|
Regulatory
Framework
Monday, March 11, 2002
8:30 AM
Merrill Lynch
Four World Financial Center
Conference Room A
1.
Bob Yaro, President of Regional Plan Association welcomed us to
the meeting and observed a moment of silence to remember the victims of
September 11, on the six month anniversary of the terrorist attacks.
2.
Jim Tripp, of Environmental Defense introduced the work of Regulatory
working group of the Civic Alliance, co-chaired by Deborah Beck and Jim
Tripp.
2.1. The
regulatory group is examining ways to ensure a robust, transparent regulatory
review process for Lower Manhattan: a decision making process that is
rich with opportunities for public participation, but without indefinite
delays.
2.2. Different
regulatory reviews that redevelopment may need to undergo include the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and eventually an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The EIS process is designed to report the impacts of the proposed project,
and present reasonable alternatives.
2.3. Different
issues the Regulatory working group is looking at include:
2.3.1.
Public actions: What projects or approvals will be proposed
or required;
2.3.2. Segmentation: How will these be considered
– together or separately;
2.3.3. Scoping Process: What impacts are
expected;
2.3.4. Timing: Different projects such as
transportation, sub-station, etc.;
2.3.5.
Judicial review: How can this process be expedited.
2.4.
The New York Bar Association has set up a task force on Downtown
Redevelopment that is meeting bi-weekly to examine these issues. The
regulatory working group has met with them and reviewed several proposals
by Dave Puggett, Rick Lehman, and Michael Gerrard.
2.5.
In framing how we might expedite the process of the regulatory
review, the part most likely to be truncated is the judicial review.
However, we would need an assurance that the administrative process
would still provide adequate accountability to the public.
3.
Deborah Beck of the Real Estate Board of New York, and the co-chair
of the Regulatory working group of the Civic Alliance spoke next, echoing
Jim's sentiments that the goals critical to this working group are assurances
of a transparent and robust regulatory process.
3.1.
What is a robust process? A: Well detailed information.
4.
Stephen Kass, chair of the New York Bar Association Special Committee
on Downtown Development.
4.1. We
will be meeting with the LMDC, Port Authority, City of New York, and
others.
4.2. Evan
van Hook chairs the NY Bar Association sub-committee on environmental
review and permitting. The work of these committees will:
4.2.1.
Identify all permits required
4.2.2. Identify the review process
4.2.3.
Think about what form the public outreach should take.
4.3. In
doing so, the committee will look at what property interests exist (who
has rights to the property); there are many layers of property interests
making this quite complicated.
4.4. We
propose that the public should be engaged before a plan is formulated.
4.5. Other
questions: who will be the lead agency for the EIS?
4.5.1.
Will the EIS be generic or segmented?
4.6.
There is an opportunity to really screw this up. The 42nd street
redevelopment was done extremely well, and it still took ten years of
litigation. It is important to show the public that this will not be
held up the way things usually are in New York.
5.
Evan van Hook, New York Bar Association
5.1. We
are looking at what will trigger the environmental review process and
permitting hearings.
5.1.1. The
matrix of issues makes environmental review very complicated.
5.1.2.
Layers of city, state, bi-state and federal review.
5.2. Can
we reduce the amount of review in any way? Possibilities include:
5.2.1.
Eliminate redundancies.
5.2.2.
Appeal to the appellate division
5.2.3.
Eliminate any NEPA based review
5.3. But
if any part of the review process is reduced, it must be balanced by
the other side both in terms of "trading" less judicial review
for a more front-end process, as well as more substance.
5.3.1.
Public input on substantive design criteria; i.e. public approves
design criteria that can be used through out.
5.3.2.
Before we trade off some of the review process, we need to know
what the compensation will be.
5.4.
Our goal is to simplify and create a pathway for all interests
to be represented early.
6.
Eric Goldstein, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC)
6.1.
Objective for the Regulatory working group of the Civic Alliance:
Ensure that environmental laws and rules are applied in a way that serves
downtown community, city and region. Goals:
6.1.1.
Definition of the problem with respect to environmental laws
and rules
6.1.2.
Seek broad agreement or overall principles related to redevelopment
6.1.3.
Get agreement on process of review that while expedited, allows
for proper public participation.
6.2.
Problem: Difficulties of review process are at the end of the
process (judicial review.) We are willing to consider reforms to the
judicial review process.
6.3.
What is the scope of the project? Should it be the 16 acres, or
south of Houston, etc.
6.4.
Do we wish to reform the review process legislatively, or administratively?
(Preference for administrative reform.)
6.5.
Reluctant to tamper with NEPA & SEQRA because of the ramifications
on other projects.
7.
Questions from the Floor:
7.1.
Where is the need to expedite anything? The EIS planning process
should be done well and carefully. I challenge the working group to
identify where we need to expedite things and what needs to be expedited.
