Minutes of the 35th meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) held on 18th October 2010

Present 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Shri PMA Hakeem Shri GK Deshpande Dr. Kishore Bhoir Dr. SB Chaphekar Dr. SK Padole Dr. TG More Shri DJ Bharati

- Chairman - Member - Member - Member - Member - Member - Secretary

Compliance cases

Item No.1 (Originally considered in the 29th meeting held in June 2010 and again in the 30th meeting) Project proponent: M/s Nikunj Developers (holding power of attorney of M/s Videocon Properties Ltd.) Consultant: M/s Aditya Environmental Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Name of the project and location: Proposed Veena Saaz at Kandivali, Mumbai Classified under 8(a) Category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Plot area: 17,304 sq.m. Gross construction area (without TDR): 19,993 sq.m. (of which 14,831 sq.m under FSI). Gross construction area with TDR: 28,247 sq.m. (of which 17,086 sq.m under FSI). Break up of additional gross construction area: Building no.5: 15,939 sq.m. Building no. 6: 7,108 sq.m. and Parking Building: 4,439 sq.m. Parking required as per MCGM norms: 186. Total parking proposed: 271. Decision: The Committee had carried out a visit to the plot on 30th June, 2010. The entire plot belonged to M/s Videocon Properties Ltd. who constructed towers A and B (each of 24 floors) earlier. These towers, each with about 90 flats, are occupied since last 3-4 years and a society of residents exists on each tower. M/s Nikunj Developers, as PA holder of M/s Videocon Properties Ltd., constructed two additional towers nos. 5 and 6. Building no. 5 (stilt + 15 floors) is nearly complete and bulding no. 6 (stilt + 9 floors) is also nearing completion. M/s Nikunj Developers, as PA holder of M/s Videocon Properties Ltd., proposed construction of a separate building with four floors for parking of vehicles and a club with a swimming pool. Based on the observations during the site visit and other relevant issues, the project proponent was requested to comply with certain requirements.

Before the project proponent made presentation on the compliance, a representation was received from M/s Ravi Mittal & Associates on behalf of the petitioner in writ petition no. 1486 of 2009. The points made in the representation were kept in view while assessing the compliance reported by the project proponent. The project proponent explained the compliance done in respect of the points raised in the last meeting. The main points made by them are: (i) two pending court cases (including writ petition no. 1486 of 2009) have been either dismissed or withdrawn. (ii) A lay out plan showing the existing and proposed buildings along with amenities and RG area (which comes to 25% of the plot area) was submitted. RG area will be kept open as per provisions of DC rules and will not be paved. (iii) A plan indicating parking arrangement for 351 parking spaces (consisting of 69 in stilt, 180 in open area and 102 in the parking building) was submitted. It was also indicated that total number of parking spaces for buildings 1 and 2 would be 158 (26 existing and 132 open parking). (iii) STP shall be provided with recycling facility to take care of the flushing and gardening for the complex. (iv) Consents from all members of buildings A and B were obtained for the expansion of the project and copies furnished. (iv) A diesel generator set was already provided for building no. 2 (called tower B) and one has just been procured for building no. 1 (tower A). (v) It was indicated in the meeting that facilities like swimming pool, club house, childrens play house and other amenities as required under municipal regulations would be provided to occupants of all buildings including buildings nos. 1 and 2. (vi) A reverse osmosis plant with capacity of 1000 litres per hour will be installed at the site. (vii) On completion of the buildings, all amenities including swimming pool and clubhouse will be handed over to the apex committee of the societies of the four buildings. All ownership/management rights will be transferred to the apex committee. (viii) In respect of the glass parapets provided as a decorative feature, preventive measures (to prevent accidents) will be taken by providing grill. It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to the project proponent complying with the following: (i) The drawings submitted are not to scale. submitted. Fresh drawings to scale may be

(ii) Regarding the parking plan submitted, some of the parking spaces are so close to the buildings and would obstruct fire tender movement and operations. These need to be relocated. As also the parking spaces in the north west corner need to be relocated to allow unobstructed movement of cars. A revised parking plan incorporating these changes and showing the parking spaces of each of the buildings and for visitors in separate colours may be submitted. (iii) Internal roads may be shown in a map in distinct colours with dimensions, side gutters, tree plantations etc. (iv) The project proponent should give an undertaking that till the parking building is approved and completed fully, no possession will be given to occupy any construction beyond 9th floor in building no. 6, as it was indicated by the project proponent that the parking area in that buildng is not more than that required by the future occupants of the floors above 9th floor.

(v) One STP will be provided for the buildings nos. 1 and 2 and a separate STP for the other two buildings. The excess treated effluent from the STPs (after meeting the requirements for flushing in all the buildings and gardening) will be fully utilized for irrigating the lawns and other green areas of the adjoining Joggers park of MCGM, at least till the sewer line is extended to the area covering the plot. The concurrence of MCGM for such use may be obtained and copy furnished. (vi) EMP may also include provision of a laboratory with trained manpower and equipment for day to day monitoring of the quality of water and effluent. Item No.2 (Originally considered in the 17th meeting held in October 2009 and recommended for grant of prior EC; subsequently referred back by SEIAA and considered by the Committee in the 32nd meeting). Project proponent: M/s Raj Enterprises I Name of the project and location: Residential project at village Bolinj, Taluka Vasai, District Thane - Classified under 8(a) Category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 3.54 hectare. Proposed built-up area: 25,720 sq. m. No. of buildings: 11 (3 buildings with 7 floors; 6 buildings with 6 floors, 1 building with 3 floors and 1 building with one floor, apart from ground floor in all cases). Residential units: 628. Commercial units: 136. Parking: 82 cars and 400 two wheelers. Decision: The proposal was initially recommend for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to the condition that the project proponent should furnish a map indicating the location of the sewer line of CIDCO near the plot and also the consent of CIDCO to accept treated effluent from the project in their sewer (as there was no other sewer line in the area). When the matter was considered by SEIAA in its 23rd meeting, the project proponent stated that zero discharge was not possible as the CIDCO sewer line was not available as the project proponent had earlier proposed. SEIAA then decided to refer back the case to SEAC to reappraise the project. In the 32nd meeting, the project proponent stated that they would enter into agreements with farmers for use of the treated effluent. The Committee did not find this acceptable; if farmers later do not accept the treated effluent, particularly during monsoon, the project proponent would have to discharge the treated effluent to water bodies. After discussion, the project proponent agreed to recast their proposal restricting it to the flats already constructed, keeping about 2-3 hectares of land vacant for horticulture and greening so that excess treated effluent can be fully used there. They will also construct two interconnected ponds with capacity equal to one months surplus treated effluent. They were advised to approach the Committee when the recast proposal was ready. In todays meeting the project proponent confirmed seeking EC for the existing seven buildings covering 405 flats with a plinth area of 4,107 sq.m. As a result, 2.71 hectares of land will become available for gardening, where the surplus treated water can be used for irrigation. The daily quantity of excess treated effluent would be 112.4 cu.m. which will suffice to irrigate 2.24 hectares. The capacity of the two ponds will be 3,375 cu.m.

