VIDEO: SEQR 101 Public Educational Forum

 

By Rebecca Martin

On Tuesday, May 21, KingstonCitizens.org in partnership with the Kingston Tenants Union hosted a public educational forum on SEQR 101.  Video from our event was created by The Kingston News brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org.

The event’s AGENDA is available with valuable links to resources on page two.

Thanks to Jennifer O’Donnell for bringing her knowledge and experience on the subject to our community.

 

VIDEO #1 

What is SEQR?  
* Purpose (12:17)
* Environmental Factors (15:40)
* What is an “Agency”? (19:11)
* What is an “Action”?  (20:54)

SEQR Processes and Procedures
* SEQR timeline and process  (24:00)
* When does the SEQR process begin?  (34:18)
* Who starts SEQR?  (36:54)
* Classifying the Action: Type II, Type I, Unlisted  (37:12)
* Avoid Segmentation (43:52)
* Type II Action (49:25)
Type I Action (52:24)
* Unlisted (53:26)
* Establishing Lead Agency (55:15)

VIDEO #2

* Establishing Lead Agency (continued) (00:00)
* Coordinated  Review (and Uncoordinated Review) (5:00)
* Determination of Significance: Negative or Positive Declaration? (9:36)
* Environmental Assessment Form (10:20)
* Part 1: Project Information (10:49)
* Part 2: Identification of Potential Project Impacts (11:03)
* Part 3: Evaluation of Impacts (12:01)
* Determination of Significance (17:55)
* Criteria for Determination of Significance (19:20)
* Substantive and Literal Compliance (19:40)
* Evaluate Impacts in Context (21:32)
* More on Determination of Significance (27:00)
* Conditioned Negative Declaration (Unlisted actions only)  (27:16)
* Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)  (27:55)
* EIS Process (33:05)
* Scoping (33:30)
* Draft EIS (35:17)
* Public Comment (35:30)
* Final EIS (36:31)
* Generic EIS (37:33)
* Findings, File and Provide Notice, Final Decisions, SEQR Compliance (40:25)
* Recent Changes to SEQR (41:16)
* Questions and Answers (52:40)


VIDEO #3

* Questions and Answers (Continued)  (00:00)

VIDEO/GOOGLE DOC: Public Comment Workshop for the Five Year CDBG Consolidated Strategy Plan

“Why does the city suggest that SEQR is viewed as a barrier when it’s a passive voice? By whom is it viewed as a barrier? The language should be more specific if that is the case….The environmental reviews are a part of doing business. A municipality should be careful about characterizing it negatively in a report as it is something that protects the environment, economic and social factors in our community.”   a comment from the public during the recent workshop re: the five year CDBG Consolidated Strategic Plan

By Rebecca Martin

Last week, KingstonCitizens.org in partnership with the Kingston Tenants Union and the Kingston Land Trust hosted a public comment workshop event for the Five-Year CDGB Consolidated Plan, Fair Housing Plan, and Annual Action Plan Federal Fiscal (2019).  With about 20 citizens in attendance, the group outlined 57 new comments that we’ll be submitting (along with more we hope) when the public comment closes on May 15th.

The City of Kingston extended the public comment deadline for 10 days (to May 15th) on the afternoon of our workshop. This will allow the public more time to look over and to comment on the plan.  It’s so important for the public to do so, as it is only created just once every five years.

You can join us by reviewing the materials below that include: the three hour workshop where many questions were addressed and the following materials:

Kingston 2019-2023 Consolidated Plan_DRAFT

AI – Executive Summary

Draft AI

We have created a public document and invite citizens to add your comments in your native language.  Please locate an empty line and provide us with your name, city and comment.

GOOGLE DOC:  Public Comments for CDBG Consolidated Strategy Plan (due date: 5/15/19)

You can also submit comments to:  Brenna Robinson, Director of Economic and Community Development at brobinson@kingston-ny.gov by Wednesday, May 15th.

A very special thank you to The Idea Garden for hosting our event, Tanya Garment, Sebastian Pilliteri, Rashida Tyler, Julia Farr, Ted Griese, Brenna Robinson, Jeffrey Morell, Rita Washington, Tony Davis, Jennifer Schwartz Berky and Guy Kempe for their support and assistance.

Video by The Kingston News brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org.

 

Public Input with a Positive or Negative Declaration in SEQR

In this image taken from the SEQR Cookbook, the top line “POSITIVE DECLARATION” illustrates robust public input for a pos dec determination in SEQR with many steps and opportunities. The bottom line “NEGATIVE DECLARATION” illustrates a neg dec determination where the review process concludes and there is no further opportunity for the public to participate as it relates to environmental impacts.

By Rebecca Martin

A recent Kingston Times article reported a claim by a member of the Kingstonian development team: “Dennis Larios is a civil engineer with long experience in Kingston. He’s currently working with JM Development Group on the Kingstonian project. Earlier this month, in a Facebook post, Larios suggested that his clients would likely walk away from the project if the planning board issues a “positive declaration of environmental significance.”

A day later, the Daily Freeman reported that a second member of the Kingstonian development team suggested that a determination of significance (and likely a negative declaration) would not be made for a very long time, as they had not yet provided the lead agency with all of the necessary information.

Attorney Michael Moriello said in a statement, “It is beyond presumptuous for these opponents to attempt to subvert the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review process by insisting upon a positive declaration of environmental significance before any potentially large impacts have had an opportunity to be identified and mitigated….Because we intend to follow all environmental review requirements and as we have not yet provided all of the necessary information and studies, we do not anticipate a determination of significance under SEQRA for (a) fairly lengthy period of time….we are confident that we will ultimately obtain a negative declaration of environmental significance so that the vast majority of city residents, visitors and business owners will ultimately benefit from the environmental review and the Kingstonian’s attendant economic, cultural and employment benefits.”

When SEQR begins, a series of specific actions are to take place starting with a 30-day window for the involved agencies to approve or deny the request for lead agency.  An involved agency may also “state their interests and concerns regarding selection of lead agency and potential impacts of the overall action” (SEQR handbook, page 66, item #5).  That’s exactly what the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission has done as a responsible involved agency along with three interested State agencies which submitted comments to the Kingston Planning Board within the 30-day window for lead agency selection or the 20-day window for determination of significance which I describe next.

On the heels of the 30-day window for lead agency selection, for any Type 1 Action (which the Kingstonian Project is), there is a 20-day window for lead agency to make a positive (pos) or negative (neg) declaration (dec).

Members of the applicant’s team state that they “… do not anticipate a determination of significance under SEQRA for (a) fairly lengthy period of time.”  This suggests that their application may have been filed prematurely. 

Why is the SEQR process being handled in the way that it is?

According to the SEQR Cookbook, “The lead agency has 20 calendar days to make its determination of significance. If the lead agency finds that it does not have sufficient information to make this determination, it may request that the applicant provide it. The lead agency must make its determination within 20 days of receipt of all the information it reasonably needs. In determining significance, the lead agency must consider: the whole action and the criteria [see 617.7(c)]; the EAF and any other information provided by the applicant; involved agency input, where applicable; and public input, if any.

Is the applicant interpreting the part of SEQR regulations that reads, “…if the lead agency finds that it does not have sufficient information to make this determination, it may request that the applicant provide it,”  to mean to work directly with the lead agency (Kingston Planning Board) to provide studies that they request for however long is necessary in order to achieve a neg dec in SEQR? 

The inevitable result of this approach the applicant and lead agency are taking in trying to avoid a pos dec will be to cut the public and involved agencies out of the process.  Given that fact alone, the approach they are proposing should be avoided.

Is there public input following a neg dec determination in SEQR? *

To cut to the chase, the answer is no, at least not as it relates to environmental impacts.

Kingston Mayor Steve Noble and members of the project’s development team have been recorded in recent weeks stating that the Kingstonian Project is anticipated to be a neg dec in SEQR. In other words, they are confident that there will not be a single potential significant environmental impact. If the project is a neg dec, the opportunity for an inclusive and comprehensive public process as it relates to environmental impacts is over and the project advances to routine permitting decisions. Public funds, which cannot be released until a neg dec is issued, are now available for use.  

