DOCSLIB.ORG

An Analysis of Construction Worker Safety During Building Decommissioning and Deconstruction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Analysis of Construction Worker Safety During Building Decommissioning and Deconstruction An Analysis of Construction Worker Safety during Building Decommissioning and Deconstruction Tanyel Bulbul, PhD 430C Bishop-Favrao Hall, Department of Building Construction, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg VA 24061. Phone: (540) 231-5017; E-mail: [email protected] An Analysis of Construction Worker Safety during Building Decommissioning and Deconstruction Abstract: This paper reports the initial findings from our pilot research on understanding construction worker safety issues in building end-of-lifecycle operations specifically decommissioning and deconstruction. Although deconstruction is more environmentally friendly than demolition, it is more labor intensive and it requires more careful planning for critical health and safety issues. The data for this study comes from four buildings surrounding the World Trade Center. The buildings were damaged after September 11 and needed to come down. Keywords: building deconstruction, worker safety, building decommissioning 1. Introduction A building’s end-of-lifecycle operations include various activities from decommissioning and remodeling to deconstruction and demolition. According to the United States Energy Information Administration (US EIA) 74% of all commercial buildings in the US are built before 1990 and 17% built before 1945 (CBECS, 2003). Similarly, 76% of all the housing units are built before 1990 and 19% is built before 1950 (RECS, 2005). Since the US building stock is relatively old, demolition or deconstruction of buildings to open space for new construction or, building renovation for new purposes have a significant impact on the construction industry. For example, in 2006, residential and commercial building renovation activities cost 36% ($438 billion) of the all building construction activities ($1.22 trillion) (DOE, 2006). Building end-of-lifecycle operations also cause the construction industry to produce one of the largest shares of waste in the US. In 1998, 136 million tons of construction and demolition (C&D) waste was produced in the US. 48 percent of the waste came from demolition and 44 percent was generated through renovations (Franklin Associates 1998). A preliminary estimate claims that more than 160 million tons of C&D waste was generated in 2003, of which nearly 42 percent came from demolition activities and 49 percent was produced by renovation activities (EPA 2008, EPA 2009). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that only 40 percent of C&D waste was reused, recycled, or sent to energy facilities, while the remaining 60 percent of the materials was sent to C&D landfills. From environmental sustainability perspective, there is a growing interest to divert building materials away from landfill disposal and provide cost savings and avoidance of virgin material use through reuse and recycling (Kibert and Chini 2000, Chini 2001, Chini and Shultman 2002, Chini 2003, Chini 2005, Crowther 2001, Crowther 2002, Durmisevic 2006, Hurley et al. 2002, Guy and Shell 2002, Hinze 2002, Te Dorsthorst and Kowalczyk 2002, Dorsthorst and Durmisevic 2003). In comparison to demolition, deconstruction is an effective way for reducing raw material consumption and protecting embodied energy in building materials. When buildings reach the end of their useful life, they are decommissioned and either renovated for new purposes or demolished and hauled to landfills. Demolition of a building through explosives or wrecking-ball style is convenient and offers a quick way for clearing the site. However, this method creates a significant amount of C&D waste and landfill costs. Deconstruction is defined as the process of selectively dismantling a building or parts of a building in order to salvage the materials for reuse, recycling, or waste management (Guy and Gibeau 2003). This paper reports the initial findings from our pilot research on understanding construction worker safety issues in building end-of-lifecycle operations specifically decommissioning and deconstruction. Although deconstruction is more environmentally friendly than demolition, it is more labor intensive and it requires more careful planning for critical health and safety issues. Early planning involves complex activities such as collecting and analyzing various information that is coming from different sources related to the existing structure. Deconstruction activities involve many of the safety hazards associated with the construction. On top of that, all building end-of-lifecycle operations have safety risks due to the unknown condition of the building. These might be caused by deviations from the original design and missing as-built information, unapproved updates, unknown state of construction materials, strength or weakness issues with the structure etc. 2. Significance In simple terms, deconstruction is the reverse of the construction process, but it shows differences according to the condition and location of the building and building materials involved. In comparison to demolition, which generates waste for landfills, deconstruction produces materials that can be