May 25, 2011
On Tuesday, May 24, a New York State Supreme Court judge rejected a legal challenge to the redevelopment of the former Domino Sugar refinery in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, clearing the way for the transformative, mixed-use project to begin construction as early as next year. David Paget and Jennifer Coghlan of Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. successfully defended the project on behalf of its developer, an affiliate of CPC Resources, Inc.
Ruling from the bench following oral argument, Judge Eileen A. Rakower upheld the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) analysis and municipal approvals for the project. The Court rejected claims that the City Council and City Planning Commission had been misled about the developer’s plans and upheld their decision not to compel disclosure about project financing, citing longstanding SEQRA precedent that such disclosure is not required absent “compelling evidence of a sham transaction or that financial sponsors are unwilling or unable to fulfill their obligations.”
The “New Domino” project, which is anticipated to break ground in 2012, will convert a vacant, formerly industrial site along the East River into an integrated development containing open space, community facilities, and commercial and residential properties, including a substantial affordable housing component. It would provide waterfront access on site for the first time in over a century, while preserving many of the former refinery’s historic structures, including the iconic “Domino Sugar” sign.
For more information about the recent decision, contact David Paget or Jennifer Coghlan.
November 24, 2010
Earlier this month, the New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force (“Task Force”) released a draft report assessing the climate-related threat to coastal communities and recommending a series of policy changes (“Draft Report”). The state legislature commissioned the Task Force in 2007, bringing together state agency representatives, county and local government officials, and other public and private stakeholders to “protect[] New York’s remaining coastal ecosystems and natural habitats, and increas[e] coastal community resilience in the face of sea level rise.” The Draft Report is open for public comment until Dec. 12, 2010, and is scheduled to be finalized by Jan. 1, 2011.
The Draft Report contains nine findings concerning the projected impacts of sea level rise and 14 policy recommendations for state legislators and executive agencies to prepare for and protect against those risks. This post focuses on the recommendations related to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), the New York law requiring state and local governments to consider the potential significant adverse environmental impacts of their actions.
The SEQRA recommendations primarily relate to actions undertaken within newly-proposed “coastal risk management zones,” which would require an amendment to SEQRA or its implementing regulations. The Task Force suggests that such zones should be established and include those areas that FEMA has already identified as “coastal high hazard areas” or “areas of moderate wave action” on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Draft Report, at 54).
SEQRA regulations currently categorize actions as Type I (those that presumptively have significant adverse impacts and are more likely to require preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement), Type II (those determined not to have significant adverse impact or otherwise precluded from SEQRA review) and Unlisted. Under one proposal, the Task Force recommends that all Unlisted Actions undertaken within a coastal risk management zone be added to the Type I list (Draft Report at 61). Alternatively, the Draft Report suggests amending the criteria for environmental significance in the SEQRA regulations to expressly incorporate sea-level rise related impacts (Draft Report at 61; 6 NYCRR 617.7(c)).
Neither of these recommendations, however, addresses the technical issues of how the environmental significance of sea level rise on a proposed project should be measured. Moreover, the classification of all actions occurring within a coastal risk management zone as Type 1 may be inconsistent with existing SEQRA guidance which anticipates that the significance of sea level rise and other global warming impacts on a project would be assessed “on a case-by-case basis” — with no bright line test imposed based on project location.[1] This recommendation could also sweep in minor discretionary actions, such as wetland permits for single lots, that are not the type or scale of government action typically considered Type I.
Finally, the Task Force makes a commonsense recommendation that DEC’s short and long Environmental Assessment Forms (“EAF”) – used to determine the potential significance of an action’s environmental impacts – be revised to “require[e] an evaluation of risks to and from the project based on the risk of sea level rise and coastal hazards … and other related effects of sea level rise” (Draft Report at 61). The long EAF currently asks, “Is [the proposed] project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain,” though sea level rise is projected to expand the areas of New York traditionally considered at risk of serious flooding.
For additional information on the consideration of climate-related impacts under SEQRA or the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), contact Steven Russo.
[1] DEC, Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements, July 15, 2009, at 4, 5.
November 9, 2010
Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo released a 160-page environmental agenda for New York on Saturday, October 30, three days before he was elected to be New York’s next Governor on January 1st, 2011. The document allows some insight into the vision and priorities of the next administration with regard to the environment.
