1

 

          2  CITY COUNCIL

 

          3

             CITY OF NEW YORK

          4

             ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑x

          5

             THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE MINUTES

          6

                       of the

          7

             COMMITTEE ON HOUSING And BUILDINGS

          8

             ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑x

          9

 

         10                 December 12, 2003

                            Start:  11:30 a.m.

         11                 Recess: 2:30 p.m.

 

         12                 City Hall

                            Council Chambers

         13                 New York, New York

 

         14

                  B E F O R E:

         15

                         MADELINE PROVENZANO

         16                                Chairperson,

 

         17

                         COUNCIL MEMBERS:   Joel Rivera

         18                                 Diana Reyna

                                            Tony Avella

         19                                 Gale Brewer

                                            Leroy Comrie

         20                                 Lewis Fidler

                                            Robert Jackson

         21

 

         22

 

         23

 

         24       LEGAL‑EASE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC.

                         17 Battery Place ‑  Suite 1308

         25              New York, New York 10004

                              (800) 756‑3410

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            2

 

 

          1

 

          2  A P P E A R A N C E S

 

          3

             COUNCIL MEMBERS:

          4

             Melinda Katz

          5  Kendall Stewart

             James Oddo

          6  Philip Reed

             Tracy Boyland

          7  Domenic Recchia

             Peter Vallone, Jr.

          8

 

          9

 

         10

 

         11

 

         12

 

         13

 

         14

 

         15

 

         16

 

         17

 

         18

 

         19

 

         20

 

         21

 

         22

 

         23

 

         24

 

         25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            3

 

 

          1

 

          2  A P P E A R A N C E S (CONTINUED)

 

          3

             Andrew Hoffman

          4  President

             Community Housing Improvement Program

          5

             David Pechefsky

          6  Finance Division

             Council of the City of New York

          7

             Larian Angelo

          8  Finance Division

             Council of the City of New York

          9

             Jeffrey Haberman

         10  Counsel and Deputy Director

             Infrastructure Division

         11  Council of the City of New York

 

         12  Jay Damashek

             Deputy General Counsel

         13  Council of the City of New York

 

         14  Chris Collins

             Counsel and Deputy Director

         15  Land Use Division

             Council of the City of New York

         16

             Gail Benjamin

         17  Director, Land Use Division

             Council of the City of New York

         18

 

         19

 

         20

 

         21

 

         22

 

         23

 

         24

 

         25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            4

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Good morning.

 

          3  My name is Madeline Provenzano, and I chair the

 

          4  Committee on Housing and Buildings.

 

          5                 Thank you for attending this hearing

 

          6  on proposed Intro. No. 101‑A, in relation to

 

          7  childhood lead poisoning prevention.

 

          8                 Proposed Intro. No. 101‑A has been

 

          9  the subject, or has been subject to numerous

 

         10  revisions since the introduction of this bill.

 

         11                 Today's hearing will be conducted on

 

         12  the latest version of the bill, which is available

 

         13  for those of you who need it.

 

         14                 The version of this bill before the

 

         15  Committee is dated 12/5/03, 10:40 p.m.

 

         16                 The Committee has held several

 

         17  hearings on this matter, the last of which was

 

         18  conducted on December 10th.

 

         19                 Also, before this Committee today is

 

         20  a preconsidered resolution by Council Member

 

         21  Perkins, finding that enactment of proposed Intro.

 

         22  101‑A does not have a significant adverse impact on

 

         23  the environment and is consistent with the same

 

         24  Environment Quality Review Act.

 

         25                 At this point, Terzah Nasser will

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            5

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  explain a problem that we had at the last hearing

 

          3  and we need to reenact a part of it that was not

 

          4  recorded.

 

          5                 MS. NASSER: Terzah Nasser, Counsel to

 

          6  the Committee on Housing and Buildings. At the

 

          7  hearing on December 10th, we had a power

 

          8  fluctuation, such that we lost some of the audio

 

          9  portion to the hearing. We have invited Mr. Andrew

 

         10  Hoffman to return to the hearing and to present his

 

         11  testimony, to read into the record his testimony

 

         12  again, because we lost a fair portion of his

 

         13  presentation, and some of the exchange with the

 

         14  members.

 

         15                 Mr. Hoffman, thank you.

 

         16                 MR. HOFFMAN: Good afternoon. I mean,

 

         17  good morning. My name is Andrew Hoffman, I'm

 

         18  President of the Community Housing Improvement

 

         19  Program, a property owner, advocacy organization,

 

         20  also an owner and manager of housing in New York

 

         21  City.

 

         22                 I'm also the father of three children

 

         23  who had grown up in an apartment in New York City

 

         24  built before 1960, presumably containing lead‑based

 

         25  paint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            6

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 I don't say that to be funny, but I

 

          3  say that to let the Council members present know

 

          4  that I'm here for the same reason that you guys are

 

          5  here for, to protect the children of the dangers of

 

          6  lead‑based paint.

 

          7                 The City Council now finds themselves

 

          8  in a typical job. The task here is how to prevent as

 

          9  much as possible young children from being affected

 

         10  from the dangers of lead paint. Unfortunately, what

 

         11  the City Council has done, despite previous

 

         12  testimony by myself and others, is to create a

 

         13  series of measures which will make the operation of

 

         14  affordable housing in New York City much more

 

         15  costly.

 

         16                 Local Law 1 was an imperfect law. It

 

         17  was followed by Local Law 38, which was heavily

 

         18  negotiated and although not perfect, it did a much

 

         19  better job in protecting children from the dangers

 

         20  of lead‑based paint.

 

         21                 Local Law 38 provided a roadmap for

 

         22  myself and other owners to help eliminate the

 

         23  hazards associated with the paint, and in fact lead

 

         24  paint poisoning has dropped dramatically, while

 

         25  Local Law 38 was in effect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            7

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 Intro. 101 takes us in a much

 

          3  different direction.

 

          4                 First, it gives plaintiff attorneys a

 

          5  boom by eliminating the minor protections property

 

          6  owners had under Local Law 38. I'm sure we've all

 

          7  been on the City subways and we've seen the ads for

 

          8  the plaintiff attorneys guaranteeing money for

 

          9  parents of children poisoned by paint.

 

         10                 Under Local Law 38 we had some minor

 

         11  protection, but if Intro. 101 is passed in its

 

         12  present form, it would open the flood gates to

 

         13  plaintiff's attorneys, it would dramatically

 

         14  increase our property insurance, it will make lead

 

         15  insurance unaffordable and probably unattainable.

 

         16                 It's imperative the Council reach out

 

         17  to the State Insurance Department so they can hear

 

         18  from another governmental agency the facts

 

         19  concerning what Intro. 101 will do to the insurance

 

         20  industry.

 

         21                 The day‑to‑day operations of my

 

         22  building will become much, much more costly. Vacant

 

         23  apartments will now have to be painted by

 

         24  lead‑certified workers, even if I know that a child

 

         25  under seven will not be occupying that apartment, I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            8

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  still have to prepare that vacant apartment as if a

 

          3  child under seven was going to occupy that

 

          4  apartment. That's simply unfair.

 

          5                 This introduction provides funding,

 

          6  education for City inspectors, including continued

 

          7  education for inspectors and supervisory personnel,

 

          8  but no where in this introduction is any funding

 

          9  provided to help owners deal with this law, and I

 

         10  think that's also very unfair.

 

         11                 It's clear from listening to prior

 

         12  testimony that we all need a workable law to protect

 

         13  the children. CHP was able to work, CHP, my

 

         14  organization, was able to work with the Council on

 

         15  some small aspects of Intro. 101. A continuous

 

         16  dialogue concerning the Intro that helps clarify the

 

         17  100 square foot issue, previous the 100‑square foot

 

         18  issue pertained to the whole apartment, and it was

 

         19  clarified to pertain to just one room and we

 

         20  appreciate the Council's help on that matter. But we

 

         21  need to continue the same dialogue when it comes to

 

         22  the insurance issue.

 

         23                 In the seventies we couldn't get

 

         24  asbestos coverage, two years ago there was terrorism

 

         25  coverage that was a problem, and now mold insurance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            9

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  is excluded from almost all of my insurance

 

          3  policies.

 

          4                 After you pass Intro. 101, that

 

          5  insurance will be nonexistent or unattainable. More

 

          6  needs to be done and I'm ready to work with all

 

          7  those concerns to make this bill a better one. We

 

          8  all want the same thing. We do not want our children

 

          9  to be affected by lead‑based paint. The City

 

         10  Council, over strong comments by property owners and

 

         11  activists alike, have proposed a law which is

 

         12  over‑reaching. It's haste to make this introduction

 

         13  into law. I think the City Council has done property

 

         14  owners a grave injustice and I urge the Committee to

 

         15  reexamine Intro. 101.

 

         16                 Thank you for giving me these second

 

         17  opportunities to present my testimony.

 

         18                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Well, it

 

         19  really isn't a second, since we didn't record your

 

         20  first.

 

         21                 But Council Member Recchia will,

 

         22  since this is kind of a reenactment, Councilman

 

         23  Recchia will ask one or two questions which are the

 

         24  same ones that he asked last time. He will be the

 

         25  only one that is able to question this witness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            10

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 Councilman.

 

          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER RECCHIA: Thank you.

 

          4                 The last time you testified you spoke

 

          5  about admitting insurance and non‑admitting

 

          6  insurance. Could you explain that for the Committee.

 

          7                 MR. HOFFMAN: New York State Insurance

 

          8  Department is the body that governs insurance

 

          9  companies in the City and they have certain rules in

 

         10  the state and they have certain rules and

 

         11  regulations pertaining to insurance companies,

 

         12  insurance carriers, and if you are an admitted

 

         13  carrier, you agree to comply with the rules and

 

         14  regulations concerning the New York State Insurance

 

         15  Department, but what happens and what's happened

 

         16  recently in the past couple of years in my

 

         17  experience is the insurance market is very tight

 

         18  right now, every carrier is an admitted carrier, all

 

         19  the names that you know, Chubb, Traveler, they all

 

         20  have other insurance companies that are not

 

         21  admitted, and those insurance companies are not

 

         22  required to live by the same rules.

 

         23                 As an example with myself, after 9/11

 

         24  terrorism insurance was impossible to get. But New

 

         25  York State said that in order to be an admitted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            11

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  carrier you had to supply terrorism coverage. So,

 

          3  what happens is, I have one building that's large,

 

          4  it's in excess of, value is $50 million. What the

 

          5  insurance companies do is they essentially take a

 

          6  value of $200 a square foot, so if you have a

 

          7  building that's in excess of 250,000 square feet,

 

          8  that building replacement value is in excess of $50

 

          9  million. Coverage was essentially non‑existent.

 

         10                 So what my brokers had to do is in

 

         11  order to take a non‑admitted carrier, you have to be

 

         12  rejected by an admitted carrier, so they float my

 

         13  insurance out to ten admitted carriers and they

 

         14  don't bid on it, I just don't get prices. So, then I

 

         15  have to go to the non‑admitted carriers at that

 

         16  point, and at that point they don't have to live by

 

         17  the same rules and regulations, so as an example, I

 

         18  don't have terrorism coverage on my policy, I don't

 

         19  have mold coverage on my policy, I actually have

 

         20  lead now, but two years ago, three years ago I

 

         21  didn't have lead, so I'm sure that on my policy

 

         22  renewal, when Intro. 101 passes, they're going to

 

         23  exclude lead again.

 

         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER RECCHIA: So you feel

 

         25  if this is passed that the insurance industry will

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            12

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  have a hard time, the admitted carriers will not

 

          3  want to ensure. What they do will be a high premium.

 

          4                 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes. And the admitted

 

          5  carriers, what they have done in the past, you're

 

          6  allowed to ask for an exclusion from the New York

 

          7  State Insurance Department, and I know that they

 

          8  have asked in the past for exclusions on lead paint.

 

          9  It's part of the pollution exclusion, and at that

 

         10  point you have the option of possibly buying a

 

         11  rider. A few years ago it was non‑existent.

 

         12                 COUNCIL MEMBER RECCHIA: Thank you.

 

         13                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay, thank

 

         14  you.

 

         15                 Thank you, Mr. Hoffman.

 

         16                 I'd like to introduce the Council

 

         17  members that are here, members of the Committee, I

 

         18  have Council Member James Oddo. Who is next? I can't

 

         19  see. Well, Melinda was actually hiding you. Council

 

         20  Member Lou Fidler, Councilwoman Melinda Katz,

 

         21  Councilman Joel Rivera. To my left, Councilman Tony

 

         22  Avella, Councilman Phil Reed, who is not a member of

 

         23  the Committee, Councilwoman Diana Reyna. Council

 

         24  Member Robert Jackson, Council Member/woman Tracy

 

         25  Boyland, who is not a member of the Committee,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            13

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  Council Member Bill Perkins, who is not a member of

 

          3  the Committee, and Council Member Domenic Recchia,

 

          4  who is not a member of the Committee.

 

          5                 We have today a fiscal impact

 

          6  statement, after I don't know how many months that

 

          7  we've been asking for it, but we do have it today.

 

          8  So, I'm going to call on the folks from our Finance

 

          9  Division to answer some questions. You all have a

 

         10  copy before you. Hopefully you've taken a look at

 

         11  it. There have been many questions in the past about

 

         12  this statement.