Additionally, the Kingstonian Project as a Type 1 Action requires a coordinated review process. “A coordinated review is the process by which all involved agencies cooperate in one integrated environmental review. Coordinated review has two major elements: establishing a lead agency and making a determination of significance and in scoping an environmental impact statement.” (Ten agencies have been identified as “involved” in this review, including the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission and Kingston Common Council).

If a neg dec determination is made by the lead agency, then the discretionary reviews of the involved agencies will be bound by this decision. The law stipulates that following a coordinated review, a lead agency’s determination of significance is a binding one; no other involved agency may require an EAF or an EIS for an environmental impact as defined by SEQR.

This is significant, particularly when the timeline for input from the involved agencies is not clear. Right now, involved agencies of the Kingstonian Project have only until the public comment period closes (it was opened on April 10 and oddly, a deadline has not yet been set) to weigh in on the potential significant environmental impacts while the Planning Board as lead agency prepares to make its determination of significance (with a pos or neg dec).

Is there public input following a pos dec determination in SEQR?

Yes, a pos dec determination will allow for an inclusive and comprehensive public review process.

Currently, a record has been established with comments on potential significant environmental impacts, particularly those that pertain to historic preservation and community character. Only one potential significant environmental impact needs to be identified to trigger a pos dec.

In the event of a pos dec, the applicant would be required to create a draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS). Public scoping is automatic. It is an inclusive process to identify issues that should be studied in the EIS, including potential significant adverse environmental impacts of a proposed project and alternatives that could avoid or minimize these impacts. “As a result, the draft EIS is concise, accurate and focused on the significant issues…The draft EIS is a primary source of environmental information related to a proposed action (the Kingstonian Project.) The EIS also serves as a means for public review and comment on the potential impacts of the action. After a draft EIS is submitted by the sponsor, the lead agency must determine if it is complete and adequate for public review. Once the draft EIS is deemed complete, a minimum of 30 days is required for public review and comment. A final EIS should be prepared within 45 days of any hearings or 60 days after filing the draft EIS. The final EIS must include: the draft EIS and any revisions/supplements; a summary of substantive comments received; and the lead agency’s responses to the comments. Draft and Final EIS’s must be published on a publicly available website.”

We hope that many of you will come to our public educational forum on May 21st from 5:30pm – 7:30pm where we will present “SEQR: 101” to explore and to learn all about the SEQR process and answer questions.  Jennifer O’Donnell, a City of Kingston resident, urban planner and local government specialist at the Department of State will be our guest panelist. The event will be held at the Kingston Public Library, is free and will be filmed by The Kingston News for those who can’t make it.  Brought to you KingstonCitizen.org and co-sponsored by the Kingston Tenants Union. 

 

(*) An amendment to the post was made on 4/26 @ 11:30am.

The ‘Pit’ In Our Stomach Was a Negative Declaration in SEQR

The photo reveals the ICC property looking North from Abeel street, where the developers appear to use “plywood” to mitigate damage.

By Rebecca Martin

After the ground gave way for the neighbors 7-year-old son to fall into the Irish Cultural Center’s project pit, residents living next door worried that their home property line would further erode with that night’s torrential downpour. Erosion has been an issue since last summer due to the apparent poor excavation practices and lack of oversight of the project.

As far as we are aware, the project does not have a stormwater plan in place to mitigate the impacts of rain storms that have compromised the site and Company Hill Path, a significant historic resource adjacent to the surrounding  properties.

According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s website, the overall annual precipitation in New York has increased with “year to year (and multiyear) variability becoming more pronounced…the amount of precipitation falling in very heavy events (downpours)” —like the one that occurred last weekend—“have increased by 70% across the northeastern United States” due to climate change.

The project, located in Kingston’s Rondout Historic District, was determined a Negative Declaration (Neg Dec) in its SEQR process by the Kingston Planning Board, even after years of effort by dozens of citizens highlighting the potential significant environmental impacts, and there were many.  

READ
KingstonCitizens.org on the ICC Process

VIEW:
Citizens Maintain Request for Pos Dec in SEQR for Irish Cultural Center of HV’s Proposal

The erroneous Neg Dec SEQR determination for the Irish Cultural Center project is one of the key reasons why KingstonCitizens.org has gotten involved in the proposed Kingstonian project SEQR process in Uptown Kingston from the very start. It is no secret to the executive branch that we lack faith in the Kingston Planning Department. Until our community has a professional urban planner to help direct growth in our historic city, it should be expected that our scrutiny of the Planning Department will continue.

Video footage provided by The Kingston News. Brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org

 

My name is Hillary Harvey, and I live adjacent to the Irish Cultural Center on Abeel Street.

On Saturday, I was gardening in my yard when my 7-year-old son walked over to the construction fencing that the Irish Cultural Center put up on our shared property line.  He stood there for just a moment before the ground dropped out from underneath him.  Luckily, he was able to catch himself and scramble back up.  It’s about a 15 foot drop down to the ICC’s pit, so my son could have gotten really hurt.  Obviously, we are very upset.  We’ve submitted photos of the hole to Planning, Engineering, Building Safety, and our elected officials.

Without any retaining walls, terracing that conforms to OSHA standards, or stabilized fencing on our side of the ICC’s property, my property is collapsing.  The ICC does no regular maintenance at the site.  The silt fencing sags, the neighboring properties erode, and they haven’t been back to do any work since the City Engineer cited them for violations last summer and forced them to add protections for 42 Abeel Street last summer/fall.  They were there today to assess and patch the damage to my property with plywood and rocks.  And Ed Norman of DPW has been in touch throughout the day to help us, for which I’m very grateful.

At your December 17th, 2018 meeting, City Engineer John Shulteis told you: The plan is adequate if it is correctly maintained and implemented, and any of these measures are temporary measures with lifetimes measured in months.  For example, a silt fence doesn’t last for years and years.  It has a tendency to fall down.  You can’t just install it and forget about it.

After that, at your February meeting, despite our pleas for a positive declaration in SEQR, you determined that the ICC would have no environmental impact on our neighborhood.

I’m here to remind you that you decided that the Irish Cultural Center would have no environmental impact on the community.  Even after they let their site plan approval lapse this year, and the City Engineer cited them with violations which caused degradation to the City property at Company Hill Path and to my neighbors’ house at 42 Abeel Street, you decided that you did not need to re-evaluate any of your determinations on this application, including your SEQR review.

This site needs retaining walls and permanent, stabilized fencing.  The construction fencing is not inserted into the ground, but weighted, and now floating in places.  And it needs maintenance, which the ICC has not been doing.

Now I understand from things you’ve said at your meetings that there’s the impression that I deserve whatever I get because I bought this property after the ICC bought theirs.  And I understand that some of you have personal connections to the project applicants, as members of the organization, your parents donate to this organization, and you work for the city who defends this project whole heartedly.

But I am a mother, a home owner, and a tax payer in this city for the past decade.  And the Planning Board is tasked with ensuring the safety and welfare of city residents.  I want to remind you that your decisions have an impact on the safety of my children.  And I want to know what are you going to do to protect my children?

 

 

My name is Owen Harvey, and I live next to the Irish Cultural Center Pit on Abeel Street.

It is difficult for me to find a place for forgiveness. It is difficult to forgive what the City, this Board has permitted to happen to my son. I am angry and I am frustrated by this situation your actions led to occurring. The safety of my children is paramount and what happened the other day is inexcusable.

Repeatedly I came before this board as a father and asked you to take into consideration the safety of the young children who live at the adjacent property to the Irish Cultural Center- and you ignored that request. Now again the city is being forced to react to your poor oversight.

Your unwillingness to understand the potential harm this project could cause has now jeopardized the safety of my young children – and this is before any actual building has begun.

Who knows what other negative aspects from this project the city will need to continuously respond to because of this board’s disinterest in the serious concerns raised during the review process.

We are asked to trust that this board is an advocate for the safety and welfare of our community- but now I know you are not even capable of protecting a seven year-old child whose only fault was playing in his backyard.

