An Environmental Review process has to be performed on development projects that are not classified as “as of right”. This means that the project would be attempting to change the existing zoning and the developer would have to disclose the potential negative environmental damages that could be caused by the change.
The Environment Review process is simply a disclosure process, there is nothing in the law that says a project may not go forward if it causes damage. However, any project that may cause damage, normally will engage in mitigation scenarios (changes) to help reduce the negative impact. This is not required but the City normally makes it a part of an application to appease the public.
SEQRA – New York State Law
The Environmental Review Process is a New York State law known as “SEQRA”that every city in New York State must abide by including NYC. There are set criteria and formats that must be explored, examined and followed. NYC may not reduce these requirements but may increase them. NYC has established the CEQR manual to help developers and city employees understand their responsibilities in completing this review as well as how to conduct these reviews.
In the case of a private application the developer must pay for the review process itself, and the City, normally the Department of City Planning “DCP” reviews it and ensures it has complied with all the rules and procedures established in the CEQR manual.
However, in the case of a district wide rezoning, where the Community Board submits a rezoning request or participates in a rezoning initiative, the City will allocate funds to do an environmental analysis of the proposed plan. This is a commitment on the part of the City, because these analyses are expensive and time consuming. They can take to up to several months to a few years to complete depending upon the scope of the area etc.
More affluent or connected communities have opted to have their own studies performed, normally using a well established educational institution to do it like Pratt University, because the City is not always as thorough or can make rulings that are not favorable to the community.
EAS and EIS Reviews
There are two reviews. One is an Environmental Assessment Statement “EAS” and the other is Environmental Impact Statement “EIS”.
Performing an EAS
EAS is a quick review process where a whole list of negative environmental impacts is considered and then eliminated. Sometimes this is all that is needed for a project, because the determination could be arrived at that no further environmental review is warranted.
For example, in the case of 626 Flatbush, an EAS was done, and it was decided that adding almost 300 to 500 more cars into one of most heavily traffic area in Brooklyn – Flatbush, would not cause a negative environmental consequence. Thus an Environmental Impact Study “EIS” was not performed, which was the basis of PPEN’s lawsuit.
However, the EAS may determine that there are potential negative environmental impacts and thus additional studies must be performed under an Environmental Impact Statement “EIS”. The more negative impacts the more expensive and time consuming the EIS becomes. It could also deter or limit certain types of construction or place more of a burden upon the City or the Developers to correct or address (mitigate) these issues being affected.
For example, in the case of up zoning Empire Blvd., the EAS would call for additional studies under the EIS, because of the tremendous change that would occur. Just in water and sewage or traffic. However, this does not mean that the study would stop the project, it just means someone either the City or the Developers will have to address the environmental consequences and consider performing mitigating scenarios to decrease the negative impacts. Sometimes the City and/or Developers would come back and say we can not prevent the negative environmental impact but the project must continue and it does.
Another example of how this works, is the Cornell Realty application to upzone Franklin Ave that lies on the border of Brooklyn Botanic Garden “BBG”. In that case, MTOPP presented evidence that the developer failed to look at water and sewage impacts by fabricating the number of apartments that would be created. The City refused to make them perform an EIS, thus saving them time and money. The Lower Court agreed that the developers should have preformed the EIS on water and sewage impacts, thus, null and voided the rezoning.
Performing an EIS
If a project must perform an EIS, then there is a “Scoping Hearing” that occurs where the community has a right to make comments and suggestions on environmental impacts that need to be explored and considered. The City or the developer does not have to perform an analysis on all of the areas that the community has suggested but they are suppose to consider it and take into account any evidence that is presented for them to take a “hard look”. If they fail to take a “hard look” at an impact that evidence shows they should have then it is very possible, if a lawsuit is filed, that the rezoning application would be null and voided. This is what happened to Cornell Realty’s application as stated above.
Once the developers complete their environmental review using their own experts they present it the Department of City Planning “DCP” who then shares the information and findings with other government entitles and asks for their feedback to make any changes in the plans to reduce the negative environmental impacts.
For example, Continuum a private developer, proposed the largest residential development project in Brooklyn along BBG. DCP communicated with the Department of Parks and got their input and suggestions on this development. Despite the developers’ conclusion that no environmental consequences would happen to BBG, the Parks Dept. stated that it would cause negative impacts to the garden. In fact, these negative impacts could not be mitigated due to the uniqueness of BBG’s propagation process and the location of their green houses and conservatories.
Once DCP finishes these steps and has incorporated the necessary changes to reduce the negative or even eliminate an environmental impact the application gets certified by them and begins the Uniform Land Use Review “ULURP” process.
At the beginning of the ULURP process, a “Draft EIS” or a negative Declaration stating that no environmental harm will occur, must be presented to the Community and the public for their review and comments.
Thus, the community and all of the stake holders who will be voting on the project during the ULURP process, should be aware of what type of damages this project would cause and what type of mitigating scenarios would have to be preformed, if any to reduce the negative effects.
Again we have simplified this process but this is the framework.
If you have any further questions please feel free contact us at (718) 703-3086
0 Comments