Columbia gets approval for West Harlem expansion

Columbia gets approval for West Harlem expansion
BY DAVID FREEDLANDER amNewYork
November 27, 2007

Columbia University's controversial plan to expand into west Harlem got the go-ahead yesterday during a raucous meeting before a crowd of hostile protesters.

The City Planning Commission approved Columbia's construction of an arts, business and science campus on 17 acres in Manhattanville that the university maintains it needs to stay competitive, but some community groups insist will drive out longtime, lower-income residents and businesses. Although the university has acquired most of the properties in the project's footprint, it hasn't ruled out using eminent domain to acquire the rest.

"[The plan] represents a vision for the future of Manhattanville that meets the shared objectives of addressing the needs of an institution of major importance to the city while building on the strengths of the neighborhood and providing for new investment, jobs and public open space," said Planning Commission Chairwoman Amanda Burden.

Ten of the 12 commissioners voted to approve Columbia's plan, with one abstention.

The protesters represented a cross-section of preservationists, affordable housing advocates and neighborhood activists, who accused Columbia and the commissioners of, among other things, trying to drive the working class out of the city, abusing eminent domain and building science labs to experiment on human as guinea pigs. "The record of this commission is that their allegiance is only to other wealthy people," said architectural historian Michael Henry Adams, who harangued the commissioners with chants of "rich, rich, rich" throughout much of the meeting. "I guess the rest of us can just go to hell and die."

The meeting was delayed several minutes when protesters refused to move from the aisles of the meeting room despite warnings from the police. The protesters chanted "Harlem not for sale," and sang 1960s-style protest songs.

Plan supporters blamed a few agenda-driven malcontents for stirring up the neighborhood."Change is always difficult," said the Rev. Reginald Williams of the Manhattanville Coalition, a group that supports Columbia's plan. "They are trying to play on people's fears. It's the record versus the rhetoric."

The plan now goes to the City Council, which will hold hearings early next month, and is expected to approve the plans with some modifications.

Opponents of the plan vowed to press ahead."We will not be moved because we do not have any place to go," said Nellie Hester Bailey of the Harlem Tenants Council. "A mosaic of this city is represented in west Harlem. We cannot lose that."

more articles in /news/local/newyork
Copyright © 2007, Newsday Inc.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nycu275477926nov27,0,5475378,full.story

Approval for Columbia Expansion Seems Likely
November 27, 2007
By Dorian Davis

The first conflict at yesterday’s New York City Planning Commission hearing on Columbia University’s 17-acre Manhattanville expansion plan, a scheme designed by Renzo Piano Building Workshop and Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM), was not over a building but a chair.

“Twelve urban planners, and none of them can plan a seating arrangement,” said Harlem resident Nellie Hester Bailey as she took a seat reserved for Columbia staff in the Commission’s cramped 50-seat auditorium. A two-hour meeting ensued, during which community members, who are upset about the university’s plan to displace 5,000 residents and use eminent domain in aid of building a new campus, held up placards that read “Harlem Is Not For Sale” and chanted choruses of “We Shall Not Be Moved.” And at the end of the hearing, the Commission’s vote on two dueling proposals for Manhattanville—one from Columbia and an alternative from the local Community Board, which encourages economic development without raising the specter of eminent domain—ended in a draw. But this vote does not necessarily represent a stalemate and Columbia looks set to get most of what it wants.

The Commission issued a series of recommendations to bring the competing interests of preservation and urban renewal into closer alignment. It grants many elements proposed by Columbia: a sprawling, mixed-use campus with 4.8 million square feet of box-shaped buildings, and 2 million square feet of subterranean space. But the Commission’s compromise also lowers height restrictions for buildings at the north end of campus by 50 percent—down to 120 feet—in order to better serve the neighborhood context. And it includes a change in construction sequencing to ensure that 100,000 square feet of public parks and open spaces are completed in the first phase, set to end in 2015.

Proponents of the Columbia plan seem pleased with the Commission’s compromise. Marilyn Taylor, a partner at SOM, says that the height restrictions could help to resolve the aesthetic tension between past and present, and create a cohesive streetscape along Broadway. “These buildings can be more of a transition between our [larger] proposals to the south and the community to the north,” she observes.

But residents are less enthusiastic about the modifications. “Had those recommendations been combined with the retention of historic buildings, the plan could have been more appealing,” says Michael Henry Adams, a local historian and author of Harlem Lost and Found. “I’d rather see a couple of hundred-story towers erected and have some of these historic buildings preserved than to have them all replaced with shorter buildings.”

