2 CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF NEW YORK

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑x

THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE MINUTES

of the

COMMITTEE ON HOUSING And BUILDINGS

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑x

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

24 LEGAL‑EASE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC.

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Good morning.

3 My name is Madeline Provenzano, and I chair the

4 Committee on Housing and Buildings.

5 Thank you for attending this hearing

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

7 childhood lead poisoning prevention.

8 Proposed Intro. No. 101‑A has been

9 the subject, or has been subject to numerous

10 revisions since the introduction of this bill.

11 Today's hearing will be conducted on

12 the latest version of the bill, which is available

13 for those of you who need it.

14 The version of this bill before the

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

16 The Committee has held several

17 hearings on this matter, the last of which was

18 conducted on December 10th.

19 Also, before this Committee today is

20 a preconsidered resolution by Council Member

21 Perkins, finding that enactment of proposed Intro.

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

23 the environment and is consistent with the same

24 Environment Quality Review Act.

25 At this point, Terzah Nasser will

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 explain a problem that we had at the last hearing

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

4 recorded.

5 MS. NASSER: Terzah Nasser, Counsel to

6 the Committee on Housing and Buildings. At the

7 hearing on December 10th, we had a power

8 fluctuation, such that we lost some of the audio

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

10 Hoffman to return to the hearing and to present his

11 testimony, to read into the record his testimony

12 again, because we lost a fair portion of his

13 presentation, and some of the exchange with the

14 members.

15 Mr. Hoffman, thank you.

16 MR. HOFFMAN: Good afternoon. I mean,

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

18 President of the Community Housing Improvement

19 Program, a property owner, advocacy organization,

20 also an owner and manager of housing in New York

21 City.

22 I'm also the father of three children

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

24 built before 1960, presumably containing lead‑based

25 paint.

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

3 say that to let the Council members present know

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

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

6 lead‑based paint.

7 The City Council now finds themselves

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

9 much as possible young children from being affected

10 from the dangers of lead paint. Unfortunately, what

11 the City Council has done, despite previous

12 testimony by myself and others, is to create a

13 series of measures which will make the operation of

14 affordable housing in New York City much more

15 costly.

16 Local Law 1 was an imperfect law. It

17 was followed by Local Law 38, which was heavily

18 negotiated and although not perfect, it did a much

19 better job in protecting children from the dangers

20 of lead‑based paint.

21 Local Law 38 provided a roadmap for

22 myself and other owners to help eliminate the

23 hazards associated with the paint, and in fact lead

24 paint poisoning has dropped dramatically, while

25 Local Law 38 was in effect.

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 Intro. 101 takes us in a much

3 different direction.

4 First, it gives plaintiff attorneys a

5 boom by eliminating the minor protections property

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

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

8 the plaintiff attorneys guaranteeing money for

9 parents of children poisoned by paint.

10 Under Local Law 38 we had some minor

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

12 present form, it would open the flood gates to

13 plaintiff's attorneys, it would dramatically

14 increase our property insurance, it will make lead

15 insurance unaffordable and probably unattainable.

16 It's imperative the Council reach out

17 to the State Insurance Department so they can hear

18 from another governmental agency the facts

19 concerning what Intro. 101 will do to the insurance

20 industry.

21 The day‑to‑day operations of my

22 building will become much, much more costly. Vacant

23 apartments will now have to be painted by

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

25 under seven will not be occupying that apartment, I

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 still have to prepare that vacant apartment as if a

3 child under seven was going to occupy that

4 apartment. That's simply unfair.

5 This introduction provides funding,

6 education for City inspectors, including continued

7 education for inspectors and supervisory personnel,

8 but no where in this introduction is any funding

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

10 think that's also very unfair.

11 It's clear from listening to prior

12 testimony that we all need a workable law to protect

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

14 organization, was able to work with the Council on

15 some small aspects of Intro. 101. A continuous

16 dialogue concerning the Intro that helps clarify the

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

18 issue pertained to the whole apartment, and it was

19 clarified to pertain to just one room and we

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

21 need to continue the same dialogue when it comes to

22 the insurance issue.

23 In the seventies we couldn't get

24 asbestos coverage, two years ago there was terrorism

25 coverage that was a problem, and now mold insurance

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 is excluded from almost all of my insurance

3 policies.

4 After you pass Intro. 101, that

5 insurance will be nonexistent or unattainable. More

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

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

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

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

10 Council, over strong comments by property owners and

11 activists alike, have proposed a law which is

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

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

14 owners a grave injustice and I urge the Committee to

15 reexamine Intro. 101.

16 Thank you for giving me these second

17 opportunities to present my testimony.

18 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Well, it

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

20 first.

21 But Council Member Recchia will,

22 since this is kind of a reenactment, Councilman

23 Recchia will ask one or two questions which are the

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

25 only one that is able to question this witness.

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 Councilman.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER RECCHIA: Thank you.

4 The last time you testified you spoke

5 about admitting insurance and non‑admitting

6 insurance. Could you explain that for the Committee.

7 MR. HOFFMAN: New York State Insurance

8 Department is the body that governs insurance

9 companies in the City and they have certain rules in

10 the state and they have certain rules and

11 regulations pertaining to insurance companies,

12 insurance carriers, and if you are an admitted

13 carrier, you agree to comply with the rules and

14 regulations concerning the New York State Insurance

15 Department, but what happens and what's happened

16 recently in the past couple of years in my

17 experience is the insurance market is very tight

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

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

20 have other insurance companies that are not

21 admitted, and those insurance companies are not

22 required to live by the same rules.

23 As an example with myself, after 9/11

24 terrorism insurance was impossible to get. But New

25 York State said that in order to be an admitted

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 carrier you had to supply terrorism coverage. So,

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

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

5 insurance companies do is they essentially take a

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

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

8 that building replacement value is in excess of $50

9 million. Coverage was essentially non‑existent.

10 So what my brokers had to do is in

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

12 rejected by an admitted carrier, so they float my

13 insurance out to ten admitted carriers and they

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

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

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

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

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

19 have mold coverage on my policy, I actually have

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

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

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

23 exclude lead again.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER RECCHIA: So you feel

25 if this is passed that the insurance industry will

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 have a hard time, the admitted carriers will not

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

4 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes. And the admitted

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

6 allowed to ask for an exclusion from the New York

7 State Insurance Department, and I know that they

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

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

10 point you have the option of possibly buying a

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

12 COUNCIL MEMBER RECCHIA: Thank you.

13 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay, thank

14 you.

15 Thank you, Mr. Hoffman.

16 I'd like to introduce the Council

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

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

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

20 Member Lou Fidler, Councilwoman Melinda Katz,

21 Councilman Joel Rivera. To my left, Councilman Tony

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

23 the Committee, Councilwoman Diana Reyna. Council

24 Member Robert Jackson, Council Member/woman Tracy

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

3 the Committee, and Council Member Domenic Recchia,

4 who is not a member of the Committee.

5 We have today a fiscal impact

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

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

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

9 Division to answer some questions. You all have a

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

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

12 this statement.

13 Another thing I would ask is that the

14 folks in the audience, there may be some heated

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

16 indulgence and that they behave, for hopefully what

17 is the last time.

18 I'm going to ask the Committee folks,

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

20 James Oddo, I cannot imagine that you

21 don't have a question.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: It's such an

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

24 moments.

25 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: It's an

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 ominous day.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: I just have one

4 question. Does the Administration agree with cost

5 estimates that the Council came up with?

6 MR. PECHEFSKY: Yes, I'm David

7 Pechefsky from the City Council Finance Division, to

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

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

10 shared with us their fiscal impact.

