Reviews by Other Agencies & Utilities

PDC reviews all projects planned to be installed for more than one year. LPC reviews all projects located within city-designated historic districts and scenic landmarks or impacting City-designated individual landmarks. Neither Commission reviews or approves roadway markings.

Per Local Law 77 of 1995, the NYC Charter was revised to outline the shared jurisdictions of PDC and LPC with regard to individual landmarks, historic districts, and scenic landmarks depending on project type. In general, PDC has jurisdiction over all art projects and any project not located within a historic district. PDC and LPC have joint jurisdiction over scenic landmarks with projects located in these areas typically requiring review by both Commissions. LPC has jurisdiction over any project occurring within a historic district or impacting an individual landmark, unless it is an artwork. For more information on PDC and LPC jurisdiction and review, visit the PDC and LPC websites.

It is critical for projects to consider reviews by these Commissions and plan accordingly. In general, the Commissions will review projects multiple times throughout design.

Stages of PDC Review
The likelihood of PDC review should be determined during scoping. If PDC review is considered probable, its extent should be determined, and the design team should structure its schedule accordingly.

Conceptual
•    Necessary for complex or large-scale projects, including those subject to ULURP

Preliminary
•    This is typically the first time PDC reviews the design. Preliminary review is generally an iterative process that may require multiple submissions
•    Community Board review is required prior to submission
•    All necessary interagency coordination should be accomplished prior to submission
•    Maintenance responsibilities must be identified and addressed prior to submission
•    Significant design changes after preliminary approval must be submitted for PDC review prior to proceeding to 90% final design

Final
•    Conditions of Preliminary approval must be resolved
•    Projects—generally those that are narrow in scope—can be submitted for preliminary and final approval simultaneously, provided they comply with all requirements for both levels of review
•    All maintenance concerns must be resolved. Outside maintenance partners must commit to responsibilities, as applicable

Amended Final/Changes in Construction
•    Changes to the design post approval must be submitted for consideration
•    Must include an explanation for the change and supporting documentation (photographs, drawings, etc.)

Sign-off
•    All approvals are conditioned upon submitting final sign-off photographs
•    Minimum 8-10 archival quality photographs, appropriately labeled and clearly showing the built condition

Stages of LPC Review
Unlike PDC, LPC does not have discrete levels of review; they will issue a report (advisory or binding) upon receipt of appropriate project materials. Consult with LPC staff early to determine the extent of LPC review. Depending on the design, pursuant to LPC's rules, staff may be able to issue an approval. Otherwise, a public hearing will be required followed by a vote from the full Commission. Community Board review is required prior to any hearing.
 

Environmental review processes, NEPA and SEQR/ CEQR, require DOT to assess the potential consequences of its projects. Many of DOT's projects are exempt from review because they fall within a Type II SEQR/CEQR category or are classified as a NEPA Categorical Exclusion (CE). Projects that require federal approval or use federal funding must complete the NEPA process with the federal agency (e.g., FHWA, FTA, FEMA, HUD) in addition to SEQR/CEQR.

Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, if the project uses federal funds or requires federal approvals, the project must be evaluated for its effect on historic properties within what is called the Area of Potential Effect (APE). Section 106 requirements are distinct from those of NEPA, but Section 106 can be coordinated with NEPA. While the federal agency providing the funding is ultimately responsible for making a determination under Section 106, DOT, DDC, or consultants working on their behalf will prepare all relevant project documentation. Projects funded by FHWA are reviewed by NYSDOT for compliance with Section 106 requirements with SHPO providing concurrence on the determination. Projects funded by other federal entities are typically documented by DOT or DDC and reviewed by SHPO. A similar process for evaluation is required under Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 for projects using state funds or permits. The team should initiate these processes as early in the project timeline as is possible.

SHPO maintains a searchable and readily available database of historic and cultural resources as well as projects reviewed by their office, the Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS). For additional guidance on city, state, and environmental and historic review, review Resources for resource documents and links.

In addition, for federally funded projects, Section 4(f) of the United States Transportation Act requires FHWA or FTA to make a finding that the project minimizes use of historic resources and parks and recreation areas as defined in the law. This requirement, unlike Section 106, is substantive and contains a specific requirement that the agency select whichever reasonable and prudent alternative minimizes “uses” of those resources.

This diagram covers the typical project development phases, the stages at which DOT or DDC distributes designs for review, and where both local (PDC and LPC) and federal discretionary review processes come into play.