WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER 3,374,995 VISITS IN ONE YEAR—65,000 VISITS A WEEK BY 985,281 VISITORS

Hits: 81

Lesli Cattan, of White Plains, has been recognized with the Zella Bronfman Butler Award, which annually honors professionals for their compassionate commitment to enriching the lives of children and adults with physical, developmental and learning disabilities.
The Director of Outpatient Services for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities at Westchester Jewish Community Services (WJCS), Ms. Cattan received her “Zella” yesterday in New York City. The cash award, created jointly by the J.E. & Z.B. Butler Foundation and UJA-Federation, is in tribute to Zella Bronfman Butler who devoted her life to expanding services that encourage individuals with disabilities to fulfill their potential.

“Lesli is dedicated to helping clients achieve independent, rewarding lives,” says Linda Breton, WJCS Assistant Executive Director. “Her efforts have already enhanced the lives of hundreds of disabled individuals and their families. I have no doubt that her commitment and leadership will shape the quality of services for thousands of people in the future.”

At WJCS, Ms. Cattan was instrumental in establishing outpatient mental health services for people with special needs who also experience significant emotional difficulties. As a result, WJCS is the only mental health agency in Westchester which provides both specialized clinical services for people of all ages who have co-occurring psychiatric and developmental disabilities and support and education for their families.

She also created an array of social, recreational and communal services for people with developmental disabilities including Havorah, Moving Forward and Family Advocacy.

In addition, Ms. Cattan designed a manual to train staff in community-based organizations to accommodate special needs children in their mainstream programs, which will be implemented by organizations throughout Westchester and the affiliated organizations in the UJA-Federation network. She also has helped bring together the county’s service delivery systems for mental health and mental retardation/developmental disabilities. Under her leadership, a cross-system team of professionals produced a training curriculum for staff serving young people with both serious emotional disturbances and developmental disabilities. The team’s work is likely to become a national model as it is disseminated through Westchester’s SAMHSA-funded system of care activities.

Hits: 2

The 366 voters who voted in the disenfranchised District 18 on November 6 will get the opportunity to recast their ballot for any of 6 Common Council candidates next Tuesday, December 18.

Polls will be open from 6:30 AM to 9 PM at George Washington School, with the election machine in the Music Room.

If you voted November 6, you should be receiving notification from the Board of Elections this week of the impending “Continuation of the Election.”

Hits: 78

At the Monday evening Board of Education meeting, Lewis P. Trippett, previous President of the Board of Education, the man closest to contract negotiations with Dr. Saul Yanofsky, read a prepared statement relating his version of the events leading up to Dr. Yanofsky not being offered a new contract. WPCNR obtained the statement from Mr. Trippett and, the following is the text of his entire address. A video replay of the meeting will be cablecast by Channel 73 at 7:30 PM and 9:30 PM Thursday by White Plains cable.

The School District Wednesday refused to release the “Letter of Intent” (WPCNR terminology) referred to by Mr. Trippett in the following statement, citing that it is an intra-agency document, and not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Herewith is the word-for-word transcript of Mr. Trippett’s Monday evening address to the public:
December 10, 2001
Donna McLaughlin
President
City of White Plains Board of Education
5 Homeside Lane
White Plains, New York 10605
Dear Mrs. McLaughlin:

When I stepped down from the Board of Education in June, I said that I thought White Plains was fortunate to have dedicated members of the Board of Education who spend an enormous amount of volunteer time in service to the Dristrict. I said then, and I will say again, that during the time that I served on the Board of Education I believe that all of the Board members acted on every issue presented in what they believed to be in the best interests of the district. Although I certainly disagreed with my share of Board decisions during my years of service on the Board, I never doubted that those I disagreed with were acting in a principled manner and that they were doing what they thought was in the district’s best interests.

I made these comments knowing that unless Dr. Yanofsky chose to announce his retirement at the end of his current contract, this Board would face the kind of criticism that it has over the past two months.

I have listened to and read the criticisms and attacks that have been levied against the board over these past two months and have not made any public comment. But now, given the recent comments made in the press by Dr. Yanofsky I think it is an appropriate time to add my personal perspective on the choice not to offer a new contract to Dr. Yanofsky.

Several people have spoken about Dr. Yanofsky’s admirable qualities and his dedication to the district. I agree with them and, could add more than has been said. Many have spoken based upon their personal relationship with Dr. Yanofsky. During the two years I spent as Board President, I worked closely with Dr. Yanofsky and felt that we developed a good personal relationship, though we certainly had our differences. It is a relationship that I still value.

