In the United States, the environmental review process varies between cities, states, and the federal government. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) serves as the guiding document for environmental review in California and has paved the way for similar legislation on the federal level (the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]), the state level in New York (the State Environmental Review Act [SEQR]), and the city level in New York City (City Environmental Quality Review [CEQR]). To better understand the similarities and differences of each, we sat down with Project Manager and NEPA Expert Tony Lee and Environmental Planner Kay Real to discuss their professional experience with CEQA, NEPA, SEQR, and CEQR.
What is your background working in New York on the local, state, and federal levels?
Kay: I worked for the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development for four years before coming to Impact Sciences. I facilitated the development of affordable housing to drive forward the Mayor’s Housing New York initiative. I managed a portfolio of affordable housing projects, advanced predevelopment milestones, and ushered projects through New York City’s public review process to get project approval. Part of that process was getting environmental approvals, and those environmental approvals were subject to the city’s environmental quality review rather than the state environmental quality review. Both are pronounced “Seeker,” (CEQR/SEQR), one with an “S” and one with a “C.”
I worked with CEQR. I was on the planning side of things, and we had an in-house environmental team that reviewed environmental assessment statements and EISs [Environmental Impact Statements] that were prepared by consultants. I would coordinate the submission of those documents and review them for accuracy; usually those were negative declarations. I never had a project that had a significant environmental issue while I was working in New York City.
Tony: Most of my career has been in New York State, working with different agencies, including the New York State Department of Transportation, the New York City Department of Transportation, New York City Transit and other agencies based in the New York City metropolitan area. My experience has included producing programmatic and project-specific EISs that were New York State SEQR and NEPA. One of the most exciting environmental documents I prepared was for the re-building of the World Trade Center after the events of 9/11. The document was a programmatic EIS prepared to be NEPA and SEQR compliant. We started with the Notice of Intent for NEPA purposes, which is the equivalent of a CEQA Notice of Preparation in California. We went from the start of that to the Record of Decision (which is the end of the process) in 11 months—typically the process averages more than three years.
Based on the roles you both have had in New York and your current roles working with CEQA in California, how do you see the differences in what New York is doing verses California?
Kay: New York’s environmental review process is based on California’s process. California came first and then New York took that outline and said, ‘we’re going to do that here.’ So they are very similar.
Tony: I would say the New York State law is more like NEPA than CEQA. NEPA was based on California’s CEQA, but CEQA requires mitigation to any significant impacts. Neither NEPA nor SEQR require mitigation. NEPA document practitioners really like to say it’s a disclosure document. It’s simply a document to disclose what those impacts may be, and no mitigation is required. CEQA is very prescriptive by including thresholds of how much you need to mitigate. In the New York State law and NEPA, there isn’t any of that.
Fun fact for those who don’t know: NEPA is an Executive Order that was put in place. It’s only a seven page Executive Order—its short! And out of the Executive Order comes thousands of pages of documents. I think it’s [CEQA] not as prescriptive as New York State law or NEPA. As Kay knows from working with New York City CEQR, the city just did a major overhaul of their handbook/guidebook. The New York City law, CEQR, is more prescriptive than SEQR and NEPA, I think, and does have some mitigation requirements.
Why might CEQA be more prescriptive? Is it to reduce barriers for applicants?
Tony: I think a lot of applicants would welcome clear thresholds and mitigations, that way they can plan their budgets and their schedules around it. There’s probably a good number of applicants that would rather not have it that way. I think also with EISs, whether its California, New York State, or New York City, it’s a very small portion of the environmental compliance needs or requirements that projects have. It’s less than 1%. I think you’d be surprised how few EISs are done throughout the nation. I think that has something to do with it—EISs are so rare.
Personally, for you both in your own transitions from working in New York to now working in California, what has that transition been like for you?
Kay: It is interesting to see how politicized CEQA is. I guess the same thing happens in New York, but the city doesn’t really use [CEQR] as a crutch to sue projects as much as I see it here. Also, the number of topic areas that need to be analyzed—there is much more breadth here than in New York.
Tony: I would agree. Excellent point Kay. CEQA documents are a lot more prescriptive and harder to write. In a lot of ways, NEPA is easy compared to CEQA. In some ways, it isn’t. In some ways, NEPA, because of the gray area, you need to use your judgement and use experienced consultants like Impact Sciences that have more than 30 years of CEQA and NEPA experience that can help a client or city, especially on the NEPA side, where there is so much gray area.
Have there been any learning curves for you, and how have you solved those issues in your day-to-day work?
Kay: Knowing the content of an environmental review has been the learning curve—learning the regulations and state statutes, and how they might apply to a particular project. I had to learn all of that from scratch, and I think I will still be learning that for years to come. Just finding the appropriate resources to support a conclusion can be a challenge. It’s been interesting to learn as I go.