11 As you know, the bill was amended

12 heavily since, there were many iterations of the

13 bill since the last time the Administration actually

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

15 know.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Thank you, Madam

17 Chair.

18 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: In looking at

19 the statement, I see that the section that talks

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

21 seven, and then after the first year could possibly

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

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

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

25 difference would be if we started at six, rather

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 than seven, what the difference in the year

3 financially would be?

4 MS. ANGELO: Generally speaking, when

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

6 conservative estimate. So, indeed, we assume that

7 the age of seven remained throughout the period of

8 the fiscal impact, even though we were aware that

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

10 Department of Health. But we wanted to do a

11 conservative fiscal impact, so in fact it may

12 overestimate the cost slightly.

13 David, do you want to finish the

14 discussion?

15 MR. PECHEFSKY: Sure. The fact that

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

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

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

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

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

21 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: So, the total

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

23 MS. ANGELO: That's correct.

24 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: If we started

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 the exact figure that the difference between age six

3 and seven is costing us?

4 MR. PECHEFSKY: Well, about 4 million.

5 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: About $4

6 million.

7 MS. ANGELO: Arrived at on the

8 assumption that about 15 percent, that if you look

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

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

11 is it would lower the ongoing or the recurring cost

12 by that 15 percent.

13 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: And do we

14 have any idea where, since you are our finance

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

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

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

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

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

20 of which there are many that arise during the course

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

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

23 budget for uniformed overtime, but seldom precisely

24 estimated, there's overspending in a variety of

25 agencies and underspending in some agencies, so it

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 will become one additional cost, added to various

3 other additional costs that will arise during the

4 year in the budget.

5 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Do we have

6 any other questions?

7 Oh, we've also been joined by Council

8 Member Stewart, a member of the Committee,

9 Councilwoman Gale Brewer, and Council Member Leroy

10 Comrie.

11 Anybody else here that I didn't

12 catch?

13 Council Member Rivera.

14 COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA: Thank you very

15 much, Madam Chair.

16 It states in here in the fiscal

17 impact paper that the City will recoup part of the

18 cost of the implementation; can you explain that

19 more for the record?

20 MR. PECHEFSKY: Sure. Part of the cost

21 of the bill is in remediation costs through the

22 City's emergency repair program. In circumstances

23 where the owner fails to correct a violation, the

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

25 only for lead violations, but for other types of

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 class C violations.

3 Generally speaking the City recoups

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

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

6 back to the City.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA: Oh, so that's

8 .4 ‑‑

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

10 it. That number reflects, in part that number

11 reflects anticipation of City recouping part of ERP

12 costs over time.

13 COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA: Got you. Thank

14 you.

15 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

16 Member Oddo.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Thank you, Madam

18 Chair.

19 Does the $31 million figure in FY '05

20 include potential or cost of liability judgments

21 against the City?

22 MR. PECHEFSKY: No, because the fiscal

23 impact is limited in scope to direct cost to the

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

25 causes the City to assume.

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Does the Finance

3 Committee have an estimate that they would like to

4 share with the Committee of what they anticipate

5 liability cost to be to the City?

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

7 haven't done that estimate.

8 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Is there a way

9 of attempting to calculate that?

10 MS. ANGELO: We will always do an

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

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

13 MR. PECHEFSKY: Let me just say also,

14 nor does the fiscal impact statement contemplate

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

16 in the longrun to the City from reducing lead

17 poisoning, for example, special education costs,

18 health savings and health care. It doesn't

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

20 the fiscal impact.

21 MS. ANGELO: I mean, generally

22 speaking, a fiscal impact is not done with something

23 called dynamic scoring.

24 There may be costs in the outyears

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

3 four years beyond.

4 But generally we limit it to direct,

5 straight‑forward costs.

6 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: But there is

7 the possibility that more landlords may not accrue

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

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

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

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

12 You know, obviously you said to

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

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

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

16 landlords, you know, there could be twice that

17 amount.

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

19 reports to the City Council how many landlords were

20 correcting the violations under Local Law 38, based

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

22 IBO on previous versions of the bill, and we

23 estimate how many landlords, what the rate of

24 correction will be among landlords, and we estimate

25 that it is going to be somewhat lower than HPD

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 reported in its reports to the Council, because of

3 some of the concerns that HPD raised about time

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

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

6 more remediation jobs.

7 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: So that has

8 been factored in?

9 MR. PECHEFSKY: That has been factored

10 in, yes.

11 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Even

12 considering the fact that this bill has issues like

13 presumption which could possibly lead to landlords,

14 to property owners not getting insurance, which

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

16 bla, bla.

17 MR. PECHEFSKY: It doesn't factor in

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

19 provisions that pertain towards the time frames that

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

21 provisions regarding HPD inspections, it doesn't

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

23 assumptions about the financial conditions of

24 buildings over time.

25 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you.

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 Council Member Rivera.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA: Thank you very

4 much again, Madam Chair.

5 I know we don't have in the fiscal

6 impact statement how much the City would save in

7 terms of special education and other associated

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

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

10 in terms of extra resources being given to kids that

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

12 to get that number?

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

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

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

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

17 cannot really speculate three or four, five years

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

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

20 speculate on this cost savings of having healthier

21 kids.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA: Thank you.

23 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

24 Member Perkins.

25 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: Thank you

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 very much, Madam Chair.

3 Let me just say, it has been pointed

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

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

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

7 in your fiscal impact statements look at that, but

8 as a way of helping my colleagues understand the

9 enormous amount of savings that we're talking about

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

11 estimated by those who are experts in the field,

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

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

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

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

16 anticipated the liability cost to the City when

17 we've given fiscal impact statements.

18 MS. ANGELO: Not to my knowledge, but

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

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

21 recall one.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: Thank you.

23 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Any other

24 questions?

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 done a great job.

3 MR. PECHEFSKY: Thank you.

4 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: You have

5 before you that huge package, the negative

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

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

8 will have to vote on.

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

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

11 Haberman, who has been lucky enough not to be

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

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

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

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

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

17 And he's joined by Chris Collins.

18 MR. HABERMAN: Good morning. My name

19 is Jeff Haberman. I am Counsel and Deputy Director

20 of the Council's Infrastructure Division.

21 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Ralphie, I'm

22 not sure that mic is great.

23 MR. HABERMAN: Okay, is this better.

24 My name is Jeffrey Haberman. I'm

25 Counsel and Deputy Director of the Council's

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 Infrastructure Division.

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

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

5 Division and we have provided some level of

6 assistance in the environmental review issues for

7 the Infrastructure Division on this matter.

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

9 Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of the

10 Environmental Conservation Law, local legislation is

11 considered to be an action and requires undertaking

12 an environmental analysis. That was done in this

13 case, the outcome of that analysis indicates that a

14 negative declaration is the appropriate outcome.

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

16 a positive declaration requiring an environmental

17 impact statement, a determination that there will be

18 no significant ‑‑

19 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: I'm having

20 trouble hearing you.

21 MR. HABERMAN: Okay.

22 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Bring the mic

23 up. Okay.

24 MR. HABERMAN: There are a number of

25 possible outcomes under this review. One is that a

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 positive declaration, that the action will have an

3 adverse, a significant adverse environmental impact,

4 requiring an environmental impact statement.

5 A potential outcome is that there is

6 no significant, going to be no significant adverse

7 environmental impact in which case a negative

8 declaration would be an appropriate outcome.

9 And the third possibility is if there

10 are some potential adverse impacts, but they can be

11 mitigated, then a possible outcome is a conditional

12 negative declaration.

13 The analysis before you was performed

14 consistent with the City Environmental Quality

15 Review Technical Manual, which sets out those items

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

17 criteria that should be looked at, and indicates

18 what some recommendations on what constitutes

19 significance, or significant environmental, adverse

20 environmental impact.

