Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
TESTIMONY
Testimony by Valerie De La Rosa, Chair of Manhattan Community Board 2, on ULURP and community input
2:04:03
·
3 min
Valerie De La Rosa, Chair of Manhattan Community Board 2, testifies on behalf of the board, expressing concerns about proposed ULURP changes.
The board opposes reducing ULURP review times from 90 to 60 days and running concurrent reviews for community boards and borough presidents, arguing reviews should roll up.
They find the definition of "small projects" and "categorically beneficial projects" for streamlined review insufficient.
- CB2 strongly opposes a three-member panel to override City Council decisions and efforts to weaken member deference, emphasizing the local expertise of council members.
- They find comprehensive planning suggestions inadequate and seek more definition for a zoning administrator role, while supporting measures that increase community board influence if aligned with borough-level recommendations.
Valerie De La Rosa
2:04:03
Okay.
2:04:04
Wonderful.
2:04:05
I can turn my camera on in a second, but while we're on, hello.
2:04:10
My name is Valerie Della Rosa, and I am the chair of Manhattan Community Board two, and I'm speaking on behalf of the board.
2:04:19
I'm also an economist by practice.
2:04:23
Let me see if I can turn my camera on with my notes.
2:04:26
Okay.
2:04:27
Great.
2:04:27
Thank you so much.
2:04:29
And I'm speaking on behalf of, Manhattan Community Board too today.
2:04:34
So, we advise that the commission's focus on ULURP timelines completely ignores the importance and impact of the precertification phase where developers can direct confer directly and repeatedly over a course of months or years with members of the staff of the Department of City Planning and also engage in various aspects of environmental review, all without the involvement of the community, the community board, excuse me, or local electeds, all while recognizing the importance of that input, investing time and effort to engage the community in order to produce a better outcome.
2:05:15
We oppose a reduction in the EULAR review process from ninety to sixty days, which would diminish the time for the public to weigh in.
2:05:24
And I apologize for the uproar.
2:05:25
I'm actually giving this testimony from Elizabeth Street Garden in Manhattan, which had a big land use announcement today.
2:05:39
Additionally, we failed to see the benefit of running concurrent public reviews at the community board and borough president's level when reviews should roll up to the borough president from the community board level.
2:05:50
We find it difficult to support the recommendation of a streamlined New York for small projects and categorically beneficial projects given that these terms are not sufficiently defined but support a local review process for categorically beneficial projects.
2:06:08
We strongly oppose the creation of a three member panel that could override the decisions of a democratically elected city council with just two votes and do not support the changes in the roles of the borough president, city council speaker, members of the city council, and community boards that would diminish local community input.
2:06:27
We disagree with efforts to weaken member deference, particularly when member deference is not even codified in the city council.
2:06:34
The role of a local city council member is to be an expert on local issues and still must win the support of the full council.
2:06:41
We find the mayor's commission suggestions for comprehensive planning inadequate.
2:06:45
As an example, when rezonings occur, there should be a requirement for much near investment in impacted infrastructure and local services.
2:06:53
We find that the recommendation of adding a zoning administrator requires the additional definition along with specifics on how community input would be preserved for processes decided by such an administrator.
2:07:06
We agree with the recommendation of another commission to increase the number of votes on the city planning commission required to disprove action if the community board, borough president, and borough board all recommend approval of a land use action.
2:07:20
We oppose rules that would weaken public input and I
Richard R. Buery Jr.
2:07:23
apologize.
2:07:24
I'm sorry.
Bob Kelly
2:07:24
We're
Valerie De La Rosa
2:07:24
I've got over my three minutes.
2:07:25
Thank you so much.
Richard R. Buery Jr.
2:07:26
Thank you so much.