Tony: Most of my CEQA experience have involved preparing EISs, and almost all of them are joint CEQA Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and EISs. The trick is that everyone loves to talk about streamlining and doing both CEQA and NEPA compliance in the same document, when in fact that’s quite difficult. (There are many reasons not to streamline, such as it not meeting the agency/project sponsor’s schedule timing and funding availability. For example, LA Metro has increasingly conducted two concurrent processes.) Like what Kay said, just matching up two requirements and making sure that you’re using the right terminology can be a challenge. Something I pointed out earlier was the Notice of Intent verses the Notice of Preparation. You must meet the statutes and regulatory requirements, especially in terms of public noticing. As Kay knows with CEQA, that’s a big litigation risk of just not following the process of how much time to give someone to comment when giving that notice. Unfortunately, I think dotting the “I’s” and crossing the “T’s” is not the spirit of CEQA, but that’s what it comes down to as CEQA has become a tool for opponents of a project. In streamlining, the larger challenge is when agencies attempt to do split documents on the same project. As we know, large, complex projects continue to evolve after CEQA has been done, so new data needs to be used when approaching NEPA even though it’s on the same project. So those are all challenges too.
We know California’s CEQA came first, followed by New York State and then NEPA. In the reverse, what can California learn from New York?
Kay: There’s a conversation that’s happening in New York City about whether or not to include the racial implications of a project in environmental analysis, such as whether a project would cause gentrification and displacement.[1][2] It is an interesting conversation.
Tony: As a practitioner, I think it’s a little disturbing that the California state legislature took the action they just did regarding Cal [UC Berkeley]. We’re starting to see this trend of state legislature exempting projects—specific projects, not just types of projects—and really invalidating CEQA or allowing applicants to bypass the CEQA process. That doesn’t somewhat answer your question, but New York State doesn’t do that.
Do you think project exemption has something to do with the political aspects mentioned earlier?
Tony: Yeah absolutely. I mean, these are politically motivated actions. I think it’s born out of legitimate frustrations with CEQA delaying good projects, and obviously the state legislature feels there are some projects that are good, that they exempted CEQA review.
In New York, how does the public review process compare to that of CEQA?
Kay: In New York City, for typical non-contentious projects, the public review process for CEQR is part of the public review process for the discretionary action—they’re not separate. The preliminary environmental determination is included in the land use application, and the remainder of the review is done in tandem. For large projects that require a more intensive environmental review, such as an EIS, that public review is similar to a CEQA public review process. There’s a scoping meeting and a comment period, etc.
Tony: On the state level, its 30 days, as opposed to 45 days for CEQA, but generally the time frames are very similar. There are some details about when you must have a public hearing and how many days before the close of a comment period for a draft EIS or EIR as it varies between 5 days and 10 days. It’s 10 in New York State and 5 days for CEQA.
How do you envision states collaborating or working together to reduce environmental impacts? There’s the federal level, obviously, but how can states have more communication with each other when it comes to these types of protections?
Kay: CEQA is more stringent than NEPA, and while it would be great if the two reviews lined up to reduce the amount of document preparation, I imagine it would be difficult to get other states on board with California’s requirements.
Tony: I think the more controversial thing the Trump Administration put out was their executive orders and the recent overhaul of CEQ regulations. However, I think there are some things in there that are interesting that have been kicked around for decades, and that’s a page limit for NEPA EISs. The limit of 300 pages for EISs and limiting NEPA environmental assessments to 75 pages would certainly help streamline things in terms of having consistency across states. [This has since been reversed by the Biden Administration].
That’s tough, unfortunately. I think the state of the union is that were going in the reverse where there’s really a lot of local and state control. I think given the state of where we are now, that would be very hard, even with California and New York agreeing. Something to point out is that there are 20 states with California-equivalent environmental review processes. There are very few states that have a statewide environmental quality act, and it’s surprising to some people that without NEPA (and NEPA is only triggered when you need a federal agency to provide approval or permit), you don’t have environmental review or a state environmental quality review act.
CEQA was enacted into law in the year 1970 in California and continues to be a foundational environmental law that has inspired legislation on federal, state, and local levels across the United States. While New York came after in the year 1975 with SEQR, planners in California and New York have an opportunity to learn from one another’s planning methods as they work to provide accurate and streamlined environmental documents. Our team at Impact Sciences comes from a diverse background of experience, allowing the team to apply its wide range of knowledge to all aspects of the environmental review process.
If you’d like to learn more about CEQA and NEPA, we’d love to hear from you. Shoot us a message.
_________________________
[1] As of 2020, the CEQR technical manual now includes an environmental justice element stating that if the impacts of a project effect an environmental justice community CP 29 calls for “providing enhanced public participation opportunities for the members of that community, often in addition to the public participation requirements of CEQR and SEQR
[2] SB 1000 is now also proposing something similar in California. This bill would require the addition of an environmental justice element to general plans. The intention is to identify goals, policies, and objectives to reduce unique health risks, promote civil engagement in the public process, and prioritize programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.