21 For example, in Section 222, there's

22 a roster of the criteria for significance, such as

23 removal or destruction of large quantities of

24 educational forma, creation of a conflict with

25 community development plans, the impairment of a

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 historical archeological resources, major change in

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

4 I think it's important to keep in

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

6 are geared to what I would call the "built

7 environment," where some construction or physical

8 change is taking place.

9 MR. COLLINS: I think it's also

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

11 environmental review is a disclosure process, it

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

13 environmental review is to inform you, the decision

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

15 particular action in light of potential impacts that

16 have been identified in the analysis.

17 As you know, the earlier lead paint

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

19 the basis of what was deemed to be a flawed

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

21 of the Infrastructure Division has been particularly

22 cautious in making sure that all of the necessary

23 aspects of the legislation have been covered in this

24 review.

25 As Jeff mentioned, it was done in

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 accordance with the requirements of the CEQR

3 Technical Manual, and the Threshold Review is

4 basically what's called an environmental assessment,

5 environmental assessment statement in which a series

6 of questions are asked and answered, and on the

7 basis of the answers and the analysis performed

8 pursuant to those regulations, a reasonable

9 conclusion can be reached that significant adverse

10 impacts would not be identified as a result of

11 taking this action.

12 MR. HABERMAN: The document before

13 you, the attachment to the environmental assessment

14 statement, has separate sections, each one

15 addressing ‑‑ each the attachment to the

16 environmental assessment statement, which is part of

17 this package, has a section that addresses each of

18 the areas that is recommended to be examined.

19 The analysis was that none of the

20 particular areas would result in a significant

21 adverse environmental impact and therefore the

22 recommendations that a negative declaration be

23 issued.

24 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay, thank

25 you.

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 I'm going to ask the questions, but

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

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

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

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

7 understand that.

8 Also, you know, we've spent six

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

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

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

12 it, I would still not understand it.

13 It would probably take another six

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

15 But I totally don't understand how

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

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

18 significant environmental impact, I just don't

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

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

21 Do we have any questions? Council

22 Member Oddo.

23 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Thank you, Madam

24 Chair. And I would like to reiterate your point

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

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

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

5 to vote intelligently today, but apparently that's

6 what we're being asked to do.

7 Gentlemen, who actually wrote this?

8 MR. HABERMAN: Most portions of it I

9 wrote. I wrote it.

10 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: And Jeff, you

11 and I have been colleagues and worked together for

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

13 you've written negative decs before.

14 MR. HABERMAN: I have a number of

15 times, on a number of occasions.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Okay.

17 Was there a negative dec written for

18 Local Law 38?

19 MR. HABERMAN: There was. However, I

20 was not a participant in the Local Law 38 enactment

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

22 declaration with me.

23 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Without casting

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

25 dec back then?

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 MR. HABERMAN: A member of staff.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Okay.

4 Are they still employed on the

5 Council's staff?

6 MR. HABERMAN: They are.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: And they weren't

8 involved in this one at all?

9 MR. HABERMAN: They were.

10 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Okay. I'll tell

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

12 down‑zonings on Staten Island, three in Council

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

14 and that process was delayed because we were told

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

16 study we had to look at the economic impact

17 down‑zoning these communities, not only on Staten

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

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

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

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

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

23 facts.

24 It would seem to me that the scope of

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 down‑zoning applications. Is it surprising to you

3 gentlemen, having completed this analysis, that it

4 is a negative declaration?

5 MR. HABERMAN: No, because the

6 hallmark of a negative declaration is that there is

7 no significant adverse environmental impact. Not

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

9 the analysis bears out that there will not be a

10 significant adverse environmental impact.

11 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Again, Madam

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

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

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

15 to ask, if that's okay?

16 On page two of the text there is a

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

18 whether the dictates of the proposed law will result

19 in owners either withholding dwelling units from the

20 rental market, decline to rent those dwelling units

21 to families with children of applicable age so as to

22 avoid the obligation to comply, or abandoning

23 residential buildings subject to the provisions."

24 And then later on it says that "there

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

3 this analysis that owners will not intentionally

4 violate this law."

5 Does that mean that the expectation

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

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

8 were going to come in and testify before the Council

9 because of this bill they were going to violate the

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

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

12 issue?

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

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

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

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

17 indicate that this was a subject that was considered

18 and reviewed, but that the reasonable conclusion is

19 that people will obey the law.

20 But it in essence was, as I said

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

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

23 account.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: The reasonable

25 conclusion based on the testimony or lack of

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 testimony, or the reasonable conclusion based on

3 something outside of what happened in the hearings?

4 MR. COLLINS: The reasonable

5 conclusion based on the analysis that was conducted,

6 including the testimony.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Back on page

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

9 Zoning and Public Policy paragraph, where it says,

10 "consequently the proposed action is not expected

11 to have significant effect on Land Use, Zoning or

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

13 et cetera.

14 Is that statement consistent with the

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

16 the affordable housing industry?

17 MR. HABERMAN: It is if you examine

18 the CEQR Technical Manual, which was the guidance

19 document for preparing environmental analyses. It

20 points to ‑‑

21 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Jeff, you

22 have to talk into the mic.

23 MR. HABERMAN: It points to certain

24 things that should be examined, such as the impact

25 it might have on urban renewal plans, on the

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 comprehensive waterfront plans, on Solid Waste

3 Management Plan, Business Improvement Districts,

4 City maps, the activities that will be required were

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

6 would have any bearing, would have any adverse

7 impact on those other policies.

8 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: But that's not

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

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

11 and other folks in the affordable housing industry.

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

13 conclusion is not consistent with some of the

14 testimony that we heard?

15 MR. COLLINS: For purposes of

16 environmental review about the state law and City

17 law, operate under the assumption that people will

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

19 answer that, Councilman.

20 MR. COLLINS: Fair enough. I

21 appreciate that, but when there is testimony, I

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

23 that raises that issue and raises questions about

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

25 think we reached the conclusion and we try to work

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 backwards, despite the testimony be damned.

3 But let me ask you about another

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

5 paragraph that begins, "concern expressed at the

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

7 believed that no testimony was received on this

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

9 or issue from any representative of an insurance

10 company as to whether insurance would remain

11 available and at what rates. While the unintended

12 consequence spoken of may happen, it's speculative

13 and not yet possible to quantify."

14 I appreciate the fact that we didn't

15 have any testimony from the insurance industry and

16 the Counsel and the Chair mentioned the fact that

17 the insurance industry was invited and apparently no

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

19 explore this issue in greater detail, considering

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

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

22 more comprehensive look to determine if in fact this

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

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

25 Because if we analyze it in more

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 detail, perhaps the ultimate decision of a negative

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

4 reached.

5 MR. HABERMAN: Well, two comments. One

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

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

8 least one organization that maintains on their

9 website of insurance companies that do provide

10 insurance coverage, but more importantly, and so

11 there was some contravailing testimony, it's also

12 important to keep in mind that the analysis is

13 designed to measure proposed Intro. 101‑A against

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

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

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

17 that comparison that this analysis was done.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Let's take it

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

20 this issue, we had one individual testify and really

21 what she testified to, about hard and soft insurance

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

23 it out against individuals who spoke who were

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

25 hands‑on dealings with insurance here in New York

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

3 up.

4 Your second point, that the standard

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

6 that in just a little bit more detail?

7 MR. HABERMAN: On July 1st of this

8 year, the Court of Appeals issued a decision

9 invalidating Local Law 38 of 1999.

10 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Correct.