There is however a need for immediate attention on the following items:
7.1.1.
Transportation infrastructure
7.1.2. Utilities: electricity and communication
infrastructure
7.1.3. West Street (will determine the face
of Lower Manhattan)
7.1.4. Building Seven.
7.2.
In SEQRA, you’re supposed to define a proposed action. What
if instead, we move planning forward in a meaningful way, develop principles
that everyone can agree upon, and then propose four alternate plans
of equal merit.
7.3.
Ed Blakely: At Presidio, (in San Francisco after the Earthquake)
we developed six alternate plans and the public had the opportunity
to comment on them all.
7.4.
I am concerned about waiting for environmental triggers: what
if they don’t happen? As a person representing low income communities,
we want to be involved from the beginning, not at the end after all
decisions have already been made, as often happens.
7.5.
We would like to see a planning process that sets the precedent
for the future: not just disclosure, but real engagement of the citizens
around the City and the local community.
7.6.
There is a website being developed that will allow architecture
students from around the world to participate in a design exercise around
the rebuilding of downtown. For information, email info@rippleeffects.org.
7.7.
Nancy Owens: I have been discourage that a lot of wheels are turning
and we are not going anywhere with all these meetings, but then I went
to LMDC’s advisory board meeting on development, and in comparison,
I feel we have actually accomplished a lot! Maybe the next step is really
doing some physical planning and mapping.
7.8.
Gail Miller, NY Lawyers for the Public Interest: I am concerned
that the reform of SEQRA could have major implications for the review
process throughout the state.
7.9.
Jim Tripp: Michael Gerrard’s proposal (which we are only
considering) has a sunset clause for reform to SEQRA so that it only
applies to this site.
7.10.
To what extent have we looked at the Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR)?
7.10.1.
Response: We haven’t thought in those terms yet because
we are thinking about how LMDC will use its authority, but we should
look into TDR.
7.11.
There should be an Employment Impact Statement.
7.12.
LMDC has announced that it will put forth planning principals.
In the absence of principals, they may adopt the principals of New York
New Visions.
7.13.
We should look at the impact to communities in Queens and other
boroughs if there will be a dispersal or decentralization of the financial
services sector.
8.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 AM.
Attendance:
Acker, Ruth--Women’s City Club
Ball, Jonathon--Cleary, Gottleib, Steen and Hamilton
Beck, Deborah--REBNY
Bell, Rick--AIA
Blumenfeld, Carol--NESC
Bradley, Michael--Riverside South Planning Corporation
Brainard, Gabrielle--Kiss Cathcart Associates
Brightbill, Peter
Buga, Joseph--HSDC, Inc.
Chin, Rocky
Colton, Tara--Center for Excellence in NY City Governance
Craft, Carter--Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance
Damiani, Bettina--Good Jobs New York
Earisman, Peggy--Rebuild with a Spotlight on the Poor
Elston, Paul--NY League Conservation Voters
Epstein, Paul--Epstein & Fass Associates
Ernest, Ethan--Ripple Affects
Fried, Arthur--Center for Excellence in NYC Governance
Goetz, Bernie
Goldberg, Arielle
Goldstein, Eric--Natural Resources Defense Council
Herman, David
Herz, Roger--TIME
Hornick, Sandy--NYC Department of City Planning
Hughes, Margaret--Good Old Lower East Side
Jones, Chris--RPA
Kahn, Karen--PANYNJ
Kallick, David--Fiscal Policy Institute
Kass, Stephen--NY Bar Association
King, Ellie--Women's City Club
Lai, Charles--Asian American Federation
Lane, Rob--RPA
Miller, Gail--NOW Legal Defense Fund
Miller, Kimberly--Citizens Housing & Planning Council
Nicholson, Jan--RPA
Owens, Nancy--Community Board One
Penesis, George
Pino, Parkinson
Pirani, Rob--RPA
Ream, Amanda--Hotel Workers Union
Rosen, Bruce--NYC Department of city Planning
Rutherford, Phillip--Land Air Project Resources
Ryan, Ellen--MAS
Saunders, Melissa--University of Pennsylvania
Schmidt, Kate--Manhattan Borough President’s Office
Schuman, Gail--NY Lawyers for the Public Interest
Sheffer, Ethel--APA New York Chapter
Shiffman, Ron--PICCED
Shiller, Peggy--National Parenting
Slippen, Dan--Pace University
Soffin, Jeremy--Jasculca Terman
Strauss, Mark--Fox & Fowle
Todorovich, Petra--RPA
Tripp, Jim--Environmental Defense
Van de Walle, Carla
Van Hook, Evan--NY Bar Association
Weber, Steve--RPA
Williford, Toya--RPA
Willlis, Beverly--RDOT
Yaro, Bob--RPA
Zupan, Jeff--RPA
|