The university plans to petition the state to start eminent domain proceedings against several old warehouses, including Hudson Moving and Storage, built in 1903 and listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

With the Commission’s review finished, the dueling development plans next move to City Council for a vote in December. That hearing will be the final chance for opponents to halt Columbia’s expansion, or it will give the university the green light for building an expanded campus some 10 blocks north of its existing facilities.

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/071127columbia.asp

Manhattanville, Columbiaville: City Agency Approves Massive Columbia Plan

Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:37:45 -0500
Subject: [Gothamist] Recommendation: Manhattanville, Columbiaville: City Agency Approves Massive Columbia Plan
To: whitmananne@yahoo.com
From: whitmananne@yahoo.com



November 26, 2007








Manhattanville, Columbiaville:
City Agency Approves Massive Columbia Plan

The old saw is that one can't fight City Hall, and we can apparently add the ivory tower to the bulwarks of imperviousness. Despite fierce community opposition, Columbia University will be expanding its upper-Manhattan campus to surrounding blocks. The plan to expand the university's property by 17 acres and several blocks in each direction was approved this afternoon by the New York City Planning Commission. CityRoom reports the neighborhood meeting wasn't exactly neighborly:

A majority of people who crammed into the commission’s meeting room in Lower Manhattan did not appear to agree. Many booed or hissed throughout the meeting. Critics have asserted that the scale, density and design of the project would overwhelm the neighborhood in Harlem, an area that has already been subject to rapid gentrification and rising real estate values.Columbia's proposal will probably undergo some revision before passing before the City Council. You can see Columbia's Manhattanville plan here.

Community Board 9 voted against Columbia's expansion plan in August, which the university took as an opportunity to negotiate with the community but the community board felt the university was too arrogant. And one of the demands of Columbia students on hunger strike were concessions about the Manhattanville plan.

The properties that Columbia wants to acquire includes residences, gas stations, and storage facilities. Thus far, the school has declined from using eminent domain legal procedures against any residences. One critic feels that's a bit a fair-weather hedging, hoping that the state will come in and do eminent domain seizing for the school from afar, without alienating city or neighborhood residents too directly.

And Columbia President Lee Bollinger said, "We believe that thriving universities are essential to preserving New York City’s historic role as a place that provides good, moderate-income jobs and a global leader that continues to attract great minds to consider the central intellectual, scientific, artistic and cultural challenges of our time. We look forward to continuing to work with our neighbors, City Council members and other local elected representatives to ensure that the people who live and work in West Harlem and all of New York continue to benefit as the home of a world center of academic excellence.”

Photograph of Manhattanville by Mira (on the wall) on Flickr

By Dave Hogarty in News Link Comments (2) Recommend this! (4)
[+]

Tags: City Council, Columbia University, Community Board 9, development, Manhattanville,

CB9 Responds to 125th Street Rezoning Proposal

CB9 Responds to 125th Street Rezoning Proposal
By Betsy Morais
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 27, 2007

After a Department of City Planning presentation on plans to rezone 125th Street, Community Board 9 responded with its own recommendations for land use Monday evening.

The meeting was originally scheduled to be a public hearing and committee vote on City Planning’s 125th Street proposal, as mandated by the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. CB9 held an information session instead because board members sought more time to scrutinize the commission’s plan. Community Boards 10 and 11, also involved in the rezoning, have already devoted much attention to the issue.

“125th Street is going to be a larger mess tomorrow than it is today. City Planning has got to realize that planning is about more than rezoning,” CB9 member Walter South said.

The meeting began with a Power-Point presentation by City Planning representative Edwin Marshall that outlined the agency’s plan, focusing particularly on how it would impact the CB9 area. The proposal, which began public review in October, is part of the Bloomberg administration’s citywide economic-development project. According to City Planning, it seeks to “sustain the ongoing revitalization of 125th Street as a unique Manhattan Main Street, enhance its regional business-district character, and reinforce the street’s premier arts, culture, and entertainment-destination identity.”

The plan requires buildings to have active ground-floor retail space to encourage local commerce and calls for the establishment of a Special Zoning District which would allow City Planning to tailor building form, control density, and regulate usage.

But the board expressed concern about the coverage area of the plan, which only goes as far west as Broadway.

CB9 member Savona Bailey McClain responded to the City Planning presentation with a set of recommendations, voicing the board’s desire to extend rezoning all the way to the Hudson River and across 12th Avenue. Elements of the city’s rezoning design “stifle development in our community,” McClain explained.