 

         13                 Another thing I would ask is that the

 

         14  folks in the audience, there may be some heated

 

         15  moments here, and I would ask for everybody's

 

         16  indulgence and that they behave, for hopefully what

 

         17  is the last time.

 

         18                 I'm going to ask the Committee folks,

 

         19  or anyone, if they want to ask any questions.

 

         20                 James Oddo, I cannot imagine that you

 

         21  don't have a question.

 

         22                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: It's such an

 

         23  ominous tone that there's going to be some heated

 

         24  moments.

 

         25                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: It's an

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            14

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  ominous day.

 

          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: I just have one

 

          4  question. Does the Administration agree with cost

 

          5  estimates that the Council came up with?

 

          6                 MR. PECHEFSKY: Yes, I'm David

 

          7  Pechefsky from the City Council Finance Division, to

 

          8  my right is my boss, Larian Angelo, Director of the

 

          9  Division, and at this time the Administration hasn't

 

         10  shared with us their fiscal impact.

 

         11                 As you know, the bill was amended

 

         12  heavily since, there were many iterations of the

 

         13  bill since the last time the Administration actually

 

         14  provided a cost estimate, so at this time we don't

 

         15  know.

 

         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Thank you, Madam

 

         17  Chair.

 

         18                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: In looking at

 

         19  the statement, I see that the section that talks

 

         20  about the age of the child, which would start out at

 

         21  seven, and then after the first year could possibly

 

         22  go to six, has that been factored in? When you did

 

         23  this assessment, were you basing it on a seven or

 

         24  six, and at any place did you figure out what the

 

         25  difference would be if we started at six, rather

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            15

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  than seven, what the difference in the year

 

          3  financially would be?

 

          4                 MS. ANGELO: Generally speaking, when

 

          5  we do a fiscal impact, we try and do the most

 

          6  conservative estimate. So, indeed, we assume that

 

          7  the age of seven remained throughout the period of

 

          8  the fiscal impact, even though we were aware that

 

          9  the age could be lowered from seven to six by the

 

         10  Department of Health. But we wanted to do a

 

         11  conservative fiscal impact, so in fact it may

 

         12  overestimate the cost slightly.

 

         13                 David, do you want to finish the

 

         14  discussion?

 

         15                 MR. PECHEFSKY: Sure. The fact that

 

         16  the age would be seven and under Intro. 101‑A for

 

         17  the first year, was what we used in projecting the

 

         18  costs, and it was factored in in many areas, in

 

         19  terms of HPD's inspections, and also in the amount

 

         20  of remediation work that the City might have to do.

 

         21                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: So, the total

 

         22  cost for the first year would be 31,604,664?

 

         23                 MS. ANGELO: That's correct.

 

         24                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: If we started

 

         25  at age six, how much would that decrease? What is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            16

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  the exact figure that the difference between age six

 

          3  and seven is costing us?

 

          4                 MR. PECHEFSKY: Well, about 4 million.

 

          5                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: About $4

 

          6  million.

 

          7                 MS. ANGELO: Arrived at on the

 

          8  assumption that about 15 percent, that if you look

 

          9  at zero to 18, the entire cohort, about 16 percent

 

         10  of the cohort is in each age year. So the assumption

 

         11  is it would lower the ongoing or the recurring cost

 

         12  by that 15 percent.

 

         13                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: And do we

 

         14  have any idea where, since you are our finance

 

         15  person, our very good finance person, do we have any

 

         16  idea where we're getting this more than $31 million?

 

         17                 MS. ANGELO: The $31 million, or the

 

         18  cost of any bill is factored into the budget, and it

 

         19  will simply become part of the costs of the budget,

 

         20  of which there are many that arise during the course

 

         21  of the year. For example, generally speaking, we

 

         22  assume that we will have to put more money in the

 

         23  budget for uniformed overtime, but seldom precisely

 

         24  estimated, there's overspending in a variety of

 

         25  agencies and underspending in some agencies, so it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            17

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  will become one additional cost, added to various

 

          3  other additional costs that will arise during the

 

          4  year in the budget.

 

          5                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Do we have

 

          6  any other questions?

 

          7                 Oh, we've also been joined by Council

 

          8  Member Stewart, a member of the Committee,

 

          9  Councilwoman Gale Brewer, and Council Member Leroy

 

         10  Comrie.

 

         11                 Anybody else here that I didn't

 

         12  catch?

 

         13                 Council Member Rivera.

 

         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA: Thank you very

 

         15  much, Madam Chair.

 

         16                 It states in here in the fiscal

 

         17  impact paper that the City will recoup part of the

 

         18  cost of the implementation; can you explain that

 

         19  more for the record?

 

         20                 MR. PECHEFSKY: Sure. Part of the cost

 

         21  of the bill is in remediation costs through the

 

         22  City's emergency repair program. In circumstances

 

         23  where the owner fails to correct a violation, the

 

         24  City may end up doing the work, this is the case not

 

         25  only for lead violations, but for other types of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            18

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  class C violations.

 

          3                 Generally speaking the City recoups

 

          4  some of those costs from landlords, that's factored

 

          5  into the bill. That's reflected as revenue, coming

 

          6  back to the City.

 

          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA: Oh, so that's

 

          8   .4 ‑‑

 

          9                 MR. PECHEFSKY: Yes, that's part of

 

         10  it. That number reflects, in part that number

 

         11  reflects anticipation of City recouping part of ERP

 

         12  costs over time.

 

         13                 COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA: Got you. Thank

 

         14  you.

 

         15                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

 

         16  Member Oddo.

 

         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Thank you, Madam

 

         18  Chair.

 

         19                 Does the $31 million figure in FY '05

 

         20  include potential or cost of liability judgments

 

         21  against the City?

 

         22                 MR. PECHEFSKY: No, because the fiscal

 

         23  impact is limited in scope to direct cost to the

 

         24  City, a cost that the bill more or less directly

 

         25  causes the City to assume.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            19

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Does the Finance

 

          3  Committee have an estimate that they would like to

 

          4  share with the Committee of what they anticipate

 

          5  liability cost to be to the City?

 

          6                 MS. ANGELO: No, I don't believe, we

 

          7  haven't done that estimate.

 

          8                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Is there a way

 

          9  of attempting to calculate that?

 

         10                 MS. ANGELO: We will always do an

 

         11  estimate of anything. We'll always find a way to do

 

         12  a calculation. But that is not in the fiscal impact.

 

         13                 MR. PECHEFSKY: Let me just say also,

 

         14  nor does the fiscal impact statement contemplate

 

         15  whatever benefits, in terms of savings, there may be

 

         16  in the longrun to the City from reducing lead

 

         17  poisoning, for example, special education costs,

 

         18  health savings and health care. It doesn't

 

         19  anticipate that either, that's outside the scope of

 

         20  the fiscal impact.

 

         21                 MS. ANGELO: I mean, generally

 

         22  speaking, a fiscal impact is not done with something

 

         23  called dynamic scoring.

 

         24                 There may be costs in the outyears

 

         25  that beyond the three or four or five years that we

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            20

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  estimate, and there may be savings in those three or

 

          3  four years beyond.

 

          4                 But generally we limit it to direct,

 

          5  straight‑forward costs.

 

          6                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: But there is

 

          7  the possibility that more landlords may not accrue

 

          8  the cost themselves. You know, how did you figure

 

          9  out how many buildings ‑‑ David is shaking his head.

 

         10  He's been with me so long he knows the question I'm

 

         11  going to ask, and I'm sure he does.

 

         12                 You know, obviously you said to

 

         13  yourself, well, X amount of landlords are not going

 

         14  to do it, so the cost will be on HPD. But how can

 

         15  you do that, because you don't really know how many

 

         16  landlords, you know, there could be twice that

 

         17  amount.

 

         18                 MR. PECHEFSKY: We know based on HPD's

 

         19  reports to the City Council how many landlords were

 

         20  correcting the violations under Local Law 38, based

 

         21  in part on the back and forth between HPD and the

 

         22  IBO on previous versions of the bill, and we

 

         23  estimate how many landlords, what the rate of

 

         24  correction will be among landlords, and we estimate

 

         25  that it is going to be somewhat lower than HPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            21

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  reported in its reports to the Council, because of

 

          3  some of the concerns that HPD raised about time

 

          4  frames and so forth. So that is factored into the

 

          5  cost, that the City may be assuming, may have to do

 

          6  more remediation jobs.

 

          7                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: So that has

 

          8  been factored in?

 

          9                 MR. PECHEFSKY: That has been factored

 

         10  in, yes.

 

         11                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Even

 

         12  considering the fact that this bill has issues like

 

         13  presumption which could possibly lead to landlords,

 

         14  to property owners not getting insurance, which

 

         15  could lead to more abandoned buildings, bla, bla,

 

         16  bla, bla.

 

         17                 MR. PECHEFSKY: It doesn't factor in

 

         18  that. In factors in the ‑‑ it looks to the

 

         19  provisions that pertain towards the time frames that

 

         20  owners have to do correction in, it looks at the

 

         21  provisions regarding HPD inspections, it doesn't

 

         22  follow the trail all the way, it doesn't make

 

         23  assumptions about the financial conditions of

 

         24  buildings over time.

 

         25                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            22

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 Council Member Rivera.

 

          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA: Thank you very

 

          4  much again, Madam Chair.

 

          5                 I know we don't have in the fiscal

 

          6  impact statement how much the City would save in

 

          7  terms of special education and other associated

 

          8  costs, but can we find, do we have a number? And,

 

          9  also, can we find out how much the City would save

 

         10  in terms of extra resources being given to kids that

 

         11  are affected by lead in the future? Is there a way

 

         12  to get that number?

 

         13                 MS. ANGELO: Yes. I'm sure we can take

 

         14  a look at that in the Finance Division and we would

 

         15  be happy to do that. But, again, it will not be

 

         16  included in the fiscal impact, because, again, as we

 

         17  cannot really speculate three or four, five years

 

         18  down the road, how landlords may or may not change

 

         19  their pattern of a remediation, we also can't

 

         20  speculate on this cost savings of having healthier

 

         21  kids.

 

         22                 COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA: Thank you.

 

         23                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

 

         24  Member Perkins.

 

         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: Thank you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            23

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  very much, Madam Chair.

 

          3                 Let me just say, it has been pointed

 

          4  out, however, that the cost to the, the social cost

 

          5  to the City, when children are lead poisoned, is

 

          6  about $1.4 billion a year. I know you don't normally

 

          7  in your fiscal impact statements look at that, but

 

          8  as a way of helping my colleagues understand the

 

          9  enormous amount of savings that we're talking about

 

         10  by virtue of not having children poisoned, it's been

 

         11  estimated by those who are experts in the field,

 

         12  doctors, et cetera, that it's about $1.4 billion.

 

         13                 Let me ask just so I'm clear, because

 

         14  I know the question has come up, we don't normally,

 

         15  and in my experience, I don't know if we've ever

 

         16  anticipated the liability cost to the City when

 

         17  we've given fiscal impact statements.

 

         18                 MS. ANGELO: Not to my knowledge, but

 

         19  I'm working from memory here. So, at some point we

 

         20  can go back and take a look, but I can't really

 

         21  recall one.

 

         22                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: Thank you.

 

         23                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Any other

 

         24  questions?

 

         25                 Thank you, again. As always, you've

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            24

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  done a great job.

 

          3                 MR. PECHEFSKY: Thank you.

 

          4                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: You have

 

          5  before you that huge package, the negative

 

          6  declaration. I don't know how many of you have even

 

          7  taken a look at it, but this is a resolution that we

 

          8  will have to vote on.

 

          9                 I'd like to call on Jeff Rotus, is he

 

         10  somewhere? I'm sorry, that's my other Jeff. Jeff

 

         11  Haberman, who has been lucky enough not to be

 

         12  involved in this. Jeff Haberman, who I would like to

 

         13  have him give kind of a brief, if that's at all

 

         14  possible, analysis of this. A brief analysis, and

 

         15  then we'll take questions from the Committee, or

 

         16  whoever. See, that's how brief it's going to be.

 

         17                 And he's joined by Chris Collins.

 

         18                 MR. HABERMAN: Good morning. My name

 

         19  is Jeff Haberman. I am Counsel and Deputy Director

 

         20  of the Council's Infrastructure Division.

 

         21                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Ralphie, I'm

 

         22  not sure that mic is great.

 

         23                 MR. HABERMAN: Okay, is this better.

 

         24                 My name is Jeffrey Haberman. I'm

 

         25  Counsel and Deputy Director of the Council's

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            25

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  Infrastructure Division.

 

          3                 MR. COLLINS: And I'm Chris Collins.

 

          4  I'm the Counsel and Deputy Director of the Land Use

 

          5  Division and we have provided some level of

 

          6  assistance in the environmental review issues for

 

          7  the Infrastructure Division on this matter.

 

          8                 MR. HABERMAN: Under the State's, the

 

          9  Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of the

 

         10  Environmental Conservation Law, local legislation is

 

         11  considered to be an action and requires undertaking

 

         12  an environmental analysis. That was done in this

 

         13  case, the outcome of that analysis indicates that a

 

         14  negative declaration is the appropriate outcome.

 

         15  There are three possible outcomes, one is the need,

 

         16  a positive declaration requiring an environmental

 

         17  impact statement, a determination that there will be

 

         18  no significant ‑‑

 

         19                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: I'm having

 

         20  trouble hearing you.