In criticizing the Board, some seemed to believe tat the Board did not understand Dr. Yanofsky’s skills or did not appreciate all that he had done for the district. They spoke as if the Board must have simply overlooked these factors. Others voiced the suggestions that there must have been some personality clash or adverse personal feelings that caused the board not to extend a new contract to Dr. Yanofsky.

For the most part the Board has not responded to these statements or a host of other unfounded criticisms, some personal and threatening. I respect the fact that the Board has not wanted to say much and simply to move on, believing that not much good would come from a public tit-for-tat discussion. However, in being as circumspect as it has been, I believe that the Board has unwillingly allowed there to be created a very misleading and inaccurate public record – one that has wrongfully caused some to believe that the actions of the Board were arbitrary, without substantial reason or simply based upon personality. That is why I would like to add a few things to the public discussion.

I recognize that those who have a strong personal attachment to Dr. Yanofsky are unlikely to be persuaded whatever I, or anyone else, might say. But I do believe that certain facts, not yet disclosed, will cause fair-minded people to look at this matter in a different light. They might not agree with where the Board came out but, hopefully, will understand that the determination to let Dr. Yanofsky’s contract expire without renewal was a principled decision based upon what the Board believed in good faith was in the district’s best interests, and no other factor.

There is a context for this contract extension discussion that is important to understand. I participated in the previous Board discussion and determination to extend a new contract to Dr. Yanofsky. In the discussions that preceded the last extension, Dr. Yanofsky presented the Board with a clear statement that he wanted to continue as Superintendent and outlined what he hoped to accomplish if a new contract was extended. Also, at Dr. Yanofsky’s specific request, the contract was made to run for a four-year term until June 30, 2002 rather than for a three-year term as the previous contracts had been. This was at Dr. Yanofsky’s request, for the stated reason that at the end of the current contract, Dr. Yanofsky will be fully vested in the pension plan and eligible for full retirement benefits. Thus, Dr. Yanofsky himself created the expectation that the end of this current contract would likely be the end of this tenure as Superintendent.

Dr. Yanofsky fostered this expectation when he advised me, well over a year before extension of his current contract was discussed, that he had begun circulating his resume on a selective basis for educational positions but not to be superintendent of another district.

Thus, prior to any discussion of a possible new contract, Dr. Yanofsky had led the Board to believe that there was at least a good likelihood that he would not want a new contract.

Even with this background, I entered the discussions about a possible new contract with the presumption that if Dr. Yanofsky gave to the board what he had given in the past – a clear expression of his desire to continue and a vision for what he would like to accomplish under a new contract – he most likely would be offered a new contract. Unfortunately, the Board never received any such communication from Dr. Yanofsky.

Under the contract, Dr. Yanofsky was required to inform the Board in writing whether or not he wished to continue as Superintendent under a new contract. The letter that Dr. Yanofsky sent to the Board hardly reflected a vigorous desire to continue. In the letter, Dr. Yanofsky stated that he was “ambivalent” about continuing as Superintendent but was “willing to entertain an offer.”

I was quite surprised by Dr. Yanofsky’s, at best, tepid expression of interest in a new contract. After receiving this letter, the Board provided Dr. Yanofsky the opportunity to explain his letter before we began substantive discussions about whether to renew the contract. Perhaps, I thought, he misspoke or made a poor choice of words. However, rather than back off of his letter, Dr. Yanofsky re-affirmed his statement that he was ambivalent about continuing as Superintendent. When asked if he could identify any cause for his ambivalence that could be addressed, Dr. Yanofsky gave no indication of anything that could be done that would change his feeling of ambivalence.

So we began our substantive discussions with a Superintendent who had received a contractual term that would enable him to retire if he wanted to, who had let it be known that he had been circulating his resume long prior to any discussion of contract extension and who expressed ambivalence about continuing.

We then entered into our substantive discussions attempting to address the issues that you (McLaughlin) explained in your latest letter, which I will not further discuss here. I found our discussions with Dr. Yanofsky on these matters to be distressing. Rather than offer a forward-looking view as he had in the past, Dr. Yanofsky said things like, “I don’t need this job” and “If you want to take your chances with someone else, that’s fine.”