So today, I simply want you to know that when you are rushing out of the movie theatre with your own young children, or shopping at the market, or out in the Rondout neighborhood with your family or friends, or maybe even Uptown celebrating at an event, and you happen to see me or Hillary with our son, know that he is the little boy the actions you put in place almost killed on Saturday.

His name is Ignatius, and those who love him call him Iggy.

 

Before The Kingstonian Project There Was the Teicher Organization.

“The Planning Board adopted a determination of significance (i.e. a positive declaration) for the project on March 30, 2006, directing the preparation of a draft scoping document for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. The reasons stated for its determination were that ‘the proposed scope of demolition and construction will have potential for impacts on the immediate adjacent business district and surrounding area. Potential impacts include, but are not limited to; traffic and noise levels, infrastructure and utilities, schools, recreation and other community services; visual and historic resources; off-site improvements; economics and markets; housing availability, etc…’”   – Kingston Planning Board Decision, Final Scoping Document for DEIS “Proposed Mixed-Use Development of the Uptown Municipal Parking Garage Site” (2007)

By Rebecca Martin

A decade ago, before the proposed Kingstonian Project, there was the Teicher Organization’s plan to tear down a decrepit parking garage at Wall and North Front Streets. In its place, they would build a $65 million, 214-unit condominium building that would rise 12 stories in height. “The building would include a 600-space parking garage (with half of those spaces available to the public and half going to residents of the building) and 10,000 square-feet of retail space. The plan would call for a special taxing scheme to be set up whereby a portion of taxes paid by residents of the complex were used to pay for a public parking garage.”    

While the the Teicher Organization’s proposal may have been larger in size, its other details are similar to the proposed Kingstonian Project. Both were categorized as Type 1 actions with a coordinated review process. For both, the Kingston Planning Board was/is the lead agency.  But will their determinations be the same?

Looking back, Teicher’s project received a positive declaration (pos dec), that was followed by a public scoping process and a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). At that time, scoping was not mandatory (as of January 1, 2019, a pos dec automatically triggers a public scoping process). Based on the SEQR timeline for the Teicher project, the final scope was complete after only five months of effort by the Planning Board. That’s not a bad turnaround. The developer was then directed to prepare a preliminary DEIS, which doesn’t appear to have occurred.

For the Kingstonian, a determination has not yet been made. We are expecting a decision by the Planning Board in the coming days, weeks, or months.  Though the applicant’s team and supporters claim on record that a pos dec will “kill” the project.

The Teicher proposal is an excellent point of reference because it shows us a similar development in the same location as the Kingstonian that received a pos dec determination in SEQR. Of note, when the Planning Board submitted its final scope and direction to Teicher to create a DEIS, the developer chose not to proceed. Maybe it was because what they wanted to build was not a good fit for the location, and that mitigating its impacts was not an option for them. In this instance, SEQR provided close scrutiny. Outlining potential environmental, social and economic impacts before something is built is in most everyone’s best interest. It is unfair to characterize a pos dec as a project killer.

What is a Positive Declaration?

A positive declaration, or “pos dec,” is a determination by the lead agency that an action (the project) may result in one or more significant environmental impacts and so will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before agency decisions may be made regarding the action.

What is a Negative Declaration?

A negative declaration, or “neg dec,” is a determination by the lead agency that an action will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact and consequently no EIS will be prepared.

What is Scoping?

Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper created a really helpful document of frequently asked questions regarding the public role in SEQR and the “scoping” process. It describes scoping this way:

Scoping is a process that develops a written document (final scope) outlining the topics and analyses of an action’s potential environmental impacts that will be addressed in a Draft EIS. The scoping process is intended to:

  • Focus the EIS on potentially significant adverse impacts and eliminate considerations of those impacts that are irrelevant or nonsignificant;
  • ensure public participation in the EIS development process;
  • allow open discussion of issues of public concern; and
  • permit inclusion of relevant, substantive public issues in the final written scope.

The document also describes why public participation in developing the scope is important:

Public involvement reduces the likelihood that unaddressed issues will arise during public review of the draft EIS. From the public’s perspective, scoping is important because it offers an opportunity to ensure the DEIS is as comprehensive as possible to minimize the project’s environmental impact on the community. It also increases the likelihood the project will be consistent with community values.

The final scoping document for the Teicher Organization project is an important find as it shows the existing setting, potential impacts and mitigation measures of the site and the project. It also provides evidence that a large development in that location most likely merits a pos dec in SEQR.

READ
Final Scoping Document for DEIS – Proposed Mixed Use Development of the Uptown Municipal Parking Garage Site (2007)


Along with everything else, I noticed that on page 32 under “Alternative Development Plans” in 8.1 (c) there is an affordable housing plan that would present ‘program and procedures that will result in at least 10% of the proposed housing units being set aside as affordable/workforce housing units as defined in the City (of Kingston’s) Zoning Law’

For however long the conversations about the Kingstonian have been going on, SEQR is just now getting underway. Many, if not most, members of our community are learning about this project and its plans for the first time. It makes sense that if we are expected to welcome a project of its size and scope in the nationally significant Stockade Historic District, then it must be done properly to assure that it adds to its beauty and character and does not create a costly and unaccounted burden on our existing infrastructure. A thorough and inclusive SEQR process can help to do that.

Key Citizen Public Comments On Process and the Proposed Kingstonian Public Hearing.

Click on the image to learn more about the SEQR process.

By Rebecca Martin

At the April 10th public hearing on the Kingstonian proposal, over 50 speakers provided three hours of testimony.  Most of which had little to do with the decisions that were currently in front of the Planning Board as Lead Agency of the State Environmental Quality Review Process (SEQR) in making a Positive or Negative Declaration for the project.

Below are three citizen comment highlights that speak directly to the current process the proposal is currently in.

If you wish to review the meeting in full and the “listen to the community” rally beforehand, you can do so HERE   We are also uploading 19 key testimony segments HERE

No decisions were made that evening.

Filmed by Clark Richters of The Kingston News. Brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org.

 

“I’m a little perplexed by a lot of the discussion we’re having tonight. I thought we were not here to decide ‘yay’ or ‘nay’ on the project. I thought we were here to decide whether the project would have a positive declaration of significance or not.  

It seems really obvious to me that this project will have significant impacts. I don’t think I’ve heard a single person say that it won’t. I’ve heard people say, “Yes the impacts are large but all positive” and I’ve heard others say “Lets trust the developer to deal with the negative ones in a friendly sort a way without all that legal stuff.”

The SEQR process is there to help communities think through large projects like this and it just seems really clear there the impacts are significant. Certainly significant impact on neighborhood character, we’re talking about a neighborhood that’s historic full of lots of two and three story buildings we’re going to put this giant modern building in it – that’s a significant change to the community character.

In the language of DEC’s guidance, “Is the proposed action inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character?” Yes it clearly is. That’s not to say it’s not a good project, that it shouldn’t happen or that the negative impacts outweigh the positives. That’s what the SEQR process is for is to look into those impacts and weigh them.

We know that there is going to be traffic increases in this already very congested area, again – that’s not a reason to decide yay or nay today – that’s a reason to study the impacts and importantly the SEQR process calls for looking for ways to mitigate those impacts to find ways to redesign the projce so it will be better.

I’ve heard advocates of this project saying “It’s not going to happen if a positive declaration is made”. To me, that suggests that the impacts are so significant that something would come up and stop the project. If the members of the planning board agree with that concern then you have to declare a positive declaration so that we can study those impacts and design the proper mitigations. SEQR is not an optional process – it’s not that you engage it when you don’t like a project and want to kill it and you skip it when you like a project and want it to go ahead….and the Mayor’s recent action to remove people from the HLPC suggests after they voiced these concerns that there is an attempt to subvert the process going on here.

Suggesting that…developers won’t come here unless they can count on the city to subvert the process is even more concerning.

I want to see the law followed here.”

 

“The Kingstonian could, without a doubt, be an exciting possibility for our city.  It has also become a very polarizing issue.