The recommendations also called for inclusion of West Harlem’s New Amsterdam District, which was omitted from the city’s rezoning outline. This is crucial, McClain explained, “so Columbia will not be the only economic engine. We want some independence.”

Marshall explained that the city had not put the New Amsterdam District in the plan because the commission was waiting for CB9 to complete its 197-a rezoning proposal. But he added, “We all agree—it needs to be looked at.”

McClain also addressed the issue of affordable housing—the board expressed dissatisfaction with the city’s guideline that 20 percent of new housing should be affordable—and encouraged the cultivation of economic and artistic growth in West Harlem.

Yet in the wake of Monday’s City Planning Commission vote on both CB9’s and Columbia’s Manhattanville rezoning plans, board members seemed more in the mood to question the CPC than to analyze the details of their recommendations.

After the 125th Street discussion came to a close, CB9 Second Vice-Chair Patricia Jones and planning advisor Ron Schiffman reported on their afternoon at the CPC. “There was a victory today, but it was buried in a lack of appreciation and a lack of concern for the people in this community,” Schiffman said.

Of the Columbia plan, he added, “It’s almost like asking the fox to design the chicken coops.”
Betsy Morais can be reached at news@columbiaspectator.com.

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/28326

Columbia expansion heads to City Council

From: "Ruth Eisenberg"
To: "Jordi Reyes-Montblanc"
Subject: From NY Metro
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:24:52 -0500





Columbia expansion heads to City Council
by metro / ap / metro new york
> email this to a friend
NOV 27, 2007

LOWER MANHATTAN. In a hearing packed with chanting protesters, the city’s planning commission approved rival proposals yesterday for Columbia University to acquire a tract of West Harlem to expand its cramped campus with new laboratories, housing and other facilities.

Ten of the 12 board members voted to send both plans to the City Council for a hearing next month and a final vote in January.

Officials said it would be up to the council to reconcile remaining differences in the Columbia proposal and the residents’ plan, which originally had sought to prevent what its sponsors called a dire threat to one of Manhattan’s oldest working-class, low-income neighborhoods.

Planning commission chair Amanda Burden said Columbia’s proposal had been significantly modified “to ensure that the university’s expansion and future development ... better respects and reflects neighborhood scale and character.”

Even so, project foes vowed to keep fighting.

“We just witnessed, in that room, an indication of the kind of sell-out politics that’s going on in developments all over the city,” said Tom DeMott, of the Coalition to Preserve Community, after the hearing. “In our neighborhood in West Harlem, we are now looking at an eviction plan. Plain and simple. One that is supported by the powers that be.”

Columbia’s $7 billion proposal would build new residential and academic buildings to expand space for science labs and business schools, while razing neighborhood apartments, warehouses and shops.

“We are grateful that the City Planning Commission ... has given such careful consideration to how our proposal can be improved and move forward in the best interests of both the University and the local community,” said Columbia President Lee Bollinger.

Columbia’s expansion has met significant opposition from students, some of whom held a hunger strike this month to halt the project.

“We know that the school can expand in a different way,” said Columbia student Victoria Ruiz. “It’s not acting like a school, it’s acting like a corporation. And students did not agree to attend a corporation.”

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Columbia_expansion_heads_to_City_Council/10861.html#email#email

CPC Approves M’Ville Plan

From: "Ruth Eisenberg"
To: "Jordi Reyes-Montblanc"
Subject: Spectator today
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:25:49 -0500

CPC Approves M’Ville Plan
By Melissa Repko
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 27, 2007

The New York City Planning Commission approved the rezoning needed for Columbia to move forward with its Manhattanville expansion plans on Monday.

Though the commission voted in favor of Columbia’s 197-c rezoning plan, it made several modifications, including the elimination of two of the planned academic-research buildings along Broadway, the reduction of permitted building heights, and the requirement of a more open, free-flowing campus landscape.

The vote was part of the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, the city’s public-review process. In the next and final step of the process, the City Council will vote on the plan.

In addition to approving the 197-c plan, the commission approved Community Board 9’s 197-a plan for the area’s development. Yet while the 197-a as written by CB9 covers all of Manhattanville, the commission approved only the provisions dealing with the area outside the expansion zone.

Commissioner Karen Phillips cast the only vote against the 197-c plan, and commissioner Irwin Cantor abstained from voting on 197-c. The 197-a plan passed without any dissenting votes.