But the most distressing comment came in response to a question I asked. I posed a question to Dr. Yanofsky similar to a question that I had asked during the previous contract renewal discussions. I asked “Where do you see the district being in four years if your contract is extended?” His response was an extraordinarily negative view of the future of the district. He said things are likely to get worse; test scores are likely to decline further and there is very little that can be done about it other than what is already being done. In short, it appeared to me that his heart was no longer in the job.

His statements, coupled with the prior contract history, his admitted job search and his own expressed ambivalence led me to the conclusion that it was in the best interests of the White Plains School District for the Yanofsky era as Superintendent to come to an end at the end of the current contract in June 2002.

Subsequently, Dr. Yanofsky stated that he misunderstood my question. He thought I asked where I saw the district in five years and he answered the way that he did because he did not see himself being superintendent in five years. I found this after-the-fact explanation unconvincing. Dr. Yanofsky knew that the Board was struggling with the issue whether or not to offer him a new contract and he had to know that I was asking his view of any continuation of his contract, as I had asked before. This was not some abstract discussion about what some future superintendent might face. This was not some abstract discussion about what some future superintendent might face. We were discussing whether or not to extend a new contract to him and what he would do if he received a new contract. If Dr. Yanofsky truly did not see himself in the picture five years from now he did not express that to the Board. And, in fact, contrary to what he has implied, during the contractual time that the Board had to notify Dr. Yanofsky whether or not it would offer him a new contract, Dr. Yanofsky never suggested that the Board should discuss an appropriate “transition” period to new leadership and never suggested a contractual time period, as he had done at the prior contractual renewal discussion. More importantly, even after he clearly understood my question he did not offer any view as to what he would do if he received a new contract.

For me, no one other than Dr. Yanofsky convinced me that it was not in the district’s best interest to offer him a new contract. Whatever else we thought about Dr. Yanofsky, the district would not be well served by having a superintendent who is ambivalent about holding this important job, who had been looking for another job, who wants to be “entertained” with an unspecified offer before he would continue and one who is resigned to an exceedingly pessimistic view of the future.

There were indeed re-occurring substantive differences between the Board and Dr. Yanofsky. These differences were not, as he recently stated, matters of style rather than substance. In fact, it was Dr. Yanofsky’s persistent minimizing of the Board’s concerns and his neglect in addressing them that led to increasing frustration. But, for me, the overriding issue was Dr. Yanofsky’s stated ambivalence and his lack of a positive vision of the future.

I am hopeful that once people get over the surprise and disappointment that Dr. Yanofsky will be leaving at the end of the school year they will recognize that the Board had no other responsible choice but to move on to new leadership. This transition would have taken place in one, or at most, two years anyway and, I believe, the district is better served by making the transition now, rather than having a self-described “ambivalent” superintendent for one or two more years.

I believe that the Board’s decision was proper, responsible and in the best interests of the district. In time, I believe that the community of White Plains will be pleased that it has a Board that is not satisfied with the way things are and wants to move towards improvement in the future, even if that means bearing with some unfair and unjust criticisms such as have been made over the past two months. I commend the Board for not yielding to the noise of the crowd at the moment and, instead, looking out for the needs of the future.

The selection of a new superintendent provides opportunity for all to participate in the re-vitalization of our district and positioning it for the future. While all change is difficult, it also provides opportunity for improvement. Although I am not on the Board anymore, I support the Board and stand ready to help the Board in any way possible in this important transition to new leadership.

Very truly yours,

Lewis P. Trippett

Hits: 102

WPCNR’s Court of Opinion grants a temporary “Stay” of the Nicolai Appeal Poll, in favor of your Instant Opinion on whether a “Stay” should be granted, delaying the District 18 election indefinately, pending Glen Hockley’s appeal. What would you do? If you’ve been following the Delgado-Hockley legal action, do you feel it is just to grant a stay? Or should the election be held while appeal proceeds? Vote in the “Flash Poll” at right!

The Nicolai Decision poll will resume after the “Stay” proceedings are adjudicated.

Hits: 119

Updated with Pictures, Dec. 10:A media briefing conducted by New York Presbyterian Hospital Tuesday, December 4, revealed the hospital is willing to build on three interior sites within their campus, two of them are a considerable distance away from Bryant Avenue. The hospital views financing of the facility as being dependent on the approval of the Common Council of the proton accelerator project.
The hospital said it was considering a “public-private” partnership to finance the proton accelerator project, and needed Common Council approval before they could begin to solidify the $265 million projected to finance the project.