It was decided to recommend the revised proposal (phase I in respect of existing seven buildings with 405 flats) for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to the following: (i) The project proponent should furnish forms I and Ia and revised drawings in respect of phase I. (ii) The surplus treated water in the ponds should be sufficiently aerated.

(iii) Adequate care should be taken to ensure that there is no possibility for storm water to get mixed up with the treated effluent stored in ponds. (iv) The project proponent should give an undertaking that no effluent will be discharged from the project area into any Nala or other water bodies.

Item No.3 (Originally considered in the 31st meeting held in July 2009 and again considered in the 32nd meeting). Project proponent: M/s Adhiraj Construction Pvt Ltd. Consultant : M/s Fine Envirotech Engineers Pvt Ltd., Mahim, Mumbai. Name of the project and location: Residential Township Project Adhiraj Upscale at Rohinjan, Near Panvel, District Raigad - Classified under 8(b) Category B1. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 1,14,700 sq.m. Net plot area: 1,09,309 sq.m. FSI built up area: 4,34,038 sq.m. (3,01,492 sq.m. for sale housing + 1,09,320 sq.m for rental housing + 23,226 for commercial). Total non-FSI area: 3,37,622 sq.m. (including 2,01,862 sq.m for parking). No. of buildings for sale: 25 buildings (19 with 45 floors, 2 with 40 floors, 2 with 30 floors and 2 with 15 floors). No. of sale units: 4,612; rental units: 5,466. Total parking spaces proposed: 3,750. Total green cover area: 37,351 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 1,149. Decision: In the first meeting it was found that the proposal involved construction of three podia of huge area (over 5 hectares at each level), which would not be desirable from the environmental point of view. The project proponent was then requested to recast the project by significantly reducing the area under podium and then approach the committee for further consideration of their proposal. In the 32nd meeting the project proponent expressed inability to accept the suggestion of the SEAC to reduce the number and area of the podia and tried to justify the podia in preference to basements. The Committee noted that it had not specifically suggested taking up of two basements and there are other alternatives like ground parking which could be considered. It was pointed out that the DC rules also permitted only one small podium and not large multitired podia. The proponent was once again given an opportunity to recast the proposal.

In todays meeting, the project proponent stated that they would reduce the area under podium taking into account the suggestion of the Committee; they have given a letter indicating that three podia each of about 5 hectares have been reduced to one and the area of that one will be reduced by about 25-30% after dividing it into three parts. As a result, the total non-FSI area has also come down 2,87,361 sq.m. They have also indicated that six cut outs, each of area 10mX10m will be provided to the podium to ensure ventilation and adequate light. It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to the project proponent furnishing revised area statement and drawings reflecting reduction of the area under podium as indicated above.

Item No.4 (Originally considered by the Ministry of Environment & Forests). Project proponent: Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Pune. Name of the project and location: Janai Shirsal Lift Irrigation Scheme to irrigate land in Baramati, Daund and Purandar Talukas of Pune District classified under 1 (c) category B(1). Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Irrigable capacity: 14,080 hectares. Two parts of the project: (i) Janai LIS with irrigable capacity of 8,350 hectares (source: km no. 95 of NMRBC) using 2.17 TMC of water in three stages; (ii) Shirsai LIS (source km no. 139 of NMRBC) using 1.43 TMC of water in one stage. Total canal length: 127 km. Cost of the project: Rs. 411.72 cr. Forest land required for the project: 15.88 hectares. Private land to be acquired: 846 hectares. Decision: The project involves lifting of 3.6 TMC of water from the existing New Mutha Right Bank Canal (NMRBC) of Khadakwasla project to irrigate drought prone areas of Pune District by gravity canals. In this case MoEF had approved TOR in January 2009. EIA was accordingly carried out and public consultation was held on 10.5.2010. Subsequently on 30th August 2010, MoEF returned the proposal to place the proposal to SEIAA, since the project was categorized as B. The project proponent stated that the project did not involve any submergence or rehabilitation. It was also stated that the public hearing received a very positive response. It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to the project proponent complying with the following: (i) All precautions should be taken to ensure no adverse effect of the project on the Mayureshwar wildlife sanctuary by undertaking various measures suggested by the Forest Department and Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS) including covering of the canal passing through the sanctuary by minimum of 30 cm soil layer. The directions given by the Honble Supreme Court, MoEF and Government of Maharashtra in this regard should be strictly followed. (ii) The various measures suggested in the EIA to avoid any risk of water borne diseases and to maintain good hygienic conditions in the project area should be implemented.