 

         21                 MR. HABERMAN: Okay.

 

         22                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Bring the mic

 

         23  up. Okay.

 

         24                 MR. HABERMAN: There are a number of

 

         25  possible outcomes under this review. One is that a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            26

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  positive declaration, that the action will have an

 

          3  adverse, a significant adverse environmental impact,

 

          4  requiring an environmental impact statement.

 

          5                 A potential outcome is that there is

 

          6  no significant, going to be no significant adverse

 

          7  environmental impact in which case a negative

 

          8  declaration would be an appropriate outcome.

 

          9                 And the third possibility is if there

 

         10  are some potential adverse impacts, but they can be

 

         11  mitigated, then a possible outcome is a conditional

 

         12  negative declaration.

 

         13                 The analysis before you was performed

 

         14  consistent with the City Environmental Quality

 

         15  Review Technical Manual, which sets out those items

 

         16  that have to be, that should be examined, indicates

 

         17  criteria that should be looked at, and indicates

 

         18  what some recommendations on what constitutes

 

         19  significance, or significant environmental, adverse

 

         20  environmental impact.

 

         21                 For example, in Section 222, there's

 

         22  a roster of the criteria for significance, such as

 

         23  removal or destruction of large quantities of

 

         24  educational forma, creation of a conflict with

 

         25  community development plans, the impairment of a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            27

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  historical archeological resources, major change in

 

          3  use of either quantity or type of energy, et cetera.

 

          4                 I think it's important to keep in

 

          5  mind that this analysis is, most of the analyses,

 

          6  are geared to what I would call the "built

 

          7  environment," where some construction or physical

 

          8  change is taking place.

 

          9                 MR. COLLINS: I think it's also

 

         10  important for me to just add that, at its very core

 

         11  environmental review is a disclosure process, it

 

         12  doesn't necessarily give you a result. The intent of

 

         13  environmental review is to inform you, the decision

 

         14  makers, as to whether or not you want to take a

 

         15  particular action in light of potential impacts that

 

         16  have been identified in the analysis.

 

         17                 As you know, the earlier lead paint

 

         18  bill was invalidated by the State's highest court of

 

         19  the basis of what was deemed to be a flawed

 

         20  environmental review, and, so, I believe the staff

 

         21  of the Infrastructure Division has been particularly

 

         22  cautious in making sure that all of the necessary

 

         23  aspects of the legislation have been covered in this

 

         24  review.

 

         25                 As Jeff mentioned, it was done in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            28

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  accordance with the requirements of the CEQR

 

          3  Technical Manual, and the Threshold Review is

 

          4  basically what's called an environmental assessment,

 

          5  environmental assessment statement in which a series

 

          6  of questions are asked and answered, and on the

 

          7  basis of the answers and the analysis performed

 

          8  pursuant to those regulations, a reasonable

 

          9  conclusion can be reached that significant adverse

 

         10  impacts would not be identified as a result of

 

         11  taking this action.

 

         12                 MR. HABERMAN: The document before

 

         13  you, the attachment to the environmental assessment

 

         14  statement, has separate sections, each one

 

         15  addressing ‑‑ each the attachment to the

 

         16  environmental assessment statement, which is part of

 

         17  this package, has a section that addresses each of

 

         18  the areas that is recommended to be examined.

 

         19                 The analysis was that none of the

 

         20  particular areas would result in a significant

 

         21  adverse environmental impact and therefore the

 

         22  recommendations that a negative declaration be

 

         23  issued.

 

         24                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay, thank

 

         25  you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            29

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 I'm going to ask the questions, but

 

          3  I'd just like to comment, it kind of blows my mind

 

          4  that we get a document like that at 4:30 last night,

 

          5  and we're expected to look at it and explore it and

 

          6  come up with questions, and I totally don't

 

          7  understand that.

 

          8                 Also, you know, we've spent six

 

          9  months and I can't tell you how many hours testimony

 

         10  on lead and lead dust, and truthfully, I've only

 

         11  glanced at this, and even if I read every word of

 

         12  it, I would still not understand it.

 

         13                 It would probably take another six

 

         14  months for you to explain to me what's in it.

 

         15                 But I totally don't understand how

 

         16  we're talking about lead and lead dust, and we come

 

         17  up with a negative declaration that says there's no

 

         18  significant environmental impact, I just don't

 

         19  understand that. I think I'm one of the few members,

 

         20  it doesn't seem to bother too many other people.

 

         21                 Do we have any questions? Council

 

         22  Member Oddo.

 

         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Thank you, Madam

 

         24  Chair. And I would like to reiterate your point

 

         25  about notice. I got this document from my staff late

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            30

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  yesterday afternoon, and if you truly go through it,

 

          3  or go through it the way it needs to be analyzed,

 

          4  there really isn't sufficient a time to do that and

 

          5  to vote intelligently today, but apparently that's

 

          6  what we're being asked to do.

 

          7                 Gentlemen, who actually wrote this?

 

          8                 MR. HABERMAN: Most portions of it I

 

          9  wrote. I wrote it.

 

         10                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: And Jeff, you

 

         11  and I have been colleagues and worked together for

 

         12  12 years now, so you're very good at what you do,

 

         13  you've written negative decs before.

 

         14                 MR. HABERMAN: I have a number of

 

         15  times, on a number of occasions.

 

         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Okay.

 

         17                 Was there a negative dec written for

 

         18  Local Law 38?

 

         19                 MR. HABERMAN: There was. However, I

 

         20  was not a participant in the Local Law 38 enactment

 

         21  process, but I do have a copy of the negative

 

         22  declaration with me.

 

         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Without casting

 

         24  blame on anyone, do we know who wrote the negative

 

         25  dec back then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            31

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 MR. HABERMAN: A member of staff.

 

          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Okay.

 

          4                 Are they still employed on the

 

          5  Council's staff?

 

          6                 MR. HABERMAN: They are.

 

          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: And they weren't

 

          8  involved in this one at all?

 

          9                 MR. HABERMAN: They were.

 

         10                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Okay. I'll tell

 

         11  you why I'm troubled. The Council just passed six

 

         12  down‑zonings on Staten Island, three in Council

 

         13  Member McMahon's district and three in my district,

 

         14  and that process was delayed because we were told

 

         15  that we had to do a full‑blown EIS, and in that

 

         16  study we had to look at the economic impact

 

         17  down‑zoning these communities, not only on Staten

 

         18  Island, but Citywide. And it just strikes me that in

 

         19  that situation we had to do a full‑blown EIS, and

 

         20  here we're saying that there's a negative dec to do

 

         21  an EIS for this lead bill, and I have to be honest

 

         22  with you, I can't get my arms around those two

 

         23  facts.

 

         24                 It would seem to me that the scope of

 

         25  this bill is as great as, or if not greater than

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            32

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  down‑zoning applications. Is it surprising to you

 

          3  gentlemen, having completed this analysis, that it

 

          4  is a negative declaration?

 

          5                 MR. HABERMAN: No, because the

 

          6  hallmark of a negative declaration is that there is

 

          7  no significant adverse environmental impact. Not

 

          8  that there would be no impact at all, and I think

 

          9  the analysis bears out that there will not be a

 

         10  significant adverse environmental impact.

 

         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Again, Madam

 

         12  Chair, I went through the document not as closely as

 

         13  I would like to be able to, but there are a few

 

         14  things that jump at me that I would like to be able

 

         15  to ask, if that's okay?

 

         16                 On page two of the text there is a

 

         17  paragraph that says "an issue that must be noted is

 

         18  whether the dictates of the proposed law will result

 

         19  in owners either withholding dwelling units from the

 

         20  rental market, decline to rent those dwelling units

 

         21  to families with children of applicable age so as to

 

         22  avoid the obligation to comply, or abandoning

 

         23  residential buildings subject to the provisions."

 

         24                 And then later on it says that "there

 

         25  was no testimony by owners to that effect." And it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            33

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  says, "it's reasonable to assume for the purposes of

 

          3  this analysis that owners will not intentionally

 

          4  violate this law."

 

          5                 Does that mean that the expectation

 

          6  of you folks is that Mr. Hoffman was going to come

 

          7  in and testify and some of his colleagues, that they

 

          8  were going to come in and testify before the Council

 

          9  because of this bill they were going to violate the

 

         10  law, and we expected them to come here and say that,

 

         11  and in absence of them saying that, it's not an

 

         12  issue?

 

         13                 MR. COLLINS: No, I don't think that

 

         14  that's the case at all, Councilman. I think that

 

         15  it's reasonable to assume that people will obey the

 

         16  law, and the purpose of this section was simply to

 

         17  indicate that this was a subject that was considered

 

         18  and reviewed, but that the reasonable conclusion is

 

         19  that people will obey the law.

 

         20                 But it in essence was, as I said

 

         21  before, it was sort of to flag this as a potential

 

         22  issue for you, the decision‑makers, to take into

 

         23  account.

 

         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: The reasonable

 

         25  conclusion based on the testimony or lack of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            34

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  testimony, or the reasonable conclusion based on

 

          3  something outside of what happened in the hearings?

 

          4                 MR. COLLINS: The reasonable

 

          5  conclusion based on the analysis that was conducted,

 

          6  including the testimony.

 

          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Back on page

 

          8  one, there is the sentence under the Land Use,

 

          9  Zoning and Public Policy paragraph, where it says,

 

         10  "consequently the proposed action is not expected

 

         11  to have significant effect on Land Use, Zoning or

 

         12  other Public Policy, such as urban renewal plans,"

 

         13  et cetera.

 

         14                 Is that statement consistent with the

 

         15  testimony of Mr. Lappin and some of the folks from

 

         16  the affordable housing industry?

 

         17                 MR. HABERMAN: It is if you examine

 

         18  the CEQR Technical Manual, which was the guidance

 

         19  document for preparing environmental analyses. It

 

         20  points to ‑‑

 

         21                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Jeff, you

 

         22  have to talk into the mic.

 

         23                 MR. HABERMAN: It points to certain

 

         24  things that should be examined, such as the impact

 

         25  it might have on urban renewal plans, on the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            35

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  comprehensive waterfront plans, on Solid Waste

 

          3  Management Plan, Business Improvement Districts,

 

          4  City maps, the activities that will be required were

 

          5  proposed Intro. 101‑A to be enacted, I don't believe

 

          6  would have any bearing, would have any adverse

 

          7  impact on those other policies.

 

          8                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: But that's not

 

          9  your opinion, and that's not consistent with what

 

         10  the testimony was that we've heard from Mr. Lappin

 

         11  and other folks in the affordable housing industry.

 

         12  So, how do we come to that conclusion, when that

 

         13  conclusion is not consistent with some of the

 

         14  testimony that we heard?

 

         15                 MR. COLLINS: For purposes of

 

         16  environmental review about the state law and City

 

         17  law, operate under the assumption that people will

 

         18  obey the law. I think that's the clearest way I can

 

         19  answer that, Councilman.

 

         20                 MR. COLLINS: Fair enough. I

 

         21  appreciate that, but when there is testimony, I

 

         22  don't want to say to the contrary, but testimony

 

         23  that raises that issue and raises questions about

 

         24  that issue, I think it's sort of a leap, frankly I

 

         25  think we reached the conclusion and we try to work

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            36

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  backwards, despite the testimony be damned.

 

          3                 But let me ask you about another

 

          4  point related to that. On page three, the first full

 

          5  paragraph that begins, "concern expressed at the

 

          6  hearings..." The last sentence says, "however, it is

 

          7  believed that no testimony was received on this

 

          8  issue..." and they're talking about insurance, "...

 

          9  or issue from any representative of an insurance

 

         10  company as to whether insurance would remain

 

         11  available and at what rates. While the unintended

 

         12  consequence spoken of may happen, it's speculative

 

         13  and not yet possible to quantify."

 

         14                 I appreciate the fact that we didn't

 

         15  have any testimony from the insurance industry and

 

         16  the Counsel and the Chair mentioned the fact that

 

         17  the insurance industry was invited and apparently no

 

         18  one attended, but is it incumbent upon us to sort of

 

         19  explore this issue in greater detail, considering

 

         20  that this was the heart of the hearings? Should we

 

         21  have engaged in some sort of study, some sort of a

 

         22  more comprehensive look to determine if in fact this

 

         23  is a genuine issue, instead of simply saying it may

 

         24  happen, it's speculative and we can't quantify it?

 

         25                 Because if we analyze it in more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            37

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  detail, perhaps the ultimate decision of a negative

 

          3  deck would not, you know, would not have been

 

          4  reached.

 

          5                 MR. HABERMAN: Well, two comments. One

 

          6  is, it was in fact some testimony to the contrary,

 

          7  and there was, you'll also note, that there is at

 

          8  least one organization that maintains on their

 

          9  website of insurance companies that do provide

 

         10  insurance coverage, but more importantly, and so

 

         11  there was some contravailing testimony, it's also

 

         12  important to keep in mind that the analysis is

 

         13  designed to measure proposed Intro. 101‑A against

 

         14  the existing law, and the existing law is Local Law

 

         15  1, which is a full abatement requirement, and so,

 

         16  that's the nature of the analysis, and so it was in

 

         17  that comparison that this analysis was done.