Columbia also announced on Monday that it would build nearly 1,000 housing units for employees, in an effort to offset the increased demand for housing that the expansion will generate. In addition, the University agreed to contribute $4 million to legal-aid services for Manhattanville tenants, including protection from unlawful harassment or eviction.

The commitment comes in addition to a deal struck with Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer to provide $20 million for an affordable housing trust fund. University officials said Monday that, between that money and additional capital it will be used to leverage, the fund is expected to be able to construct around 1,100 affordable housing units.

The meeting featured frequent audience interjections and chanting, despite police attempts to quiet the crowd. Because of the small room, there were more attendants than seats. When people standing were told to leave, expansion opponents became vocal and refused to relocate.

Tom DeMott, leader of the Coalition to Preserve Community, led community members in a chant repeating, “Harlem is not for sale,” a phrase that a few wore on signs around their necks.
Even as Commission Chair Amanda Burden opened the session, loud chanting continued and persisted throughout the meeting.

Echoing her comments released weeks before the meeting and raising her voice above audience interjections, Burden said she believes the 197-c and 197-a plans are not opposites. “I believe that the modifications that we will be voting on today substantially reconcile the differences between the two,” she said.

After a lengthy speech during which many audience members speculated out loud that she would vote yes, Phillips voted against the 197-c plan. “Though the University’s expansion is good for the city of New York and would provide an economic engine for the communities in upper Manhattan and jobs and business growth, the immediate neighborhood ... should not take the blow that leads to economic, cultural, and social damage,” Phillips said before casting her dissenting vote.

Cantor commended Burden for her “evenhanded shepherding” and “for gracefully enduring the most personal, vindictive, invective comments I have ever heard.” Yet he abstained from the 197-c vote, citing concerns about the use of eminent domain.

“I am of the belief that government intervention should only occur in the most extraordinary circumstances,” Cantor said. “I am not persuaded that such circumstances exist in this instance ... We pride ourselves on our free-enterprise spirit, yet the state steps in on behalf on one party and in what I consider a manifestly punitive way. It’s just not right.”

After the meeting, Reverend Reginald Williams of the Coalition for the Future of Manhattanville, a pro-expansion group organized by lobbyists for Columbia, said he was pleased by the commission’s vote but disappointed by the audience’s rowdy behavior. “You can disagree without being disagreeable,” he said. He criticized several audience members’ references to racial incidents of the past, saying, “Bringing memories and painful experiences of a bygone era is not beneficial for anybody.”

Williams spoke about the “silent majority,” explaining that he believes most agree with a combination of Columbia and CB9’s plan. “People who holler or protest visibly often get the press,” he said. “It’s like the squeaky wheel gets the oil ... We could bring out a crowd, but would the crowd change the merits of the proposals?”

“I am not surprised that both plans as modified were approved, however I am very pleased that commissioner Phillips did vote against Columbia’s plans, even with its modifications, in support of the community,” said Patricia Jones, who was recently nominated as the next CB9 chair. “Clearly we would have preferred a ‘no’ vote from commissioner Cantor as well, but many times in voting, an abstention is effectively a ‘no’ ... We’ve got quite a bit of work to do as both plans move forward to City Council.”

Nellie Hester-Bailey of the Harlem Tenants Council condemned the commission’s vote in a press conference after the meeting’s conclusion. “You are dealing with the lives of working class black and Latino families, those families who have the least. Those families who contribute to the vibrancy, the economic and ethnic vibrancy, of this city,” she said.

Bailey said that the vote will only strengthen community efforts in opposing Columbia’s expansion. “We are here to stay,” she said. “We will stay and we will be at the City Council in even larger numbers, with an even stronger message, with an even stronger challenge.”

In a press release, University President Lee Bollinger thanked the commission for its vote and its leadership. “We look forward to continuing to work with our neighbors, City Council members, and other local elected representatives to ensure that the people who live and work in West Harlem and all of New York continue to benefit as the home of a world center of academic excellence,” he said.

Melissa Repko can be reached at melissa.repko@columbiaspectator.com.

NB- It should be noted what it is well known by all, the Rev. Williams is NOT a citizens of WestSide Harlem but of Central Harlem and his involvement in these West Harlem issues is out of line and an unwelcome interference in the workings of this community. We repudiate any statements by this astroturf group created by Columbia's lobbysts. - JRM

City Planning Commission approves Columbia's campus expansion plan

City Planning Commission approves Columbia's campus expansion plan
BY FRANK LOMBARDI
DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU
Tuesday, November 27th 2007, 4:00 AM

With hecklers shouting "Sellout!" and other insults, Columbia University's mammoth campus expansion plan was overwhelmingly approved Monday by the City Planning Commission.