One of the most significant components of the agenda is an overall vision of promoting and talking about environmental protection in the context of economic development in the State. It emphasizes that “environmental protection can benefit our economy—creating green jobs while reducing pollution …”[1] The environmental agenda, like other parts of Cuomo’s published agenda for reforming New York State, proposes review and reform of the state’s environmental bureaucracy to maximize environmental protection and coordination among agencies, and create cost savings. The Governor-elect would task the state’s Spending and Government Efficiency Commission with this review of existing agencies and procedures.[2]
The document also suggests that Governor-elect Cuomo will be as much about the carrot as the stick when it comes to promoting conservation. He proposes a “Cleaner Greener Communities Competitive Grant Program” to help create incentives for sustainable communities, encourage smart growth, and reduce sprawl. The grants would support innovative comprehensive regional plans which incorporate sustainability, transportation, emissions and efficiency issues into the planning framework.[3] Where the funds for such a grant program will come from is not spelled out.
Cuomo’s environmental agenda supports the continuation of New York’s Brownfield Cleanup Program (“BCP”), including the tax credits component, while streamlining the BCP process to ensure its effective use on those sites that need it most.[4] The document does not address the State’s participation in the Federal Superfund program, from which current Governor David Paterson has proposed to withdraw.
On Marcellus Shale, the Cuomo agenda takes a middle road, stating that “New York State must ensure that, if and when the Shale’s natural gas is obtained, it does not come at the expense of human health or have adverse environmental impacts.”[5] Potential impacts to watersheds are given special mention, suggesting that drilling in the New York City watershed and other watersheds will be given enhanced scrutiny. On another energy-related issue, Cuomo restates a longstanding position that Indian Point nuclear plant be shut down.[6]
Cuomo also proposes a review of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) process to expand SEQRA considerations to include environmental justice, and strengthen the current Environmental Justice Policy “so it gives more robust assurance that adequate consideration is given to environmental justice.”[7]
While budget and political realities will no doubt impact Cuomo’s implementation of his agenda, the Governor-elect’s proposed agenda nonetheless provides a window into his environmental policy preferences in advance of his taking office on January 1st. This preview suggests a potential that the new administration will take a broader view of environmental protection that goes beyond regulation to promoting smart growth and sustainable development as part of an overall statewide focus on economic development.
- Download a copy of the agenda here (pdf)
[1] Cuomo 2010, Cleaner Greener NY, at 1 (2010).
[2] Id. at 7.
[3] Id. at 91-92.
[4] Id. at 94.
[5] Id. at 96.
[6] Id. at 95.
[7] Id. at 97-98.
November 4, 2010
On November 3, 2010, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) adopted revisions to the State Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) Regulations, 6 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 182. As discussed previously on this blog, the revised regulations are notable for their coverage of incidental take permits, which are required when there is a “taking” (which includes killing and lesser acts such as disturbing species) of endangered or threatened species incidental to other lawful activity. Our previous post discusses the interaction between this obligation and existing obligations for environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”).
The final regulations, available on DEC’s website, do not differ substantively from the draft regulations issued on August 4, 2010. Revised versions of the Regulatory Impact Statement, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Rural Area Flexibility Analysis associated with the new regulations, as well as DEC’s assessment of public comments received, are available in the November 3, 2010 issue of the New York State Register.
For more information about New York’s Endangered Species Act, contact Steven Russo or Jessica Steinberg.
September 21, 2010
On August 31, 2010, Governor David Paterson signed into law the New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act, which is intended to address sprawl by requiring certain state agencies to approve, undertake and fund infrastructure projects in a manner that is consistent with smart growth principles. The new legislation will affect a variety of projects throughout the state. The Act is codified as new Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law (“ECL”) and will become effective on September 29, 2010.
As explained in Act itself:
It is the purpose of this article to augment the state’s environmental policy by declaring a fiscally prudent state policy of maximizing the social, economic and environmental benefits from public infrastructure development through minimizing unnecessary costs of sprawl development including environmental degradation, disinvestment in urban and suburban communities and loss of open space induced by sprawl facilitated by the funding or development of new or expanded transportation, sewer and waste water treatment, water, education, housing and other publicly supported infrastructure inconsistent with smart growth public infrastructure criteria.
ECL § 6-0105.