 

         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Let's take it

 

         19  one at a time. First, with respect to testimony on

 

         20  this issue, we had one individual testify and really

 

         21  what she testified to, about hard and soft insurance

 

         22  markets, and I think her testimony, when you balance

 

         23  it out against individuals who spoke who were

 

         24  practitioners, who were owners, who I think had more

 

         25  hands‑on dealings with insurance here in New York

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            38

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  City, I think her testimony frankly didn't measure

 

          3  up.

 

          4                 Your second point, that the standard

 

          5  that we're using is Local Law 1, could you explain

 

          6  that in just a little bit more detail?

 

          7                 MR. HABERMAN: On July 1st of this

 

          8  year, the Court of Appeals issued a decision

 

          9  invalidating Local Law 38 of 1999.

 

         10                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Correct.

 

         11                 MR. HABERMAN: The Court, in its

 

         12  decision, the Court in its decision explicitly

 

         13  stated that, and I'm reading from page 15 of the

 

         14  slip opinion,"the parties recognized that by

 

         15  operation of law, our validation of Local Law 38

 

         16  revives Local Law 1. And so that became the baseline

 

         17  for the analysis.

 

         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Is that your

 

         19  interpretation of what the basis should be, Local

 

         20  Law 1?

 

         21                 Clearly, I understand the judge's

 

         22  decision, but is that staff's interpretation that

 

         23  the baseline here is not what was on Local Law 38

 

         24  but should be on Local Law 1?

 

         25                 MR. HABERMAN: Well, the Court made it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            39

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  very clear that Local Law 38 no longer exists as a

 

          3  legal mechanism.

 

          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Understood.

 

          5                 MR. HABERMAN: Number two, the nature

 

          6  of an environmental analysis is to compare what one

 

          7  believes the actions might accomplish against what

 

          8  the existing conditions are.

 

          9                 The existing condition quite clearly

 

         10  is Local Law 1.

 

         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: The existing

 

         12  conditions in terms of getting insurance right now

 

         13  ‑‑

 

         14                 MR. HABERMAN: No, I'm sorry.

 

         15                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Because that's

 

         16  the issue we're talking about, getting insurance.

 

         17  And I would say that it's not, because the insurance

 

         18  these folks probably have is based for policies

 

         19  based on Local Law 38.

 

         20                 MR. HABERMAN: I don't know that to be

 

         21  a fact. And that wasn't the nature of the analysis.

 

         22                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Okay.

 

         23                 MR. HABERMAN: It was measured against

 

         24  Local Law 1.

 

         25                 MR. COLLINS: If I could just add some

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            40

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  to that?

 

          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Yes.

 

          4                 MR. COLLINS: The courts consistently

 

          5  have said for purpose of environmental review what

 

          6  you need to have is a reasonably elaborated

 

          7  analysis. You need to look to various issues that

 

          8  the law requires you to analyze.

 

          9                 That doesn't mean that you as one of

 

         10  the decision‑makers may not come to a different

 

         11  conclusion based on other testimony or just your

 

         12  belief of other factors, and, so, I understand the

 

         13  basis of your question, based on certain testimony

 

         14  that was received in the course of the Committee's

 

         15  hearing, but for purposes of this environmental

 

         16  review and its validity, I believe that the analysis

 

         17  is adequate on the issue.

 

         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Fair enough. Let

 

         19  me just ask you a procedural question.

 

         20                 This document is to reflect testimony

 

         21  solely, or you factor in making your decision about

 

         22  a negative dec outside information that didn't

 

         23  happen within the four walls of City Hall?

 

         24                 MR. COLLINS: Your decision as the

 

         25  decision‑makers on this legislation ‑‑

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            41

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Well, your

 

          3  recommendation let's say.

 

          4                 MR. COLLINS: No, may take into

 

          5  account any number of factors, your life experience,

 

          6  the testimony you heard, your knowledge and any

 

          7  research that you've done.

 

          8                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: But how do we

 

          9  have a resolution in front of us that encourages a

 

         10  negative dec?

 

         11                 MR. COLLINS: Because by following the

 

         12  dictates of the technical manual, the analysis of

 

         13  the various required categories was conducted by

 

         14  staff. There was a resolution introduced.

 

         15                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Again, but the

 

         16  analysis is analysis of testimony only, or analysis

 

         17  of outside ‑‑

 

         18                 MR. COLLINS: It's an analysis of

 

         19  subject matter.

 

         20                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Which is outside

 

         21  the testimony?

 

         22                 MR. COLLINS: It could include the

 

         23  testimony.

 

         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Okay.

 

         25                 MR. COLLINS: Only I think there are

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            42

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  references and footnotes to the various witnesses at

 

          3  the various hearings.

 

          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Fair enough.

 

          5                 MR. COLLINS: So it's a fairly broad

 

          6  review, and the sources of your information can be

 

          7  varied.

 

          8                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Okay. Madam

 

          9  Chair, two questions. Two last questions.

 

         10                 I think I see an inconsistency in J

 

         11  hazardous materials and Q air quality, and correct

 

         12  me, please.

 

         13                 In J it says the action essentially

 

         14  involves activities principally in the interior of

 

         15  the subject of the buildings, therefore there is no

 

         16  further need to consider hazardous materials in

 

         17  exterior areas. Later on we talk about an air

 

         18  quality. The last sentence, this may result in the

 

         19  generation of more particle matter, but the increase

 

         20  cannot at this time be quantified.

 

         21                 Is there any inconsistency there?

 

         22                 MR. HABERMAN: I don't believe so. The

 

         23  discussion about particulate matter was directed at

 

         24  the work that would be performed in the interiors of

 

         25  the building, and so I don't believe that there is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            43

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  any inconsistency there.

 

          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: One last

 

          4  question, Madam Chair. How long did it take to write

 

          5  this document?

 

          6                 MR. HABERMAN: Over what period? Are

 

          7  you asking over what period of time? How many hours?

 

          8                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: From the first

 

          9  time a pen went to paper, give me an hour of

 

         10  actually writing, or give me a time period, I'll

 

         11  take both. Actual writing, time period of analyzing

 

         12  and putting it together.

 

         13                 MR. HABERMAN: Well, I didn't maintain

 

         14  a log.

 

         15                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Understood. An

 

         16  estimate.

 

         17                 MR. HABERMAN: An estimate? It was

 

         18  done over the course of weeks, I would say as the

 

         19  bill was evolved, and the bill went through many

 

         20  iterations, there were meetings, there were

 

         21  hearings, I couldn't tell you the first moment that

 

         22  I put finger to keyboard, but it was over a

 

         23  substantial period of time.

 

         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Gentlemen, thank

 

         25  you. I appreciate your professionalism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            44

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Did you get

 

          3  an answer?

 

          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: It took a long

 

          5  period of time, and the point of my asking that

 

          6  question is to reaffirm your initial point that we

 

          7  have a document that is a threshold issue, it was

 

          8  given to us at 4:00 in the afternoon, it's obviously

 

          9  very technical, but less than 18 hours later we're

 

         10  supposed to sit here and vote intelligently on the

 

         11  document. And as you can see from my questions,

 

         12  they're very technical and you can interpret it

 

         13  different ways, and I think it's quite disturbing

 

         14  and unnerving to have to vote on a document that

 

         15  took weeks to prepare with such short notice.

 

         16                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: I would just

 

         17  like to pursue that point a little bit. I know that

 

         18  you spent a lot of time on the bill itself, but I'm

 

         19  not so sure ‑‑ see, I have a different point of view

 

         20  than James. I'm not so sure that as much time was

 

         21  spent on the negative declaration. So, I think, you

 

         22  know, I think if you search your mind you could

 

         23  probably understand or decide or think about at what

 

         24  point you actually started working on this dec? Was

 

         25  it a week ago? Was it three days ago? I mean, on the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            45

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  actual document. Because anything that preceded that

 

          3  had to do with the legislation more than it did with

 

          4  this resolution. And the reason I'm asking this is,

 

          5  Councilman Oddo is kind of comparing that it took

 

          6  you such a long time, and you came up with this

 

          7  document, and we're asked to in 15 or 20 minutes to

 

          8  vote on it. My point is, I don't think enough time

 

          9  was spent on this document. And I think if more time

 

         10  had been spent we may be sitting here with a

 

         11  different result. So that's why I'm asking the

 

         12  question.

 

         13                 MR. HABERMAN: Again, I couldn't give

 

         14  you a precise time, but you also have to keep in

 

         15  mind that the nature of the analysis is such that

 

         16  one reads material, reads the testimony, hears the

 

         17  testimony, talks to people, and there's a period of

 

         18  time where one gathers information, gathers

 

         19  knowledge about the analysis, that's relevant to the

 

         20  analysis, without necessarily reducing that to

 

         21  writing.

 

         22                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: I'm not going

 

         23  to get my answer.

 

         24                 Okay, I would just like to answer a

 

         25  question for you, Council Member Oddo. You asked who

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            46

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  the person was that did the negative impact on Local

 

          3  Law 38? She is here, she's still employed, and it's

 

          4  Terzah Nasser.

 

          5                 Council Member Comrie.

 

          6                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: That last

 

          7  statement kind of answered part of my question. I

 

          8  was not aware that this Council itself had the

 

          9  authority to do environmental impact statements. Can

 

         10  you give me some briefing on how that authority is

 

         11  enacted and what that process is that the Council

 

         12  has an authority to do an environmental impact

 

         13  statement?

 

         14                 MR. HABERMAN: Well, let me backtrack.

 

         15  The Council has legal obligation when it enacts

 

         16  legislation to undertake an environmental analysis.

 

         17                 Article 8 of the State Environmental

 

         18  and Conservation Law and the regulations that were

 

         19  promulgated thereunder impose that legal obligation

 

         20  by defining local legislation as an action that

 

         21  requires the environmental examination.

 

         22                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: Is there a

 

         23  process or  a document that has to be submitted to

 

         24  the State or any environmental agency before it's

 

         25  submitted?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            47

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 MR. COLLINS: This determination, the

 

          3  negative declaration, and similarly, if it had been

 

          4  a positive declaration, the CEQR rules require that

 

          5  these documents be made available to the public and

 

          6  that they be circulated to the State DEC and a

 

          7  variety of other City/State agencies.

 

          8                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: And will any

 

          9  of those state agencies have a chance, did any of

 

         10  those state or City agencies have a chance to see

 

         11  this document, this present document, to voice an

 

         12  opinion on it one way or another?

 

         13                 MR. COLLINS: No, it's simply a

 

         14  distribution. It's not a public hearing requirement,

 

         15  it's not a comment period requirement similar that

 

         16  one would have if there was a full‑blown

 

         17  environmental review. It's a notice requirement.

 

         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: It's a notice

 

         19  requirement.

 

         20                 MR. COLLINS: Yes.

 

         21                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: So, in fact, a

 

         22  different agency could look at this document and

 

         23  come back with a different decision, or ‑‑

 

         24                 MR. COLLINS: It's not a decision.

 

         25  They could perhaps have a different opinion or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            48

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  express a view, but the obligation to conduct

 

          3  environmental review under the law is imposed upon

 

          4  what's called the lead agency, and for purposes of

 

          5  adoption of local laws, the lead agency is either

 

          6  City Council and/or the Mayor's Office, or the

 

          7  Council may, by giving notice to the Mayor's Office,

 

          8  assume lead agency status by itself, which is what

 

          9  the Council did with regard to this particular

 

         10  analysis.

 

         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: And in

 

         12  drafting this analysis, you said that it's, the word

 

         13  you used, this is an opinion, this is an opinion of

 

         14  the Council based on information that was presented

 

         15  to it?

 

         16                 MR. COLLINS: The law requires that

 

         17  certain categories of subject matter be analyzed,

 

         18  and the courts have required that that analysis be

 

         19  what they call reasonably elaborated, and that's a

 

         20  standard that probably, it's not all that clearly ‑‑

 

         21  it's not defined in the staff sheet, but I think if

 

         22  one reads the court cases, you will see whether or

 

         23  not the analysis has been sufficiently elaborate.

 

         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: And this was

 

         25  done by our standard template that is consistent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            49

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  among any agency or any authorizing body that would

 

          3  have ‑‑

 

          4                 MR. COLLINS: Yes.

 

          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: And it's done

 

          6  in whatever the scientific matter or specific matter

 

          7  or whatever those rules and regulations are?

 

          8                 MR. COLLINS: There is a technical

 

          9  manual that provides guidance toward the analysis of

 

         10  the subject matter in each of the categories.

 

         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: And does any

 

         12  part of that technical manual require actual

 

         13  scientific investigation, in order to bring about

 

         14  this analysis, or environmental, actual

 

         15  environmental investigations?

 

         16                 MR. HABERMAN: Some portions of it

 

         17  might. It depends on the analyses that you

 

         18  undertake, and the examination of the criteria that

 

         19  must be examined.

 

         20                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: Okay.

 

         21                 MS. BENJAMIN: Maybe I can provide a

 

         22  fuller answer to that.

 

         23                 My name is Gale Benjamin. I'm the

 

         24  Director of Land Use, but in my past life I was the

 

         25  Director for the City, along with City Planning of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            50

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  the City Environmental Quality Review.