Item No.5 (Originally considered in the 30th meeting held in July 2010). Project proponent: M/s DB Group DB Realty Ltd. Consultant: M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd. Name of the project and location: Construction of residential building Orchid Enclave III Rehabilitation Building and MCGM Parking Lot on plot bearing CS No. 241, 242 and 243 of Tardeo Division, D Ward, Mumbai - Classified under 8(b) Category B1. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Plot area: 25,648 sq.m. Proposed FSI area: 37,368 sq.m. Non-FSI area: 62,165 sq.m. MGM parking lot area: 59,875 sq.m. Total built up area: 1,61,405 sq.m. MCGM parking lot: 3B+G+1 to 7 (part) podium; Rehabilitation portion: 7 (part) to 8 podium + S + 34 floors with 120 tenements. Sale portion: 9 to 13 podium + S + 72 floors with 189 tenements. Area for landscape development: 3,847 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 190. No. of parking spaces to be provided in MCGM parking lot: 836 (210 LCVs plus 626 LMVs). Captive parking spaces to be provided in sale portion: 514. Parking area per car: 37.54 sq.m. Captive parking spaces to be provided in rehabilitation portion: 114. Parking area per car: 34.35 sq.m. Decision: In the last meeting, it was observed that the proposal involved construction of over 1,61,405 sq.m on a part of the plot of effective area slightly over 6,000 sq.m. This meant construction of 25 to 26 times of the plot size and the project proponent was requested to revise the proposal to reduce the total construction substantially. While doing so, they were also requested to furnish the actual calculation of additional FSI available on account of providing municipal parking and the resulting cap on FSI in accordance with the provisions of the annexure to the GR relating to the Municipal Parking Scheme, based on the location of the plot. In their response, the project proponent pointed out that comparison of the construction area with only a portion of the plot on which construction is now proposed would give a skewed picture. The total area of the plot is 25,648 sq.m. The foot print of the existing four residential buildings is 1,273 sq.m, that of existing commercial & residential building is 8,953 sq.m., while that of the proposed Orchid Enclave III is 6,064 sq.m., giving a ground coverage of 63.51%. Further, because of physical limitations on the plot they are able to construct 59,875 sq.m. only for MCGM parking and as a result they are able to consume only 1.167 as against the balance permissible FSI of 1.5. The basis of calculation of additional FSI has been furnished. In a letter given on 20th October, 2010, the project proponent has indicated that after review they have decided to reduce one podium out of the parking area proposed for the sale and rehabilitation portion (now there will be 12 podiums instead of 13 proposed earlier; podiums 1 to 7(p) will be used for municipal parking and 7(p) to 12 for parking of sale and rehabilitation parking). With this, per car parking area for sale and rehabilitation portion will come to 30.72 sq.m. As a result of this change, the total construction area will come down from 1,61,405 sq.m. to 1,55,960 sq.m. The total construction area of existing five residential buildings and one commercial building is 1,17,228 sq.m. Thus the total construction on the whole plot of area 25,648 sq.m. will be 2,73,188 sq.m.. (10.65 times the plot area).

It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to the project proponent furnishing revised drawings and area statements incorporating the changes indicated above.

Item No.6 (Originally considered in the 22nd meeting held in January 2010 and recommended for rejection in the 27th meeting; later referred back by SEIAA). Project proponent: Chalama Infraproperties Pvt Ltd. Consultant: M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd. Thane (W). Name of the project and location: Residential cum Commercial project at Village Sheel, Taluka Thane, District Thane - Classified under 8(b) Category B1. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Plot area: 80,910 sq.m. Built up area: 1,55,756 sq.m. (1,53,726 sq.m under residential and 2,030 sq.m under commercial). No. of buildings: 26 (ST + 7 to 22 floors). No. of residential flats: 2,211. No. of shops: 40. Decision: In the first meeting the project proponent was requested to comply with points relating to (i) confirmation from TMC regarding status of sewer line in the area; (ii) confirmation from TMC regarding availability of water for the project; (iii) lay out of STP; and (iv) detailed FSI statement. While compliance was done in respect of the points (ii) to (iv), the reply given in respect of the point no. (i) was not satisfactory. The Committee considered the matter and came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to recommend the proposal involving construction of over 2,200 flats, when there is no certainty regarding TMC sewer line being constructed in the area. It was, therefore, decided to recommend rejection of the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance. It was indicated that the case could be reopened after extension of the TMC sewer line to the site of the project was sanctioned by TMC and the work on it started. The matter was considered by the SEIAA in its 28th meeting. The Authority agreed with the decision of this Committee that proper sewer line should be ensured in the location. Taking into account the representation of the project proponent, the Authority decided to refer the case back to this Committee with request to invite TMC officers for the meeting to obtain a time bound programme for the sewer line. The project proponent attended the meeting with an official (Deputy Engineer) of TMC. The official gave the impression that the work for laying the sewer line covering the project area was likely to be awarded by December 2010. The project proponent and the TMC official were requested to send a confirmatory letter from TMC indicating a firm date for the completion of the project. The letter received from the City Engineer, TMC gives a picture different from that indicated by the TMC official in the meeting. The letter has indicated that they have appointed a consultant for preparation of DPR for the extension of the sewer line covering the project area, that the DPR will be ready in a years time and that the physical work will be taken up thereafter.

As indicated earlier, it would not be advisable to approve construction of over 2200 flats, when the DPR for the sewerage project itself will be completed only after a year and therefore it is not possible now to obtain a time bound programme for the completion of the project. Even assuming that the housing project in question will take some time to get completed, there is no certainty that the sewer line will be in place before this construction is over. The Committee, therefore, decided that it would not be proper to recommend EC for the whole project at this stage. If the project proponent is willing to take up a part of the project (say, not exceeding about 700 flats) and is able to leave about 4 to 5 hectares of the plot vacant (so that it can be used for plantation and horticulture to consume the excess treated effluent, should that become necessary), grant of EC for that portion could be considered at this stage. EC for the remaining portion can be considered, as and when work on the sewerage project is taken up. If this suggestion is acceptable to the project proponent, he may approach the Committee with a recast proposal for phase I as indicated above.

Item No.7 (Originally considered in the 21st meeting held in January 2010). Project proponent: Raghuleela Leasing & Real Estates Pvt Ltd. Name of the project and location: Construction of commercial/office building project The Capital at BKC, Bandra, Mumbai. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Plot area: 7,107 sq.m. Total built-up area: 1,03,379 sq.m. Parking to be provided: 937 Decision: In this case, the project proponent had earlier obtained EC for a built up area of 55,481sq.m. Later they approached the Committee seeking fresh environmental clearance stating that MMRDA has sanctioned additional FSI (based on global FSI) and as a result the total construction would go up to 1,03,379 sq.m. It was then indicated to the project proponent that the Committee was not in a position to recommend the proposal which involved construction of about 15 times the plot size, as it would not be possible to meet the minimum environmental requirements. While doing so, the Committee separately took up with the Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra the general issue of Global FSI, under which MMRDA has been sanctioning very high FSI for individual projects. In the above case, the total FSI sanctioned came to 11.80, with total construction area about 15 times the plot area. It was pointed out in the note that it would not just be possible to meet the various environmental norms even at a highly reduced level. Such a project can add considerable stain on various environmental parameters, like open areas, green area, parking, traffic etc. which are already under tremendous pressure. It was stated that in many of the building projects, it was difficult to provide an open space of even one square metre per person, far below what is regarded as a desirable minimum. As per the above proposal, the open space available for a population of 9400 is less than 1000 sq.metre (just about 0.1 sq.m!). The argument that this was based on a global FSI would not minimize the excess strain on a particular plot. The Department of Environment was requested to take up the matter with the Urban Development Department. So far, no reply has been received from the Environment Department.