used again or remanufactured into higher- value goods. Two distinct types of deconstruction can take place on a project—non- structural and structural. Non-structural deconstruction is the removal for reuse of any building contents that do not affect the structural integrity. Materials such as cabinetry, windows/doors, and appliances can be salvaged relatively easily with minimum safety concerns. Structural deconstruction consists of more involved recovery activities that are harder to implement and contribute to the structural integrity of the building. Salvaged materials consist of roof systems, wood timbers and beams, brick and masonry elements, and framing (EPA 2001). Increasing awareness of environmental safety and the need for properly disposing the potentially harmful waste, such as asbestos or other chemicals, requires buildings to be appropriately decommissioned at the end of their lifecycle. The environmental characteristics of building materials are an important issue that needs to be carefully tracked through the building lifecycle. In comparison to the construction processes, decommissioning and deconstruction deals with significantly different waste and debris that is more likely to be contaminated by potentially hazardous substances such as lead paints, stains, and adhesives. The physical and chemical composition of a material can be altered through the surface treatment and maintenance applications. For example, finished wood has a different composition from raw wood. The chipping or shredding of finished wood during recycling can expose people to the hazardous substances such as lead-based paint. (Dolan et al. 1999). 3. Methodology One of the most critical building end-of-lifecycle operations are being done recently on the surrounding buildings of the World Trade Center (WTC) site after September 11. Five buildings on the immediate vicinity of WTC are decided to come down due to the structural damages: 130 Liberty Street, 4 Albany Street, 130 Cedar Street, 133-135 Greenwich Street, 30 West Broadway-Fiterman Hall. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) coordinated the federal, state and city agencies to ensure that the impacted buildings are decommissioned and deconstructed in a manner that protects the health of people who live and work in the area. Due to the nature of the event, all documentation related to these demolition and deconstruction events are publicly available from EPA’s web site and collected for the purpose of this research. Four of these buildings, 130 Liberty Street, 130 Cedar Street, 133-135 Greenwich Street, 30 West Broadway-Fiterman Hall, have very detailed documentation of their operations. Although the nature of decommissioning and deconstruction was very different for all four buildings, the basic regulatory submittal included the following documents: work plan, environmental air monitoring plan, health and safety plan and waste management plan. In addition to these documents every project has building specific information such as quality assurance plans, façade characterization reports, environmental characterization reports, scaffold erection operations etc. In this research, we specifically focused on health and safety plans to learn from how construction worker safety issues are addressed in these cases. 4. Findings The analysis of health and safety planning documents for all cases show that although they are prepared for different deconstruction projects they are more similar than different. The content of these documents is grouped under nine topics: Site security, entrance to site, decontamination section describes the work zones in the site, entrance and exit procedures for containment areas, emergency access, and security protocol together with general building access and perimeter security. Equipment and personnel decontamination procedures are listed as well as contamination prevention methods. Personnel training procedures are explained in detail in all four documents. This section covers basic site orientation, visitor orientation and safety meetings together with general health and safety awareness training, safe work permit, asbestos training and Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (HAZWOPER) training. Personal protective equipment (PPE) section describes the requirements of PPE for different tasks. Level D, Level C and Level B PPE work is expected in the site but Level A description is also provided as a precaution. Basic safety equipment descriptions involve
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TM 3.1 Inventory of Affected Businesses
    N E W Y O R K M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O U N C I L D E M O G R A P H I C A N D S O C I O E C O N O M I C F O R E C A S T I N G POST SEPTEMBER 11TH IMPACTS T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M NO. 3.1 INVENTORY OF AFFECTED BUSINESSES: THEIR CHARACTERISTICS AND AFTERMATH This study is funded by a matching grant from the Federal Highway Administration, under NYSDOT PIN PT 1949911. PRIME CONSULTANT: URBANOMICS 115 5TH AVENUE 3RD FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003 The preparation of this report was financed in part through funds from the Federal Highway Administration and FTA. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do no necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration, FTA, nor of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M NO.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007 Manhattan Hotel Market Overview Page 1 of 28