 

          3                 The CEQR manual lays out a series of

 

          4  subject areas in which you must take a hard look,

 

          5  and it defines the way in which you take a hard

 

          6  look. If you take a hard look and you come to

 

          7  certain conclusions, you stop there. The CEQR manual

 

          8  determines there is no significant impact if you do

 

          9  not reach the thresholds, based on the analysis they

 

         10  suggest you do.

 

         11                 So, it is only if you exceed the

 

         12  threshold that you go on to the more detailed

 

         13  review.

 

         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: And what

 

         15  determines the threshold?

 

         16                 MS. BENJAMIN: The CEQR threshold lays

 

         17  out the threshold for each one of the review areas.

 

         18  Let's say in traffic it may say that if the action

 

         19  would not cause an increase of more than 20 cars in

 

         20  the peak hour, there is not going to be an impact

 

         21  and you just write it off.

 

         22                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: And that's

 

         23  tested by someone being in the field at a certain

 

         24  point?

 

         25                 MS. BENJAMIN: No, there are other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            51

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  technical manuals that the City uses and that the

 

          3  manual suggests in coming up with how many vehicles

 

          4  might be expected, if any.

 

          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: Okay.

 

          6                 MS. BENJAMIN: The highway capacity

 

          7  manual is one, and there were several others.

 

          8                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: In other

 

          9  words, this is compiled by looking at material and

 

         10  reviewing material as opposed to actual physical ‑‑

 

         11                 MS. BENJAMIN: That's correct.

 

         12  Generally it is only once, if you exceed the

 

         13  threshold, that you get into more involved reviews

 

         14  that might involve going out into the field and

 

         15  counting cars or putting noise monitors at

 

         16  locations. It's only once you exceed the thresholds

 

         17  that you get to that level of study.

 

         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: Madam Chair,

 

         19  I'll defer. I'll make a statement a little bit

 

         20  later.

 

         21                 I would agree with your statement and

 

         22  Councilman Oddo's statement, to determine, this kind

 

         23  of determination with this type of time creates

 

         24  unreadiness.

 

         25                 Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            52

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you.

 

          3                 Council Member Brewer.

 

          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: Thank you.

 

          5  This is my ignorance. My first question, and maybe

 

          6  you answered it, because we're going back and forth

 

          7  with General Welfare, and we were downstairs on

 

          8  General Welfare matters, is I'm so used to

 

          9  environmental impact statements regarding

 

         10  development, hard bricks and mortar.

 

         11                 I just want to understand, how are we

 

         12  fortunate to have this wonderful document based on

 

         13  this?

 

         14                 Is it because of the nature of the

 

         15  combination of forces in terms of the lead

 

         16  environment as an issue, and I just don't understand

 

         17  it. So somebody explain it.

 

         18                 MR. COLLINS: The environmental review

 

         19  that was undertaken with regard to the proposed

 

         20  legislation is the same as would be undertaken for a

 

         21  development project in your district, Council

 

         22  Member. The thresholds were not met, therefore, the

 

         23  full‑blown environmental impact statement is not

 

         24  triggered in this analysis.

 

         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: All right, I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            53

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  sort of understand that.

 

          3                 The other question I had was, in the

 

          4  beginning pages, there was a mention, when you're

 

          5  talking about J‑51 of some federal programs that may

 

          6  or may not have been used by the City of New York, I

 

          7  think it's on page three, and it talks about some

 

          8  HUD programs that make grants available; is that

 

          9  something that has been used, maybe not to its

 

         10  fullest potential?

 

         11                 MR. HABERMAN: It has been used, and

 

         12  HPD currently has an application pending for

 

         13  additional grant funding.

 

         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: Is that

 

         15  something that has been available in the past, but

 

         16  we don't know how much has been used but we know

 

         17  that it could help mitigate some of this concern

 

         18  about cost?

 

         19                 MR. HABERMAN: I don't recall precise

 

         20  numbers, but HPD has a grant application that I can

 

         21  make available to you.

 

         22                 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: Okay. All

 

         23  right.

 

         24                 And the other thing is, in here I'm

 

         25  sure that it's not that I have ‑‑ I read this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            54

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  quickly, but not completely, as I should have, is

 

          3  that does this document describe kind of the process

 

          4  that's involved?  If one is in a building where

 

          5  there are many windowsills, obviously one of the

 

          6  concerns of the agency and I guess the industry is

 

          7  the cost of maintaining a lead‑free environment;

 

          8  that's what seems to be one of the issues.

 

          9                 MR. HABERMAN: Well, the bill doesn't

 

         10  require a lead‑free environment, as did Local Law 1,

 

         11  it requires a lead‑safe environment.

 

         12                 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: So, a

 

         13  lead‑safe environment, and windowsills would be part

 

         14  of that in terms of what they could produce,

 

         15  correct?

 

         16                 MR. HABERMAN: Yes.

 

         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: All right.

 

         18                 So one of the claims, of course, is

 

         19  that this would be a bill in which there's not

 

         20  enough trained staff, and, you know, I'm one of

 

         21  these people who believes actually that sometimes

 

         22  pushing on deadlines is a good thing because that

 

         23  helps all of us. If we're pushing for deadlines that

 

         24  are perhaps faster than normal for inspections, that

 

         25  might help us with other ways in which there are

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            55

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  challenges, and the agencies would have to perform.

 

          3                 So that might help all people living

 

          4  in residential housing. But my question is, what in

 

          5  this document talks about some ways in which the

 

          6  challenges of time and maintaining a safe

 

          7  environment can be met?

 

          8                 MR. HABERMAN: Well, the discussion in

 

          9  the public health section is a discussion of

 

         10  proposed Intro. No. 101‑A as compared to Local Law

 

         11  1, in terms of what work has to be done, the work

 

         12  practices that have to be maintained, and I think

 

         13  that addresses your question.

 

         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: Okay. And does

 

         15  that sort of indicate that there are ways in which

 

         16  they could be done that are not particularly

 

         17  onerous, despite what we heard from testimony from

 

         18  the industry?

 

         19                 MR. HABERMAN: There are depending on

 

         20  the circumstances of the work being done, there are

 

         21  a variety of mechanisms that will be employed to

 

         22  conduct the work. It depends on the size of the

 

         23  work, there are different training requirements for

 

         24  the workers who perform the work, in part depending

 

         25  on the size of the work, that has been left

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            56

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  principally to agency rule‑making but with guidance

 

          3  in the statute to the agencies, and I think that the

 

          4  bill accommodates those concerns.

 

          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: Okay, thank

 

          6  you very much.

 

          7                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Do we have

 

          8  any other questions? No. Then we should be able to

 

          9  take a vote on this resolution, which is, we have to

 

         10  do the resolution first. I love when people ask

 

         11  what's the resolution?

 

         12                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Madam Chair?

 

         13                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

 

         14  Member Oddo.

 

         15                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: May I make a

 

         16  motion to introduce an amendment, actually two

 

         17  amendments to 101‑A?

 

         18                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Go right

 

         19  ahead.

 

         20                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: "The legal

 

         21  standards of liability this bill creates makes it

 

         22  easier to sue property owners, even highly

 

         23  responsible ones. This will jeopardize the ability

 

         24  to obtain the necessary proper liability insurance

 

         25  that all rehabilitation investors rely upon,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            57

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  expanding the liability to presume that all pre‑1960

 

          3  buildings have lead paint for purposes of tort law

 

          4  would, we believe, be interpreted by insurers as

 

          5  providing too fertile a ground for endless

 

          6  litigation. We believe that this is unnecessary and

 

          7  counterproductive."

 

          8                 That is not my language. That is the

 

          9  language of Michael Lappin, who is the President of

 

         10  a not‑for‑profit community preservation corporation.

 

         11                 "To the extent that Intro. 101‑A

 

         12  will make the rehabilitation process harder, it is

 

         13  likely to slow the process of making our City lead

 

         14  safe." Again, not my language. That is the language

 

         15  of the Commissioner of HPD Jerilyn Perine.

 

         16                 I would like to place on the floor an

 

         17  amendment of subdivision A of Section 27‑2056.5 so

 

         18  that it would read, "in any multiple dwelling

 

         19  erected prior to January 1, 1960, it shall be

 

         20  presumed that the paint or other similar surface

 

         21  coating material in any dwelling unit where a child

 

         22  of applicable age resides or in the common areas is

 

         23  lead‑based paint solely for the purpose of this

 

         24  article. The presumption established by this section

 

         25  may be rebutted by the owner of a dwelling, or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            58

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  dwelling unit by submitting to the Department a

 

          3  sworn written statement by the owner supported by

 

          4  lead‑based paint testing or sampling results. A

 

          5  sworn written statement by the person who performed

 

          6  the testing if performed by an employee or agent of

 

          7  the owner, and such other proof as the Department

 

          8  may require.

 

          9                 Testing performed to rebut the

 

         10  presumption may only be performed by a person who

 

         11  has been certified as an inspector or risk assessor

 

         12  in accordance of sub parts L and Q of Part 745 and

 

         13  Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or any

 

         14  successor regulations. The determination as to

 

         15  whether such proof is adequate to rebut the

 

         16  presumption established by this section shall be

 

         17  made by the Department."

 

         18                 That's the first one, and I believe

 

         19  it's been distributed, or will be distributed to the

 

         20  members of the Committee.

 

         21                 The second amendment that I'm putting

 

         22  forth would amend subdivision A of Section 27‑2056.4

 

         23  regarding the owner's responsibility to notify

 

         24  occupants and to investigate.

 

         25                 It would read: "In any dwelling unit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            59

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  in a multiple dwelling erected prior to January 1st,

 

          3  1963, where the owner had actual knowledge that a

 

          4  child of applicable age resides in any dwelling unit

 

          5  in a multiple dwelling on or after January 1st,

 

          6  1960, and before January 1st, 1978, where the owner

 

          7  has actual knowledge that a child a child of

 

          8  applicable age resides and the owner has actual

 

          9  knowledge of the presence of lead‑based paint, and

 

         10  in the common areas of such multiple dwellings, the

 

         11  owner shall cause an investigation to be made for

 

         12  peeling paint, chewable surfaces, deteriorated

 

         13  subsurfaces, friction surfaces and impact surfaces.

 

         14                 Such investigation shall be

 

         15  undertaken at least one year and more often if

 

         16  necessary, such as when in the exercise of

 

         17  reasonable care an owner actually knows" ‑‑ deleting

 

         18  "or should have known" ‑‑ "of a condition that is

 

         19  reasonably foreseeable to cause a lead‑based paint

 

         20  hazard, or an occupant makes a complaint concerning

 

         21  a condition that is likely to cause a lead‑based

 

         22  paint hazard or request an inspection where the

 

         23  Department issues a notice of violation or orders a

 

         24  correction of violation that is likely to cause a

 

         25  lead‑based paint hazard. The owner shall ascertain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            60

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  where the child resides therein pursuant to the

 

          3  requirements of this section."

 

          4                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

 

          5  Member Oddo, I've been informed that the amendment

 

          6  must ‑‑ you have to re‑read it, because we have to

 

          7  do it before we vote on the legislation.

 

          8                 We're going to vote on the negative

 

          9  dec now, since they claim that I already called it,

 

         10  we'll vote on that, then you could reintroduce the

 

         11  amendment before we vote, okay?

 

         12                 We're going to vote on the negative

 

         13  declaration. Apparently they seem to think those

 

         14  powers that are floating around in this room, that I

 

         15  already called the vote. So, we will be voting on

 

         16  the resolution which is preconsidered, so it doesn't

 

         17  have a number, but it's the resolution that,

 

         18  resolution finding that enactment of proposed Intro.

 

         19  No. 101‑A does not have a significant adverse impact

 

         20  on the environment, and it's consistent with the

 

         21  State Environmental Quality Review Act.

 

         22                 That is what we will be voting on.

 

         23  And after that, we can have Council Member Oddo once

 

         24  again introduce his amendment.

 

         25                 COUNCIL CLERK: Provenzano.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            61

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: After

 

          3  listening to the testimony given to us by our

 

          4  Council staff, which I pretty much have to go by,

 

          5  since I do admit I haven't read this enormous

 

          6  document, I've come up with several conclusions.

 

          7                 One is possibly that the template or

 

          8  the format that's used that ends up in this negative

 

          9  dec or positive dec should be revisited. Whoever the

 

         10  folks are that have set this up, I don't know when

 

         11  it was done, I don't know how many years ago, but

 

         12  maybe we need a different kind of format to follow

 

         13  when we do these things.

 

         14                 It appears to me that this whole

 

         15  negative dec is quite iffy, it's based on a lot of

 

         16  assumptions, and I think that something as important

 

         17  as this issue should be considered in a whole other

 

         18  way. I don't think they're anticipating problems

 

         19  that could occur, I don't know maybe they're not

 

         20  supposed to do that, but it appears to me that's not

 

         21  happening, and if this is the opinion of our New

 

         22  York City Council, I have a different opinion.

 

         23                 I vote no.

 

         24                 COUNCIL CLERK: Rivera.

 

         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA: I vote aye on

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            62

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  the resolution.

 

          3                 COUNCIL CLERK: Reyna.

 

          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: Aye on the

 

          5  resolution.

 

          6                 COUNCIL CLERK: Avella.

 

          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER AVELLA: Aye.

 

          8                 COUNCIL CLERK: Brewer.

 

          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: I vote aye,

 

         10  and I'm going to state parenthetically that I wish

 

         11  we had this kind of discussion on every bill that we

 

         12  vote on, I vote aye.