11 MR. HABERMAN: The Court, in its

12 decision, the Court in its decision explicitly

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

14 slip opinion,"the parties recognized that by

15 operation of law, our validation of Local Law 38

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

17 for the analysis.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Is that your

19 interpretation of what the basis should be, Local

20 Law 1?

21 Clearly, I understand the judge's

22 decision, but is that staff's interpretation that

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

24 but should be on Local Law 1?

25 MR. HABERMAN: Well, the Court made it

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

3 legal mechanism.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Understood.

5 MR. HABERMAN: Number two, the nature

6 of an environmental analysis is to compare what one

7 believes the actions might accomplish against what

8 the existing conditions are.

9 The existing condition quite clearly

10 is Local Law 1.

11 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: The existing

12 conditions in terms of getting insurance right now

13 ‑‑

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

15 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Because that's

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

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

18 these folks probably have is based for policies

19 based on Local Law 38.

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

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

22 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Okay.

23 MR. HABERMAN: It was measured against

24 Local Law 1.

25 MR. COLLINS: If I could just add some

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 to that?

3 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Yes.

4 MR. COLLINS: The courts consistently

5 have said for purpose of environmental review what

6 you need to have is a reasonably elaborated

7 analysis. You need to look to various issues that

8 the law requires you to analyze.

9 That doesn't mean that you as one of

10 the decision‑makers may not come to a different

11 conclusion based on other testimony or just your

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

13 basis of your question, based on certain testimony

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

15 hearing, but for purposes of this environmental

16 review and its validity, I believe that the analysis

17 is adequate on the issue.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Fair enough. Let

19 me just ask you a procedural question.

20 This document is to reflect testimony

21 solely, or you factor in making your decision about

22 a negative dec outside information that didn't

23 happen within the four walls of City Hall?

24 MR. COLLINS: Your decision as the

25 decision‑makers on this legislation ‑‑

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Well, your

3 recommendation let's say.

4 MR. COLLINS: No, may take into

5 account any number of factors, your life experience,

6 the testimony you heard, your knowledge and any

7 research that you've done.

8 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: But how do we

9 have a resolution in front of us that encourages a

10 negative dec?

11 MR. COLLINS: Because by following the

12 dictates of the technical manual, the analysis of

13 the various required categories was conducted by

14 staff. There was a resolution introduced.

15 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Again, but the

16 analysis is analysis of testimony only, or analysis

17 of outside ‑‑

18 MR. COLLINS: It's an analysis of

19 subject matter.

20 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Which is outside

21 the testimony?

22 MR. COLLINS: It could include the

23 testimony.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Okay.

25 MR. COLLINS: Only I think there are

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 references and footnotes to the various witnesses at

3 the various hearings.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Fair enough.

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

6 review, and the sources of your information can be

7 varied.

8 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Okay. Madam

9 Chair, two questions. Two last questions.

10 I think I see an inconsistency in J

11 hazardous materials and Q air quality, and correct

12 me, please.

13 In J it says the action essentially

14 involves activities principally in the interior of

15 the subject of the buildings, therefore there is no

16 further need to consider hazardous materials in

17 exterior areas. Later on we talk about an air

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

19 generation of more particle matter, but the increase

20 cannot at this time be quantified.

21 Is there any inconsistency there?

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

23 discussion about particulate matter was directed at

24 the work that would be performed in the interiors of

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 any inconsistency there.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: One last

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

5 this document?

6 MR. HABERMAN: Over what period? Are

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

8 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: From the first

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

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

11 take both. Actual writing, time period of analyzing

12 and putting it together.

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

14 a log.

15 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Understood. An

16 estimate.

17 MR. HABERMAN: An estimate? It was

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

19 bill was evolved, and the bill went through many

20 iterations, there were meetings, there were

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

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

23 substantial period of time.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Gentlemen, thank

25 you. I appreciate your professionalism.

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Did you get

3 an answer?

4 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: It took a long

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

6 question is to reaffirm your initial point that we

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

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

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

10 supposed to sit here and vote intelligently on the

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

12 they're very technical and you can interpret it

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

14 and unnerving to have to vote on a document that

15 took weeks to prepare with such short notice.

16 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: I would just

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 probably understand or decide or think about at what

24 point you actually started working on this dec? Was

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 actual document. Because anything that preceded that

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

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

5 Councilman Oddo is kind of comparing that it took

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

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

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

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

10 had been spent we may be sitting here with a

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

12 question.

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

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

15 mind that the nature of the analysis is such that

16 one reads material, reads the testimony, hears the

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

18 time where one gathers information, gathers

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

20 analysis, without necessarily reducing that to

21 writing.

22 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: I'm not going

23 to get my answer.

24 Okay, I would just like to answer a

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 the person was that did the negative impact on Local

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

4 Terzah Nasser.

5 Council Member Comrie.

6 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: That last

7 statement kind of answered part of my question. I

8 was not aware that this Council itself had the

9 authority to do environmental impact statements. Can

10 you give me some briefing on how that authority is

11 enacted and what that process is that the Council

12 has an authority to do an environmental impact

13 statement?

14 MR. HABERMAN: Well, let me backtrack.

15 The Council has legal obligation when it enacts

16 legislation to undertake an environmental analysis.

17 Article 8 of the State Environmental

18 and Conservation Law and the regulations that were

19 promulgated thereunder impose that legal obligation

20 by defining local legislation as an action that

21 requires the environmental examination.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: Is there a

23 process or a document that has to be submitted to

24 the State or any environmental agency before it's

25 submitted?

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 MR. COLLINS: This determination, the

3 negative declaration, and similarly, if it had been

4 a positive declaration, the CEQR rules require that

5 these documents be made available to the public and

6 that they be circulated to the State DEC and a

7 variety of other City/State agencies.

8 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: And will any

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

10 those state or City agencies have a chance to see

11 this document, this present document, to voice an

12 opinion on it one way or another?

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

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

15 it's not a comment period requirement similar that

16 one would have if there was a full‑blown

17 environmental review. It's a notice requirement.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: It's a notice

19 requirement.

20 MR. COLLINS: Yes.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: So, in fact, a

22 different agency could look at this document and

23 come back with a different decision, or ‑‑

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

25 They could perhaps have a different opinion or

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 express a view, but the obligation to conduct

3 environmental review under the law is imposed upon

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

5 adoption of local laws, the lead agency is either

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

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

8 assume lead agency status by itself, which is what

9 the Council did with regard to this particular

10 analysis.

11 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: And in

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

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

14 the Council based on information that was presented

15 to it?

16 MR. COLLINS: The law requires that

17 certain categories of subject matter be analyzed,

18 and the courts have required that that analysis be

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

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

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

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

23 not the analysis has been sufficiently elaborate.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: And this was

25 done by our standard template that is consistent

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 among any agency or any authorizing body that would

3 have ‑‑

4 MR. COLLINS: Yes.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: And it's done

6 in whatever the scientific matter or specific matter

7 or whatever those rules and regulations are?

8 MR. COLLINS: There is a technical

9 manual that provides guidance toward the analysis of

10 the subject matter in each of the categories.

11 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: And does any

12 part of that technical manual require actual

13 scientific investigation, in order to bring about

14 this analysis, or environmental, actual

15 environmental investigations?

16 MR. HABERMAN: Some portions of it

17 might. It depends on the analyses that you

18 undertake, and the examination of the criteria that

19 must be examined.

20 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: Okay.

21 MS. BENJAMIN: Maybe I can provide a

22 fuller answer to that.

23 My name is Gale Benjamin. I'm the

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

25 Director for the City, along with City Planning of

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 the City Environmental Quality Review.