The briefing disclosed that the proton accelerator was judged by the hospital environmental evaluators to be safer than an MRI facility, and posing no radiation threat, and generating no radioactive waste.

>

HOSPITAL HOSTS THE WHITE PLAINS MEDIA: On Tuesday, December 4, New York Presbyterian Hospital “round-tabled” with, (clockwise, L to R), Alex Philippidis, back to camera, Westchester County Business Journal, James Benerofe, SuburbanStreet.com, Susan Chang,White Plains Watch, shown in news conference with (to right of display board), Constance Hildersley, Vice President for Real Estate, Geoffrey Thompson, Thompson & Bender, and Willa Brody, Hospital public relations, and Susan Elan, The Journal News, was also present. WPCNR PHOTO.

With the White Plains media present, New York Presbyterian Hospital executives, Connie Hildersley, Vice President for Real Estate, Willa Brody, public relations, and their spokesman, Geoffrey Thompson, walked reporters through a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, found by the Common Council last week to be “complete.” A public hearing is scheduled on the DEIS January 7, 2002 at City Hall.

The DEIS addresses other potential sites where the hospital has gone on record as of Tuesday of being willing to construct the Bourne biomedical research lab and proton accelerator.

Each of the three sites identified would receive traffic from a new entrance drive from Bloomingdale Road to be constructed adjacent just South of the Bloomingdale’s site, with no traffic anticipated on Bryant Avenue. The alternate site suggested farther West off Bryant Avenue also references a “secondary entrance” on Bryant Avenue.

>

ORIGINAL PROPOSED BRYANT AVENUE SITE:The original plan for the proton accelerator building, to right, and the new Bourne Research Lab, left, called “Plan B,” calls for the cancer-fighting treatment facility to be located in one of two large office buildings built on property immediately accessible by the Bryant Avenue gate, at bottom of plan. Constance Hildersley stated in the briefing that the hospital is willing to move the accelerator site. Plan transcribed from NYPH DEIS by WPCNR PHOTO.

Asked by WPCNR if the Common Council wanted the hospital to build on any of the three sites, if the hospital would do that (build on one of alternate sites), Hildersley said, “Any of the sites that meet our program are viable. If it meets our programs, it’s acceptable to us. Sites 6,7,8 are viable alternatives.”

The matter of consideration of alternative sites for the proton accelerator and biomedical-biotech research laboratory was demanded by the scope of Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Alternative site suggestions from the hospital have long been asked for by all Common Council members.

WPCNR walks the sites with NYPH’s Brody

In order to get a view of precisely what would be the impact on the surrounding neighborhood by the three locations proposed in the DEIS, WPCNR asked NYPH if we could have a walk-through of the sites, and a photo opportunity.

The walk-through was granted last Wednesday by Ms. Hildersley, under the condition that no pictures would be taken. Ms. Brody advised that the hospital will be providing visuals of the three potential sites for the public at the January 7 hearing, and did not want WPCNR photo composition judgment to convey an impression to the public before the hearing.

>

AERIAL VIEW OF SOUTH END OF NYPH CAMPUS shows area where original two-building construction on Bryant Avenue was proposed, and alternate sites. North is at the top of the picture. To orient the reader: the road at bottom of picture is Bryant Avenue. The entry off of Bryant Avenue, center, foreground, is the Bryant Avenue Gate.The original Plan B buildings are proposed to go on Bloomingdale Road on the two fields split by Bryant Avenue Gate.The road at the left of the photo is Mamaroneck Avenue, which forks to the right, turning into Bloomingdale Road. The square cutoff at top left of photo is Bloomingdale’s. Aerial view electronically transcribed from NYPH DEIS by WPCNR PHOTO LAB.

Thursday afternoon, December 6, Ms. Brody took WPCNR on a tour of Proton Accelerator Alternate Sites, identified as Sites 8,6, and 7. I list them that way because that was the order in which your reporter walked them with Ms. Brody.

William King’s favorite part of the Hospital property is one alternative.

Site 8 is the first site. It is the area known as the driving range, a sloping sprawl of meadow, rough-mowed of 7.5 acres. As Ms. Brody and I drove up, we parked at the road bordering the North edge of the site, and saw two golfers actually practicing shots. Ms. Brody, in an aside, told me Councilman King “loves this part of the property. He feels it is the perfect example of a meadow.”

