DEP Environmental Protection Invoices, 1999-2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

was made before it, and did not deem including amendments, was aware of Friends' argument, which approved the Planning Commission decision. a zoning amendment to be necessary. The City Council Commission and the City Council, Thus, the entities responsible for land use matters, the City Planning comprehensive Environmental Impact carefully reviewed and considered all relevant factors based on a opportunities for public comment and Statement and approved the project only after allowing extensive Resolution for rejecting their decision, holding public hearings. There is no basis under the City Zoning should be built at the site selected. made after a full airing of the issues raised here, that the WTP

C. SEQRA Issues

1. Treatment of Legislation and Amendment Issues inadequate because the Cary failed to state Insofar as Friends claims that the SEQRA review was Zoning Resolution were required, my that approval of the State Legislature and amendment of the as Friends asserts that determination that the City was correct as to these issues is dispositive. Insofar with the City attorneys, I decline to the City should have revealed that attorneys for the State disagreed whom I have concluded were invalidate the approval process for f_iiure to set forth the views of others resolution of such issues. See WEOK ntisteken. In any event, SEQRA review is not the place for non-compliance with local Broadcasting Corp. v. Planning Bd., 79 N.Y.2d 373, 382 (1992) (alleged

zoning laws not a valid basis for rejecting application under SEQRA). Commission and the Moreover, the responsible City entities, including DEP, the City Planning approval and a zoning amendment were City Council were cognizant of the arguments that legislative a letter to the City Planning necessary. Among other things, Friends had advanced its positions in and Council Speaker Commission, and 34 members of the State Assembly sent a letter to the Mayor

19

NYC-WTC 000137850