3 The CEQR manual lays out a series of

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

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

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

7 certain conclusions, you stop there. The CEQR manual

8 determines there is no significant impact if you do

9 not reach the thresholds, based on the analysis they

10 suggest you do.

11 So, it is only if you exceed the

12 threshold that you go on to the more detailed

13 review.

14 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: And what

15 determines the threshold?

16 MS. BENJAMIN: The CEQR threshold lays

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

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

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

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

21 and you just write it off.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: And that's

23 tested by someone being in the field at a certain

24 point?

25 MS. BENJAMIN: No, there are other

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 technical manuals that the City uses and that the

3 manual suggests in coming up with how many vehicles

4 might be expected, if any.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: Okay.

6 MS. BENJAMIN: The highway capacity

7 manual is one, and there were several others.

8 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: In other

9 words, this is compiled by looking at material and

10 reviewing material as opposed to actual physical ‑‑

11 MS. BENJAMIN: That's correct.

12 Generally it is only once, if you exceed the

13 threshold, that you get into more involved reviews

14 that might involve going out into the field and

15 counting cars or putting noise monitors at

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

17 that you get to that level of study.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: Madam Chair,

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

20 later.

21 I would agree with your statement and

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

23 of determination with this type of time creates

24 unreadiness.

25 Thank you.

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you.

3 Council Member Brewer.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: Thank you.

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

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

7 with General Welfare, and we were downstairs on

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

9 environmental impact statements regarding

10 development, hard bricks and mortar.

11 I just want to understand, how are we

12 fortunate to have this wonderful document based on

13 this?

14 Is it because of the nature of the

15 combination of forces in terms of the lead

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

17 it. So somebody explain it.

18 MR. COLLINS: The environmental review

19 that was undertaken with regard to the proposed

20 legislation is the same as would be undertaken for a

21 development project in your district, Council

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

23 full‑blown environmental impact statement is not

24 triggered in this analysis.

25 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: All right, I

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 sort of understand that.

3 The other question I had was, in the

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

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

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

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

8 HUD programs that make grants available; is that

9 something that has been used, maybe not to its

10 fullest potential?

11 MR. HABERMAN: It has been used, and

12 HPD currently has an application pending for

13 additional grant funding.

14 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: Is that

15 something that has been available in the past, but

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

17 that it could help mitigate some of this concern

18 about cost?

19 MR. HABERMAN: I don't recall precise

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

21 make available to you.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: Okay. All

23 right.

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

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

3 that does this document describe kind of the process

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

5 there are many windowsills, obviously one of the

6 concerns of the agency and I guess the industry is

7 the cost of maintaining a lead‑free environment;

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

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

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

11 it requires a lead‑safe environment.

12 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: So, a

13 lead‑safe environment, and windowsills would be part

14 of that in terms of what they could produce,

15 correct?

16 MR. HABERMAN: Yes.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: All right.

18 So one of the claims, of course, is

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

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

21 these people who believes actually that sometimes

22 pushing on deadlines is a good thing because that

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

24 are perhaps faster than normal for inspections, that

25 might help us with other ways in which there are

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 challenges, and the agencies would have to perform.

3 So that might help all people living

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

5 this document talks about some ways in which the

6 challenges of time and maintaining a safe

7 environment can be met?

8 MR. HABERMAN: Well, the discussion in

9 the public health section is a discussion of

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

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

12 practices that have to be maintained, and I think

13 that addresses your question.

14 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: Okay. And does

15 that sort of indicate that there are ways in which

16 they could be done that are not particularly

17 onerous, despite what we heard from testimony from

18 the industry?

19 MR. HABERMAN: There are depending on

20 the circumstances of the work being done, there are

21 a variety of mechanisms that will be employed to

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

23 work, there are different training requirements for

24 the workers who perform the work, in part depending

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 principally to agency rule‑making but with guidance

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

4 bill accommodates those concerns.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: Okay, thank

6 you very much.

7 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Do we have

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

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

10 do the resolution first. I love when people ask

11 what's the resolution?

12 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Madam Chair?

13 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

14 Member Oddo.

15 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: May I make a

16 motion to introduce an amendment, actually two

17 amendments to 101‑A?

18 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Go right

19 ahead.

20 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: "The legal

21 standards of liability this bill creates makes it

22 easier to sue property owners, even highly

23 responsible ones. This will jeopardize the ability

24 to obtain the necessary proper liability insurance

25 that all rehabilitation investors rely upon,

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 expanding the liability to presume that all pre‑1960

3 buildings have lead paint for purposes of tort law

4 would, we believe, be interpreted by insurers as

5 providing too fertile a ground for endless

6 litigation. We believe that this is unnecessary and

7 counterproductive."

8 That is not my language. That is the

9 language of Michael Lappin, who is the President of

10 a not‑for‑profit community preservation corporation.

11 "To the extent that Intro. 101‑A

12 will make the rehabilitation process harder, it is

13 likely to slow the process of making our City lead

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

15 of the Commissioner of HPD Jerilyn Perine.

16 I would like to place on the floor an

17 amendment of subdivision A of Section 27‑2056.5 so

18 that it would read, "in any multiple dwelling

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

20 presumed that the paint or other similar surface

21 coating material in any dwelling unit where a child

22 of applicable age resides or in the common areas is

23 lead‑based paint solely for the purpose of this

24 article. The presumption established by this section

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 dwelling unit by submitting to the Department a

3 sworn written statement by the owner supported by

4 lead‑based paint testing or sampling results. A

5 sworn written statement by the person who performed

6 the testing if performed by an employee or agent of

7 the owner, and such other proof as the Department

8 may require.

9 Testing performed to rebut the

10 presumption may only be performed by a person who

11 has been certified as an inspector or risk assessor

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

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

14 successor regulations. The determination as to

15 whether such proof is adequate to rebut the

16 presumption established by this section shall be

17 made by the Department."

18 That's the first one, and I believe

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

20 members of the Committee.

21 The second amendment that I'm putting

22 forth would amend subdivision A of Section 27‑2056.4

23 regarding the owner's responsibility to notify

24 occupants and to investigate.

25 It would read: "In any dwelling unit

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

3 1963, where the owner had actual knowledge that a

4 child of applicable age resides in any dwelling unit

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

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

7 has actual knowledge that a child a child of

8 applicable age resides and the owner has actual

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

10 in the common areas of such multiple dwellings, the

11 owner shall cause an investigation to be made for

12 peeling paint, chewable surfaces, deteriorated

13 subsurfaces, friction surfaces and impact surfaces.

14 Such investigation shall be

15 undertaken at least one year and more often if

16 necessary, such as when in the exercise of

17 reasonable care an owner actually knows" ‑‑ deleting

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

19 reasonably foreseeable to cause a lead‑based paint

20 hazard, or an occupant makes a complaint concerning

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

22 paint hazard or request an inspection where the

23 Department issues a notice of violation or orders a

24 correction of violation that is likely to cause a

25 lead‑based paint hazard. The owner shall ascertain

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 where the child resides therein pursuant to the

3 requirements of this section."

4 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

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

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

7 do it before we vote on the legislation.

8 We're going to vote on the negative

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

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

11 amendment before we vote, okay?

12 We're going to vote on the negative

13 declaration. Apparently they seem to think those

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

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

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

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

18 resolution finding that enactment of proposed Intro.

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

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

21 State Environmental Quality Review Act.

22 That is what we will be voting on.

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

24 again introduce his amendment.

25 COUNCIL CLERK: Provenzano.

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: After

3 listening to the testimony given to us by our

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

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

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

7 One is possibly that the template or

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

9 dec or positive dec should be revisited. Whoever the

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

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

12 maybe we need a different kind of format to follow

13 when we do these things.

