2  CITY COUNCIL



             CITY OF NEW YORK






                       of the







         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



                  B E F O R E:


                         MADELINE PROVENZANO

         16                                Chairperson,



                         COUNCIL MEMBERS:   Joel Rivera

         18                                 Diana Reyna

                                            Tony Avella

         19                                 Gale Brewer

                                            Leroy Comrie

         20                                 Lewis Fidler

                                            Robert Jackson








                         17 Battery Place ‑  Suite 1308

         25              New York, New York 10004

                              (800) 756‑3410












          2  A P P E A R A N C E S



             COUNCIL MEMBERS:


             Melinda Katz

          5  Kendall Stewart

             James Oddo

          6  Philip Reed

             Tracy Boyland

          7  Domenic Recchia

             Peter Vallone, Jr.
















































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



             Andrew Hoffman

          4  President

             Community Housing Improvement Program


             David Pechefsky

          6  Finance Division

             Council of the City of New York


             Larian Angelo

          8  Finance Division

             Council of the City of New York


             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


             Gail Benjamin

         17  Director, Land Use Division

             Council of the City of New York




























          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













          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.













          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.













          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













          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













          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.













          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













          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













          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,













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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.













          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













          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













          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.













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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.













          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













          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?













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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 ‑‑













          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













          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













          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.













          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













          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













          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?













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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.













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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,













          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













          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













          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













          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.













          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













          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.













          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













          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,













          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













          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













          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













          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.













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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.













          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













          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













          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













          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.













          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.













          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













          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













          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













          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.













          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?













          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













          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













          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?













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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?













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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













          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?













          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