesses and that was why the Vector Corporation was hired to
assist City staff in determining the relocation needs of the businesses.
At that point Mr. Ted Yelich of the Vector Corporation presented an overview of
the Uniform Acquisition and Relocation Act and the benefits for r.hich businesses
would be eligible. fie reviewed the Business Relocation Handout that had been
sent to all commercial owners and tenants highlighting the basic benefits and
eligibility requirements.
At the conclusion of the presentation by Mr. Yelich, the public ksas incited to
comment regarding the proposed Relocation plan. The discussion from various
memoers of the audience centered around the following items: 'l ►:he;ner or not
leasehold improvements would be part of the relocation costs; the :irine of
the relocation and if a schedule would be aoopteo by RPI and'o. the C.,y; 3,
vinether or not there would be provisions for loss of business or ausiness
interruption costs in the Relocation Plan; L) once the 180 oa>, notice has been
a.ven, what happens if an adequate relocation site cannot be fount, could
someone be required to move in 180 days: what are the conseouen:es for
_ncweasec rents tnat may be incurred it ne: locatio-) vs. curren: :oca:.c-..
li:. lelicn explained that under the Uniforr N:t which the comrit:ee s: _-.is :ime
is prepared to recommend to the City Counc_ , the following pro,..s:ors remear:
'1` any changes to real property are not reimbursable; 2; in acccrcan=e v.ith
the Uniform Act at the end of the 1f3D day notice whoever is occuoyinc a
structure must vacate the premises; 13) there are no rent supclements for
business relocation as there are for residential relocation; "4' the Uniform Act
does not allow for lost of business payments due to the very difficult task of
trying to quantify such a number.
r�
Minutes of the
Relocation Subcommittee Public hearing
December 15, 1986
Members Present: Aldermen Drummer, Masuret, Rainey, and Warshaw
Members Absent: Alderman Nelson
Summary of Action:
Chairman Drummer began the meeting by announcing that this was a Public Bearing
for the commercial owners and tenants of businesses located within the
Evanston.'University Research Paris. The purpose of the Public Ilearing was
twofold. First, to introduce the City's consultant, the Vector Corporation, and
to have the Vector Corporation explain the proposed plan for relocation
assistance. The second purpose of the meeting was to receive coasnents from the
commercial owners and tenants regarding the proposed plan. The Chairman gave a
brief history of the Relocation Subcommittee and stated that the residential
relocation plan was principally going to utilize the Uniform Act. In addition
for the commercial relocation, the initial plan was also to utilize the Uniform
Act. However, the Committee's purpose tonight was to understand the needs of
each of the businesses and that was why the Vector Corporation was hired to
assist City staff in o::`ermining the relocation needs of the businesses.
At that point Mr. Ted Yelich of the Vector Corporation presented an overview, of
the Uniform Aceuisition and Relocation Act and the benefits for v.hich businesses
would be eligible. lie reviewed the Business Relocation Handout that had been
sent to all commercial owners and tenants highlighting the basic benefits and
eligibility requirements.
At the conclusion of the presentation by Mr. Yelich, the public was invited to
comment regarding the proposed Relocation Plan. The discussion from various
memoers of the audience centered around the following items: l wnetner or no;
leasehold improvements would be part of the relocation costs: the tirinc of
the relocation and if a schedule would be aaopted by ?PI and or the City; .3,
vinether or not there would be provisirns for loss of business or ousiness
interruption costs in the Relocation Plan; '4, once the 180 oaf notice has been
e ven. what happens if an adequate relocation site cannot by found. could
someone be required to move In 18C days: '5, vrhat are the conseouences for
increases rents that may be incurred In ne: lo-can on vs. current
(i7 . lellch explained that under the Un,forr Act which the comr'._:Pe at. t_s _lme
is prepared to recommend to the City Counc,., the following orc._s:ans remain.:
"I any changes to real property are not reimbursable; '2' In acccrcan_e v.lth
the Uniform Act at the end of the 1BO day notice whoever :s occuovinc_ a
structure must vacate the premises; `3) there are no rent suo:lements for
business relocation as there are for residential relocation: '4' the Uniform Act
does not allor. for lost of business payments due to the very difficult task of
trying to quantify such a number.
Relocation Subcommittee Public clearing
After fir. Yelicli's explanation, members of the committee stated that the Uniform
Act wee only the proposed plan and that the committee could recommend to the
City Council provisions that were over and above the Uniform Act. To that end
the Committee summarized the issues that they would discuss at their next
meeting. They were the following:
1. Leasehold Improvements - It was the committee's intent to consider
provisions to provide expenditures for any lessehold improvements that would be
done by a business who has to relocate.
2. Six Month Deadline - Consideration would be given to extend the six month
provisions if someone has not been able to locate an adequate facility.
3. Rent Supplemmmente - Consideration would be given for rental supplements
similar to residential payments.
4. Loss Of Business - Consideration would be given to some type of payment
plan.
5. Correct Zoning - Consideration would be given to be sure to recommend only
relocation sites that were the correct zoning for the businesses.
6. Last Resort Assistance - Some consideration would be given to provisions for
some type of last resort assistance.
7. Appeals Process - Consideration would be given to an appeals process for
commercial similar to residential.
With no further business the Committee scheduled their next meeting for January
15, 1967, at 7:00 P.H., at which time they will resume discussion on these
various points that were brought up.
With no further business the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted:
sistant City Manager
.1AA:lr
cc: Joel M. Asprooth