14 It appears to me that this whole

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

16 assumptions, and I think that something as important

17 as this issue should be considered in a whole other

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

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

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

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

22 York City Council, I have a different opinion.

23 I vote no.

24 COUNCIL CLERK: Rivera.

25 COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA: I vote aye on

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 the resolution.

3 COUNCIL CLERK: Reyna.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: Aye on the

5 resolution.

6 COUNCIL CLERK: Avella.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER AVELLA: Aye.

8 COUNCIL CLERK: Brewer.

9 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: I vote aye,

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

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

12 vote on, I vote aye.

13 COUNCIL CLERK: Comrie.

14 (No response.)

15 COUNCIL CLERK: Fidler.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER FIDLER: Madam

17 Chairwoman, may I be briefly excused to explain my

18 vote?

19 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Yes.

20 COUNCIL MEMBER FIDLER: I am also

21 extremely troubled by getting a document that's

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

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

24 raises extraordinarily weighty issues that I just

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 Nonetheless, I understand even in a

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

4 negative dec or an EIS and then the process of

5 amending bills that are on the floor, in some

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

7 of process and not really of substance, because if

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

9 totally unequipped to vote.

10 I am one that does not elevate

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

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

13 opportunity to truly read, reflect and understand

14 this document. I am not going to elevate process

15 over substance and so therefore I am going to vote

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

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

18 that those who are strongly advocating for 101‑A

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

20 that whatever we do here and whatever we do on

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

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

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

24 proper way, with a very jaundiced aye.

25 Since we've been discussing 101‑A for

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

3 it would have been nice to have this document with

4 an opportunity to discuss it and understand it much

5 more fully, so therefore I vote yes with some

6 reluctance.

7 COUNCIL CLERK: Jackson.

8 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Aye.

9 COUNCIL CLERK: Katz.

10 COUNCIL MEMBER KATZ: Madam Chair, to

11 explain my vote?

12 I just want to tag onto what

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

14 substance or procedure and the fact of the matter

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

16 we have had briefings upon briefings. We have had

17 diagnosis upon diagnosis and stat upon stat on this

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

19 this impact statement or this document earlier than

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

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

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

23 will vote aye.

24 COUNCIL CLERK: Stewart.

25 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART: Madam Chair,

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 can I be excused to explain my vote.

3 I feel that we have been given a rush

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

5 information that is incomplete and having to make a

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

7 smell good.

8 And with that in mind, I abstain from

9 voting, Madam Chair. Because until we can get

10 clearcut information that would lead us one way or

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

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

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

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

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

16 an understanding that will affect in a positive way

17 the children of New York.

18 Why should it be that one has to lose

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

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

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

22 go down this road and have animosity among

23 ourselves.

24 I think it's important that whatever

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

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

4 abstain from voting.

5 COUNCIL CLERK: Oddo.

6 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Just a

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

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

9 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART: But at the

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

11 assess on this resolution, based on what the

12 witnesses were saying awhile ago. We need to get

13 more information.

14 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay. Thank

15 you.

16 COUNCIL CLERK: Oddo.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: May I be

18 temporarily excused to explain my vote?

19 Let me just start out by saying that

20 I appreciate the testimony of the two witnesses, and

21 I appreciate the fact that they said that hours and

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

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

24 working backwards. The cart here was the negative

25 dec, and the horse were the facts that should

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

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

4 horse, and, therefore, I vote no.

5 COUNCIL CLERK: Comrie.

6 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: Madam Chair,

7 may I be excused to explain my vote?

8 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Yes.

9 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: Just because

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

11 mean that we should exclude every opportunity to

12 make things right.

13 Just because we have numbers doesn't

14 mean that we should ignore consensus. Just because

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

16 make difficult discussions open and honest and

17 difficult.

18 Now, clearly, this is an issue that

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

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

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

22 do in the Council have to reflect on the integrity

23 of this body.

24 Clearly, children are being affected

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

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

4 other sources. We have responsibilities as effective

5 and honest legislators to do everything we can to

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 to try to articulate within the body and within the

13 conditions and issues that I think are prevalent and

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

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

16 nobody is going to ever be comfortable with any lead

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

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

19 the Sierra Club doing lead paint abatement, or these

20 other policy wonks doing the actual work, we still

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

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

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

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

25 for the City to do what's necessary.

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 But in the fact that we have a

3 problem, and an endemic problem where we have two

4 pieces of legislation, none of which anybody knows

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

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

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

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

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

10 forth.

11 I feel that at this point, and

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

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

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

15 have a bill that they can work from.

16 I hope that this does not end the

17 opportunities for people to do what's necessary to

18 protect children. That this is not an opportunity

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

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

21 yes on this bill.

22 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

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

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

25 COUNCIL MEMBER COMRIE: On the

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 environmental reso.

3 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay.

4 COUNCIL CLERK: By a vote of eight in

5 the affirmative, two in the negative and one

6 abstention, the item is adopted.

7 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

8 Member Oddo. You may reintroduce.

9 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Madam Chair,

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

11 101‑A.

12 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Yes. Do we

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

14 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART: I second

15 that.

16 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

17 Member Kendall Stewart seconds the amendment.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: For the sake of

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

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

21 text of the amendments.

22 The first one again is an amendment

23 to subdivision A of Section 27‑2056.5 regarding the

24 presumption, and it reads: "In any multiple

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 be presumed that the paint or other similar surface

3 coating material in any dwelling unit where a child

4 of applicable age resides or in the common areas is

5 lead‑based paint solely for the purpose of this

6 article. The presumption established by this section

7 may be rebutted by the owner of the dwelling or

8 dwelling unit by submitting to the Department a

9 sworn written statement by the owner supported by

10 lead‑based testing of sampling results, a sworn

11 written statement by the person who performed the

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

13 owner, and such other proof as the Department may

14 require. Testing performed to rebut the presumption

15 may only be performed by a person who has been

16 certified as an inspector or risk assessor in

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

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

19 successor regulations. The determination as to

20 whether such proof is adequate to rebut the

21 presumption established by this section shall be

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

23 The second one is an amendment of

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

25 responsibility to notify occupants and to

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

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

4 1960, where the owner has actual knowledge that a

5 child of applicable age resides in any dwelling

6 unit, in a multiple dwelling erected on or after

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

8 where the owner has actual knowledge that a child of

9 applicable age resides, and the owner has actual

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

11 in common areas of such multiple dwellings, the

12 owner shall cause an investigation to be made for

13 peeling paint, chewable surfaces, deterioriated

14 subsurfaces, friction surfaces and impact surfaces.

15 Such investigation shall be undertaken at least once

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

17 the exercise of reasonable care an owner actually

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

19 condition that is reasonably foreseeable to cause a

20 lead‑based paint hazard or an occupant makes a

21 complaint concerning a condition that is likely to

22 cause a lead‑based paint hazard or requests an

23 inspection, or the Department issues a notice of

24 violation or orders correction of a violation that

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 owner shall ascertain whether a child resides

3 therein pursuant to the requirements of this

4 section."

5 I could read it again if anyone would

6 like.

7 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: No.

8 Excuse me, Council Member Oddo. Can

9 you unlegal‑ease this for us?

10 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Yes.

11 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Put it in

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

13 common folk?

14 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: The first

15 presumption says that there should be a presumption

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

17 extend the presumption to liability. It essentially

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

19 about the liability and opening up to all kinds of

20 cases, frivolous cases, the liability of property

21 owners, and the liability of the City.

22 The second amendment mandates that

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

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

25 applicable age in the apartment.

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 Common sense changes, I submit.