The panel voted, 10 to 1, with one abstention, in favor of the university's proposed $6 billion expansion into west Harlem. Only Commissioner Karen Phillips voted against the expansion, citing concerns that it could cause "economic, cultural and social damage" to the surrounding area.

Another commissioner, Irwin Cantor, abstained because of his opposition to the possible use of eminent domain that could be used to force commercial property owners to sell their land.

"Rich, rich, rich!" the protesters chanted, contending that the commissioners were favoring wealthy Columbia over working- and middle-class people within the 17-acre expansion site just north of the Ivy League university's Morningside Heights campus.

The commission made some modifications to Columbia's original plan, including eliminating two of six academic buildings to be built along Broadway, between 132nd and 134th Sts.

That didn't satisfy critics led by Tom DeMott of the Coalition to Preserve Community. "We will get them legally," DeMott shouted. "More importantly, we will get them on the street."

The 25-year expansion plan now moves to the City Council, which has the final say in zoning matters.

flombardi@nydailynews.com

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/11/27/2007-11-27_city_planning_commission_approves_columb.html

Planning Commission modifies Columbia's expansion plans

Planning Commission modifies Columbia's expansion plans
26-NOV-07

The City Planning Commission today voted to approve with modifications the expansion plans of Columbia University above 125th Street and Community Board 9's 197-a plan.

The modifications to the university's plans eliminated two planned academic research buildings along Broadway and replaced them with university housing and academic facilities.

"The commission has been particularly concerned," declared commission chair Amanda M. Burden in a statement, "that the proposed concentration of six academic research buildings fronting along Broadway would potentially diminish the ability to create a vibrant and active corridor.

We have has also been concerned by the scale and character of the proposed buildings in the northern portion Broadway and their relationship to the surrounding residential context. Therefore, for the northernmost site on the east side of Broadway, the permitted height will be reduced by half from 240 to 120 feet. And, on the northernmost site on the west side of Broadway, the maximum height will be reduced from 260 to 180 feet. These changes are significant and will provide a more balanced transition from the academic research cluster near 125th Street to the uses and scale of existing development to the north, while helping ensure a livelier, more varied character along this corridor."

The Columbia plans were also modified to increase the width of the north/south public passage from 125th Street to the Large Square with a prohibition on any gates or fencing and a mandate for seating and tree plantings.

The report adopted by the commission modified the Community Board's 197-a plan to permit the construction of an underground infrastructure network that would reduce the scale of the university's plan above grade and enable the development of a substantial open space program."
In her statement, Chair Burden acknowledged "the extraordinary work of Community Board 9 in preparing the 197-A plan, presenting it to the commission, and modifying it in response to the discussion that have taken place during this process."

The vote was 10 to 1 with 1 one abstention. The no vote was cast by Commissioner Karen Phillips and the abstention was from Commissioner Irwin Cantor.

The plan would enable the university to expand and modernize facilities in a 17-acre Academic Mixed-Use Area within a proposed 35-acre Special District and allow it to construct 5 to 6 million square feet of space over the next 25 years.

-->The City Planning Commission today voted to approve with modifications the expansion plans of Columbia University above 125th Street and Community Board 9's 197-a plan.
The modifications to the university's plans eliminated two planned academic research buildings along Broadway and replaced them with university housing and academic facilities.

"The commission has been particularly concerned," declared commission chair Amanda M. Burden in a statement, "that the proposed concentration of six academic research buildings fronting along Broadway would potentially diminish the ability to create a vibrant and active corridor. We have has also been concerned by the scale and character of the proposed buildings in the northern portion Broadway and their relationship to the surrounding residential context.

Therefore, for the northernmost site on the east side of Broadway, the permitted height will be reduced by half from 240 to 120 feet. And, on the northernmost site on the west side of Broadway, the maximum height will be reduced from 260 to 180 feet.

These changes are significant and will provide a more balanced transition from the academic research cluster near 125th Street to the uses and scale of existing development to the north, while helping ensure a livelier, more varied character along this corridor."

The Columbia plans were also modified to increase the width of the north/south public passage from 125th Street to the Large Square with a prohibition on any gates or fencing and a mandate for seating and tree plantings.