“State infrastructure agency” is defined to include a variety of state agencies and authorities, including the Departments of Environmental Conservation, Transportation, Education, Health, and State, the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation, the New York State Housing Finance Agency, the Housing Trust Fund Corporation, the Dormitory Authority, the Thruway Authority, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Empire State Development Corporation, the New York State Urban Development Corporation, and “all other New York authorities”. ECL § 6-0103(2)
These agencies must ensure that any public infrastructure they “approve, undertake, support or finance” is, to the extent practicable, consistent with specified criteria, which include, inter alia;
- to advance projects located in municipal centers;
- to foster mixed land uses and compact development, downtown revitalization, brownfield redevelopment, the enhancement of beauty in public spaces, the diversity and affordability of housing in proximity to places of employment, recreation and commercial development and the integration of all income and age groups; and
- to promote sustainability by strengthening existing and creating new communities which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and do not compromise the needs of future generations,
ECL §§ 6-0107(1), (2)(b), (2)(e), (2)(j). The CEO of a state infrastructure agency must attest to the proposed project’s conformance to the relevance criteria in a smart growth impact statement. ECL § 6-0107(3). If the project does not meet the relevant criteria or “compliance is considered to be impracticable”, the agency shall prepare a statement of justification of such noncompliance. Id. Although not addressed in the legislation, it appears that such statements could be incorporated into an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) prepared under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”). For projects for which no EIS is required, however, the agency will need to prepare a separate statement to satisfy the requirements of the Smart Growth Act.
August 2, 2010
In a July 21 email to wildlife stakeholders, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) announced that draft revisions to the State Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) Regulations, 6 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 182, pursuant to Article 11 of the Environmental Conservation Law (“ECL”), were ready for public review and comment and would be published in the State Register, Environmental Notice Bulletin, and on DEC’s website on August 4.
If promulgated as proposed, the State ESA regulations will be significantly changed. Several sections have been added, including how DEC will list endangered and threatened species and species of special concern; requirements for recovery and restoration plans; requests for determination whether a specific action is subject to Part 182; and penalties and enforcement for violations. The most significant changes are the new sections regarding “incidental take permits.” The draft regulations define “incidental take” as “any taking of a species listed as endangered or threatened in Part 182.5 and otherwise prohibited by section 11-0535 of the [ECL] that is incidental to, and not the intended purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity.” Proposed 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 182.2(k). “Take” or “taking” would be defined as “pursuing, shooting, hunting, killing, capturing, trapping, snaring and netting of any species listed as endangered or threatened in this Part, and all lesser acts such as disturbing, harrying or worrying.” Id. § 182.2(y). This proposed definition is similar to the definition of “take” under the federal ESA, where it is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19).
The proposed regulations state that “any activity that is likely to result in the take or a taking of any species listed as endangered or threatened in this Part as determined by the [DEC] . . .” must be done pursuant to an incidental take permit. Proposed 6 N.Y.C.R..R § 182.11. The permit application will have to include a mitigation plan and implementation agreement, an analysis of whether being issued the permit would jeopardize the continued existence of the species’ population, a description of ways to modify the project to minimize or completely avoid a take of the species, and a certification statement, in addition to describing the proposed project and its potential impacts to the listed species.
Significantly, the applicant will have to demonstrate that measures taken pursuant to the mitigation plan will result in “a net conservation benefit to the listed species,” which is defined as:
[A] successful enhancement of the species’ overall population or contribution to the recovery of the species within New York. To be classified as a net conservation benefit, the enhancement or contribution must benefit the affected species listed as endangered or threatened in this Part or its habitat to a greater degree than if the applicant’s proposed activity were not undertaken.
Id. § 182.2(o). Based on recently issued State ESA Permits, a net conservation benefit most likely may be demonstrated by measures to set aside critical habitat or create new habitat for the listed species, depending on the species affected. Applicants also must include a monitoring plan and a description and guarantee of how the plan will be funded. For example, the applicant may post a performance bond that will cover habitat monitoring costs.
An applicant’s permit application will also have to identify involved persons, the timeline for implementing the plan (which will become the permit term), specify the source of funding, and be signed by all involved persons. DEC will issue an incidental take permit if it determines that any taking will be incidental to, and not the purpose of, the proposed activity, and there will be a net conservation benefit to the species. The Department will base its decision “upon the best scientific and other information that is reasonably available to [DEC].” Id. § 182.12.
These new regulations, as evidenced by the recently issued ESA permits, will add a regulatory hurdle to projects proposed in areas where there may be a take of a listed endangered or threatened species. Developers previously addressed a project’s potential impacts to such species during the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) process. Now, they will have to go through two processes – a SEQRA review process and a separate ESA permitting process. This independent permitting jurisdiction means that DEC now will be a SEQRA “involved agency.” This means DEC will have formal commenting authority, and may even claim “lead agency” status in certain matters, potentially displacing local town or village boards, and driving the entire SEQRA review process. Regardless, unless the project’s mitigation measures result in a net conservation benefit to the listed species, as opposed to just minimizing any potential adverse impacts under SEQRA, DEC will not have legal authority to issue a State ESA Permit.
As we stated previously, when planning a project, developers should try to ensure that any potential impacts to listed species are considered and avoided in a manner consistent with DEC’s regulations.