3 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

4 Member Brewer, now we can ask questions of Council

5 Member Oddo, that is Council members in the

6 Committee. We cannot take questions from the

7 audience.

8 Council Member Brewer, you had

9 questions?

10 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: First of all,

11 I respect the fact that Council Member Oddo always

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

13 impressive.

14 The question, it seems to me, the

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

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

17 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: No, Local Law 38

18 was thrown out because of an inefficient, or an

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

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

21 and there will be another court that will say that

22 there's insufficient environmental assessment,

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

24 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: Okay. And then

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

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

4 is living there some time; is that something that

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

6 that that fact was known?

7 We've had this discussion I think on

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

9 issue between landlords and tenants as to what

10 exactly is going on in an apartment because

11 residences change, situations change, people tell

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

13 just wondering, how would this be actually carried

14 out?

15 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Council Member,

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

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

18 want to hold property owners responsible, and my

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

20 have the information and are put on proper notice.

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

22 then we should hold them to the highest standards

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

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

25 think that we should craft a bill that says when

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

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

4 language.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER BREWER: Okay, thank

6 you.

7 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

8 Member Avella.

9 COUNCIL MEMBER AVELLA: I actually

10 have a procedural question, in terms of voting on

11 Council Member Oddo's amendment.

12 Should the Committee vote in favor of

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

14 actual bill?

15 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

16 Member Oddo, can you respond to that?

17 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Well, I think

18 Counsel should respond to it, but clearly the cure

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

20 amended bill on the 15th without a message of

21 necessity from the Administration, and, frankly, I

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

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

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

25 of time before the full Council could vote on the

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 bill, but certainly enough time within this

3 legislative year.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER AVELLA: So, did I hear

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

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

7 it is theoretically possible that this bill will

8 then die this session?

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

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

11 period of time that the bill has to cure once

12 amended when it goes from Committee to full Council,

13 that's the only delay.

14 The Council, this Housing and

15 Buildings Committee can certainly vote on this bill

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

17 and then the full Council could vote before December

18 is out.

19 COUNCIL MEMBER AVELLA: Can we get an

20 official interpretation from Counsel?

21 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Yes. Do you

22 want to say it on the record, please?

23 Introduce yourself.

24 MR. DAMASHEK: Deputy General Counsel

25 to the Council.

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 The bill would have to lay over

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

4 any more Stated Council Meetings before the end of

5 the year, and it will die.

6 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Unlike other

7 legislative bodies that go out of session and hide

8 wherever they live, this body can come into session

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

10 Stated Council Meeting?

11 MR. DAMASHEK: Right. But at the

12 moment there are no ‑‑

13 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: We can call it

14 at my house, we can call it ‑‑

15 MR. DAMASHEK: There are no Stated

16 Council Meetings after December 15th.

17 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Does that

18 answer your question?

19 COUNCIL MEMBER AVELLA: That

20 completely answers my question.

21 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay.

22 Council Member Jackson.

23 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Thank you,

24 Madam Chair.

25 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you.

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Would passing

3 this amendment with respect to either amendments, I

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

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

6 because my understanding, there are certain

7 triggers, once as a presumption that HPD and the

8 Department of Health triggers into safeguarding the

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

10 possibly saving children from being lead poisoned

11 and brain damaged; is that correct?

12 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Robert, first

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

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

15 hearing.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Jim, I didn't

17 hear what you said.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: I said, I guess

19 this is what Carol Robles‑Roman felt like yesterday

20 while questioning.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: I wasn't here

22 yesterday.

23 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: No, that's all

24 right. It's an inside joke anyway.

25 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: That's why I

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 missed it, I guess.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: It's a very good

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

5 presumption, in terms of being that trigger for

6 enforcement, we're simply adding the language so

7 that this article applies, this language, this

8 presumption applies solely to the enforcement. The

9 presumption will still exist as it should in terms

10 of being the trigger for enforcement for HPD, it

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

12 it to the liability issue.

13 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: But this

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

15 say anything about liability in here, Jim. In

16 summarizing this in plain simple language, you refer

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

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

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

20 mentioned at all in the amendment.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: So that the bill

22 would read that the presumption exists, there would

23 be no language to extending the presumption to

24 liability. The language within the bill would speak

25 of a presumption solely as a trigger for

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 enforcement.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Well, my

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

5 know whether or not you can answer or somebody else

6 from staff, if in fact these amendments were passed

7 by this Committee, must then, based on the

8 amendments, a new negative declaration be submitted

9 to the Council as a result of the proposed changes

10 that you would like to see put forward?

11 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: That's a

12 question that Council staff should answer.

13 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Terzah.

14 MS. NASSER: Terzah Nasser, Counsel to

15 the Committee. Technically the answer would be yes,

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

17 part of the environmental assessment. If you are

18 changing the provisions to the bill, then one would

19 have to review the environmental assessment to see

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

21 still appropriate.

22 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you.

23 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: So, from a

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

25 based on the previous questions asked by my

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 colleague Avella, this would then, also this time

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

4 assumption?

5 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Bob, are you

6 still addressing me?

7 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: I guess I was

8 addressing staff more so, Jim.

9 MR. NASSER: Terzah Nasser. Correct,

10 sir.

11 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay.

12 Now, Jim, with respect to, and I

13 guess you and my colleagues were here before I was

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

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

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

17 stand right now?

18 Can I get a definitive answer on

19 that? If someone can.

20 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Terzah.

21 MS. NASSER: Terzah Nasser, Counsel to

22 the Committee.

23 Local Law 38 was basically thrown out

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

25 time, Local Law 1 was revived.

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: I'm sorry,

3 Local?

4 MS. NASSER: Local Law 1 of 1982.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Was what?

6 MS. NASSER: Was revived.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay.

8 So, in essence, since Local Law 38

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

10 Local Law 1; is that correct?

11 MS. NASSER: That is correct.

12 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay.

13 MS. NASSER: Though at the same token,

14 because the rules pursuant to Local Law 1 were never

15 promulgated by the agencies, there are no rules

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

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

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

19 do right now because there are not rules.

20 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Going back to

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

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

23 has actual knowledge that..."

24 Well, what do you mean by the owner

25 has actual knowledge?

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 Is it the agent of the owner, the

3 superintendent, the building manager, or his staff

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

5 owner is a corporation? Because you bold and

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

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

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

9 explanation of what does that mean.

10 Does it mean what it reads?

11 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Yes, a couple of

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

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

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

15 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: All right?

17 That's the reason for the emphasis.

18 And it is with the extent of what the

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

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

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

22 says it is, actual knowledge.

23 Bob, if I may say one other thing?

24 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Yes.

25 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: If I could jump

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 back to the question that Terzah answered about what

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

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

5 very first hearings, but the hearing that

6 Commissioner Frieden testified and the Speaker, is

7 that the Speaker and Commissioner Frieden had a very

8 interesting exchange where it was about really and

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

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

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

12 think there is some outstanding questions as to

13 exactly what law is being applied and I have to

14 stress again as Terzah said, there are no

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

16 say that Local Law 1 rules is the standard when

17 there are no promulgated rules.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay, so they

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

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

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

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

23 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: I think one of

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

25 people realized that actually promulgating rules on

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 Local Law 1 was a very difficult task.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: And if I can

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

5 Council member, would then by implementing Local Law

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

7 for the agencies to follow?