The project proponent has again approached the Committee, since their case was not formally recommended for rejection. They are not willing to change the scope of their project in any manner. Since the Committee has not received any reply from the Department of Environment on the policy issue referred to above, the Committee is not in a position to take any action other than recommending the proposal for rejection of the request for EC. Accordingly, the Committee decided to recommend the proposal for rejection. It is still requested that the matter may be taken up with the Urban Development Department to either discontinue the scheme of global FSI or if at all it has to be retained, to provide a reasonable cap on the maximum FSI permissible for a plot and/or total construction which can be taken up as a multiple of the plot area. Item No.8 (Originally considered in the 13th meeting held in July 2009). Project proponent: Ramnath Developers Pvt Ltd. Consultant: M/s Earthcare Labs Private Ltd., Nagpur. Brief description of the project: Proposed mini-residential township project at Ramnath City at Koradi, Nagpur - Classified under 8(a) Category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Plot area: 8.05 hectares. Built up area: 60,739 sq.m, Proposed ground coverage: 19.2%. Amenity space: 12,344 sq.m. Open space: 8,164 sq.m. No. of parking spaces proposed: 579. Green belt area: 20,930 sq.m. Decision: It was found that since the area was outside the municipal limits, there was no sewer line to which the excess treated effluent could be discharged. The project proponent indicated that the project area would eventually be included in the municipal area, though one cannot be certain as to how long it would take. It was indicated to the project proponent that it would not be possible to consider the project in the present form. If the project proponent is willing to take up phase I of the project covering a built up area of around 25,000 sq.m. leaving at least 4 to 5 hectares of land vacant (so that the excess treated effluent could be utilized for taking up horticulture and other greening work on it), the proposal may be recast accordingly. Two or three interconnected and sufficiently aerated ponds with a holding capacity equal to the volume of surplus effluent for a month will also have to be constructed.

Item No.9 (Originally considered in the 29th meeting held in June 2010 and again in the 33rd meeting) Project proponent: M/s DB Group Neelkamal Realtors & Builders Pvt Ltd. Consultant: M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd, Thane (W).

Name of the project and location: Proposed construction of residential building Orchid Park at RS Nimkar Marg, Shuklaji Street, Bachustwadi, Mumbai Central, Mumbai - classified under 8(a) category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Plot area: 14,771 sq.m. Built up area (FSI) for sale building: 34,528 sq.m. Total construction area for sale building (including non-FSI): 85,597 sq.m. No. of buildings: one (2B+G+2P+St+67) with 260 tenements. Built up area for rehabilitation building; 24,441 sq.m. Total construction area for rehabilitation building (including non-FSI); 39,175 sq.m. No. of buildings: one (2B+St+31 floors) with 692 tenements. Total construction area for MCGM parking: 30,628 sq.m. No. of buildings: one (G+11 floors). Ground coverage: 41.4%. No. of parking spaces proposed to be provided: 324 for sale building; 108 for rehabilitation building and 350 for MCGM Decision: This is a combined redevelopment of old existing building on the plot under DC rules 33(7) and MCGB public parking under DC rules 33(9). In both the last meetings it was pointed out to the project proponent that the consent of at least 70% of the occupants was required before the project under 33(7) is taken up and that Government approval under 33(9) should be produced. It was made abundantly clear that unless there was compliance on these two issues, it would not be possible to proceed with the appraisal of the project. Despite giving two opportunities, the project proponent has come back without any progress on these issues and so it was decided to recommend rejection of the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance. Item No.11 (Originally considered in the 12th meeting held in May 2009). Project proponent: MHADA, Mumbai Consultant: M/s Fine Envirotech Engineers, Mumbai. Name of the project and location: Mass Housing Project at Sion, Mumbai - Classified under 8(a) Category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Area of the plot (including buildings constructed from 2001 onwards): 1,10,338 sq.m. RG area:15,490 sq.m. Total proposed area of construction: 1,26,080 sq.m. Transit camps: 22 wings of G+4 type. MIG and HIG tenements: 46 wings of S+7 type. LIG tenements: 20 wings G+7 type (Total 88 wings and 3313 tenements). Decision: .The project proponent has generally complied with the various points raised in the first meeting as well as after the site inspection on 2nd December 2009. It was, therefore, decided to recommend the proposal for grant of environmental clearance. However, as observed during the site inspection, all except five (out of the 88) buildings were practically completed and many were occupied; even out of the five buildings, four buildings were under construction. The Department of Environment may, therefore, consider initiating appropriate action for taking up construction of the buildings without prior environmental clearance. The Department may also take up with MCGM the issue of grant of occupancy certificates for many completed buildings in the absence of EC.

10

Item No.12 (Originally considered and recommended for rejection in the 25th meeting held in March 2010; subsequently referred back to the Committee by SEIAA as decided in their 28th meeting). Project proponent: M/s Dream Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Name of the project and location: Dreams Nivara Affordable Housing Scheme at Koregaon Mul, Taluka Haveli, District Pune - Classified under 8(a) Category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Plot area: 1,05,450 sq.m. (64,350 sq.m in phase I and 41,100 sq.m. in phase II). Total built up area: 79,941 sq.m. (of which under FSI is 64,654 sq.m, consisting of 38,708 sq.m in phase I and 25,946 sq.m in phase II). No. of buildings: 40. No. of flats: 1,808 (1232 in phase I and 576 in phase II). No. of parking spaces proposed: 718 fourwheelers, 449 two-wheelers and 449 cycles (of which 413, 258 and 258 respectively are in phase I). Green area: 28,352 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted:1,116. Decision: In the 25th meeting the case was recommended for rejection, as there was no satisfactory proposal for utilization of the surplus treated water, since the project was located outside the municipal limits without any sewer line. The matter was considered by SEIAA in its 28th meeting. The Authority decided to refer back the proposal to this Committee based on the assurance of the project proponent to (i) provide STP; (ii) maintain zero discharge from the project and make necessary plantation to recycle the treated water to full extent; and (iii) be ready to meet the expenses incurred for extending existing drainage line. The proposals made by the project proponent in todays meeting were quite vague. The proposal to put up STP was already there. The earlier decision to recommend decision was not based on the issue of putting up STP, but on the question of satisfactory means of utilizing the excess effluent coming out of the STP after treatment. Despite the assurance made by the project proponent before the SEIAA for taking up necessary plantation to ensure zero discharge, no concrete proposal has been made in this regard. The other assurance to meet the expenses to be incurred for extending existing drainage line is not clear. The project site is quite a distance away from the municipal limits. If what the project proponents means is meeting the expenses connected with extending the drainage line of the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) to the project site, the relevant questions are: (i) Is PMC willing to accept the treated effluent from the project in their sewer lines, even if the project proponent is willing to meet the cost of extending the drainage line? (ii) What is the distance from the project site to the nearest sewer line of PMC and has the cost of extending the drainage line to this extent been worked out and can the project proponent really afford it? (iii) If the drainage line is to be so extended, what about the concurrence of the landholders through whose land such extended drainage line will pass? This option can, therefore, be considered by the Committee, only if the project proponent can furnish satisfactory answers to these questions.