>

.AERIAL VIEW OF SITE 8,”THE DRIVING RANGE:” This technological cropping of the aerial view shown earlier, indicates the meadow proposed as Alternate Site 8. Aerial view was electronically transcribed from NYPH DEIS by WPCNR PHOTO LAB.

I looked across the meadow to the South.

The “driving range” was bordered by a row of approximately 20 stately evergreens on the East, (to my left, marching towards me). Beyond the evergreens were the formal gardens, which would not be touched. I gazed across the meadow to the South, noting a wide copse of mature trees due as I took in the East to West sloping fairway in front of me.

To my right, bordering the meadow (on the West) were thick woods. Ms. Brody explained the woods would be partially cleared to accommodate the west wing of the proton accelerator building and its new access road.

Brody advised that the large copse of trees bordering the South side of Site 8 would be removed to accommodate a portion of the Proton Accelerator building.

We walked across the meadow to the south, it took us about 10 minutes to traverse it. I noted the copse was filled with mature trees but not thickly forested and it had a slight arroyo in the middle leading to open rolling fields on the other side.

Access road for all three alternative sites will parallel Bloomingdale’s South drive.

Ms. Brody said a new entrance road would be cut through Site 7. Site 7 is heavily wooded property immediately south of Bloomingdale’s, located on the bluff above Cassaway Brook down in the gorge distinguishing the extreme Western portion of the hospital property.

Asked how wide this proposed entrance road was to be, Ms. Brody said that had not been determined, but indicated it could be either two lanes or four lanes, to accommodate left-right turns more feasibly. She showed me how engineers had marked the cut of the entrance road with pink tape affixed to trees on the densely wooded Site 7.

I noted how the pink tape sliced from directly South of the Bloomingdale’s building, along the edge of the steep wooded slope above Cassaway Brook below to the West. The pink tape led out to the edge of the existing concrete road leading to the aqueduct bridge where we were parked, then continued through the woods bordering the driving range on the South.

STACKED BUILDING DESIGN FOR SITE 8: Design of combined Proton Accelerator/Bioresearch lab proposed for Site 8 (and Site 7). Viewer should note building is gently bowed in the glass center tower section, so it resembles a boomerang. Dark exterior is proposed to be red brick. There is a lighter brick face also proposed. (See plan in previous illustration). Building design electronically transcribed from NYPH DEIS by WPCNR PHOTO LAB.

According to the DEIS, a five–story L-shaped building of 384,000 square feet would be built on the “driving range” meadow plus a parking garage. This “stacked scenario,” would accommodate both the proton accelerator and the Bourne Research Facility in one building. A total of 4.7 acres of open lawn would be removed. A total of 83 trees of the variety that lose their foliage, and 64 evergreen plantation trees would be removed to build the structure.

Site 6 is West of Bryant gate on Bryant Avenue set on rolling fields.

Once we reached the extreme southern end of Site 8, standing in the middle of the wide copse of trees, Ms. Brody pointed to rolling cleared hillocks immediately in front of me through the broad copse of trees at the rear of the driving range site. Beyond the gentle rise of knolls, I could see the buildings of Bryant Gardens Apartments through tall tree cover.

SITE 6 IS ENVISIONED FARTHER WEST ALONG BRYANT AVENUE: Second “hospital-preferred alternate “Site 6” from the air, consists of the lower west meadow along the Bryant Avenue corridor, and sits below Bryant Avenue grade. It will take a portion of the woods above Cassaway Brook. West end of Bryant Avenue is at bottom of the picture. (Use overall aerial view at beginning of this report for reference.) Cropped aerial view electronically transcribed from NYPH DEIS by WPCNR PHOTO LAB.

Brody said this was the site originally envisioned as soccer fields in the ill-fated Plan A voted down by the Common Council on July 17, 2000. This site is the second alternative.

Site 6 moves Plan B West: two buildings, plus garage, lower than Bryant Avenue elevation.

Site 6 runs alongside lower Bryant Avenue, sprawls on 10.7 acres, and is below the street level of Bryant Avenue. Brody said the visual impact on Bryant Avenue residents would be less than the Plan B site further up East on Bryant Avenue, with the thickening tree border on the lower West end of Bryant Avenue creating more buffer for the residents.

