Old Town Civic Association v. City of New York

A New York trial court dismissed a petition alleging that New York City violated State Environmental Quality Review Act/City Environmental Quality Review requirements when it approved “City of Yes for Housing Opportunity” amendments to the Zoning Resolution. Among the arguments rejected by the court was a contention that the City improperly segmented its review of the Housing Opportunity amendments from its review of separate proposals for “City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality” and “City of Yes for Economic Opportunity” amendments. The Carbon Neutrality amendments were intended to facilitate decarbonization and enable compliance with State and City mandates to reduce emissions; the court described the amendments as including “changes to better accommodate rooftop solar equipment, mechanical equipment in open spaces/yards and the use of [energy storage systems (ESSs)] of limited sizes in residential districts.” The court concluded that the Carbon Neutrality amendments “stand on their own and are not contingent upon expansions of commercial uses or increases to residential densities”—which were functions of the Economic Opportunity and Housing Opportunity amendments—“to be effective.” The court further found that the environmental impact statement for the Housing Opportunity amendments addressed the impacts of Carbon Neutrality features to the extent they were incorporated in expanded residential uses. In addition, the court said the petitioners did not present “a cogent argument” in support of their position that segmentation of the review “hid or diluted” any impact associated with ESSs. The court said that any challenge to conclusions regarding impacts of ESSs in residential districts was “more properly classified” as a challenge to the earlier-passed Carbon Neutrality amendments and was therefore untimely.

A lawsuit filed in New York Supreme Court alleged that New York City failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act and City Environmental Quality Review when it adopted a three-part citywide overhaul of its zoning resolution. The three parts were known as Carbon Neutrality, Economic Opportunity, and Housing Opportunity. The petitioners alleged that the respondents failed to take a hard look at significant negative environmental impacts, failed to propose reasonable alternatives, failed to propose reasonable mitigation measures, failed to assess cumulative impacts, and improperly segmented the review of the three parts of the rezoning.