11

Alternatively, if the project proponent can scale down the first phase of the project to about 400-500 tenements and if he is able to leave 5-6 hectares of land completely vacant for taking up horticulture and other plantation and also to construct two or more interconnected and suitably aerated ponds with a capacity equal to the surplus treated effluent for about 30 days, the same can be considered. If the project proponent is willing to examine this alternative, the proposal may be suitably recast and the Committee may be approached.

Item No.12a (Originally considered in the 32nd meeting held in August 2010). Project proponent: M/s Housing & Area Development Board (MHADA) Consultant: M/s Fine Environment Tech Engineers, Mahim, Mumbai. Name of the project and location: Proposed redevelopment of transit camp with transit EWS & MIG type tenements at Kannnamwar Nagar, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai classified under 8(a) Category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 57,204 sq.m. for pocket I and 31,825 sq.m. for pocket II. Net plot area: 30,079 sq.m. for pocket I and 24,627 sq.m. for pocket II. Built up area: 50,813 sq.m. for pocket I and 67,333 sq.m. for pocket II. No. of buildings in pocket I: 7 transit buildings (G+7); 2 EWS buildings (S+24); 2 MIG buildings (S+7); 1183 tenements and 18 shops. No. of buildings in pocket II: 4 transit buildings (G+7); 2 EWS buildings (S+24); 2 MIG buildings (S+22); 1854 tenements and 51 shops. Parking spaces proposed: 223 for pocket I and 308 for pocket II. RG area: 2,438 sq.m. for pocket I and 2,096 sq.m. for pocket II. Total no. of trees to be planted: 227. Decision: The project proponent has generally complied with the points raised during the last meeting as well as during the site visit by a sub-committee of the Committee. It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance.

New cases Item No.12b Project proponent: M/s Bhairavanath Sugar Works Ltd. (Unit II), Vihal, Taluka Karmala, Solapur District. Name of the project and location: Proposed 2500 TCD sugar unit and 12 MW cogeneration plant. Decision: In view of the 2009 amendment to the MoEF notification regarding environmental clearance, the above project is exempt from the requirement of obtaining EC.

12

Item No.12c Project proponent: M/s Bhairvanath Sugar Works Ltd., Sonari. Name of the project and location: Proposed 2500 TCD sugar unit and 15 MW cogeneration plant. Decision: In view of the 2009 amendment to the MoEF notification regarding environmental clearance, the above project is exempt from the requirement of obtaining EC.

Other cases The project proponent in respect of the case at s.no. 10 (M/s Shree Renuka Sugar Ltd.) did not attend the meeting. As such, the case was closed. Chairman, SEAC

13

Minutes of the 35th meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) held on 19th October 2010

Present 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Shri PMA Hakeem Dr. (Mrs) Medha Dixit Dr. Kishore Bhoir Dr. SB Chaphekar Dr. SK Padole Dr. TG More Shri DJ Bharati - Chairman - Member - Member - Member - Member - Member - Secretary

New cases

Item No.1 Project proponent: M/s Bestech Hospitalities Pvt Ltd. Consultant: M/s Krishna Ganga Enviro System Pvt Ltd., Nagpur. Name of the project and location: Construction of the hotel Radisson Nagpur at Nagpur classified under 8(a) category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 6,804 sq.m. FSI construction: 17,123 sq.m. Total construction: 24,057 sq.m. Total number of rooms: 214. No. of floors: 3B+G+10 floors. Total parking area (in the basement): 6,934 sq.m. (245 four wheelers, 384 scooters and 389 cycles). Decision: The project proponent clarified that based on the available FSI, the total permissible construction would be 19,183 sq.m. Construction on this is going on. The present proposal is based on their expectation that the Government would sanction additional FSI permitting total construction of 24,057 sq.m. Though the proposal is otherwise in order, it was pointed out to the project proponent that a formal recommendation of their proposal can be made only after the Government sanctions additional FSI. As and when they get Government approval, they may approach the Committee.

Item No.4 Project proponent: M/s AY Associates (subsidiary of HDIL) Consultant: M/s Enviro Analysts & Engineers Pvt Ltd.

14

Name of the project and location: Residential township at S.No. 942, Village Mahim, Taluka Palghar, District Thane classified under 8(b) category B1. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total land: 6,83,910 sq.m. Total construction area: 6,66,703 sq.m. Total no.of tenements: 15,478. Land for phase I: 3,92,050 sq.m. Total construction area for phase I: 3,98,047 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 3,33,193 sq.m.). No. of buildings for phase I: 158 (G+4). No. of tenements for phase I: 9610. No. of shops in phase I: 1140. Parking spaces proposed for phase I: 1,889. Decision: It was noted that there are major problems with this ambitious proposal (even restricting to the so-called phase I, consisting of 17 sectors) mainly relating to the availability of water and means of disposal of treated effluent. The project proponent has presented a copy of the letter from the Village Panchayat stating that water would be made available from the MJP Scheme as and when it would be implemented. The requirement of fresh water for phase I is 2.96 MLD. The project proponent should contact MJP and get firm commitment on the following: (i) whether they would be in a position to meet the requirement of such a huge quantity of water, though it may be through the intermediary of Village Panchayat? (ii) What is the cost of the water supply scheme which will provide water to the area along with the adjoining areas? (iii) When is the work on the water supply project likely to be started and when is it expected to be completed? (iv) Whether adequate budget provisions will be made to complete the project as per this time limit? (v) Will the water to be supplied by MJP be required to be treated? A related question is how will the water requirement during the construction period be met. The total sewage expected to be generated during phase I is 3.60 MLD. On the question of utilization of the excess treated effluent (so as to ensure zero discharge), there is no sewer line in the area, as it is outside the municipal limits. The project proponent has proposed to utilize the excess treated effluent on 29 hectares of land in the whole plot. In this connection, the following questions need to be considered seriously and answers provided: (i) Is there any likelihood of the Palghar municipal limits getting extended to the project area and a municipal sewer line being constructed in the area? If so, what is a reasonable time limit? (ii) What are the types of horticulture and other crops that will be taken up in the 29 hectare area and what are their water requirements? (iii) During discussion, it was found that the proposal to store the treated effluent in ponds involved substantial pumping of the effluent. Can this be minimized, particularly if only a part of phase I (say one third) is taken up initially? There is no possibility of considering the proposal unless satisfactory answers to the above two crucial issues are available. Further, it will be necessary to break up phase I of the project as indicated above. After these issues are sorted out, the project proponent will have to pay attention to the following issues also; (i) (ii) Elevated water tanks will have to be provided for each sector. Proper management of medical waste.