Continuing to focus on the negative “pro versus anti” doesn’t help and I would prefer to concentrate on the “all of us” in this picture.

The “all of us” is a fair and transparent SEQR process. It is important to allow public participation in anything that affects the community on this grand of a scale and it is just as important in helping the developers to get it right.

The Kingstonian project is being proposed within a National Historic District, which means it is an area officially recognized by the United States government for its national historical significance.

I urge you to please consider that all it takes is one environmental impact to issue a positive declaration of impact. The current findings of the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC) weigh towards a positive declaration, with at least five possible impacts.

Our own city code has this to say regarding the Stockade Area:

“… it is in the public interest to ensure that the distinctive and historical character of this Historic District shall not be injuriously affected, that the value to the community of those buildings having architectural and historical worth shall not be impaired and that said Historic District be maintained and preserved to promote its use of the education, pleasure and welfare of the citizens of the City of Kingston, New York…”

This alone should be enough to automatically trigger a positive declaration, which would give the community an opportunity to weigh in and ensure that the project moves forward with everyone’s support.”

 

“I’d like to read a letter dated March 11, 2019 – from the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission to the Planning Board, care of Suzanne Cahill – into the public record.

March 11, 2019
City of Kingston Planning Board
City Hall
420 Broadway
Kingston, NY 12401

Dear Chairman Platte and members of the Planning Board,

The Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission, as an involved agency, supports the Planning Board’s request to be the lead agency in the SEQR process for The Kingstonian project. Along with our support, we would like to share with you general concerns we have about this project as you determine its significance. Our concerns are informed by the project applicants’ public presentations and our review of their EAF Part 1 dated Nov 27, 2018.

The information provided therein suggests that the proposed action has the potential to effect significant environmental features, including archaeological and architectural resources, topography and community character. Specifically:

The project site has the potential to yield information important in history or prehistory, such as evidence of the former presence of the stockade which crossed on or near to this site and/or other previously unknown archaeological resources. Such evidence was unearthed nearby on Clinton Avenue in 1970. This site has been identified as archaeologically sensitive by the NY State Historic Preservation Office.

This project involves the demolition of an existing architectural resource in the Stockade Historic District and may seek to replicate this building, which might create a false historical record.

This project involves new construction in the Stockade Historic District. Potential impacts include those that are construction-related, such as falling objects, vibration (from blasting or pile-driving), dewatering, flooding, subsidence, or collapse. The project’s close proximity to two architectural resources—the Senate House and grounds and the John Tremper House at 1 North Front Street—may negatively impact them if adequate precautions are not taken.

Additionally, new construction may impact the visual context of the district, including the architectural components of the district’s buildings in this area (e.g., height, scale, proportion, massing, fenestration, ground-floor configuration, style), streetscapes, skyline, landforms, and openness to the sky. The project may also impact the visual context of the Senate House, a significant state landmark.

This project proposes changes to a significant landscape feature of this historic district: the bluff, an important element to interpreting the district’s history. The National Register nomination for the Stockade Historic District states:

“To this day, the boundary lines of this stockade are formed by Green Street, Main Street, Clinton Avenue, and North Front Street and are still intact. Also, amazingly enough, almost the entire bluff promontory forming the perimeter of this area, elevated above the lowland, is still comparatively intact. Therefore, of the three first settlements in New York State—Albany (Fort Orange), New York (New Amsterdam), and Kingston—it is only Kingston that the authentic elements of an original fortification remain. Documents indicate that this log palisade was in existence until the early eighteenth century, having been kept in repair as protection against later Indian raids. While this area at present is surrounded by commercial development, aerial photography has recently indicated the existence of outlines suggesting that the angle itself may as yet be relatively undisturbed. This area forms a sharp bluff and this may account for its preservation.” 

Taken together—demolition, new construction, and changes to topography—this project may impact the area’s community character or sense of place. The potentially large impacts on the Stockade Historic District and nearby landmark buildings described above weigh toward a positive declaration of environmental significance, we believe. As an involved agency, the HLPC asks that the Planning Board keep these historic preservation issues and concerns in mind as you review and classify the significance of the Kingstonian.

This project will be subject to an Article 14.09 environmental review under the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law. A draft EIS can serve as the review procedure for complying with subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 428, Part 8 of this law. Thank you for your time and consideration. We value your service to our community.

Sincerely,

Mark Grunblatt
Chair, Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission

Cc: Mayor Steve Noble
New York State Historic Preservation Office
James Noble, Kingston Common Council Alderman-at-Large
Andrea Shaut, Common Council Member, Ward 9
Patrick O’Reilly, Common Council Member, Ward 7, and HLPC liaison
Hayes Clement, Heritage Area Commission, Chair”

WHAT TO EXPECT. Public Hearing on Proposed Kingstonian Project on April 10

WHAT
City of Kingston Planning Board
Public Hearing on the Kingstonian

WHEN
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
6:00pm

WHERE
City of Kingston City Hall
Council Chambers (Top Floor)
420 Broadway
Kingston, NY

“LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY” Rally
Before the public hearing
5:00pm
Front Lawn
Kingston City Hall

Co-sponsors include:  Kingston Tenants Union, Midtown Rising, Rise Up Kingston, Citizen Action of New York Mid-Hudson Valley Chapter, Nobody Leaves Mid Hudson and KingstonCitizens.org

MORE
It is not expected that the planning board will make any decisions on the 10th.

A regular planning board meeting will occur on Monday, 4/15 where the planning board may decide on the items listed in the 4/10 AGENDA  (lot line deletion, site plan / special permit and SEQR determination (pos or neg dec)).

 

 

By Rebecca Martin

On April 10th, the Kingston Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the proposed Kingstonian project regarding the following approvals (in bold) and a SEQR Determination:

AGENDA

#9-17 & 21 North Front Street and 51 Schwenk Drive and a portion of Fair Street Extension LOT LINE DELETION of the Lands of Herzog’s Supply Company and the City of Kingston. SBL 48.80-1-25, 26 & 24.120. SEQR Determination. Zone C-2, Mixed Use Overlay District, Stockade Historic District. Kingstonian Development, LLC/ applicant; Herzog’s Supply Co. Inc. & City of Kingston/owner.

#9-17 & 21 North Front Street and 51 Schwenk Drive and a portion of Fair Street Extension SITE PLAN/SPECIAL PERMIT to construct a Mixed Use building with a 420 car garage, 129 apartments, 32 hotel rooms, and 8000sf of retail space. SBL 48.80-1-25, 26 & 24.120. SEQR Determination. Zone C-2, Mixed Use Overlay District, Stockade Historic District. Kingstonian Development, LLC/ applicant; Herzog’s Supply Co. Inc. & City of Kingston/owner.

The Significance of State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Determinations. 

What is SEQR?

The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) “establishes a process to systematically consider environmental factors early in the planning stages of actions that are directly undertaken, funded or approved by local, regional and state agencies. By incorporating environmental review early in the planning stages, projects can be modified as needed to avoid adverse impacts on the environment.”

What step are we at in the process?

On April 10th, the City of Kingston Planning Board will collect public comment on its next step in making a “determination of significance.” This is the most critical step in the SEQR process. This is the step in which the lead agency must decide whether or not a proposed action is likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. If the lead agency finds one or more significant adverse environmental impacts, it must prepare a positive declaration identifying the significant adverse impact(s) and requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

At this time, environmental impacts must be cited before the social or economic concerns are included in an Environmental Impact “Scope” (p. 93, SEQR Handbook), and a pos dec would be required in order for a public scoping process to occur.

FOR YOUR REFERENCE: SEQR Handbook

The project would seem to be justifiably determined as a pos dec, as only one potential adverse environmental impact is required in order for a pos dec to be triggered (p. 85, #5).   Uptown Kingston’s significance as a National Historic District is a reason for a pos dec. Traffic (the traffic for this project appears to be over the threshold for peak hour outlined in the law) would be a trigger. Visual and Aesthetic and Neighborhood Character are all legitimate environmental impacts (p. 90 of the SEQR Handbook).