8 Can I get an answer, please?

9 MR. HABERMAN: The answer is yes,

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

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

12 Infrastructure Division of the Council.

13 Proposed Intro. No. 101‑A requires

14 that HPD make rules for conducting work, but also

15 contains guidance to HPD, it requires that certain

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

17 workers have to be properly trained for the line of

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

19 and clearances have to be met before the work is

20 considered completed. Local Law 38 did not have

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

22 have directed HPD to take steps to enforce Local Law

23 1 because they didn't.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: You're Deputy

25 Director to the Council; is that correct?

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 MR. HABERMAN: To the Infrastructure

3 Division.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: If we, in

5 fact, pass these amendments, will that have a

6 negative impact on Local Law 101 with respects to

7 enforcement and implementation of the rules that are

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

9 as counsel to our Committee?

10 MR. HABERMAN: It would change the

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

12 as effective a piece of legislation.

13 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: I'm sorry.

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

15 hard of hearing.

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

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

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

19 piece of legislation.

20 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay, thank

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

22 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Robert, may I

23 just add one thing? Council Member Jackson?

24 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Sure. Sure.

25 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: As I said

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

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

4 may just amplify on your question about ‑‑

5 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: You read my

6 mind.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Thank you.

8 To amplify on the response I gave you

9 on actual notice, actually telling the owner there

10 is a child or filling out the actual form,

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

12 states that there is a child of this age.

13 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: You mean the

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

15 the bars across the window, correct?

16 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Window guard.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Window guard.

18 Thank you.

19 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

20 Member Reyna.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: Thank you,

22 Madam Chair.

23 Council Member Oddo, you had

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

25 someone representing the Community Neighborhood

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 Preservation Corporation?

3 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Yes. Michael

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

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

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

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

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

9 the day before? Wednesday.

10 And he testified about his concerns

11 of specifically the insurance and the liability

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

13 have on construction of affordable housing, and for

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

15 he's not a residential property owner.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: But he wasn't

17 speaking on behalf of all entities?

18 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: No. He actually

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

20 Wright and Denise Scott, folks from various banks

21 and various other organizations.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: And he never in

23 his testimony opposed the law in its entirety, he

24 raised concerns.

25 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: And neither do I

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

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

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

5 presumption issue and that's precisely the testimony

6 that Mr. Lappin spoke to.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: And I'm torn

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

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

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

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

12 presumption has been there since then; is that

13 correct?

14 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Well, I would

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

16 is in effect when there are no rules promulgated for

17 it.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: But it is in

19 effect?

20 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: But I would say

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

22 obtained during Local Law 38 under a different

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

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

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 there are consequences that follow from that.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: But if the

4 issue is insurance policy, then we would be

5 experiencing those troubles right now.

6 I just wanted to make it clear, that

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

8 heard by now from more than just a few testimonies

9 about policies being dropped.

10 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: You were

11 there.

12 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: But they didn't

13 say they dropped, they were dropping clients.

14 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: We did hear

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

16 were folks that came up that said they actually at

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

18 they foresaw that things would only get worse. There

19 were several folks that testified to Wednesday to

20 that effect.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: There has never

22 been lead insurance.

23 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Of course

24 there has.

25 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: There has been?

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Yes. Remember

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

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

5 then other folks were saying that they had lead

6 insurance and they were dropped, or the premium was

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

8 You even questioned some of these

9 people. Yes, okay.

10 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: No, I

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

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

13 All this time no one has ever been interested in

14 lead.

15 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: James, would

16 you like to address that?

17 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: In lead, in

18 lead insurance.

19 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: In the

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

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

22 presumption issue.

23 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: I guess when you

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

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 think about it.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA: All right.

4 Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

5 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

6 Member Vallone.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER VALLONE: Thank you,

8 Madam Chair.

9 Council Member Oddo, let me commend

10 you for your amendments and for the hard work that

11 goes behind these amendments. People don't realize

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

13 all.

14 People need to remember that Local

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

16 30 to 40 percent reduction in lead paint poisoning

17 cases.

18 People also need to remember that the

19 trial attorneys vehemently opposed that law, which

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

21 need to ask why.

22 Council Member Oddo, I'm also a

23 former trial attorney so I understand the

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

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

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

4 no business being in this law.

5 It will force landlords who have done

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

7 or be extorted. It will end insurance for homeowners

8 and it will hurt affordable housing.

9 There are so many aspects of this new

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

11 which I commend Bill Perkins and this entire

12 Committee, especially Councilwoman Provenzano, for

13 attempting to enact, such as recognizing lead dust

14 as a hazard.

15 There are so many good aspects of

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

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

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

19 members to adopt Council Member Oddo's amendment.

20 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Madam Chair, may

21 I just respond briefly?

22 Council Member Vallone, thank you for

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

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

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 protect children and allow good landlords to

3 continue to renovate and maintain their buildings.

4 I want a bill that protects children

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

6 mind prevent property owners from continuing to

7 renovate and maintain their buildings, and that's

8 why I submitted the amendments.

9 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you.

10 Council Member Fidler.

11 COUNCIL MEMBER FIDLER: Actually,

12 Madam Chairwoman, Councilman Jackson asked my

13 question.

14 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

15 Member Stewart.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART: Thank you,

17 Madam Chair.

18 Council Member Oddo, is this

19 considered a friendly amendment?

20 I would like to know, because I feel

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

22 that has addressed some of the problems that we have

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

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

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

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

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

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

4 proponents are talking about in terms of these two

5 amendments.

6 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: I simply want a

7 bill that protects kids and allows property owners

8 to renovate and maintain a building.

9 I imagine it's friendly in some

10 circles, and unfriendly in others.

11 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART: So,

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

13 think that those who consider it not friendly, if

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

15 if they're considering that as one of their

16 interests, and the interest might be something else.

17 I think we all agree that we need to

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

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

20 think it means that they do not really consider the

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

22 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Thank you.

23 Do we have any other questions on

24 these two amendments? Council Member Jackson.

25 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: I'm sorry, I

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 was I guess engaged in conversation with trying to

3 make a point to someone and also listening at the

4 same time.

5 My colleague, Council Member Stewart,

6 I guess raised the question of a friendly amendment,

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

8 conclusion of that discussion or question, Madam

9 Chair.

10 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Council

11 Member Stewart, would you like to respond?

12 COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART: I asked the

13 question, I would like to know.

14 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Was there a

15 decision reached on that particular matter or not?

16 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: If it was a

17 friendly amendment?

18 Well, I think what Council Member

19 Oddo said was it may be considered friendly to some

20 folks and unfriendly to others.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Oh.

22 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Depending on

23 your interpretation of his amendments.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay, so, has

25 it been adopted by the prime or primary sponsors as

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 a friendly amendment?

3 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: No, we

4 haven't taken any action on it.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Oh, okay. So,

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

7 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: We haven't

8 taken any action.

9 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: So by not

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

11 friendly amendment; is that correct, Madam Chair?

12 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Okay, we're

13 going to have an actual interpretation for you on

14 friendly.

15 Terzah.

16 MS. NASSER: Terzah Nasser, Counsel to

17 the Committee.

18 Basically the question would be

19 whether the amendments are friendly to the main

20 sponsors of the bill, and in this case Council

21 Member Perkins is the prime, the first prime

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

23 is it friendly to Council Member Perkins.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: Can I stipulate

25 that it's not?

1 COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

2 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: Go ahead.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER ODDO: So we save some

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

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

6 CHAIRPERSON PROVENZANO: That clears

7 it up. Thank you.

8 Council Member Perkins.

9 COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS: Thank you

10 very much.

11 First let me, for the record,

12 establish that it is not a friendly amendment. And

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

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

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

16 removing the presumption that is perhaps the most

17 significant part of Local Law 38.

18 But let me say to the Chairwoman, I

19 want to commend you, even though we seriously

20 disagree, because the last time we were down this

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

22 an extraordinary representation of the best that

23 this Council can be, even as we disagree.

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

25 guess there have been reasons to feel good about