15

(iii) Effective storm water drainage involving proper estimation of storm water, design of proper drainage and disposal in Nala after ensuring that the Nala has adequate capacity and that it would not lead to flooding of lower plots. Item No.6 Project proponent: M/s Kalpataru Properties Pvt. Ltd. Consultant: M/s Mitcon Consultancy, Pune. Name of the project and location: Kalpataru Splendor, a residential project at Wakad, Pune classified under 8(a) category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 19,250 sq.m. Net plot area: 16,146 sq.m. Total construction area: 42,849 sq.m (of which 23,777 sq.m. under FSI). No. of buildings: 9 (4 with 12 storeys and 5 with 11 storeys). Total no. of tenements: 315. No. of parking spaces proposed: 209 for cars, 644 for scooters and 630 for cycles. Green area: 4,731 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 192. Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to the project proponent complying with the following: (i) The design of the STP may be submitted along with the raw sewage characteristics. (ii) The hydraulic flow design for sewerage from the farthest point to STP showing all the levels may be furnished. (iii) Trees may be planted all along the perimeter and the variety of flowering trees may be increased. Item No.7 Project proponent: M/s Western India Tanneries Ltd. Consultant: M/s Ultra-tech Environmental Consultancy & Laboratory, Thane (W). Name of the project and location: Green World residential cum commercial project at Dighe, Navi Mumbai classified under 8(a) category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 40,468 sq.m. Total construction area: 1,15,083 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 60,376 sq.m.). No. of residential buildings: 11 (ten with S+22 floors and one with S+21 floors) with 920 flats. No. of shops: 56. Parking: B+G and club house with podium garden. Hotel building: B+G+8 floors with 48 floors. Green cover area: 11,936 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 373.

16

Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to the project proponent complying with the following: (i) The gap between each wing is 3m in front and 9 m at the back. The gap in front should be increased to 5-6 m. (ii) The detailed justification for the number of lifts as per the NBC guidelines may be furnished.

Item No.8 Project proponent: M/s Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt Ltd. Consultant: M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd. Name of the project and location: Proposed residential project at Parel Tank Road, Kalachowki, Village Parel, Mumbai classified under 8(b) category B1. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Gross plot area: 28,924 sq.m. Net plot area: 28,363 sq.m. Total construction area: 2,96,458 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 84,213 sq.m. and including 1,04,370 sq.m. for MCGM parking). Residential building: 3 wings (G+9P+S+55 floors) with 948 tenements. Landscape area: 12,054 sq.m. No. of captive parking spaces as per norms: 1830. No. of captive parking spaces proposed: 1935. No. of MCGM parking spaces proposed: 1248. Decision: The proposal involves construction of MCGM parking. Government approval for the same is yet to be obtained. Till it is obtained and a copy produced, the proposal cannot be considered. Meanwhile the following preliminary remarks are offered: (i) The proposal to construct 9 podia is not at all acceptable. There is considerable scope for reducing the same substantially, since the parking areas proposed (both for MCGM parking and captive parking) are on a prohibitively high scale. The area of 1,04,370 sq.m. for 1243 municipal parking spaces gives an average of 83.6 sq.m, which is about 240 to 250% of the norms. It has been stated that as per norms 1830 parking spaces have to be provided for captive use. The basis of arriving at this figure must be furnished. Against a claimed norm of 1830, the project proponent has proposed to provide 1935 parking spaces on a total area of 74,529 sq.m., giving an average of 38.5 sq.m. per car, which is again higher than the norm by about 30%. (ii) The ground coverage of 52% shown does not appear to be correct. It should be worked out taking into account the area of the podia also. (iii) A clearance of at least 10 m should be left all around the building between the podium line and the boundary.

17

(iv) The proposal to have 100% RG on the podium is not at all acceptable. At least 50% of the RG should be on the ground. (v) The cantilever for parking refuge area on the 7th floor is to be avoided.

(vi) The BMC share of the vacant land as per the Mill Policy is a very narrow strip and is also shown as part of the amenity area. This needs to be clarified with reference to the provisions of the DC rules. (vii) Consent of MCGM for supply of fresh water required by the project should be obtained and a copy furnished. (viii) The underground tank for rainwater harvesting needs to be made bigger and also relocated. (ix)` With regard to the vehicles coming in from and out to the Dinshaw Petit Marg, the comments of the traffic police may be obtained. (x) The proposed tree plantation on the terrace has no ecological significance. The number of trees to be planted on the ground needs to be increased.

Item No.9 Project proponent: M/s Mahaveer Construction Consultant: M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd. Name of the project and location: Proposed Slum Rehabiliation Scheme at Kandivali (E), village Wadhawan, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai classified under 8(a) category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Plot area: 5,821 sq.m. Total construction: 28,061 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 17,435 sq.m.). Building no. 1: three rehabilitation wings (G+22) 301 tenements; one sale wing (S+21) 40 tenements. Building no. 2 two sale wings (S+2P+19) 90 tenements. Total parking spaces to be provided: 101. Landscape area: 479 sq.m. Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to the project proponent exploring the possibility of providing one additional staircase for the rehabilitation wing A.

Item No.10 Project proponent: M/s Vinati Organics Ltd. Consultant: M/s Aditya Environmental Services Pvt Ltd.

18

Name of the project and location: Enhancement in production capacity by addition of new products and by-products in existing premises at plot no. A-20, MIDC, Lote Parshuram, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri. Category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 87,949 sq.m. Proposed built up area: 6,019 sq.m. Green belt area: 12,253 sq.m. Existing production capacity: 1300 TPM. Additional capacity: 1083 TPM. Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance.

