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