The report adopted by the commission modified the Community Board's 197-a plan to permit the construction of an underground infrastructure network that would reduce the scale of the university's plan above grade and enable the development of a substantial open space program."
In her statement, Chair Burden acknowledged "the extraordinary work of Community Board 9 in preparing the 197-A plan, presenting it to the commission, and modifying it in response to the discussion that have taken place during this process."

The vote was 10 to 1 with 1 one abstention. The no vote was cast by Commissioner Karen Phillips and the abstention was from Commissioner Irwin Cantor.

The plan would enable the university to expand and modernize facilities in a 17-acre Academic Mixed-Use Area within a proposed 35-acre Special District and allow it to construct 5 to 6 million square feet of space over the next 25 years.

http://www.cityrealty.com/new_developments/news.cr?page=8

Planning Panel Approves Columbia Expansion

From: "Ruth Eisenberg"
To: "Jordi Reyes-Montblanc" reysmont@yahoo.com
Subject: for distribution
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:21:03 -0500


November 26, 2007, 3:03 pm


Planning Panel Approves Columbia Expansion
By Charles V. Bagli


A map showing Columbia University’s expansion plan. Click to enlarge.
After a tumultuous and bitter meeting replete with persistent heckling, the New York City Planning Commission voted this afternoon to approve Columbia University’s much-debated plan for a 17-acre campus expansion in Harlem. The plan now goes to the City Council, which is expected to modify it before giving final approval.

The commission’s decision marks an important step — though not the final one — in the often difficult process known as the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or Ulurp.

Of the 12 commission members (there is one vacancy) at a special public meeting [pdf] today, 10 voted in favor of the university’s expansion. One other, Irwin Cantor, who represents the Queens borough president, abstained, saying he did so because the plan contained provisions that would allow the university to press the government to use eminent domain to acquire land for the expansion. Another member, Karen A. Phillips, who represents the city’s public advocate and has been influential in Harlem as a former president of the Abyssinian Development Corporation, voted no. www.cb9m.org/197a_plan.php" community-initiated rezoning proposal known as a Section 197a document — that had been put forward by Community Board 9.

The differences between the Section 197a document and the Columbia University plan will have to be resolved, but Amanda M. Burden, the chairwoman of the planning commission, said in a statement [pdf] that she did not think those differences were great.

A majority of people who crammed into the commission’s meeting room in Lower Manhattan did not appear to agree. Many booed or hissed throughout the meeting. Critics have asserted that the scale, density and design of the project would overwhelm the neighborhood in Harlem, an area that has already been subject to rapid gentrification and rising real estate values.

Columbia completed a draft environmental impact statement for the project in June, but the criticism had begun much earlier. The university intends to build new academic and residential buildings, including space for its arts and business schools and advanced scientific research labs.

Columbia has defended the plan as necessary and promised not to seek the use of eminent domain to make people leave their homes. (The university has left open the possibility of having the state use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property.)

But Columbia’s assurances have not had their intended effect. The expansion plan was sharply criticized at a public hearing last month and was one focus of a student hunger strike earlier this month. As part of the real estate boom, colleges and universities have been erecting new buildings around the city, straining town-gown relations.

Sewell Chan contributed reporting.

19 comments so far...

1. November 26th,20073:42 pm
Very sad. The end of Harlem as we know. 125th a residential area?? Heartbreaking.
— Posted by Grace

2. November 26th,20074:00 pm
People will always find a way to whine about something. Enlarging one of the most prestigious universities in the world will only help NYC.
— Posted by Dave

3. November 26th,20074:05 pm
This sounds crazy. I mean really, is there really any more room for anything to be expanded in NYC? I think the only way to expand from now is UP. I don’t even want to imagine how this is going to affect the residents nearby…
— Posted by Megatron

4. November 26th,20074:10 pm
The Ivy Weed of Manhattan
Why does Columbia need to covet Manhattan why not branch out move your arts school to queens, the bronx or brooklyn there are plenty of derelict areas that need rehab in those boroughs. Many universities in Urban environments have branch campuses much like your med school is seperate from your main campus. There are some prime areas off the Harlem river in the Bronx that could be used for your research labs. Manhattan is squeezed as it and just because you want to expand close to home doesn’t mean you should force everyone else out. Go somewhere where there is nothing and make something of it. Wasn’t that Columbia’s goal when it was founded? Do not take from your neighbors find a new community to enrich.
— Posted by Col. Klink

5. November 26th,20074:23 pm
This is very good news for Harlem and New York City. The 17 acres Columbia wants to develop have been underutilized for decades. The new Manhattanville will be an asset to Harlem, and Harlem will benefit from the jobs and spending that will be created at almost no cost in residential displacement–there are less than 150 plus apts/residential units in the Columbia zone, and Columbia will relocate their occupants. In addition Columbia has made and will be making more development concessions that will benefit the community.