As the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commissions (HLPC) has already weighed in as an “involved agency” to indicate the potential significant adverse environmental impact on the character of the Stockade National Historic District, the Planning Board, as the “lead agency” is obligated to take a “hard look” according to important case law precedents that have invalidated findings by lead agencies that have failed to do so.

VIEW:
Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC) Identifies Potential Significant Environmental Impacts of the Kingstonian Project.

Other important questions that the public should ask on Wednesday include:

1. Where is the planning board currently in the SEQR determination process?

2. When will the planning board make that determination?

3. Is the project being modified and will it be modified by the applicant and developer to try to address or mitigate potential impacts?

4. Will the public be notified of those modifications and have an additional opportunity to comment on the modified project before the Board makes a SEQR determination?

Below are excerpts from the SEQR Handbook to help you to identify good information to shape your public comment for Wednesday evening.

From pages 90 of the SEQR Handbook onward:

34. May determinations of significance be based on economic costs and social impacts?  No. A determination of significance is based on the regulatory criteria relating to environmental significance. If an EIS is required, its primary purpose is to analyze environmental impacts and to identify alternatives and mitigation measures to avoid or lessen those impacts. Since the definition of “environment” includes community character, these impacts are considered environmental. However, potential impacts relating to lowered real estate values, or net jobs created, would be considered economic, not environmental. Social and economic benefits of, and need for, an action must be included in an EIS. Further, in the findings which must be issued after a final EIS is completed, environmental impacts or benefits may be balanced with social and economic considerations.”

23. Are there impacts on non-physical resources that should be considered when determining significance?  Yes. There may be environmental impacts related to various community or regional values not necessarily associated with physical resources. Examples would include aesthetic impacts, impairment of community character, growth inducement and social and economic conditions, which are discussed below.

24. Why should the significance of visual and aesthetic impacts be considered under SEQR?The courts have upheld inclusion of effects on scenic views as an element of the SEQR review process; for example, in the case of a new radio transmission tower proposed to be constructed near the F.D. Roosevelt estate on the Hudson River (see WEOKBroadcasting Corp. V. Planning Board of Town of Lloyd 1992).

25. What methods or resources may a lead agency use in assessing potential visual and aesthetic impacts?  Because the quality of an aesthetic resource cannot be determined by a precise formula and because opinions may vary concerning the evaluation of visual impacts, there exists a widespread, but erroneous, notion that aesthetics analysis is hopelessly subjective. Instead, research has clearly established that landscape preference and perception are not arbitrary or random, so that along with some variability there is substantial regularity in the perceptions of significant adverse and beneficial visual impacts. It is upon this regularity of human judgement concerning aesthetics that objective decision making depends.  Developing an objective process for considering visual impacts is most effective if undertaken before controversial projects appear. To establish or clarify values, policies and priorities related to existing visual resources, agencies or municipalities should conduct an inventory of visual resources within their jurisdictions. Such surveys need not be elaborate, but are a recommended feature of any comprehensive planning process that the agencies or municipalities may undertake. The prime objective is to be proactive and identify visual resources that are significant within that jurisdiction and could be adversely affected by potential development.

To evaluate potential visual impacts likely to result from individual proposed projects, the Visual EAF Addendum [(Appendix B of 617.20) (pdf, 936 kb)] may be used by the lead agency to supplement the EAF. The Visual EAF Addendum form highlights the following objective components of visual impact analysis are generally considered:

• Whether the value of the aesthetic resource has been established by designation; for example: state park, designated scenic vista, designated open space, etc.

• The number of people who could observe the potential impacts.

• The circumstances or contexts under which impacts would be visible.

• The distance the viewer is from the aesthetic resource.

When the responses to these and other pertinent questions about potential impacts to aesthetic resources are compiled, the lead agency will know, for example, whether the resource is designated as important, is viewed by thousands of people annually when they use the resource (e.g. park), or if the potential impact is adjacent to that resource. Based on this systematic assessment, the lead agency will then be able to consider visual and aesthetic impacts in developing its determination of significance.

26. Has the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) developed any additional resources for assessing aesthetic and visual impacts?  The DEC guidance policy “Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts” was developed to provide direction to DEC staff for evaluating visual and aesthetic impacts generated from proposed facilities. The policy and guidance defines what visual and aesthetic impacts are; describes when a visual assessment is necessary; provides guidelines on how to review a visual impact assessment; differentiates State from local concerns; and defines avoidance, mitigation and offset measures that eliminate, reduce, or compensate for negative visual effects.

The cornerstone of the DEC guidance document is its inventory of aesthetic resources of statewide or national significance. The scenic and aesthetic resources identified in the guidance have all been protected by law or regulation, and are therefore special places that the public has deemed worthy of protection due to the inherent aesthetic value associated with the resource. For example, one category is state and national parks which havebeen established by government to protect unique resources, and are accessible for use and appreciation by the public.

The DEC guidance defines State regulatory concerns, and separates them from local concerns. However, the DEC guidance may be used as a model by other agencies or municipalities. Once local authorities have officially identified locally important visual resources, the guidance may be used to assist a lead agency in systematically evaluating potential visual and aesthetic impacts from a proposed development.

27. How do aesthetic and visual impacts differ from community character impacts? Visual impact assessment considers a single class of resource. While visual resources may contribute to a community’s perception of its character, a number of other resources should also be assessed or evaluated to enable a more thorough description of a community’s character.

28. Why is “community character an environmental issue?  The Legislature has defined “environment” to include, among other things, “…existing patterns of population concentration, distribution or growth, and existing community or neighborhood character” (see ECL 8-0105.6). Court decisions have held that impacts upon community character must be considered in making determinations of significance even if there are no other impacts on the physical environment.

29.  How can you determine whether an impact upon community character may be significant? Community character relates not only to the built and natural environments of a community, but also to how people function within, and perceive, that community. Evaluation of potential impacts upon community or neighborhood character is often difficult to define by quantitative measures. Courts have supported reliance upon a municipality’s comprehensive plan and zoning as expressions of the community’s desired future state or character. (See Village of Chestnut Ridge v. Town of Ramapo, 2007.) In addition, if other resource-focused plans such as Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans (LWRP), Greenway plans or Heritage Area plans have been adopted, those plans may further articulate desired future uses within the planning area.

In the absence of a current, adopted comprehensive plan, a lead agency has little formal basis for determining whether a significant impact upon community character may occur.

  • Examples of actions affecting community character that have been found to be significant include the introduction of luxury housing into a working-class ethnic community and construction of a prison in a rural community.

• Examples of actions found not to be significant include low-income housing and shelters for the homeless proposed to be located within existing residential areas.

VIDEO: Kingston Planning Board Sets Public Hearing on April 10th for Kingstonian Project.

Last evening, the Kingston Planning Board announced that it would not be making a determination at this time for the proposed Kingstonian Project, accepted its role as lead agency of the review process and, set a public hearing for the project to be held on Wednesday, April 10th at 6:00pm.

The public can attend to share any of their concerns (that will be placed on record) for consideration of a determination by the planning board as lead agency for the Kingstonian Project.

Video made by Clark Richters of the Kingston News. Brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org.

 

(click on image to view video)

2:00 – 4:55
Geddy Sveikauskas

“The project is sited on the steep slope connecting two quite different successful neighborhoods, Kingston Plaza and the Stockade district. Connecting these two signature parts of the city while retaining the character of each has been a community goal for at least the last 361 years. Given the site’s location and it’s important to examine the site very thoughtfully with extensive community input  …the present design (of the Kingstonian) presentation has been disappointing and unpersuasive. More of a marketing effort designed to mislead than a site plan to provide an honest sense of the environmental, economic and social impacts of this $40 million + project.”

5:00 – 11:44
Rebecca Martin

“The spirit of SEQR is to provide the opportunity for the public to identify and understand what the impacts of a project like this are – so that they can be properly mitigated through a collaborative and inclusive process. At this critical juncture, it would be helpful for the planning board as lead agency to communicate in advance the timeline of SEQR as it pertains to this project so that the public will know what and when they can contribute in a meaningful way.”