 

         13                 COUNCIL CLERK: Comrie.

 

         14                 (No response.)

 

         15                 COUNCIL CLERK: Fidler.

 

         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER FIDLER: Madam

 

         17  Chairwoman, may I be briefly excused to explain my

 

         18  vote?

 

         19                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Yes.

 

         20                 COUNCIL MEMBER FIDLER: I am also

 

         21  extremely troubled by getting a document that's

 

         22  longer than any term paper I had to write in college

 

         23  or law school. I got it this morning, and I think it

 

         24  raises extraordinarily weighty issues that I just

 

         25  don't fully feel that I'm conversant with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            63

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 Nonetheless, I understand even in a

 

          3  limited way that I do, the issue of needing either a

 

          4  negative dec or an EIS and then the process of

 

          5  amending bills that are on the floor, in some

 

          6  limited way, and I see this vote really as being one

 

          7  of process and not really of substance, because if

 

          8  we were looking at the substance of it I would be

 

          9  totally unequipped to vote.

 

         10                 I am one that does not elevate

 

         11  process over substance, and as unhappy as I am and

 

         12  as slighted as I feel in terms of having had an

 

         13  opportunity to truly read, reflect and understand

 

         14  this document. I am not going to elevate process

 

         15  over substance and so therefore I am going to vote

 

         16  yes. But I really think this is the kind of thing we

 

         17  need to avoid, and I think we are probably in ways

 

         18  that those who are strongly advocating for 101‑A

 

         19  have shot ourselves in the foot, because I am sure

 

         20  that whatever we do here and whatever we do on

 

         21  Monday will not be the end of this issue, and I'm

 

         22  sure others will look at what we did here, how we've

 

         23  done it, and whether or not we've done it in a

 

         24  proper way, with a very jaundiced aye.

 

         25                 Since we've been discussing 101‑A for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            64

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  the better part of the year, maybe longer, perhaps

 

          3  it would have been nice to have this document with

 

          4  an opportunity to discuss it and understand it much

 

          5  more fully, so therefore I vote yes with some

 

          6  reluctance.

 

          7                 COUNCIL CLERK: Jackson.

 

          8                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Aye.

 

          9                 COUNCIL CLERK: Katz.

 

         10                 COUNCIL MEMBER KATZ: Madam Chair, to

 

         11  explain my vote?

 

         12                 I just want to tag onto what

 

         13  Councilman Fidler said, I mean this is a matter of

 

         14  substance or procedure and the fact of the matter

 

         15  is, 101‑A has been around for an awfully long time,

 

         16  we have had briefings upon briefings. We have had

 

         17  diagnosis upon diagnosis and stat upon stat on this

 

         18  piece of legislation. It would have been nice to get

 

         19  this impact statement or this document earlier than

 

         20  last night, yes. But I am pretty convinced that most

 

         21  of the questions that I had on the topic had been

 

         22  answered really before today, and on that note, I

 

         23  will vote aye.

 

         24                 COUNCIL CLERK: Stewart.

 

         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART: Madam Chair,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            65

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  can I be excused to explain my vote.

 

          3                 I feel that we have been given a rush

 

          4  job. I feel at this last moment to be given

 

          5  information that is incomplete and having to make a

 

          6  decision, I think something smells and it doesn't

 

          7  smell good.

 

          8                 And with that in mind, I abstain from

 

          9  voting, Madam Chair. Because until we can get

 

         10  clearcut information that would lead us one way or

 

         11  the other, that will make us do the things that lead

 

         12  us to the best interest of the children of the City

 

         13  of New York, I think we are doing the wrong thing. I

 

         14  think what we need to do is take some more time,

 

         15  include all the players and come up with a bill and

 

         16  an understanding that will affect in a positive way

 

         17  the children of New York.

 

         18                 Why should it be that one has to lose

 

         19  and the other has to win? Why can't we have a

 

         20  win/win situation? Why is it that some people are

 

         21  being left out in the negotiation? Why is it that we

 

         22  go down this road and have animosity among

 

         23  ourselves.

 

         24                 I think it's important that whatever

 

         25  bill they whatever bill we create, a bill that will

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            66

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  affect in a positive way, a bill that assists in a

 

          3  positive way everyone. With that in mind, I will

 

          4  abstain from voting.

 

          5                 COUNCIL CLERK: Oddo.

 

          6                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Just a

 

          7  moment. You do realize that we're voting on the

 

          8  resolution, we're not voting on the bill?

 

          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART: But at the

 

         10  same time, Madam Chair, I feel I need more time to

 

         11  assess on this resolution, based on what the

 

         12  witnesses were saying awhile ago. We need to get

 

         13  more information.

 

         14                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay. Thank

 

         15  you.

 

         16                 COUNCIL CLERK: Oddo.

 

         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: May I be

 

         18  temporarily excused to explain my vote?

 

         19                 Let me just start out by saying that

 

         20  I appreciate the testimony of the two witnesses, and

 

         21  I appreciate the fact that they said that hours and

 

         22  weeks went into this document, but from where I sit,

 

         23  from day one we reached a conclusion, and we've been

 

         24  working backwards. The cart here was the negative

 

         25  dec, and the horse were the facts that should

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            67

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  determine whether we have a negative dec or not, and

 

          3  it's clear to me that the cart was put before the

 

          4  horse, and, therefore, I vote no.

 

          5                 COUNCIL CLERK: Comrie.

 

          6                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: Madam Chair,

 

          7  may I be excused to explain my vote?

 

          8                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Yes.

 

          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: Just because

 

         10  we have the ability to make things happen, does not

 

         11  mean that we should exclude every opportunity to

 

         12  make things right.

 

         13                 Just because we have numbers doesn't

 

         14  mean that we should ignore consensus. Just because

 

         15  we have opportunity doesn't mean that we shouldn't

 

         16  make difficult discussions open and honest and

 

         17  difficult.

 

         18                 Now, clearly, this is an issue that

 

         19  is going to affect us, not just today but throughout

 

         20  our entire, throughout our entire days, as long as

 

         21  we're residents of New York, and the things that we

 

         22  do in the Council have to reflect on the integrity

 

         23  of this body.

 

         24                 Clearly, children are being affected

 

         25  by lead poisoning in the City. Clearly, from what

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            68

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  I've read, it is not only happening from buildings

 

          3  that had been built prior to 1960, just coming from

 

          4  other sources. We have responsibilities as effective

 

          5  and honest legislators to do everything we can to

 

          6  make sure that this City has an opportunity to grow,

 

          7  to develop, to be the best City in the world, to be

 

          8  a City that we can all be proud of and to be a place

 

          9  in this body that this body can all be proud of.

 

         10                 I think that we've done a lot of work

 

         11  on Intro. 101. I know I've done as much as I could

 

         12  to try to articulate within the body and within the

 

         13  conditions and issues that I think are prevalent and

 

         14  the things that need to be doned to fix and make

 

         15  this bill something that the City could be ‑‑ and

 

         16  nobody is going to ever be comfortable with any lead

 

         17  bill, let's be clear on that, or one issue or the

 

         18  other. But at the certain point when we don't have

 

         19  the Sierra Club doing lead paint abatement, or these

 

         20  other policy wonks doing the actual work, we still

 

         21  have to understand that this City has to work. This

 

         22  City has to be able to do things in a manner that we

 

         23  all can be comfortable with, or we can all identify

 

         24  what the actual problems are, but it makes it easier

 

         25  for the City to do what's necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            69

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 But in the fact that we have a

 

          3  problem, and an endemic problem where we have two

 

          4  pieces of legislation, none of which anybody knows

 

          5  is the law, if we do Local Law 1 or Local Law 38,

 

          6  there's a real problem with what the agencies use as

 

          7  a template, there's a real problem with what people

 

          8  use as a template, this is what we have today after

 

          9  a lot of discussions and a lot of arguments back and

 

         10  forth.

 

         11                 I feel that at this point, and

 

         12  because of this, the issues in my community and the

 

         13  high lead in my community, my community has to have

 

         14  at least a template to work from, and they have to

 

         15  have a bill that they can work from.

 

         16                 I hope that this does not end the

 

         17  opportunities for people to do what's necessary to

 

         18  protect children. That this is not an opportunity

 

         19  for people to do what's necessary to make the City

 

         20  the City that it should be. And therefore, I vote

 

         21  yes on this bill.

 

         22                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

 

         23  Member Comrie, we're not voting on the bill, we're

 

         24  voting on the reso; is that what you're voting on?

 

         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: On the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            70

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  environmental reso.

 

          3                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay.

 

          4                 COUNCIL CLERK: By a vote of eight in

 

          5  the affirmative, two in the negative and one

 

          6  abstention, the item is adopted.

 

          7                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

 

          8  Member Oddo. You may reintroduce.

 

          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Madam Chair,

 

         10  once again I would like to make a motion to amend

 

         11  101‑A.

 

         12                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Yes. Do we

 

         13  need a second for that? Do we have a second?

 

         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART: I second

 

         15  that.

 

         16                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

 

         17  Member Kendall Stewart seconds the amendment.

 

         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: For the sake of

 

         19  all of our sanities, I won't reread the comments by

 

         20  Michael Lappin or Jerilyn Perine, I'll get into the

 

         21  text of the amendments.

 

         22                 The first one again is an amendment

 

         23  to subdivision A of Section 27‑2056.5 regarding the

 

         24  presumption, and it reads:  "In any multiple

 

         25  dwelling erected prior to January 1, 1960, it shall

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            71

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  be presumed that the paint or other similar surface

 

          3  coating material in any dwelling unit where a child

 

          4  of applicable age resides or in the common areas is

 

          5  lead‑based paint solely for the purpose of this

 

          6  article. The presumption established by this section

 

          7  may be rebutted by the owner of the dwelling or

 

          8  dwelling unit by submitting to the Department a

 

          9  sworn written statement by the owner supported by

 

         10  lead‑based testing of sampling results, a sworn

 

         11  written statement by the person who performed the

 

         12  testing, if performed by an employee or agent of the

 

         13  owner, and such other proof as the Department may

 

         14  require. Testing performed to rebut the presumption

 

         15  may only be performed by a person who has been

 

         16  certified as an inspector or risk assessor in

 

         17  accordance with sub parts L and Q of part 745 of

 

         18  Title 40 of the code, of federal regulations or any

 

         19  successor regulations. The determination as to

 

         20  whether such proof is adequate to rebut the

 

         21  presumption established by this section shall be

 

         22  made by the Department." That's the first one.

 

         23                 The second one is an amendment of

 

         24  Subdivision A of Section 27‑2056.4 regarding owner's

 

         25  responsibility to notify occupants and to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            72

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  investigate and it reads: "In any dwelling unit, in

 

          3  a multiple dwelling, a record prior to January 1st,

 

          4  1960, where the owner has actual knowledge that a

 

          5  child of applicable age resides in any dwelling

 

          6  unit, in a multiple dwelling erected on or after

 

          7  January 1st, 1960 and before January 1st, 1978,

 

          8  where the owner has actual knowledge that a child of

 

          9  applicable age resides, and the owner has actual

 

         10  knowledge of the presence of lead‑based paint, and

 

         11  in common areas of such multiple dwellings, the

 

         12  owner shall cause an investigation to be made for

 

         13  peeling paint, chewable surfaces, deterioriated

 

         14  subsurfaces, friction surfaces and impact surfaces.

 

         15  Such investigation shall be undertaken at least once

 

         16  a year and more often, if necessary, such as when in

 

         17  the exercise of reasonable care an owner actually

 

         18  knows ‑‑ delete "or should have known" ‑‑ of a

 

         19  condition that is reasonably foreseeable to cause a

 

         20  lead‑based paint hazard or an occupant makes a

 

         21  complaint concerning a condition that is likely to

 

         22  cause a lead‑based paint hazard or requests an

 

         23  inspection, or the Department issues a notice of

 

         24  violation or orders correction of a violation that

 

         25  is likely to cause a lead‑based paint hazard. The

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            73

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  owner shall ascertain whether a child resides

 

          3  therein pursuant to the requirements of this

 

          4  section."

 

          5                 I could read it again if anyone would

 

          6  like.

 

          7                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: No.

 

          8                 Excuse me, Council Member Oddo. Can

 

          9  you unlegal‑ease this for us?

 

         10                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Yes.

 

         11                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Put it in

 

         12  common language for those of us that ‑‑ for us

 

         13  common folk?

 

         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: The first

 

         15  presumption says that there should be a presumption

 

         16  to be used as a trigger for enforcement, not to

 

         17  extend the presumption to liability. It essentially

 

         18  says what we had in Local Law 38. I'm concerned

 

         19  about the liability and opening up to all kinds of

 

         20  cases, frivolous cases, the liability of property

 

         21  owners, and the liability of the City.

 

         22                 The second amendment mandates that

 

         23  there's actual notice for the landlord, so that the

 

         24  landlord has actual notice that there's a child of

 

         25  applicable age in the apartment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            74

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 Common sense changes, I submit.

 

          3                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

 

          4  Member Brewer, now we can ask questions of Council

 

          5  Member Oddo, that is Council members in the

 

          6  Committee. We cannot take questions from the

 

          7  audience.

 

          8                 Council Member Brewer, you had

 

          9  questions?