    HVS Hospitality Services : 2007 Manhattan Hotel Market Overview Page 1 of 28 Manhattan Hotel Market Overview HVS Hospitality Services, in cooperation with New York University's Preston Robert Tisch Center for Hospitality, Tourism, and Sports Management, is pleased to present the tenth annual Manhattan Hotel Market Overview. A slight uptick in Manhattan’s occupancy level in 2006 led to a record high of 85.0%. Despite a virtually stable occupancy, the Manhattan lodging market registered a 13.4% increase in RevPAR compared to 2005, continuing its impressive performance. The market’s RevPAR gain was supported by double-digit growth in average rate each month of the year, with the exception of December, causing year-end 2006 average rate to exceed the 2005 level by 13.2%. The high rates registered by the Manhattan lodging market were caused primarily by continued strong demand levels in 2006, allowing hotel operators to be more selective with lower-rated demand and increasingly boost rates, thereby accommodating greater numbers of higher-rated travelers. We note that the market’s overall occupancy level of 85.0% in 2006 highlights the underlying strength of the Manhattan market, which continued to operate at near-maximum-capacity levels. Because of a further decline in supply in 2006, the market continued to experience many sell-out nights, causing a significant amount of demand to remain unaccommodated. Given the larger-than-ever construction pipeline in Manhattan, a substantial portion of previously unaccommodated demand is expected to be accommodated in the future. Manhattan’s marketwide occupancy and average rate both achieved new record levels in 2006, and we expect the positive trend to continue in 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDING PERFORMANCE STUDY Table of Contents
    FEMA 403 / May 2002 Federal Emergency Management Agency Federall iinsurance and Miitiigatiion Admiiniistratiion,, Washiington,, DC FEMA Regiion IIII,, New York,, New York FEMA 403 / May 2002 Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Washington, DC FEMA Region II, New York, New York Report Editor: Team Leader: Therese McAllister Gene Corley Chapter Leaders and Authors: Team Members: Executive Summary Gene Corley William Baker, Partner, Ronald Hamburger Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP Therese McAllister Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering, Chapter 1 Therese McAllister Worcester Polytechnic Institute Jonathan Barnett John Gross David Biggs, Principal, Ryan-Biggs Associates Ronald Hamburger Gene Corley, Structural Engineer, Senior Vice President, Jon Magnusson Construction Technology Laboratories Chapter 2 Ronald Hamburger William Baker Bill Coulbourne, Principal Structural Engineer, Jonathan Barnett URS Corporation Christopher Marrion Edward M. DePaola, Principal, James Milke Severud Associates Consulting Engineers, PC Harold “Bud” Nelson Chapter 3 William Baker Robert Duval, Senior Fire Investigator, National Fire Protection Association Chapter 4 Jonathan Barnett Richard Gewain Dan Eschenasy, Chief Structural Engineer, Ramon Gilsanz City of New York Dept. of Design & Construction Harold “Bud” Nelson John Fisher, Professor of Civil Engineering, Chapter 5 Ramon Gilsanz Lehigh University Edward M. DePaola Richard Gewain, Senior Engineer, Christopher Marrion Hughes Associates,
    [Show full text]
  • July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005
    World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan— Historic Resources Report January 2006 INTRODUCTION This report on Historic Resources for the World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan (Approved Plan) is prepared pursuant to the Programmatic Agreement among the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC), as a recipient of community development block grant assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which was signed on April 22, 2004, and stipulated that LMDC would provide semi-annual reports to SHPO and ACHP to summarize measures it has taken to comply with the terms of the Programmatic Agreement. The organization of this report generally follows the stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement. In addition meetings with the Consulting Parties, the Memorial Center Advisory Committee, the Families Advisory Committee, New York/New Visions, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) are described in the final section. 1. PROJECT SITE DOCUMENTATION UNDER STIPULATIONS 1 AND 5 As previously reported the Port Authority completed the program of HABS/HAER documentation of the WTC Site in accordance with Stipulation 5 and submitted the documentation to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in August 2005. 2. ADHERENCE TO TREATMENT PLANS LMDC continued working to create a Memorial to remember the victims of September 11, 2001, and February 26, 1993 and to record the events of September 11. Planning for the Memorial is discussed in more detail in the section which follows. A draft Construction Protection Plan was prepared in connection with the demolition of 130 Liberty Street.