As the hospital sees it, access to Site 6 will be from the planned new entrance paralleling Bloomingdale’s South entrance, we have described. No entrance, according to Ms. Brody, our site tour guide Thursday, was planned from Bryant Avenue, however the DEIS makes reference to a “secondary entrance on Bryant Avenue,” for Site 6.

Entry road to Site 6, takes out more woods.

The new entry drive, either two-lane, or four-lane, would be extended through the thick wooded border of trees on the Western edge of the driving range. Brody drew my attention to the pink tape marking the route of the newly proposed road through the forest border of the West edge of the Driving Range (Site 8)

The new access road, as I see it, cuts through thick woods to access the lower Bryant Avenue location. Just speculating here, but I cannot see how that woodsy border along the Site 8, leading to the Bryant Avenue Site 6 would be preserved if you are cutting a roadway through it. I think you lose most of it.

The access road to Site 6 appears to be perched on the edge of the gradual steep slope leading down to the Cassaway Brook gorge on the Western edge of the property. Construction on Site 6, though would preserve the wetland corridor and woodlands below Bryant Gate according to the DEIS.

Ms. Brody pointed out that most of the copse of trees we were standing at on the South edge of the driving range would be removed. The DEIS states 85 mature trees and 150 other trees would be removed in constructing the two buildings plus parking garage on Site 6.

SITE 6 PLAN IS A TWO-BUILDING PROPOSAL: It moves the Plan B configuration West to the edge of the steep slopes leading down to Cassaway Brook. Parking Garage (6 stories, partially underground sits inbetween the two buildings. New entrance road parallel to Bloomingdale’s Bloomingdale Road South entrance traverses wooded section beside Driving Range Meadow, and leads to the Site 6 complex. Dark shape is the stormwater basin. Site Plan electronically transcribed from NYPH DEIS by WPCNR PHOTO LAB.

Two Buildings Plus Parking Garage on Site 6, if Selected.

Should Site 6 be chosen, the hospital envisions two buildings, one housing the proton accelerator facility, the second building, the biotech labs, with a 6-story parking garage. The complex would house 384,000 square feet of space in two buildings, each 3-stories, or in one “stacked” 6-story building. The parking structure would be six stories in either case.

There would be no entry off Bryant Avenue at all, though there is a reference in the DEIS to a secondary access. Entry to the complex would be via the proposed Access Drive along the West perimeter of the Driving Range site.

>

ALTERNATE SITE 7 IS “PRISTINE WOODLAND:” The final acceptable alternative build-site in the hospital view is located south of Bloomingdale’s sourthern driveway, above Cassaway Brook, and before the acqueduct entrance located at the Mamaroneck Avenue and Bloomingdale Road fork. The light colored block in upper left of this view is the Bloomingdale’s complex. The Mamaroneck Avenue, Bloomingdale Road fork can be seen at the left of the view. Aerial View electronically transcribed from NYPH DEIS by WPCNR PHOTO LAB.
Site 7, Formerly Earmarked for Fortunoff’s, Has Least Neighborhood Impact, But Levels 1,000 Trees.

As we walked back across the Driving Range, I noted to Ms. Brody that it appeared the least impacting site was right in front of us South of Bloomingdale’s in a thickly wooded area.

Brody agreed, but remarked Site 7 was an area that Barnabus McHenry, Chairman of the Hudson River Conservancy, considered to be the closest to what he described as “pristine woodland.”

Site 7 is thickly forested. You can see Bloomingdale’s on the other side of it, but not well, and you do not get much of a sense that there is a major department store there. This was the piece of property originally envisioned on the defunct Plan A to be the Fortunoff’s site.

The forested Site 7 sandwiched between Bloomingdale’s and the north side of the acqueduct road and occupies 5.7 acres. It slopes up to the Northeast and down to the west towards Mamaroneck Avenue. It is directly adjacent to the Bloomingdale’s entrance drive.

Staring at the wild ramble of trees shielding the sky, and noting how thickly the trees were spaced, I could see it would be very difficult to walk through that site to the Bloomingdale’s property without considerable effort, it was that thick with trees, (1,085 if them, according to the DEIS).

The DEIS estimates that clearing Site 7 would remove 1,000 “mature trees” and 85 trees for the construction of the new access road which would lead in from Mamaroneck Avenue. A portion of wetland would also be eliminated.