 

         10                 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: First of all,

 

         11  I respect the fact that Council Member Oddo always

 

         12  does his homework, not just on this issue. Very

 

         13  impressive.

 

         14                 The question, it seems to me, the

 

         15  first one, presumption, like you said is Local Law

 

         16  38, wasn't that thrown out by the courts?

 

         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: No, Local Law 38

 

         18  was thrown out because of an inefficient, or an

 

         19  improper EIS, and I have the feeling that within a

 

         20  year from now there will be deja vu all over again,

 

         21  and there will be another court that will say that

 

         22  there's insufficient environmental assessment,

 

         23  that's why I voted no on the previous resolution.

 

         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: Okay. And then

 

         25  in terms of the second one, I think the notion of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            75

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  it's hard to ‑‑ it sort of guts the presumption

 

          3  because it is very hard to prove things that a child

 

          4  is living there some time; is that something that

 

          5  we'd be able to figure out some way to make sure

 

          6  that that fact was known?

 

          7                 We've had this discussion I think on

 

          8  many other aspects of apartments. It's an ongoing

 

          9  issue between landlords and tenants as to what

 

         10  exactly is going on in an apartment because

 

         11  residences change, situations change, people tell

 

         12  the truth, people lie, owners do the same. So, I was

 

         13  just wondering, how would this be actually carried

 

         14  out?

 

         15                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Council Member,

 

         16  I appreciate the work that you've done in other

 

         17  areas in this, and I share your sentiment that we

 

         18  want to hold property owners responsible, and my

 

         19  concern is we want to make sure that they in fact

 

         20  have the information and are put on proper notice.

 

         21  And I believe that once they're on proper notice,

 

         22  then we should hold them to the highest standards

 

         23  possible. I'm just concerned that as the bill was

 

         24  written, we leave this gaping hole open, and I just

 

         25  think that we should craft a bill that says when

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            76

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  you're properly notified, there's certain things we

 

          3  expect from you, and that's why I submitted the

 

          4  language.

 

          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: Okay, thank

 

          6  you.

 

          7                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

 

          8  Member Avella.

 

          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER AVELLA: I actually

 

         10  have a procedural question, in terms of voting on

 

         11  Council Member Oddo's amendment.

 

         12                 Should the Committee vote in favor of

 

         13  the amendments, what happens then to the vote on the

 

         14  actual bill?

 

         15                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

 

         16  Member Oddo, can you respond to that?

 

         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Well, I think

 

         18  Counsel should respond to it, but clearly the cure

 

         19  time changes so you won't be able to vote on an

 

         20  amended bill on the 15th without a message of

 

         21  necessity from the Administration, and, frankly, I

 

         22  don't know what the Administration is doing on this,

 

         23  so I don't know if a message of necessity would be

 

         24  forthcoming. So, you'd have to wait a longer period

 

         25  of time before the full Council could vote on the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            77

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  bill, but certainly enough time within this

 

          3  legislative year.

 

          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER AVELLA: So, did I hear

 

          5  correct that in effect if we vote in favor of these

 

          6  amendments, we cannot vote on the whole bill today,

 

          7  it is theoretically possible that this bill will

 

          8  then die this session?

 

          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: No, Tony, I'm

 

         10  sorry. The Committee can vote today. I'm saying a

 

         11  period of time that the bill has to cure once

 

         12  amended when it goes from Committee to full Council,

 

         13  that's the only delay.

 

         14                 The Council, this Housing and

 

         15  Buildings Committee can certainly vote on this bill

 

         16  today, we would wait eight days or whatever it is

 

         17  and then the full Council could vote before December

 

         18  is out.

 

         19                 COUNCIL MEMBER AVELLA: Can we get an

 

         20  official interpretation from Counsel?

 

         21                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Yes. Do you

 

         22  want to say it on the record, please?

 

         23                 Introduce yourself.

 

         24                 MR. DAMASHEK: Deputy General Counsel

 

         25  to the Council.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            78

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 The bill would have to lay over

 

          3  another eight days, and I don't believe there are

 

          4  any more Stated Council Meetings before the end of

 

          5  the year, and it will die.

 

          6                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Unlike other

 

          7  legislative bodies that go out of session and hide

 

          8  wherever they live, this body can come into session

 

          9  any time later on in December. Can't we call a

 

         10  Stated Council Meeting?

 

         11                 MR. DAMASHEK: Right. But at the

 

         12  moment there are no ‑‑

 

         13                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: We can call it

 

         14  at my house, we can call it ‑‑

 

         15                 MR. DAMASHEK: There are no Stated

 

         16  Council Meetings after December 15th.

 

         17                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Does that

 

         18  answer your question?

 

         19                 COUNCIL MEMBER AVELLA: That

 

         20  completely answers my question.

 

         21                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay.

 

         22                 Council Member Jackson.

 

         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Thank you,

 

         24  Madam Chair.

 

         25                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            79

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Would passing

 

          3  this amendment with respect to either amendments, I

 

          4  think, Jim, you indicated, would it take away the

 

          5  presumption for enforcement of Intro. 101? I mean,

 

          6  because my understanding, there are certain

 

          7  triggers, once as a presumption that HPD and the

 

          8  Department of Health triggers into safeguarding the

 

          9  presumption that there's lead paint, and in essence

 

         10  possibly saving children from being lead poisoned

 

         11  and brain damaged; is that correct?

 

         12                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Robert, first

 

         13  let me say I guess this is what Carol Robles‑Roman

 

         14  feels like. That was a joke from yesterday's

 

         15  hearing.

 

         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Jim, I didn't

 

         17  hear what you said.

 

         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: I said, I guess

 

         19  this is what Carol Robles‑Roman felt like yesterday

 

         20  while questioning.

 

         21                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: I wasn't here

 

         22  yesterday.

 

         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: No, that's all

 

         24  right. It's an inside joke anyway.

 

         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: That's why I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            80

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  missed it, I guess.

 

          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: It's a very good

 

          4  question, Bob. And, no, this does not take away the

 

          5  presumption, in terms of being that trigger for

 

          6  enforcement, we're simply adding the language so

 

          7  that this article applies, this language, this

 

          8  presumption applies solely to the enforcement. The

 

          9  presumption will still exist as it should in terms

 

         10  of being the trigger for enforcement for HPD, it

 

         11  just limits it to the enforcement and doesn't extend

 

         12  it to the liability issue.

 

         13                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: But this

 

         14  doesn't talk about the liability issue. It doesn't

 

         15  say anything about liability in here, Jim. In

 

         16  summarizing this in plain simple language, you refer

 

         17  to enforcement, and now you're saying that this

 

         18  would, I guess, be the limit and/or take away the

 

         19  liability issue, but I don't see liability issue

 

         20  mentioned at all in the amendment.

 

         21                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: So that the bill

 

         22  would read that the presumption exists, there would

 

         23  be no language to extending the presumption to

 

         24  liability. The language within the bill would speak

 

         25  of a presumption solely as a trigger for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            81

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  enforcement.

 

          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Well, my

 

          4  second question is that, if in fact, and I don't

 

          5  know whether or not you can answer or somebody else

 

          6  from staff, if in fact these amendments were passed

 

          7  by this Committee, must then, based on the

 

          8  amendments, a new negative declaration be submitted

 

          9  to the Council as a result of the proposed changes

 

         10  that you would like to see put forward?

 

         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: That's a

 

         12  question that Council staff should answer.

 

         13                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Terzah.

 

         14                 MS. NASSER: Terzah Nasser, Counsel to

 

         15  the Committee. Technically the answer would be yes,

 

         16  because you are changing the bill. The bill is a

 

         17  part of the environmental assessment. If you are

 

         18  changing the provisions to the bill, then one would

 

         19  have to review the environmental assessment to see

 

         20  if it's still deemed adequate and if the answer is

 

         21  still appropriate.

 

         22                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you.

 

         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: So, from a

 

         24  process point of view, from a timing point of view,

 

         25  based on the previous questions asked by my

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            82

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  colleague Avella, this would then, also this time

 

          3  frame that it is now scheduled, am I correct in that

 

          4  assumption?

 

          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Bob, are you

 

          6  still addressing me?

 

          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: I guess I was

 

          8  addressing staff more so, Jim.

 

          9                 MR. NASSER: Terzah Nasser. Correct,

 

         10  sir.

 

         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay.

 

         12                 Now, Jim, with respect to, and I

 

         13  guess you and my colleagues were here before I was

 

         14  with respect to Local Law 38 being thrown out by the

 

         15  courts, as my understanding and now, since that was

 

         16  totally thrown out, is Local Law 1 in place as we

 

         17  stand right now?

 

         18                 Can I get a definitive answer on

 

         19  that? If someone can.

 

         20                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Terzah.

 

         21                 MS. NASSER: Terzah Nasser, Counsel to

 

         22  the Committee.

 

         23                 Local Law 38 was basically thrown out

 

         24  by the courts, as you said. And at this point in

 

         25  time, Local Law 1 was revived.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            83

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: I'm sorry,

 

          3  Local?

 

          4                 MS. NASSER: Local Law 1 of 1982.

 

          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Was what?

 

          6                 MS. NASSER: Was revived.

 

          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay.

 

          8                 So, in essence, since Local Law 38

 

          9  was thrown out by the courts, we are operating under

 

         10  Local Law 1; is that correct?

 

         11                 MS. NASSER: That is correct.

 

         12                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay.

 

         13                 MS. NASSER: Though at the same token,

 

         14  because the rules pursuant to Local Law 1 were never

 

         15  promulgated by the agencies, there are no rules

 

         16  right now in effect for Local Law 1. So, though the

 

         17  letter of the law may have been or is revived, there

 

         18  are no teeth to the law. People do not know what to

 

         19  do right now because there are not rules.

 

         20                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Going back to

 

         21  I guess 27‑2056.4, Jim, in looking at the text, you

 

         22  bold, it says in the third line, it says, "the owner

 

         23  has actual knowledge that..."

 

         24                 Well, what do you mean by the owner

 

         25  has actual knowledge?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            84

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 Is it the agent of the owner, the

 

          3  superintendent, the building manager, or his staff

 

          4  or the actual owner, him or herself, or what if the

 

          5  owner is a corporation? Because you bold and

 

          6  underline that, and I'm not counsel, I'm not an

 

          7  attorney at law, in my reading the owner has to have

 

          8  actual knowledge. So, I'm just trying to get an

 

          9  explanation of what does that mean.

 

         10                 Does it mean what it reads?

 

         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Yes, a couple of

 

         12  things. First of all, a couple of things: One, the

 

         13  fact that it's underlined in bold is to let you know

 

         14  that's new language that's being put in.

 

         15                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay.

 

         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: All right?

 

         17  That's the reason for the emphasis.

 

         18                 And it is with the extent of what the

 

         19  words are, it's actual knowledge, not constructive

 

         20  knowledge, and as you see later on it deletes the

 

         21  phrase "should have known." It is what the language

 

         22  says it is, actual knowledge.

 

         23                 Bob, if I may say one other thing?

 

         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Yes.

 

         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: If I could jump

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            85

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  back to the question that Terzah answered about what

 

          3  law is in place, I just want the record to reflect

 

          4  that one of the very first ‑‑ well, not one of the

 

          5  very first hearings, but the hearing that

 

          6  Commissioner Frieden testified and the Speaker, is

 

          7  that the Speaker and Commissioner Frieden had a very

 

          8  interesting exchange where it was about really and

 

          9  not really where the Speaker said, well, Local Law 1

 

         10  is in effect, and Commissioner Frieden said, well,

 

         11  not really, and the Speaker said really. So that I

 

         12  think there is some outstanding questions as to

 

         13  exactly what law is being applied and I have to

 

         14  stress again as Terzah said, there are no

 

         15  promulgated rules for Local Law 1, so it's hard to

 

         16  say that Local Law 1 rules is the standard when

 

         17  there are no promulgated rules.

 

         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay, so they

 

         19  had that discussion and opinion, but if Local Law 38

 

         20  was thrown out by the courts, and it replaced Local

 

         21  Law 1, as you say, it may be in place, but there are

 

         22  no rules to implement Local Law 1, is that correct?

 

         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: I think one of

 

         24  the reasons why Local Law 38 came to rise is because

 

         25  people realized that actually promulgating rules on

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            86

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  Local Law 1 was a very difficult task.

 

          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: And if I can

 

          4  get an opinion from anyone here, either staff or a

 

          5  Council member, would then by implementing Local Law

 

          6  101‑A, will it have procedures and rules in there

 

          7  for the agencies to follow?

 

          8                 Can I get an answer, please?

 

          9                 MR. HABERMAN: The answer is yes,

 

         10  Intro. 101 ‑‑ oh, I'm sorry, my name is Jeffrey

 

         11  Haberman, I'm Counsel and Deputy Director of the

 

         12  Infrastructure Division of the Council.

 

         13                 Proposed Intro. No. 101‑A requires

 

         14  that HPD make rules for conducting work, but also

 

         15  contains guidance to HPD, it requires that certain

 

         16  requirements be met. It's such as depending on,

 

         17  workers have to be properly trained for the line of

 

         18  work that's being done, dust testing has to be done,

 

         19  and clearances have to be met before the work is

 

         20  considered completed. Local Law 38 did not have

 

         21  that, Local Law 1 does not have that, and the courts

 

         22  have directed HPD to take steps to enforce Local Law

 

         23  1 because they didn't.