11:50 – 14:15
Peter Orr

“Although certain people supporting a positive SEQR declaration have said they only wish to have a process that maximizes the benefits to Kingston residents, the reality is this project will not happen if a positive declaration for SEQR occurs…”

14:17 – 16:29
Karen Clark-Adin

“One aspect of the Kingstonian is important to bear in mind. This is not an out of town billionaire developer. This is the Jordan family. They have been in the city of Kingston for over 80 years…I highly doubt that the upstanding members of the Jordan family would do a shabby job in the Kingstonian development…being a contributing citizen in a community is incredibly important and should be recognized and acknowledged. The Jordan family has that in spades. It’s very important for you to look at the residents of the city of Kingston who has been here for years supporting the city.”

16:33 – 18:19
James Shaughnessy

“I suggest that a positive SEQR declaration for the Kingstonian project be made. The proposal is the largest uptown development project in recent history. It is on the boundary of the Stockade – a historical district. The footprint and scale will be larger than any in the surrounding neighborhood…Millions of public dollars are earmarked…what other subsidies have been promised or asked for? This is not an unabashed benign project. Positive and negative impacts will be irrevocable once it’s built. Kingston deserves more than a ‘no problems’ declaration.”

 

18:26 – 25:29
Testimony on the West Chestnut Boarding House

 

(click on image to view video)

Kingston Planning Board declares Lead Agency and announces April 10th at 6:00pm in the Kingston Common Council , special meeting to open a public hearing for the Kingstonian Project.

Items #9 and #10 are tabled at this time.

###

For more information, please REVIEW the Kingstonian Project Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)

INVOLVED AGENCIES (those who have a discretionary decision to make for the Kingstonian Project) include:
 
1. City of Kingston Planning Board (site approval, special use permit approval, SEQRA approval, Lot Line Revision).
 
2. City of Kingston Common Council (Closing of a City Street, Sale of Land or Easement Conveyance, Deviated PILOT Review)
 
3. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (SPEDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharge)
 
4. City of Kingston Department of Public Works (Curb Cut Permit, Sewer Tap)
 
5. City of Kingston Zoning Board of Appeals (Area Variances for Floor Area Ratio and Height)
 
6. City of Kingston Historic Landmarks Commission (Notice of Preservation of Action)
 
7. Ulster County Industrial Development Agency (Deviated PILOT Agreement)
 
8. City of Kingston Water Department (Water tap)
 
9. City of Kingston Consolidated School District (Deviated PILOT Review)
 
10. Empire State Development Corporation (Approval of Grants: Restore New York, Consolidated Funding Application and Downtown Revitalization Initiative)

Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC) Identifies Potential Significant Environmental Impacts of the Kingstonian Project.

By Rebecca Martin

At last evening’s meeting of the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC), the Commission as an involved agency in the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) for the proposed Kingstonian Project put forward a motion to amend the agenda to include a discussion of the Kingstonian Project and its “potential significant environmental impacts” pertaining to historic preservation. With the clock ticking on a 20-day window for the Planning Board, as lead agency, to make a Positive or Negative Declaration in SEQR (the deadline being March 20th), the HLPC’s March meeting would have effectively been their last opportunity to discuss their concerns as a collective body. Apparently it was the desire of the entire Commission to have this discussion placed on its March agenda beforehand, but their request was not honored by the Commission’s administrative staff in the Planning Department.

VIDEO ONE:  4:00 – 20:00

KingstonCitizens.org found it deeply troubling that the City of Kingston’s Planning Director — who is both affiliated with the Planning Board as Lead Agency (meant to be an impartial body responsible for administering the environmental review process) and as staff of the executive branch that wrote the successful Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI) application to secure the $10 million dollar grant to be used in part to fund the Kingstonian Project — spent nearly 15 minutes trying to dissuade the Commission from amending their agenda to include a discussion of the project and its potential impacts as it pertained to the historical, archeological and community character of the project.   The Commissioners had also requested that the item be placed on the agenda, but Suzanne Cahill, who now is responsible for the HLPC’s administrative duties, would not agree to do so.

The HLPC is one of 10 involved agencies that will have a discretionary decision to make for the Kingstonian Project. Although anyone can point out potential significant environmental impacts, it is required in the SEQR regulations for the Commission in their capacity to “state their concerns (of the)…potential (environmental) impacts of the overall action”.

In the SEQR Handbook, Page 66, “How is the lead agency chosen?” it says about all Involved Agencies:

“The agency undertaking a direct action or the first agency to receive a request for funding or approval should circulate a letter, Part I of the EAF, and a copy of the application, including a site map, to other potentially involved agencies. That agency may choose to indicate its desire to serve as lead or may point out that its jurisdiction may be minimal compared to other agencies. If it has indicated a desire to become lead agency, it may also note its intended determination of significance. The letter should request all other involved agencies to state their interests and concerns regarding selection of lead agency and potential impacts of the overall action. The letter should also note that an agency’s failure to respond within 30 days of the date of the letter will be interpreted as having no interest in the choice of lead agency and having no comments on the action at this time.”

“Dan,” said Kingston Planning Director Suzanne Cahill, as a seemingly last resort for support of her efforts to squash the item from the agenda. “I’m with you,” replied Dan Gartenstein, the City of Kingston’s Assistant Corporation Counsel, who serves at the pleasure of the Mayor. “I don’t think this item should be discussed if it was not on a publicly distributed agenda…based on open meetings law.” However, there is no reference to agendas in the NYS Open Meetings Law.

  1. Public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one week prior thereto shall be given or electronically transmitted to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least seventy-two hours before such meeting.
  2. Public notice of the time and place of every other meeting shall be given or electronically transmitted, to the extent practicable, to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at a reasonable time prior thereto.
  3. The public notice provided for by this section shall not be construed to require publication as a legal notice.
  4. If video conferencing is used to conduct a meeting, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public that video conferencing will be used, identify the locations for the meeting, and state that the public has the right to attend the meeting at any of the locations.
  5. If a meeting will be streamed live over the internet, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public of the internet address of the website streaming such meeting.
  6. When a public body has the ability to do so, notice of the time and place of a meeting given in accordance with subdivision one or two of this section shall also be conspicuously posted on the public body’s internet website.

KingstonCitizens.org is all for good policy, but the City of Kingston’s elected and appointed officials have a responsibility to not mislead the public or its citizen volunteer commissioners at any time. In the case of the Kingstonian Project, the meeting filmed last night raises the question of whether it is even possible for any municipal body to be lead agency and remain impartial in SEQR given what it stands to gain in a public/private partnership. Maybe, but the perceived errors in the actions of city staff last night ought to be enough to inspire the Planning Board to follow the rules to the letter to insure a transparent process.

 

VIDEO TWO: 5:34 – 18:08

 

The HLPC discusses the potential significant environmental impacts as it pertains to historic preservation for the proposed Kingstonian Project.

  • The project site has the potential to yield information important in history or prehistory, such as evidence of the former presence of the stockade which crossed on or near to this site and/or other previously unknown archaeological resources. Such evidence was unearthed nearby on Clinton Avenue in 1970. This site has been identified as archaeologically sensitive by the NY State Historic Preservation Office.
  • This project involves the demolition of an existing architectural resource in the Stockade Historic District and may seek to replicate this resource, which has the potential to create a false historical record.
  • This project involves new construction in the Stockade Historic District. Potential impacts include those that are construction-related, such as falling objects, vibration (from blasting or pile-driving), dewatering, flooding, subsidence, or collapse. The project’s close proximity to two architectural resources—the Senate House and grounds and the John Tremper House at 1 North Front Street—may negatively impact them if adequate precautions are not taken.
  • New construction may impact the visual context of the district, including the architectural components of the district’s buildings in this area (e.g. height, scale, proportion, massing, fenestration, ground-floor configuration, style), streetscapes, skyline, landforms, and openness to the sky. The project may also impact the visual context of the Senate House, a significant state landmark.
  • This project proposes changes to a significant historic landscape feature of this historic district: the bluff, an important element to interpreting the district’s history. The National Register nomination for the Stockade Historic District recognizes the following:

“To this day, the boundary lines of this stockade are formed by Green Street, Main Street, Clinton Avenue, and North Front Street and are still intact. Also, amazingly enough, almost the entire bluff promontory forming the perimeter of this area, elevated above the lowland, is still comparatively intact. Therefore, of the three first settlements in New York State—Albany (Fort Orange, New York (New Amsterdam), and Kingston—it is only Kingston that the authentic elements of an original fortification remain. Documents indicate that this log palisade was in existence until the early eighteenth century, having been kept in repair as protection against later Indian raids. While this area at present is surrounded by commercial development, aerial photography has recently indicated the existence of outlines suggesting that the angle itself may as yet be relatively undisturbed. This area forms a sharp bluff and this may account for its preservation.”