    [Show full text]
  • Real Estate 08/28/2020 01:45 PM Account List by Location Page 1
    Belfast Real Estate 08/28/2020 01:45 PM Account List by Location Page 1 Account Card Name / AddressLocation Map/Lot 03765001 CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY 00T-00D ONE CITY CENTER 5TH FLOOR PORTLAND ME 04101 01598001 BELFAST WATER DISTRICT ACHORN RD 009-078 PO BOX 506 BELFAST ME 04915 00283001 BELFAST WATER DISTRICT ACHORN RD 009-120 285 NORTHPORT AVENUE PO BOX 506 BELFAST ME 04915 0506 01603001 BELFAST WATER DISTRICT ACHORN RD 009-078-D 285 NORTHPORT AVENUE PO BOX 506 BELFAST ME 04915 0506 01601001 BELFAST WATER DISTRICT ACHORN RD 009-078-C PO BOX 506 BELFAST ME 04914 01605001 BELFAST WATER DISTRICT 8 ACHORN RD 009-079 PO BOX 506 BELFAST ME 04915 0506 01604001 SWEETLAND, TIMOTHY C. 37 ACHORN RD 009-078-E 37 ACHORN RD BELFAST ME 04915 01606001 DYER, CHRISTOPHER D 38 ACHORN RD 009-080 38 ACHORN ROAD BELFAST ME 04915 01607001 SMALL, KEVIN R. 71 ACHORN RD 009-081 SMALL, MICHELLE M. 71 ACHORN ROAD BELFAST ME 04915 Belfast Real Estate 08/28/2020 01:45 PM Account List by Location Page 2 Account Card Name / AddressLocation Map/Lot 01608 001 PEACH, HENRY E LIVING TRUST DATED 72 ACHORN RD 009-082 PEACH, HENRY E, NOWERS, DEBORAH K 72 ACHORN RD BELFAST ME 04915 01621001 GURNEY, CARROLL 79 ACHORN RD 009-086-D GURNEY, HAROLD c/o Matthew Hill, DHHS-OACPDS 91 CAMDEN ST. ROCKLAND ME 04841 01620001 RIPLEY, REBECKA 83 ACHORN RD 009-086-C COLE II, ZANE 83 ACHORN RD BELFAST ME 04915 01609001 SYLVESTER, PAUL 84 ACHORN RD 009-082-A 84 ACHORN ROAD BELFAST ME 04915 00863001 PERRYMAN FAMILY TRUST DATED ADNEY PLACE 004-055-A PERRYMAN, WILLIAM D, PERRYMAN, 3 ADNEY
    [Show full text]
  • 1.Introduction
    1.Introduction The original idea for a world trade center in New York is generally credited to David Rockefeller, one of industrialist John D. Rockefeller's many grandsons. In fact, the idea was proposed soon after World War II, a decade before Rockefeller ever got involved, but he was the one who actually got the ball rolling. In the 1950s and '60s, while serving as chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, Rockefeller was dedicated to revitalizing lower Manhattan. He hoped to energize the area with new construction, in much the same way his father revitalized midtown Manhattan in the 1930s with Rockefeller Center. As part of his plan, David Rockefeller proposed a complex dedicated to international trade, to be constructed at the east end of Wall Street. Rockefeller believed that the trade center, which would include office and hotel space, an exhibit hall, a securities and exchange center and numerous shops, would be just the thing to spur economic growth in the area. The original World Trade Center featured landmark twin towers(1 WTC and 2 WTC), which opened on April 4, 1973. The North Tower (left), with antenna spire, is 1 WTC. The South Tower (right) is 2 WTC 33 2.Contruction of the World Trade Center The construction of the World Trade Center was conceived as an urban renewal project, spearheaded by David Rockefeller, to help revitalize Lower Manhattan. On September 20, 1962, the Port Authority announced the selection of Minoru Yamasaki as lead architect, and Emery Roth & Sons as associate architects. Originally, Yamasaki submitted to the Port Authority a concept incorporating twin towers, but with each building only 80 stories tall.
