Opinion ID: 1964827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: EIS Review

Text: The FBA argues vehemently that the BZA should have postponed its decision on GWU's application for a special exception until after the Department of Health had considered whether an EIS was required. We need not decide whether the BZA erred in failing to wait for an EIS review before granting the special exception because, even if it did, we are satisfied that any such error was harmless. Under the District of Columbia Environmental Policy Act (DCEPA), the purpose of requiring an EIS is to promote the health, safety and welfare of District of Columbia ... residents, to afford the fullest possible preservation and protection of the environment through a requirement that the environmental impact of proposed ... privately initiated actions be examined before implementation.... D.C.Code § 8-109.01 (2001), formerly D.C.Code § 6-981 (1995). Accordingly: Whenever ... a board ... approves a major action that is likely to have substantial negative impact on the environment, if implemented, the ... board ... shall prepare or cause to be prepared, and transmit, in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, a detailed EIS at least 60 days prior to implementation of the proposed major action.... D.C.Code § 8-109.03(a) (2001), formerly D.C.Code § 6-983(a) (1995). [18] Further, the DCEPA provides that when there are several agencies involved in authorization of a project, a designated lead agency shall be responsible for oversee[ing] the preparation of a single, omnibus EIS.... D.C.Code § 8-109.07(a) (2001), formerly D.C.Code § 6-987(a) (1995). During the hearings before the BZA, the FBA emphasized that GWU had failed to prepare an EIS, as the law required. The BZA ruled that in accordance with the DCEPA and Mayor's Order 92-151, the designated lead agency was the DCRA. [19] From this premise the BZA concluded that the necessary environmental impact assessment [would] be carried out as part of the permitting process for construction of the new hospital. The FBA contends that the BZA erred in so holding because it misconstrued the applicable regulations. One such regulation provides: Before an agency [or] board ... shall approve any major action, or issue any lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement or permission to act for a proposed major action, the environmental impact of the action must be adequately considered and reviewed by the District government, as provided in these regulations. 20 DCMR § 7200.1, 44 D.C. Register 2799. Moreover, the FBA argues, District government agencies are required to integrate the [EIS] process with other planning processes at the earliest stages of their planning for major actions they intend to propose, when the widest range of feasible alternatives is open for consideration, and before there has been any irretrievable commitment of resources, in order to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, in order to avoid delays later in the process, and to head off potential conflicts. 20 DCMR § 7200.2, 44 D.C. Register 2799. The FBA contends that, under the DCEPA, the BZA should have postponed granting the special exception until after the Department of Health had reviewed the need for an EIS, since such a review would have been enormously helpful to the BZA as it considered the noise, traffic and related questions that it is obliged to consider in a special exception case under section 210 of the Zoning Regulations. While the FBA's argument as to the appropriate construction of the EIS regulations might be persuasive in different circumstances, we need not consider the merits of this argument in this case. As the District of Columbia Hospital Association rightly states in its amicus brief, any error by the BZA in failing to require an EIS review before granting the special exception was at worst harmless, since the Department of Health  the designated lead agency  ultimately ruled that no EIS was needed. [20] D.C.Code § 8-109.03(a) (2001), formerly D.C.Code § 6-983(a) (1995), requires that an EIS be prepared at least sixty days prior to implementation of the proposed major action. The key requirement, therefore, is that the EIS review occur before the major action is actually implemented, which indeed happened here. Following the BZA approval of the special exception, District Hospital Partners submitted an EISF to the Department of Health in the course of applying for a building permit. On December 7, 1999, the Department of Health determined that no EIS was needed because the new hospital was not likely to have [a] substantial negative impact on the environment. See 20 DCMR § 7205.1, 44 D.C. Register 2807. Under the DCEPA, the environment can be harmed only if a proposed major action violates environmental standards and that major action is implemented. The Department of Health determined, before any implementation of the hospital project occurred  i.e., before construction actually began  that the proposed hospital would not violate any environmental standard. Consequently, even if the BZA had been armed with this information, it could have had no effect on the decision to grant the special exception. The BZA's error, if any, in granting the special exception before the need for an EIS was determined by the Department of Health was plainly harmless. [21] The FBA nevertheless contends that if the BZA had deferred action on the application for a special exception, it (the FBA) could have presented its views to the Department of Health as that department was considering whether an EIS was required. But there is no requirement in any statute or regulation that an entity such as the FBA, or even an affected ANC, have notice or input during an EIS determination. If the Department of Health had concluded that an EIS was necessary, then the FBA and the ANC would have had an opportunity to comment pursuant to 20 DCMR § 7208, 44 D.C. Register 2809. Since the process never reached that point, we find no merit in the FBA's argument. The FBA also claims that the EIS determination involved issues that the BZA should have considered in its assessment of whether the proposed hospital would create objectionable conditions in the neighborhood. See 11 DCMR § 210.2. The Department of Health memorandum, which found that there was no need for an EIS, did state that there was no remaining air margin in the 23rd Street corridor just south of Washington Circle. Nevertheless, the Department determined that the project will most likely not exceed the health standard for any air in the vicinity of the replacement hospital. Thus the Department's conclusion that the proposed hospital met environmental standards had no bearing on the BZA's separate determination that the new hospital would not create objectionable conditions. While the FBA may (or may not) be right that, as a matter of process, the BZA should have postponed its decision until after the need for an EIS was determined, we are satisfied that any error by the BZA in this regard was harmless on the facts of this case. [22]