Congratulations to the planning commission on taking the long view and not bowing to the hecklers.
— Posted by Observer

6. November 26th,20074:32 pm
Grace, stop misleading people, the area isn’t Central Harlem. Opponents like yourself paint it as Central Harlem to mislead the public. It’s a largely empty area of warehouses and parking lots. Nobody will be displaced because rents are already very high in the surrounding community, and the poor folks are all in rent controlled or public housing.

Poor people living in Manhattan in 2007 do not pay market rate, and therefore cannot be displaced by an upsurge in property values. If you value decay and decline, please move to Detroit.
— Posted by Alex

7. November 26th,20074:34 pm
This area is run down and in dire need of development. Columbia’s plan will provide a much needed change to the area. Those detractors who boo and hiss do not have a better plan for the area. The 197a is status quo of what’s currently there. Let’s move on from this and stop this frivolous argument, this is a warehousing, dilapitated area.
— Posted by cole

8. November 26th,20074:37 pm
I fully invite any of the knee-jerk anti-expansion folks to stroll around the area between 125th and 135th on Broadway. I used to work up there several years ago (when I was a Columbia undergrad) and it’s pretty derelict. Columbia already owns most of the buildings and the land, and frankly, there isn’t much up there worth saving. The last few hold-outs have been preventing positive improvement for years now.

Does Columbia need to provide for any small businesses that will be impacted? Yes. Should Columbia ensure some provisions for lower-income housing in their plans? Absolutely.

Was this area so great that anyone else was trying to improve — nay, even save it as it is? Not so much.
— Posted by Katherine

9. November 26th,20074:38 pm
People are always so afraid of change. A great Ivy League institution, giving New York so much prestige needs room to grow. Visit the area we are talking about. The area is not occupied by apartments or many businesses but by abandoned, gargabe ridden, ignored lots which no body cared about for years. They have the chance to convert it to a terrific area which will not only serve the needs of the university, but the neighborhood as well and be a proud addition to the city of New York.
— Posted by Doron

10. November 26th,20074:57 pm
I live in Manhattanville, directly on the boarder of the proposed new Columbia development, and I’ve lived there almost my entire life, beginning in 1958. I’d like to make several (admittedly contradictory) observations:

1) Descriptions of the development area as vibrant, supplying neighborhood people with jobs, are ridiculous. For many years that area has been an economic disaster zone.

2) On the other hand, perhaps Columbia has been in significant part responsible for the lack of development. Has Columbia been using its position as the predominant landlord in the area to prevent meaningful development? If so, should it now be able to take advantage of a situation it created? I haven’t seen much written on this.

3) Regarding eminent domain, Columbia has pledged not to use it to displace residents (of which there are few anyway, despite claims to the contrary).

I believe the commercial landowners are using fear of eminent domain to hold Columbia hostage for the purpose of boosting their eventual sale price. I can’t understand why the “community” is backing this.

4) As a neighborhood resident, I’m honestly torn about whether to support the Columbia plan. I do believe in the Jane Jacobs ideal of mixed use and diversity, and that clearly is not what Columbia has in mind. Leasing some ground floor space to stores is an improvement on how their current campus is constructed, but that doesn’t create neighborhood diversity of the variety that Jane Jacobs was talking about. On the other hand, if Columbia is prevented from following through on its current plan, the fight will be protracted.

Waiting another 20 or 30 years for this and for alternate development to occur is not an attractive alternative. Perhaps Columbia’s plan, while not ideal, is the best we can do. In any case, it would be nice to have some balanced discussion on the topic rather than the Columbia hatred v. total disregard for the concerns of the community that seems to dominate posts on this topic.
— Posted by Kerwin

11. November 26th,20075:00 pm
I live in the neighborhood of Columbia University’s proposed expansion. I invite anyone to walk, jog or bicycle through the area; drivers can slow down a bit as they head to the northbound entrance to the West Side Highway (or to Fairway) and take in what they see. Much of the proposed development area is parking lot, vacant, or abandoned buildings.

