The information on this blog about the corruption in America's courts will disgust and frighten you and propel you into a world of racketeering, greed, larceny, malicious prosecution, and outrageous disdain for due process, the Rule of Law, the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Professional Responsibility Standards, Rules and Statutes. This is the Unified Court System of New York State. You will be a victim unless you speak up and protest. by Betsy Combier
Saturday, July 9, 2011
School Construction Authority loses in Appellate Division, First Department
Matter of Bronx Comm. for Toxic Free Schools v New York City School Constr. Auth.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on July 7, 2011
Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Moskowitz, Freedman, JJ. 5055- 13800/07 5056
[*1]In re Bronx Committee for Toxic Free Schools, et al., Petitioners-Respondents,
New York City School Construction Authority, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L.
Zaleon of counsel), for appellants.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, New York (Christopher D.
Barraza and David R. Berz of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered October 28, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the petition to direct respondent School Construction Authority (SCA) to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (ECL 8-0101 et seq.) with respect to long-term maintenance and monitoring of measures for the remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater at the Mott Haven School Campus site, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 18, 2009, which granted respondents' motion for renewal and reargument and adhered to the original determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondents' contentions notwithstanding, the long-term monitoring measures, developed and implemented in their entirety after the final EIS was issued in October 2006, constituted "changes proposed for the project" (6 NYCRR 617.9[a][i][a]). Given, among other things, the Department of Environmental Conservation's July 2006 directive to SCA to develop a site management plan, which by definition under the applicable Brownfield Cleanup Program (see ECL tit 14) regulations includes a long-term monitoring plan (see 6 NYCRR 375-1.2[at]; 375-1.6[c][iv]), it is evident that information about long-term monitoring measures was of sufficient "importance and relevance" to warrant the preparation of a supplemental EIS (6 NYCRR § 617.9[a][ii][a]).
By failing to make any mention of the need for long-term monitoring in the initial EIS, SCA frustrated the purpose of SEQRA, which is to subject agency actions with environmental impact to public scrutiny (see Environmental Conservation Law § 8-0109; 6 NYCRR 617.1[c]). Indeed, there is no record evidence that SCA took the requisite "hard look" at the issue of long-term maintenance and monitoring of remediation measures until 2008, when it issued its final site management plan (see Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v Planning Bd. of Town of Southeast, 9 [*2]NY3d 219, 231-232 ). This constitutes a failure of the agency's obligations under SEQRA (see Matter of Pyramid Co. of Watertown v Planning Bd. of Town of Watertown, 24 AD3d 1312 , lv dismissed 7 NY3d 803 ; Matter of Penfield Panorama Area Community v Town of Penfield Planning Bd., 253 AD2d 342, 349 ).
Nor does the fact that SCA was acting under the Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) shield the remediation measures from SEQRA scrutiny. BCP remediation measures that "commit the . . . agency to specific future uses or actions" are subject to SEQRA review (6 NYCRR 375-3.11[b][i]). The final site management plan provided that the Mott Haven School Campus site could be used for a school campus only, thus committing SCA to a specific site use. In any event, the BCP remediation measures applied only to the BCP area, whereas most of the site was not subject to the BCP and nonetheless was subject to SEQRA review.
Respondents contend that, because SCA was relying on BCP procedures, it could appropriately defer consideration of long-term monitoring measures until the completion of remediation. As noted, however, SCA's participation in the BCP did not exempt the project's environmental impacts from SEQRA scrutiny, and under SEQRA it was impermissible for SCA to omit a known remediation issue from the EIS with the idea of taking up that issue at a later date (see Penfield, 253 AD2d at 349).
We reject respondents' contention, raised in their motion for renewal and reargument, that SCA's development of the final site management plan (SMP), which entailed circulation of a draft for public comment, obviates any need for a supplemental EIS. The SMP is not a supplemental EIS, and respondents have not established that the development of the SMP followed the procedures for the preparation of a supplemental EIS. Since SEQRA procedures must be strictly complied with (see Matter of King v Saratoga County Bd. of Supervisors, 89 NY2d 341, 347 ), SCA's issuance of the final SMP did not cure the deficiencies in the final EIS.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.