    [Show full text]
  • Failure Consequences and Reliability Acceptance Criteria for Exceptional Building Structures a Study Taking Basis in the Failure of the World Trade Center Twin Towers
    Research Collection Report Failure consequences and reliability acceptance criteria for exceptional building structures A study taking basis in the failure of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Author(s): Faber, Michael H.; Kübler, Oliver; Fontana, Mario; Knobloch, Markus Publication Date: 2004 Permanent Link: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-004807495 Rights / License: In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection. For more information please consult the Terms of use. ETH Library Background, motivation and scope of the research project Failure Consequences and Reliability Acceptance Criteria for Exceptional Building Structures A Study taking Basis in the Failure of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Michael H. Faber, Oliver Kübler Mario Fontana, Markus Knobloch Institute of Structural Engineering Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich July 2004 1 Background, motivation and scope of the research project Preface The present research project was performed in the period April 2002-March 2004 and was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation under grant number 2100-066770. During the project period a number of publications and presentations at conferences on the topics of the project have resulted in many interesting discussions with several researchers. These discussions have provided a valuable input to the project. Specifically the project team warmly thanks Prof. Dr.- Ing. habil. R. Rackwitz, Technical University of Munich, Germany, for valuable discussions and input concerning aspects of optimality and affordable societal life saving costs. Prof. Dr. M. Haller, University St. Gallen, Switzerland is greatly acknowledged for discussions and viewpoints in regard to the socio-economical impact of hazards on the society.
    [Show full text]
  • World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan
    LOWER MANHATTAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan Record of Decision and Lead Agency Findings Statement June 2004 RECORD OF DECISION AND LEAD AGENCY FINDINGS STATEMENT FOR THE WORLD TRADE CENTER MEMORIAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK Table of Contents 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT...................................................................................1 1.1 Overview..................................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Purpose and Need ........................................................................................2 1.3 Description of the Selected Project..........................................................................3 1.3.1 Project Site...................................................................................................3 1.3.2 Project Description.......................................................................................3 1.3.3 Site Plan .......................................................................................................3 1.3.4 Below Grade ................................................................................................4 1.3.5 Vehicular Circulation and Northern Service Option ...................................5 1.3.6 Memorial Mission Statement, Program, and Design...................................6 1.3.7 Site Design/Design Guidelines ....................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Neighborhood Character
    CHAPTER 10. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER 10.1 INTRODUCTION 10.1.1 CONTEXT The Twin Towers were a defining element of the New York City skyline, and were recognized around the world. The Twin Towers symbolized the power and commercial vitality of New York City and the nation as a whole. These extraordinary structures and the rest of the World Trade Center (WTC) were also the symbolic and functional centerpiece of Lower Manhattan’s reputation as a vital, international economic center. They were a focal point of New York City’s newest (Battery Park City) and oldest (Financial District) neighborhoods. The streets and sidewalks surrounding the WTC bustled with traffic and with pedestrians going to work, shop, sightsee, and travel to other areas. The WTC superblock, bounded by Vesey, Church, and Liberty Streets and Route 9A (WTC Site), replaced a series of smaller blocks. Although it was a busy nexus of transportation and an important destination itself, the WTC Site was often a barrier for residents, workers, and visitors of the three distinct neighborhoods surrounding it— Tribeca to the north, Battery Park City (BPC) to the west, and the Financial District to the east and south. The collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage to the rest of the WTC and adjacent areas on September 11, 2001, dramatically altered the character of the immediate area and surrounding neighborhoods. The attacks tore through the urban fabric of Lower Manhattan, leaving in their wake death and destruction, untold grief and emotional trauma, and now an enormous physical and economic void. The loss of life, jobs, infrastructure, and open and office space severely affected the Financial District, devastated area residents, workers, and businesses, and continues to undermine the vitality of Lower Manhattan.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Manhattan Hotel Market Overview
    HVS Hospitality Services: 2009 Manhattan Hotel Market Overview Manhattan Hotel Market Overview HVS Global Hospitality Services, in cooperation with New York University’s Preston Robert Tisch Center for Hospitality, Tourism, and Sports Management, is pleased to present the twelfth annual Manhattan Hotel Market Overview. Stephen Rushmore President & Founder, HVS Global Hospitality Services Once again, in 2008 Manhattan was the top-performing hotel market in the U.S. in terms of RevPAR. Occupancy remained impressive, in the mid-80% range. However, average rate gains were more modest than in the previous four years because of the heightened economic crisis in the last quarter of 2008. Despite the recent tumultuous economic times and the previous recessions that affected the Manhattan hotel market, all segments and all neighborhoods averaged growth in demand stronger than the growth in supply from 1987 to 2008; these fundamentals highlight the strength of the Manhattan market across the board. As a result of these favorable supply and demand dynamics, average rate grew well above the inflation rate during the historical period reviewed, pushing RevPAR up, and sustaining fairly high values. Considering the current climate, HVS forecasts that the Manhattan market will bottom out in 2011, with RevPAR returning to close to its 2008 peak level by 2013. We expect hotel values in Manhattan to follow a similar trend, reaching their low point in 2010 and returning to the previous peak level in 2013; this scenario assumes that the current recession will not fundamentally change corporate and transient customersʹ travel patterns over the long term and that financing returns to normal leverage levels.