 

Positive Declaration Required for the Kingstonian Project.

 

 

KingstonCitizens.org submitted a letter to the Kingston Planning Board as Lead Agency (and most Involved and Interested Agencies) in the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) with support from 194 tax paying residents and business owners in the City of Kingston requesting a Positive Declaration in SEQR.

VIEW the petition
We are still collecting signature to present during public comment of the Kingston Planning Board meeting on 3/18 so keep signing and sharing. 

The Kingstonian is a project planned for Uptown Kingston’s historic district. It “involves the redevelopment of the City of Kingston parking garages property, the Herzog’s Supply Co. Inc. warehouse property and the Uptown Grill property (also owned by Herzog’s Supply Co., Inc). The proposed project includes the following elements:  420 car parking garage, 120 apartment units, 32 room hotel, 8950 square feet of retail space, a pedestrian plaza area, and an elevated pedestrian link to connect to Kingston Plaza.”

VIEW
The Kingstonian Proposal in Uptown, Kingston

VIEW 
DRI Grant Application (Public/Private project with $3.8m in grant funds and $48m in private funds).

In our letter, we state that  “Upon reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) as a record before the Planning Board, we have identified a number of significant potential impacts. Therefore, as required by New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) 617.7(a), the Board should issue a Positive Declaration and the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project.”

“We also request a public comment period of 90 days on the Draft Scope for the Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) and to hold a public scoping meeting to allow for greater public participation. By doing so, this will ensure that no potentially significant adverse impacts are left out of the DEIS and all environmental concerns are adequately addressed as required by SEQRA.”

The letter outlines potential significant environmental impacts taken from the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)submitted by the both applicants Kingstonian Development LLC and JM Development Group, LLC.

“We expect that the Planning Board will recognize these impacts and issue a Positive Declaration, and outline plans for a public scoping process at its next meeting on March 18th. As this project has already elicited strong reactions from the community, a transparent and inclusive SEQR process is an opportunity to address important concerns in a comprehensive manner. Such thoroughness will ensure that this project benefits the Kingston community to the greatest extent possible.”

The Kingston Planning Board meets next on March 18th at 6:00pm where it is expected that the Planning Board as Lead Agency will issue a positive declaration and outline its scoping plans.  They may also choose to issue a negative declaration, however – the burden will then be on them to prove that there are no impacts rather than the citizens to prove that there are.

Residents are encouraged to attend the upcoming meeting to support a Positive Declaration for the Kingstonian Project during public comment.

READ:  What to Expect:  March 18th Kingston Planning Board Meeting and the Kingstonian project. 

 

Read more…

PETITION: Kingstonian Project and SEQR – Positive Declaration and Scoping

 

 

SIGN the Petition
“We Support a Pos DEC in SEQR for the Kingstonian Project”

Kingston Residents can request a Positive Declaration in SEQR that would allow more input and studies on the proposed Kingstonian Project.

###

With the Lead Agency for the Kingstonian Project underway (READ: Kingstonian Project and SEQR: Lead Agency), we anticipate the Kingston Planning Board will secure that role for the Kingstonian Project SEQR process.  With a 30-day window for confirmation that began on January 29th, we expect confirmation by February 28th.

Once Lead Agency is determined, the next significant milestone in SEQR will be a 20-day window for Lead Agency to make a “Positive” or “Negative” declaration for the Kingstonian Project. 

With a project this large and significant, we are advocating for a “Positive Declaration” (Pos Dec) in SEQR and are currently putting together a coalition of partners to make that same request.  To assure that the public is involved in this request, we have also created a petition that we will submit with our coalition letter in a couple of weeks.

Please join us by signing our PETITION by Friday, March 1st.

 

Why is this significant? 

A Positive Declaration is “a determination by the lead agency that an action may result in at least one potential significant environmental impact and so will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before the Lead Agency decisions may be made regarding the action. The positive declaration starts the EIS process.”  

With the recent changes in SEQR Regulations, a “pos dec” immediately triggers a public scoping process which would be a great opportunity for our community to work on this together.

 

The Scoping Process in SEQR.

As of January 1, 2019, when there is a “Pos Dec” determination, scoping is automatically triggered. This is in the public’s best interest, as prior Jan 1 this year, an additional request  would have had to have been made.

A “draft scope” would be created and submitted to the Lead Agency by the applicant at some point in time that would then be released to the public (as my mentor, Kate Hudson, used to say, “Think of a draft scope document as a ‘table of contents’ for the project”).

Once it is received by the Lead Agency, approved and released – there is a 30-day window that occurs for the public to review the document and to make additional comments for study.  In our petition and coalition letter, we are requesting 90-days as well as a public meeting.  

The comments/questions of concern are ultimately sent to the Lead Agency to vet – and once approved,  a ‘final scoping’ document is created and sent to the applicant who is then required to answer each questions in what will become a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).  More on that later on. We need to achieve a pos dec first.

 

The Input of Citizens and Advocates is Critical for a Good SEQR Process and Outcome. 

There is no one better to do this work than the citizens who will be directly impacted (both negatively and/or positively) to a project like this with the support of advocates who have dedicated their life’s work on the range of issues that may arise.   We hope you’ll join us as we take our first step in preparing to ask the Lead Agency to issue a “Pos Dec” on the proposed Kingstonian Project.  If you live in the City of Kingston, please sign our petition to be delivered by or about 3/1/19.

 

REVIEW: The SEQR Cookbook

Kingstonian Project and SEQR: Determining Lead Agency

By Rebecca Martin

With the recent positive changes to the Lincoln Park Grid Support Center project, we can turn our attention to the Kingstonian Project and its SEQR process (State Environmental Quality Review) which is just getting underway.    KingstonCitizens.org is in the midst of organizing a new coalition of partners for this effort.  Our goal is to follow SEQR step by step and support the public and our elected and appointed officials to assure a clear, efficient and transparent process.

A Brief Description of the Kingstonian Project.

In the applicant’s (Kingstonian Development LLC and JM Development Group LLC) Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), it states that the Kingstonian Project “involves the redevelopment of the City of Kingston parking garages property, the Herzog’s Supply Co. Inc. warehouse property and the Uptown Grill property (also owned by Herzog’s Supply Co., Inc). The proposed project includes the following elements:  420 car parking garage, 120 apartment units, 32 room hotel, 8950 square feet of retail space, a pedestrian plaza area, and an elevated pedestrian link to connect to Kingston Plaza.”

The parcels of land include “City Parking Garage (1.43 acres), Herzog’s Warehouse (0.49 acres), and Uptown Grill (0.49 acres) along with portions of Fair Street Extension and a small pocket park owned by the City of Kingston.  The project further includes consolidation of several tax parcels (subdivision-lot line deletions)”

The City of Kingston Planning Board as Lead Agency.

On January 22nd, the City of Kingston’s Planning Board passed a resolution confirming the Kingstonian Project being a Type 1 Action in SEQR with a Coordinated Review and asking to be Lead Agency for the project.  The resolution was acknowledged by the Clerk’s office on 1/24 that starts the 30-day clock for all Involved Agencies to approve the request (more on that below).

Read more…

Proposed Pilgrim Pipelines Project: Why Kingston and the Town of Ulster Must Stay the Course.