Item No.11 Project proponent: M/s Karan Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Consultant: M/s Mantras Resources Name of the project and location: Expansion of capacity (from 22 KLPD to 29 KLPD) of the grain based distillery and 0.25 MW coal based captive power plant classified under 5(g) and 1(d) category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Plot area: 12.28 hectares. Green belt area: 4 hectares. Decision: it was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance, subject to the condition that the project proponent submits copies of the environmental audit reports and environmental monitoring reports for the last two years.

Item No.12 Project proponent: M/s Universal Development Corporation Consultant: M/s Ultra-tech Environmental Consultancy & Labortory, Thane (W). Name of the project and location: Residential project Aristo Harmony at village Kandivali at Bunderpakhadi Road, Kandivali (W), Taluka Borivali, Mumbai classified under 8(b) category B1. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 65,193 sq.m. Net plot area: 37,633 sq.m. Total construction area: 1,99,350 sq.m (of which FSI area is 94,083 sq.m.). Rehabilitation buildings: seven wings (7 to 21 floors) with 1612 tenements and 172 shops. Sale buildings: 8 wings (B+G+P+S+ service floor + 18 floors) with 560 flats. No. of parking spaces to be provided: 620 (491 cars and 129 two wheelers). Green cover area: 7,501 sq.m. Trees to be planted: 649.

19

Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance. The project proponent was requested to plant trees all along the perimeter of the plot.

Item No.13 Project proponent: M/s Infosys Technologies Ltd. Consultant: M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd. Name of the project and location: Proposed expansion of IT project at plot no. 24, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Phase II, Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, Pune classified under 8(b) category B1. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 4,61,264 sq.m. Existing built up area: 3,81,891 sq.m. Proposed construction area: 2,40,728 sq.m. (making a total of 6,22,619 sq.m.). Ground coverage with proposed expansion: 20%. No. of existing buildings: 14 (ranging from G+1 to LG+G+14). Proposed buildings: 5 (ranging from G+2 to LG1+Lg2+G+10) Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance.

Item No.14 Project proponent: M/s Heidelbergcement India Ltd. Consultant: M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd. Name of the project and location: Proposed expansion project of cement grinding unit at Village Khar Karavi, Gadab, Taluka Pen, District Raigad classified under 3(b) category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Existing capacity: 0.97 MTPA. Capacity after expansion: 1.70 MTPA. Stack height: 48m. Decision: This is a standalone clinker project, which can be categorized as B2. It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance.

20

Item No.24 Project proponent: M/s Arun Ganesh Vartak Consultant: M/s Enviro Analysts and Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Name of the project and location: Residential cum Shop line building at village Akole, Taluka Vasai, District Thane classified under 8(a) category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Plot area: 25,698 sq.m. Total construction area: 32,605 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 23,638 sq.m.). No. of buildings: four; B1 & B2 G+7 with 3 wings; B3 B+G+7 with 5 wings; B4 - G+7 with 4 wings. No. of flats: 494. No. of offices 107. No. of shops 107. No. of parking spaces proposed: 88 for cars and 630 for two-wheelers. RG area: 1,487 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 257 Decision: The main issue relates to disposal of treated effluent, since there is no sewer line in the project area. If the area forms part of the municipal corporation, the exact status of sanction of the sewerage system with relevant details like cost of the project, likely date of start of work, annual budget provision and likely date of completion of work may be ascertained from the municipal authorities and submitted.

Other cases The case at s.no. 2 (M/s Videocon Atithi Shelters Pvt Ltd.) will be taken up in a later meeting as per the request of the project proponent. In respect of cases at s.nos. 3 and 5 (M/s Vibrant Global Vidyut Pvt Ltd. and Executive Engineer, Upper Penganga project), their requests for approval of TOR for EIA were already approved earlier. The case at s.no. 24 (M/s Arun Ganesh Vartak), slated for 20th October, was considered today, as per the request made by the project proponent. Chairman, SEAC

21

Minutes of the 35th meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) held on 20th October 2010

Present 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Shri PMA Hakeem Shri GK Deshpande Dr. (Mrs) Medha Dixit Dr. Kishore Bhoir Dr. SB Chaphekar Dr. SK Padole Dr. TG More Shri DJ Bharati - Chairman - Member - Member - Member - Member - Member - Member - Secretary

New cases

Item No.15 Project proponent: M/s TATA Communications Ltd. Consultant: M/s Senes Consultants India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Name of the project and location: Expansion of TATA Communications IDC Complex at Dighi, Pune classified under 8(b) category B1. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): (Overall project): Total plot area: 100.36 hectares. Total built up area: 5,57,418 sq.m. (of which 4,53,186 sq.m is FSI area). (Present expansion): Plot area: 79,600 sq.m. Built up area: 1,00,500 sq.m. No. of buildings: Nine (floors varying from one to six). Decision: This is an expansion of the project for which EC was issued in March 2009. It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to the project proponent furnishing the following: (i) A statement indicating the break up of built up area and water balance between the two phases. (ii) (iii) (iv) A detailed note on EMP indicating the details of the in house management cell. A note on disposal of e-waste. Quality of the effluent with the proposed treatment.

(v) Details of the proposed arrangements for workers during the construction phase such as workers camp, sanitation etc.

22

(vi) A note indicating the status of compliance of the conditions imposed while granting EC for the phase I. (vii) All drawings to carry name and signature.

Item No.16 Project proponent: M/s Shree Samarth Spark Developers Consultant: M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd., Thane (W). Name of the project and location: Construction of residential/commercial project under slum rehabilitation scheme at village Mulund (E), Taluka Kurla, Mumbai classified under 8(a) category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 28,168 sq.m. Net plot area: 17,186 sq.m. Total construction area: 97,216 sq.m.(of which FSI area is 45,395 sq.m.). Total no. of buildings: 7 - two rehabilitation buildings (G+18) with 588 tenements, one hostel (G+2), one bungalow (S+2), sale building with two residential wings (B+G+2P+35 floors) and two commercial wings (B+G+1 and S+5 floors); one residential building (G+P+15 floors) and another residential building with two wings (S+P+21 and S+P+7). total tenements for sale: 379. No. of tenements in the hostel: 21. Decision: The project proponent was requested to comply with the following: (i) The podium of the residential building no. 5 is touching the plot boundary. A minimum distance of 6m should be left between the edge of the podium and the plot boundary. (ii) The number of parking spaces provided is 375 as against a requirement of 300 based on the norms. The number should be reduced to 300 and accordingly one podium should be reduced. (iii) The STP design should be corrected as discussed.