    [Show full text]
  • January 2007
    World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan— Historic Resources Report January 2007 INTRODUCTION This report on Historic Resources for the World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan (Approved Plan) is prepared pursuant to the Programmatic Agreement among the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC), as a recipient of community development block grant assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which was signed on April 22, 2004, and stipulated that LMDC would provide semi-annual reports to SHPO and ACHP to summarize measures it has taken to comply with the terms of the Programmatic Agreement. The organization of this report generally follows the stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement. In addition meetings with the Consulting Parties and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) are described in the final section. 1. PROJECT SITE DOCUMENTATION UNDER STIPULATIONS 1 AND 5 As previously reported the Port Authority completed the program of HABS/HAER documentation of the WTC Site in accordance with Stipulation 5 and submitted the documentation to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in August 2005. The Port Authority completed the Phase IB Archaeological Investigation for the East Bathtub and the report was accepted by SHPO on August 24, 2006. 2. ADHERENCE TO TREATMENT PLANS LMDC continued working to create a Memorial to remember the victims of September 11, 2001, and February 26, 1993 and to record the events of September 11. Planning for the Memorial is discussed in more detail in the section which follows.
    [Show full text]
  • Monthly Meeting Date
    MONTHLY MEETING DATE: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 TIME: 6:00 PM PLACE: PS/IS 89 - Auditorium 201 Warren Street and the Westside Highway R E V I S ED A G E N D A I. Public Session A) Comments by members of the public (3 minutes per speaker) II. Business Session A) Adoption of Minutes B) Chairperson’s Report J. Menin C) District Manager’s Report N. Pfefferblit D) Treasurer’s Report J. Kopel III. Committee Reports A) Tribeca Committee C. DeSaram 1) Route 139 Rehabilitation Project Update, NJDOT – Report 2) Greening of Tribeca – Report 3) Washington Market Park Comfort Station - Resolution 4) 40 Walker Street, CPC application for 74-711 special permit to allow residential use in floors 2 through 6 and office and/or retail space in the cellar and ground floor – Resolution 5) 25 N. Moore Street, rescinding of previous resolution for an application for on- premises (OP) license 200 Water Group LLC Inc. – Resolution 6) 25 N. Moore Street, reconsideration of previous CB1 resolution for on-premises (OP) liquor license for 200 Water Group LLC Inc. – Resolution 7) 130 Duane Street, application for wine and beer license for 130 Duane Street Hotel – Resolution 8) 181 Duane Street, application for renewal of wine license for 181 Duane Ristorante, Inc. d/b/a MAX – Resolution 9) 189 Franklin Street, application for liquor license for New York Steak & Burger Co. Inc. – Resolution 10) 22 Warren Street, application for liquor license for Tom Stagias/or Corp. to be Formed – Resolution 11) 190A Duane Street, application for new unenclosed sidewalk café for ROC Restaurant – Resolution 12) 78-82 Reade Street, application for renewal of unenclosed sidewalk café for Cup Café NY LLC d/b/a MOCCA – Resolution 13) 136 West Broadway, application for renewal of unenclosed sidewalk café Edwards – Resolution B) Quality of Life/Affordable Housing P.
    [Show full text]