SITE 7 REQUIRES A 5-STORY STACKED BUILDING PROPOSAL: A 90-foot high building would be built housing both the proton accelerator and the new biotech research facility. Building could be shifted slightly differently. Advantage to this plan is that it is least offensive to the Bryant Avenue corridor, yet it is environmentally agonizing.Site Plan 7 electronically transcribed from NYPH DEIS by WPCNR PHOTO LAB.

One building plus a parking structure for Site 7 if selected.

According to the DEIS, the “stacked” building option is the only way Site 7 can be developed. If Site 7 is favored, a single “L-shaped” building of six stories (one underground), would be built with a separate 6-story parking garage. The combination proton accelerator and biotech lab would rise 90-feet and be visible from the Bloomingdale’s parking lot.

Financing Seen Easier to Get With Council Approval in Hand.

On Financing the project, Ms. Hildersley said that was not addressed:

“Financing is not a subject of an environmental review. It’s not part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Financing is part of the ongoing activity we’re working with.” Hildersley said.

HILDERSLEY OF THE HOSPITAL SUGGESTS FINANCING EASIER ONCE APPROVAL IS GRANTED: Constance Hildersley shown at the December 4 media roundtable told WPCNR that a Common Council approval of the proton accelerator was a key component in speeding fundraising for the $265 million proton accelerator facility. Photo by WPCNR.

When pressed by reporters on the subject, Hildersley said that a public-private partnership was envisioned. She mentioned that M. D. Anderson, the cancer research facility in Houston is financing its proton accelerator facility with a public private financial arrangement.

She said the hospital saw the project costing $265 million, $100 million of which was for the cost of the proton accelerator.

Then she said a very meaningful thing: that financing was very difficult to get from the financial world without an approved project. This leads this reporter to believe that the hospital believes a Common Council approval of the accelerator/biotech facility would pave the way for attracting a syndicate of investors in the project:

“Our credibility goes up when we make a step,” Hildersley told me last Tuesday.

Conversely, a council denial would have a very negative impact on the hospital vision of its future. Asked about the scenario of a Council denial, Hildersley said, “We’ll do whatever we have to do.”

Media Briefing Gives a Summary of the Conclusions

Additional Facts coming out of the “Media Briefing:

*Timetable: Hildersley said if the proton accelerator were started in the late fall of 2002, it could be completed by 2005, with the complete facility finished by 2006.

* The Proton Accelerator has been evaluated and found to be a safer facility than a typical MRI facility. It generates no radioactive waste and releases miniscule discharges of radiation, that are not a threat. The accelerator causes no contamination of soils or ground water. It would not cause electromagnetic interference with cellular communications. It would produce no odors.

At the Loma Linda facility, there have been no noise complaints in 10 years, and little perceptible noise based on inspection of the existing site. The finding of the DEIS, as summarized in material given me at the briefing:

“The existing Loma Linda Proton Treatment Center has been in continuous operation for over 11 years and demonstrates that use of proton beam therapy can be accomplished successfully and safely for patients, facility staff, and the public at large. The NYPH would use the same, or essentially similar equipment as that used at Loma Linda.”

* Storm water drainage will be greatly improved with a double-purifying system that will be installed as part of the project.

* The original proposed site along Bryant Avenue impacts the least amount of trees of any of the other “alternative sites:” 11.

* The soil samples for the alleged contaminated sites not cleaned up and certified clean by the Department of Environment Conservation are “coming soon,” as of last Tuesday.

* The proposed Plan B facility on the initially proposed site which is the primary site being considered calls for entrance at the Bryant Avenue gate. To mitigate traffic impact, the hospital proposes two traffic lights at the Bryant Avenue gate and at the cross street farther East on Bryant at the Methodist Church. The DEIS traffic study contends these two lights will decrease wait time.

Northern sites rejected

* The sites on the North half of the hospital property have been rejected by the hospital as alternate sites because the sites are too long and narrow. According to Ms. Hildersley, the narrow property available bordering Westchester Avenue, Bloomingdale’s and the golf course cannot contain the floor plates (read floor space) that modern research facilities now require.

Large sprawls of floor are needed so disciplines can coexist in a closer environment to interact, she said. Hopscotching lab facilities on different sites when their purposes are related are counterproductive to the purpose of a research lab, she indicated by her comments to reporters.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Incorporated of White Plains, and Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, Adler Consulting, Evans Associates, and Pasanella & Klein Stolzman & Berg Architects. The hospital Environmental Consultant was David Paget of Sive, Paget & Riesel, and Stephen Kass of Carter, Ledyard & Milburn.