By Rebecca Martin

15107480_617901495059186_7368560605403904128_nThe Proposed Pilgrim Pipelines Project: What Ulster County Citizens Need To Know and How Local Action Makes Global Impacts.  on Saturday, January 28, 2017 at Kingston City Hall located at 420 Broadway in Kingston NY from 1:00pm – 4:00pm (snow date January 29).  Guest panelists include Jeremy Cherson (Riverkeeper), Sue Rosenberg (Coalition Against Pilgrim Pipeline/CAPP) and Jen Metzger (Citizens For Local Power) and Andy Bicking (Scenic Hudson).    Brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org. This event will be filmed.

###

Pilgrim Pipeline Holdings, LLC has proposed to construct two parallel pipelines each up to 20 inches in diameter that would run from Albany, NY to Linden, NJ along the NYS Thruway and through private property. In total, the pipelines would cover some 170 miles (including five laterals totaling nearly 13 miles), impacting 31 municipalities in Albany, Rensselaer, Greene, Ulster, Orange, and Rockland counties. The pipelines would receive an estimated 200,000 barrels per day of Bakken crude oil by way of rail into Albany, proposing to ship the crude oil in one mainline south and bring refined products back north.

The pipelines would run through several sections of the City of Kingston with even more pipelines crossings through the Town of Ulster (TOU).  It is also being proposed that one of the four pump stations (the only one that would be located near a residential area)  is to be placed only 200 feet away from a trailer park on Sawkill Road in the TOU impacting the Town of Kingston, too. 

Proponents have said that pipelines will reduce the need to transport crude oil using rails (bomb trains) or barges (in the case of the Anchorage project).   Kate Hudson of Riverkeeper disagrees.  “Having barges won’t prevent pipelines, and having pipelines won’t prevent barges, and transport by rail won’t prevent either of the others. None of these industries has made a compact with the others, saying, “If you move the oil, we’ll back out of the business.

In other words, more opportunities to move crude oil simply means more crude oil.  Not less.

The proposal has the potential for significant environmental impacts according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, stating that the Pilgrim Pipelines project “…would cross 257 streams and waterbodies (232 along mainline pipelines and 25 along laterals), including the Hudson River and multiple major and minor tributaries of the Hudson.  There are also 296 (9.2 linear miles) crossings of wetlands; including 25 crossings of NYSDEC protected freshwater wetlands (approximately 19 along mainline pipelines and 6 along laterals). Additionally, there will be four pump stations and 215 permanent access roads and temporary access roads at every mile.”

Read more…

City of Kingston Can and Should Reject the NYS DEC and Thruway Authority Request to Co-Lead SEQR Review for Pilgrim Pipeline Project. Here’s Why and How.

Map-of-SEQR-process

By Rebecca Martin
UPDATE:  Kingston did it! Both the City of Kingston Mayor and Kingston’s Common Council (unanimously) voted to send letters to both the NYS DEC and Thruway Authority.   VIEW the letters. 

On December 21st, the NYS DEC and Thruway Authority both agreed that together, they would become Co-Lead of the SEQR review for the Pilgrim Pipeline Project.

Because Involved Agencies have been waiting for some resolution of the disagreement, expressed by 29 towns, cities and counties, with Thruway’s November 21, 2015 proposal that it serve as sole lead agency, some might have thought that the co-lead agreement between DEC and Thruway was final.  But it isn’t.  It is simply 2 involved agencies making a new proposal for who should serve as lead agency for the environmental review of Pilgrim Pipelines project.  SEQR regulations require that all involved agencies be given the opportunity to respond to this new proposal, which they can choose to consent to or reject.

Furthermore, the reasons cited by 29 Involved Agencies that rejected the NY Thruway Authority’s proposal to be Lead Agency in the SEQR process in the first go-round :  that Thruway stands to gain monetarily from Pilgrim Pipeline to use their right-of-way and that they are not equipped or experienced in managing an environmental review process for such an incredibly large and complicated project, remain true.

The bottom line is that the NY Thruway Authority’s bid to take on the lead agency role was overwhelmingly rejected to begin with and yet they are still in the running. Also perplexing is that on the NYS DEC’s own website, they dissuade co-lead roles in SEQR and instead advise that “a single lead agency be established with the other agency actively involved in the process but not as co-lead agency” and for good reason.  What would occur if the two leads differed in opinion somewhere down the line? Which agency would trump the other for a decision to be made?

Read more…

Water Powers Public Hearing on Thursday, July 23rd at 10:00am

11403319_431013000414704_871768142266555702_n
A great day. The Kingston Common Council sends the Water Powers legislation to the Mayor’s office for a final signature. The decision to do so was unanimous after each reading (there were two).

By Rebecca Martin

This week, many anticipate the scheduled public hearing on the Water Powers legislation on Thursday, July 23rd at 10:00am at Kingston City Hall Council Chambers (this event will be filmed).

It is the final step in the process that would include both “the Common Council and the Mayor of Kingston for any water sales outside of the City of Kingston’s corporate boundaries.”   It is expected that the mayor will sign off on the legislation on Thursday, sending it to the ballot as a referendum in November for the public to decide.

It’s our water. We are INVOLVED.

As it is currently written, Water Powers in the City of Kingston’s charter excludes an elected body (although the Mayor of Kingston does sit on the water board of commissioners)  in decision making on how the public’s water supply is sold outside of the city of Kingston. The public’s most valuable resource therefore is in the hands of about five-six people.

If the public votes in favor of the referendum this November,  water sales outside of our corporate boundary will be made with the inclusion of Kingston’s common council. This action will allow the City of Kingston a ‘seat at the table’  in the case of a SEQR review, something that we did not have and that was terribly frustrating last year.

The inclusion of the common council for water sales would give our  community a ‘discretionary decision’ to make as an involved agency in SEQR (we were only an ‘interested agency’ last fall and as you might recall, we had to fight tooth and nail for it.  That hard won status still gave us little to no authority).  As an ‘involved agency’ we would have a say in determining who the ‘lead agency‘ in SEQR would be, creating an important opportunity for the collective community voice.

Taken from the SEQR handbook:

As an ‘involved’ agency, the City of Kingston would be allowed to 

  • Make certain the lead agency understands the extent of the involved agency’s jurisdiction; and
  • Provide the lead agency with observations and concerns about the proposed action and its potential environmental impact so the lead agency may consider them in making a determination of significance.

When a lead agency has made a negative determination of significance (negative declaration) each remaining involved agency may make its final decision on the action after completing any other required procedures.

When a lead agency has made a positive declaration each involved agency could:

  • Participate in scoping, making the lead agency aware of that agency’s concerns and technical requirements identify potential significant environmental impacts and suggest alternatives and mitigation;
  • Assist the lead agency in reviewing a draft EIS for adequacy, if requested;
  • Participate in any hearings, as appropriate;
  • Provide formal agency comments during the public review period;
  • Assist the lead agency in responding to substantive comments on the final EIS, if requested; and
  • Prepare the involved agency’s own separate SEQR findings before making its final decision.

An involved agency can also influence the determination of significance by the lead agency.  All involved agencies are encouraged to submit comments during the coordination period. Comments that deal with an agency’s specific area of interest or jurisdiction are especially appropriate. 

It’s an important safeguard, particularly when municipal water is involved.

Oversight and Transparency. 

The City of Kingston is fortunate for many reasons – one of which is that it has its own water source.  In amending the charter and including the common council as a determining body in water powers, some are concerned of political antics intruding upon their sales.  But this inclusion isn’t about personalities,  as council members and those in executive office come and go.  This is about making certain that policy and the law are applied for decision making as it pertains to our water and water infrastructure.

In the spirit of community and in seeing our region prosper, with proper oversight, good science, climate change modeling and all other matters we can help to support sustainable economic development while placing the health of our watershed and the impacted communities first.

In less than a year from the time that we first heard and spoke out on our concerns of the Niagara Bottling Company’s proposal in the Town of Ulster, the public will have the opportunity to make itself  ‘involved’  in water sales outside of our ever changing community, a voice in the protection of our water supply today and for future generations.

We’ve come a very long way.