Brett Pomeroy, Associate Principal, has more than 17 years of professional experience in the environmental planning field with an emphasis in environmental compliance pursuant to CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Brett possesses a strong technical background and has provided quantitative analytical modeling support for air quality, GHG, health risk assessments, noise and vibration, and shade/shadow impact analyses for several complex and multi -faceted projects using industry accepted modeling software. Specifically, Brett has experience with AERMOD and ISC air dispersion modeling systems, CalEEMod, URBEMIS, CALINE4-based model, noise modeling based on the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM), and the Amethyst Shadow Calculator. In addition to providing technical support, Brett conducts environmental analyses for a wide array of environmental issues, conducting land use surveys, ambient noise monitoring, site photography, general environmental research and document management. Brett’s experience includes preparing and managing environmental documentation for both private- and public-sector clients. He has provided environmental analyses to support several types of environmental documents including Categorical Exemptions, Initial Studies, Negative Declarations (NDs), Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs), Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Programs (MMRPs), Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), and addendums.
Kara Yates Hines, Director of Operations and Publications Manager, leads operations at Impact Sciences and oversees the production and publication of all environmental documents. She has more than 14 years of combined experience in publishing, quality control coordination, science and public health technical writing and editorial review, and digital marketing methodologies. As the primary manager for document production, Kara implements the firm’s operational processes and manages the document publishing flow, including QA/QC review, graphic design, formatting, and visual layout. She leads in-house production of CEQA/NEPA reports, including booklet assembly and digital productions. With a unique understanding of both the CEQA review process and best practices in publishing technically complex documents, Kara ensures the firm’s environmental reports are publicly accessible, easy to read and understand, well organized, and visually appealing. Kara has a masters degree in Publishing from The George Washington University and a bachelors degree in English from Spelman College. She is a member of the Association of Environmental Planners (Los Angeles Chapter).
Martha Lira, Chief Financial Officer, oversees all aspects of Impact Sciences’ finances, including the development and management of budgets, preparation of financial statements, and all other financial reporting to the firm’s Chief Operating Officer. Martha brings to Impact Sciences over 25 years of business management experience in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Prior to joining Impact Sciences, Martha worked for a women-owned CPA firm as a staff accountant, managing small business accounts and tax filing requirements.
Lynn Kaufman, Associate Principal, has more than 25 years of experience in both the management and preparation of environmental review documents pursuant to CEQA and NEPA for clients in both the public and private sector. Ms. Kaufman has written numerous CEQA analyses for high profile and environmentally sensitive projects in both urban and rural settings, and acts as a day-to-day contact for in-house and agency staff, subconsultants, and applicants, providing valuable insight to identify environmental constraints and feasible mitigation measures.
Douglas Kim, AICP, Managing Principal, oversees Northern California environmental services for Impact Sciences. His 30-year career includes political, policy, and technical expertise in transportation, air quality, and land use planning. Mr. Kim has prepared and reviewed CEQA and NEPA documents for land use and transportation projects and authored guidance documents on how to perform air quality analyses for two air pollution control districts. He has performed noise, vibration, climate change, and traffic impact analyses for over 100 CEQA environmental analyses throughout California. Mr. Kim has developed long- and short-range multi-modal transportation plans, including performing alternatives analyses, and managing technical modeling. He has managed preparation of air quality plans, developed air quality regulations, climate action plans, and performed air quality analysis and dispersion modeling for land use plans and development projects throughout the state.
John R. Anderson, M.A., M.Phil., is Associate Principal for the Northern California-Oakland office. With more than 30 years of experience, John brings to Impact Sciences extensive knowledge of the regulatory, environmental health and safety, and environmental planning industries. He has a long track record for managing large environmental programs and projects across North America. Most recently, John has focused his attention on the Corrections, Education, Energy and Water planning and compliance markets. In California, he has managed the Environmental Planning Program for the Los Angeles Unified School District; prepared Program EIRs for various water authorities and school districts; performed due diligence for public and private sector clients in real estate and corporate acquisitions; and has been retained as an expert witness in relation to school, transportation, and remediation projects. John has a seasoned familiarity with project management, staff development, and financial and administrative management. He’s provided strategic leadership for projects in the areas of CEQA/NEPA environmental impact reporting, risk management, preliminary endangerment assessments, Phase I and follow-on invasive site investigations, litigation support, QA/QC programs, public participation programs, and site safety programs. Impact Sciences is proud to have John as a vital member of our firm.
Jessica Kirchner, AICP, President, also serves as the Managing Principal for the firm. Jessica’s corporate responsibilities include contract compliance and financial management with an eye toward strategic growth. Jessica has more than two decades of project work in CEQA/NEPA compliance and places an emphasis on meeting client needs and providing real-world solutions to common CEQA pitfalls. A hands-on owner, Jessica frequently serves in multiple roles on projects, including contract and project manager, as well as conducting and writing environmental analyses all while overseeing the firm’s most high-profile clients, revenue and growth of the firm. With a background in journalism, Jessica’s emphasis on clear, concise documents that are not overly complicated has become a company hallmark, along with the ability to deliver projects on unbelievably tight deadlines. She is highly skilled at taking technical documents and concepts and translating them into reader-friendly concepts.