Update (August 4, 2010):
Today, DEC published its proposed ESA regulations. DEC will accept comments from August 4 – September 20, 2010. Comments may be submitted via email to: Proposed Rulemaking Part 182 – Endangered and Threatened Species of Fish and Wildlife; Species of Special Concern or by mail to:
Dan Rosenblatt
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
628 Broadway
Albany, New York 12233-4750
For additional information on submitting comments:
June 28, 2010
On Thursday, June 24, 2010, New York’s highest court approved the Empire State Development Corporation‘s (“ESDC”) use of eminent domain to acquire land in West Harlem that will be used to support Columbia University’s campus expansion. Kaur v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., No. 125, __ N.Y.3d ___ (2010), consolidated with Tuck-It-Away v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., No. 125, __ N.Y.3d ___ (2010) (collectively, “Kaur“). In a unanimous decision authored by Judge Cipatrick, the Court of Appeals reversed a ruling of the Appellate Division, First Department that ESDC could not condemn property for Columbia’s expansion project. Relying on its recent decision in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 13 N.Y.3d 511 (2009) (“Goldstein“), in which the Court upheld ESDC’s use of eminent domain to acquire land for the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, in the Kaur case the Court of Appeals deferred to ESDC and criticized the Appellate Division for undertaking an improper de novo review of the record.
In December 2008, ESDC determined to use its condemnation power to acquire 17 acres of privately-owned property, including petitioners’, in connection with Columbia’s expansion plan. ESDC found that the project qualified under the Urban Development Corporation Act as both a “land use improvement project” (because the project would eliminate blighted conditions) and as a “civic project” (because the project would provide educational facilities). The $6.28 billion project, which is being exclusively underwritten by Columbia, a private non-profit institution, will comprise 6.6 million gross square feet in 16 new buildings, 2 acres of open space, and other structures. Petitioners contested ESDC’s designation of the project area as “blighted,” and challenged the integrity of the two neighborhood studies commissioned by ESDC that supported its blight finding, arguing that the studies were biased and demonstrated bad faith on the agency’s part. Petitioners also argued that the “civic project” designation was impermissible because Columbia is a private, not a public, entity.
In Thursday’s Kaur decision, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed that the judiciary has a limited role in reviewing the actions of ESDC, a quasi-legislative entity. Citing Goldstein, the Court noted that ESDC was authorized by the state legislature, and that a court “may only substitute its own judgment for that of the legislative body authorizing the project when such judgment is irrational or baseless.” The Court rejected petitioners’ arguments that ESDC acted in bad faith and with pretext, finding no evidence to support such allegations. The Court instead held that ESDC’s determination was made rationally and in good faith, and that the separate neighborhood conditions studies on which ESDC relied were creditable and not biased. The Court then cited blight evidence dating back to the 1960s to reject petitioners’ argument that Columbia created blight by neglecting the project-area properties that it acquired starting in the early 2000s. The Court also held that the UDC Act’s definition of a “substandard or insanitary” (i.e., blighted) area was not unconstitutionally vague.
The Court of Appeals made new law in New York by holding that “civic projects” under the UDC Act are not limited to public institutions, and may in fact include projects proposed by private educational institutions. After noting that the Columbia project “unquestionably [] promote[s] education and academic research while providing public benefits to the local community,” the Court rejected the First Department’s determination that the statutory language is limited to public entities. In a concurring opinion, Judge Smith stated that because the Court upheld ESDC’s blight determination, the civic project doctrine need not have been reached, and that it was subject to constitutional constraints that the Court failed to address.
Finally, the Court rejected petitioners’ claims that ESDC violated their procedural due process rights by closing the administrative record and proceeding with the condemnation despite ongoing disputes as to whether ESDC was required to turn over additional documents to petitioners. The Court stated that a violation of the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) only rises to a due process violation where petitioners can demonstrate that they were deprived of a meaningful opportunity to be heard, or demonstrating that materiality of the records sought through FOIL. The Court found that ESDC did not withhold documents that formed part of the administrative record, and that petitioners had unfettered access to thousands of pages of documents, including those at the core of ESDC’s action. Noting that the legislature intended for expedient condemnation proceedings that did not allow for any discovery, the Court held that petitioners failed to meet their burden.
According to the New York Times, petitioners plan to seek review of the decision by the United States Supreme Court.
SPR serves as environmental counsel for the Empire State Development Corporation, and Mark Chertok and Dan Chorost served as co-counsel to ESDC’s eminent domain counsel in the Kaur case. David Paget and Dan Chorost served as co-counsel for ESDC in the Goldstein case. A copy of ESDC’s appellate brief is available here (pdf), and reply brief here (pdf).
Older Posts »
|
|
| |
|