 

         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: You're Deputy

 

         25  Director to the Council; is that correct?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            87

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 MR. HABERMAN: To the Infrastructure

 

          3  Division.

 

          4                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: If we, in

 

          5  fact, pass these amendments, will that have a

 

          6  negative impact on Local Law 101 with respects to

 

          7  enforcement and implementation of the rules that are

 

          8  contained within Local Law 101‑A, in your opinion,

 

          9  as counsel to our Committee?

 

         10                 MR. HABERMAN: It would change the

 

         11  equation, yes. And I think Intro. 101‑A would not be

 

         12  as effective a piece of legislation.

 

         13                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: I'm sorry.

 

         14  Just, can you speak up a little louder? I'm a little

 

         15  hard of hearing.

 

         16                 MR. HABERMAN: I'm sorry, I believe it

 

         17  would change the equation and I don't believe that

 

         18  Local Law ‑‑ Intro. 101‑A would be as effective a

 

         19  piece of legislation.

 

         20                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay, thank

 

         21  you, Madam Chair. That's all for now.

 

         22                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Robert, may I

 

         23  just add one thing? Council Member Jackson?

 

         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Sure. Sure.

 

         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: As I said

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            88

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  earlier, I've worked with Jeff for 12 years and I

 

          3  respect him but that's his opinion; and, two, if I

 

          4  may just amplify on your question about ‑‑

 

          5                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: You read my

 

          6  mind.

 

          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Thank you.

 

          8                 To amplify on the response I gave you

 

          9  on actual notice, actually telling the owner there

 

         10  is a child or filling out the actual form,

 

         11  submitting it to the owner, that there's a form that

 

         12  states that there is a child of this age.

 

         13                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: You mean the

 

         14  one that's attached to the lease of agreement, like

 

         15  the bars across the window, correct?

 

         16                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Window guard.

 

         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Window guard.

 

         18  Thank you.

 

         19                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

 

         20  Member Reyna.

 

         21                 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: Thank you,

 

         22  Madam Chair.

 

         23                 Council Member Oddo, you had

 

         24  mentioned that you've been in touch with I believe

 

         25  someone representing the Community Neighborhood

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            89

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  Preservation Corporation?

 

          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Yes. Michael

 

          4  Lappin testified at the last, or two of the last

 

          5  three hearings. He was one of the folks who came in

 

          6  on Friday and because of the snow didn't get to

 

          7  testify, and then he testified, was it yesterday or?

 

          8  I'm losing track of the days. Was it yesterday or

 

          9  the day before? Wednesday.

 

         10                 And he testified about his concerns

 

         11  of specifically the insurance and the liability

 

         12  issue, the chilling effect he believed 101‑A would

 

         13  have on construction of affordable housing, and for

 

         14  the record, he is the president of a not‑for‑profit,

 

         15  he's not a residential property owner.

 

         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: But he wasn't

 

         17  speaking on behalf of all entities?

 

         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: No. He actually

 

         19  in his testimony, he listed out Bill Frey and Debbie

 

         20  Wright and Denise Scott, folks from various banks

 

         21  and various other organizations.

 

         22                 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: And he never in

 

         23  his testimony opposed the law in its entirety, he

 

         24  raised concerns.

 

         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: And neither do I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            90

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  oppose the law. I happen to think there are good

 

          3  provisions of the bill. The amendment doesn't look

 

          4  to do away with the entire law, it speaks to the

 

          5  presumption issue and that's precisely the testimony

 

          6  that Mr. Lappin spoke to.

 

          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: And I'm torn

 

          8  between the fact that right now, if I can remind

 

          9  this Committee, that we are following Local Law 1,

 

         10  since Local Law 38 have been thrown out, and not

 

         11  recognized in the City of New York. Therefore, the

 

         12  presumption has been there since then; is that

 

         13  correct?

 

         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Well, I would

 

         15  disagree and say that it's tough to say Local Law 1

 

         16  is in effect when there are no rules promulgated for

 

         17  it.

 

         18                 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: But it is in

 

         19  effect?

 

         20                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: But I would say

 

         21  a lot of the, probably the insurance policies, were

 

         22  obtained during Local Law 38 under a different

 

         23  presumption. I think once you go back to Local Law

 

         24  1, I think the argument that they've made is that it

 

         25  will now be difficult to get insurance, and I think

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            91

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  there are consequences that follow from that.

 

          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: But if the

 

          4  issue is insurance policy, then we would be

 

          5  experiencing those troubles right now.

 

          6                 I just wanted to make it clear, that

 

          7  if there was a real liability issue, we would have

 

          8  heard by now from more than just a few testimonies

 

          9  about policies being dropped.

 

         10                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: You were

 

         11  there.

 

         12                 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: But they didn't

 

         13  say they dropped, they were dropping clients.

 

         14                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: We did hear

 

         15  such testimony and you were there. I mean, there

 

         16  were folks that came up that said they actually at

 

         17  this point in time do not have lead insurance, and

 

         18  they foresaw that things would only get worse. There

 

         19  were several folks that testified to Wednesday to

 

         20  that effect.

 

         21                 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: There has never

 

         22  been lead insurance.

 

         23                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Of course

 

         24  there has.

 

         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: There has been?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            92

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Yes. Remember

 

          3  they were trying to say that it was the twin towers

 

          4  and terrorist attack that had the impact on it, and

 

          5  then other folks were saying that they had lead

 

          6  insurance and they were dropped, or the premium was

 

          7  so high that they couldn't possibly afford it?

 

          8                 You even questioned some of these

 

          9  people. Yes, okay.

 

         10                 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: No, I

 

         11  understand that. But Local Law 1 existed, Local Law

 

         12  38 existed, now we're going into Local Law 101‑A.

 

         13  All this time no one has ever been interested in

 

         14  lead.

 

         15                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: James, would

 

         16  you like to address that?

 

         17                 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: In lead, in

 

         18  lead insurance.

 

         19                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: In the

 

         20  insurance, no one has even been interested in it,

 

         21  and it's because of the ‑‑ I mean, it relates to the

 

         22  presumption issue.

 

         23                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: I guess when you

 

         24  have insurance you're not thinking about it. When

 

         25  there's the threat of not having it, is when you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            93

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  think about it.

 

          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: All right.

 

          4  Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

 

          5                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

 

          6  Member Vallone.

 

          7                 COUNCIL MEMBER VALLONE: Thank you,

 

          8  Madam Chair.

 

          9                 Council Member Oddo, let me commend

 

         10  you for your amendments and for the hard work that

 

         11  goes behind these amendments. People don't realize

 

         12  how much work this actually is and you've done it

 

         13  all.

 

         14                 People need to remember that Local

 

         15  Law 38 was a hugely successful law which lead to a

 

         16  30 to 40 percent reduction in lead paint poisoning

 

         17  cases.

 

         18                 People also need to remember that the

 

         19  trial attorneys vehemently opposed that law, which

 

         20  was a good law. They're in favor of this law and

 

         21  need to ask why.

 

         22                 Council Member Oddo, I'm also a

 

         23  former trial attorney so I understand the

 

         24  presumption, so I'm not going to ask you a specific

 

         25  question on that, but I would just like to say that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            94

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  I think that this presumption is just a big gift to

 

          3  the trial attorneys, a big Christmas gift, and has

 

          4  no business being in this law.

 

          5                 It will force landlords who have done

 

          6  nothing wrong to spend $100,000 to defend the case

 

          7  or be extorted. It will end insurance for homeowners

 

          8  and it will hurt affordable housing.

 

          9                 There are so many aspects of this new

 

         10  law, which are improvements on Local Law 30, in

 

         11  which I commend Bill Perkins and this entire

 

         12  Committee, especially Councilwoman Provenzano, for

 

         13  attempting to enact, such as recognizing lead dust

 

         14  as a hazard.

 

         15                 There are so many good aspects of

 

         16  this law. This presumption does not need to be here.

 

         17  I'm a former trial attorney, I know exactly what

 

         18  it's going to result in, and I urge the Committee

 

         19  members to adopt Council Member Oddo's amendment.

 

         20                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Madam Chair, may

 

         21  I just respond briefly?

 

         22                 Council Member Vallone, thank you for

 

         23  that, and let me just say that I have it written in

 

         24  my notes, it was one of the property owners, I'm not

 

         25  sure who said it, but he said this bill should

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            95

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  protect children and allow good landlords to

 

          3  continue to renovate and maintain their buildings.

 

          4                 I want a bill that protects children

 

          5  first and foremost, but doesn't gratuitously in my

 

          6  mind prevent property owners from continuing to

 

          7  renovate and maintain their buildings, and that's

 

          8  why I submitted the amendments.

 

          9                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you.

 

         10  Council Member Fidler.

 

         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER FIDLER: Actually,

 

         12  Madam Chairwoman, Councilman Jackson asked my

 

         13  question.

 

         14                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

 

         15  Member Stewart.

 

         16                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART: Thank you,

 

         17  Madam Chair.

 

         18                 Council Member Oddo, is this

 

         19  considered a friendly amendment?

 

         20                 I would like to know, because I feel

 

         21  it's a very good amendment. I feel it is something

 

         22  that has addressed some of the problems that we have

 

         23  been asking and we have faced, and if these two

 

         24  could be included, I would gladly join on board, but

 

         25  I'm happy that you spend the time to at least look

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            96

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  at some of these issues and I would like to know if

 

          3  it's a friendly amendment, and to know what the

 

          4  proponents are talking about in terms of these two

 

          5  amendments.

 

          6                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: I simply want a

 

          7  bill that protects kids and allows property owners

 

          8  to renovate and maintain a building.

 

          9                 I imagine it's friendly in some

 

         10  circles, and unfriendly in others.

 

         11                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART: So,

 

         12  therefore, if it's not considered friendly, I don't

 

         13  think that those who consider it not friendly, if

 

         14  they really do have the children's health in mind,

 

         15  if they're considering that as one of their

 

         16  interests, and the interest might be something else.

 

         17                 I think we all agree that we need to

 

         18  protect children, and we'd like to do something

 

         19  about that, but if they do not consider this, I

 

         20  think it means that they do not really consider the

 

         21  main focus here as being the children's health.

 

         22                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you.

 

         23                 Do we have any other questions on

 

         24  these two amendments? Council Member Jackson.

 

         25                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: I'm sorry, I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            97

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  was I guess engaged in conversation with trying to

 

          3  make a point to someone and also listening at the

 

          4  same time.

 

          5                 My colleague, Council Member Stewart,

 

          6  I guess raised the question of a friendly amendment,

 

          7  and I didn't understand, or I didn't hear the

 

          8  conclusion of that discussion or question, Madam

 

          9  Chair.

 

         10                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

 

         11  Member Stewart, would you like to respond?

 

         12                 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART: I asked the

 

         13  question, I would like to know.

 

         14                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Was there a

 

         15  decision reached on that particular matter or not?

 

         16                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: If it was a

 

         17  friendly amendment?

 

         18                 Well, I think what Council Member

 

         19  Oddo said was it may be considered friendly to some

 

         20  folks and unfriendly to others.

 

         21                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Oh.

 

         22                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Depending on

 

         23  your interpretation of his amendments.

 

         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay, so, has

 

         25  it been adopted by the prime or primary sponsors as

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            98

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2  a friendly amendment?

 

          3                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: No, we

 

          4  haven't taken any action on it.

 

          5                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Oh, okay. So,

 

          6  it's not then, is that correct, Madam Chair?

 

          7                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: We haven't

 

          8  taken any action.

 

          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: So by not

 

         10  taking any action on it, it is not considered a

 

         11  friendly amendment; is that correct, Madam Chair?

 

         12                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay, we're

 

         13  going to have an actual interpretation for you on

 

         14  friendly.

 

         15                 Terzah.

 

         16                 MS. NASSER: Terzah Nasser, Counsel to

 

         17  the Committee.

 

         18                 Basically the question would be

 

         19  whether the amendments are friendly to the main

 

         20  sponsors of the bill, and in this case Council

 

         21  Member Perkins is the prime, the first prime

 

         22  sponsor, so the question is, one could interject is,

 

         23  is it friendly to Council Member Perkins.

 

         24                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Can I stipulate

 

         25  that it's not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                            99

 

 

          1  COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

 

          2                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Go ahead.

 

          3                 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: So we save some

 

          4  time? I know Bill doesn't support it, so let's move

 

          5  on to a vote and we'll go on.

 

          6                 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: That clears

 

          7  it up. Thank you.

 

          8                 Council Member Perkins.

 

          9                 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: Thank you

 

         10  very much.

 

         11                 First let me, for the record,

 

         12  establish that it is not a friendly amendment. And

 

         13  essentially it's an amendment that I would like to

 

         14  go on record opposing. It effectively guts 101‑A,

 

         15  and returns us back to Local Law 38 in terms of

 

         16  removing the presumption that is perhaps the most

 

         17  significant part of Local Law 38.

 

         18                 But let me say to the Chairwoman, I

 

         19  want to commend you, even though we seriously

 

         20  disagree, because the last time we were down this

 

         21  path, this hearing took 45 seconds, and so this is

 

         22  an extraordinary representation of the best that

 

         23  this Council can be, even as we disagree.

 

         24                 And, so, from that point of view, I

 

         25  guess there have been reasons to feel good about