(iv) In respect of the buildings 2, 3 and 4, all RG areas are in the driveways or internal roads. RGs should be provided exclusively. (v) The piece of land provided for the rehabilitation portion is too small and far disproportionate. This needs to be corrected. (vi) The side margins for the rehabilitation building should be increased by one metre for every additional storey beyond seven metres. (vii) The non-slum area is to be developed as per Collectors orders. Accordingly area of the plot is to be provided in proportion to income and 20% is to be reserved for

23

SC and ST. A detailed note may be submitted indicating how the various conditions are being fulfilled.

Item No.17 Project proponent: M/s Pioneer Gas Power Ltd. Consultant: M/s SD Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad. Name of the project and location: 425 MW Natural Gas based power plant at D-119, Ville-Bhagad, MIDC, Tehsil Mangaon, District Raigad - classified under 1(d) category B1. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 20.56 hectares. Area to be used for process: 10 hectares. Green belt area: 10 hectares. Water requirement: 11,000 c.m daily. Technology gas turbine heat recovery. Natural gas requirement daily: 17,55,445 S c.m. daily. Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to the project proponent complying with the following: (i) Fresh reports of testing of surface and ground water may be submitted after carrying out the tests. (ii) A note on fire safety measures particularly keeping in mind possible gas leakages may be submitted.

Item No.20 Project proponent: M/s Aura Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Consultant: M/s Ultra Tech Environmental Consultancy & Laboratory, Thane (W). Name of the project and location: Residential Development at village Wakad, Tahsil Mulshi, District Pune classified under 8(a) category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 32,470 sq.m. Net plot area: 27,265 sq.m. Total construction area: 67,798 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 38,951 sq.m.). No. of buildings two, each with G+12 with three wings with 482 tenements and commercial area of 730 sq.m. Parking spaces proposed to be provided: 326 cars, 1009 scooters and 979 cycles. Green area: 5,450 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 277. Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance.

24

Item No.21 Project proponent: M/s Puranik Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Consultant: M/s Ultra Tech Environmental Consultancy & Laboratory, Thane (W). Name of the project and location: The project Aldea Espanola at Mhalunge near Balewadi Sport Complex, Village Mhalunge, Tahsil Mulshi, Pune District classified under 8(a) category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 67,830 sq.m. Net plot area: 55,100 sq.m. Total construction area: 91,289 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 61,330 sq.m.). No. of buildings: 17 (four with S+7; 13 with S+12), 26 row houses and 15 bungalows. Total no. of flats: 794. No. of shops: 24. Total parking spaces proposed: 613 for cars and 1149 for two wheelers. Landscape area: 6,482 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 1,142. Decision: The project proponent stated that they had earlier planned to construct 9906 sq.m and 9002 sq.m respectively on two plots and got sanction from the town planning authority. Work was taken up accordingly. Later they decided to go for amalgamation of the developments and applied for EC. After applying for EC, they stopped work. It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of environmental clearance.

Item No.22 Project proponent: M/s Sunrise Industries Consultant: M/s Ultra Tech Environmental Consultancy & Laboratory, Thane (W). Name of the project and location: Proposed cement grinding unit at Gut no. 169/2, Bilkhed, Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon classified under 3(b) category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Land available: 6,000 sq.m. Proposed capacity: Cement (mixing and grinding): 10 MTD. Cement bricks and paver blocks: 15MTD. Water requirement: 5.5 KLD. Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance.

25

Item No.23 Project proponent: M/s National Standard India Ltd. Consultant: M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd., Thane (W). Name of the project and location: IT development at Wagle Industrial Estate, MIDC, Thane (W) classified under 8(a) category B2. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 32,861 sq.m. Net plot area: 29,575 sq.m. Total built up area: 1,14,393 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 59,148 sq.m.) IT buildings: 3 one B+P+S+10 floors; one with B+P+S+4 floors; and one with B+P+S+8 floors. Staff buildings: 3 one with P+17 floors; one with P+18 floors; and one with P+1 floor. Parking spaces proposed: 1265. Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to the project proponent complying with the following: (i) The ground coverage may be brought down to 50-55% by reducing the area under the podium. (ii) Details of architectural features for effective shading of the walls may be furnished.

Item No.27 Project proponent: M/s Borossil Glass Works Ltd. Consultant: M/s Ultra Tech Environmental Consultancy & Laboratory, Thane (W). Name of the project and location: Proposed residential cum commercial project at Village Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai classified under 8(b) category B1. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total plot area: 77,268 sq.m. Net plot area: 53,378 sq.m. Total construction area: 2,02,338 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 1,00,885 sq.m.). No. of residential buildings: 15 (B+S+12 floors) with 1,136 flats. Commercial building: one (G+7). Total parking spaces proposed: 3,000. RG area: 10,730 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 464. Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to the project proponent complying with the following: (i) The number of car parking spaces proposed is 3000, based on the existing norms. The calculations for the same may be furnished. (ii) The number of punctures on the main road may be limited to a maximum of three to avoid traffic hazards. Only left turning vehicles may be allowed.

26

Item No.29 Project proponent: M/s Shree Pushkar Petro Products Ltd. Consultant: M/s Aditya Environmental Services.Pvt Ltd. Name of the project and location: Manufacture of single superphosphate and dicalcium phosphate (DCP) at the existing unit at MIDC, Lote Parshuram, Khed, Ratnagiri District. Brief details of the project (as per the proposal): Total area of land: 19,417 sq.m. Built up area: 2,780 sq.m. Green belt: 4,500 sq.m. Capacity for the proposed products: Single super phosphate: 1,00,000 MT/A; DCP: 4,500 MT/A. Category B. Decision: The project proponent has already carried out EIA, whose findings were presented in the meeting. It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance.

Item No.29a Project proponent: M/s Ultraspace Developers Pvt. Ltd. Consultant: M/s Enviro Analysts & Engineers Pvt Ltd. Name of the project and location: Kolekalyan, Santacruz (E), Mumbai. insignia having residential building at village

Decision: It was found that the proposal involved construction of MCGM parking. Government approval for the same has not been obtained. The project proponent may approach the Committee after obtaining the same. Detailed presentation may be done at that time. Other cases The case at s.no. 18 (M/s Marvel Creating Landmarks) will be taken up later as requested by the project proponent. The cases at s.nos. 19, 25, 26 and 28 (M/s Superintending Engineer, Gosikhurd LIS; Lord Shree Ganesh Developers; Jaibhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.; and Samruddha Resources Ltd.) were closed as the project proponents failed to attend the meeting. The case at s.no. 24 (M/s Arun Ganesh Vartak) was taken up on 19th October, 2010. Chairman, SEAC

27