There are some small businesses dotted through the area, that is true, but there will be compensation for them — there must be — under the plan. What the Columbia development promises is a coordinated development that will create a thriving community where there is none now. Far from a deterrent or repellent, this will, I think attract a range of people — students, teachers, support staff — to an under-used part of Manhattan. This will benefit and grow the community, not attack or undermine it.

Preserving the past and present, and respect for existing business and homes, must always be factored into development decisions like these. Here, I think the balance tips decisively in Columbia University’s favor.
— Posted by William

12. November 26th,20075:24 pm
It’s the eminent domain abuse. Period.

Unless of course you don’t think the Constituion and fundamental rights matter.
— Posted by Nancy

13. November 26th,20075:26 pm
#11 (William): For the record, it’s not the West Side Highway, it’s the Henry Hudson Parkway. Which makes most of those billboards in violation of the city law prohibiting billboards within 900 feet of any park or parkway.
— Posted by Hilary

14. November 26th,20075:26 pm
Col. Klink - No, it was not Columbia’s plan when it was founded to develop neighborhoods (please read up on Columbia’s history, if you’re interested). That cant be the primary goal of any University, in fact. In reality, there is nothing good to be said about Columbia developing some derelict areas in, say, Brooklyn or whereever else you suggested. That would impose an unreasonable strain on students and faculty having to commute between the old and new campuses.
— Posted by Oliver

15. November 26th,20075:38 pm
I think it is great that Columbia’s expansion plan went through the committee. I have been following this for a while and Columbia is taking into consideration the needs of the people who live in that area.

But my concern is: are the buildings being planned going to be ‘green’?

Everybody, not just Columbia, should be ashamed of themselves if this is not a consideration in the design and building of the new structures.Ruth Beazer
— Posted by Ruth Beazer

16. November 26th,20076:42 pm
Congrats to Columbia. I actually walked the length of 125 Street from St. Nicholas Ave to Riverside Drive on Friday night, and the Manhattanville part of 125th is still quite depressed in comparison to Central Harlem. It’s a good thing that many people’s vision of the future is not mini-storage and tire repair shops. The neighborhood will additionally benefit from cleanup of decades of oil spills and who-knows-what other toxic substances in the area.
— Posted by Steven M.

17. November 26th,20077:52 pm
If Columbia wants to expand, expand up. One of the comments said that “it will only help NYC”– who in NYC? the small percentage New Yorkers who are students at the college? Its unfair to residents who have are in that community, and next thing you know, with the transformation will come pricier stores and chains, along with even less of a neighborhood feel. It is one thing to clean up and restore an area, but to have Columbia expand on an island that is only so big. When priorities are set it is the university’s that will come first, and the people second.
— Posted by Shaboudaquay

18. November 26th,20078:16 pm
There is some great commentary on this at http://www.thenydirt.com/
— Posted by TheNYDirt

19. November 26th,20079:17 pm
Hoooray! What a great deal for Harlem. We have been waiting years for this. This is the best thing to happen to our area in years. It will benefit not only Harlem, but NYC, and not the World. Why? Because of research finding a cure for cancer over the cancer causing carcinogens found in the exhaust of the auto repair plants which now exist in the area. columbia is a world renowned university that will bring lots of jobs to the area and are offering scholarships to our children. Who would these complainers rather have develop the area? Trump?

I hope the City Council takes the plan as is since it benefits everyone in the end.
Lets do this thing!
— Posted by HarlemResident

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/planning-panel-approves-columbia-expansion/index.html

Columbia expansion wins key vote

crain's new york business.com

Columbia expansion wins key vote
November 26. 2007 3:46PM

By: Anne Michaud and Kira Bindrim

The City Planning Commission accepted Columbia's expansion plan, while making expected modifications to the proposal.

Bloomberg News

The City Planning Commission, as expected, approved Columbia University's controversial plan to rezone 17 acres in West Harlem for an arts, business and science campus with modifications to the university’s proposal – crossing the last hurdle before the plan moves to City Council.

10 of the Commission's 12 present members voted in favor of the expansion, with one against. One other abstained, citing a provision in the plan that would allow the university to use eminent domain to acquire land for the expansion.

But the Commission also announced a series of expected modifications, including the elimination of two proposed academic research buildings along Broadway, which will be replaced with university housing and academic facilities. However, the Commission remained mum on the question of eminent domain rather than deny community requests to block the mandate. It also ignored requests from community leaders that Columbia tie its expansion to goodies for the surrounding neighborhood.

Additional alterations include trimming the maximum height for two buildings, adding open space on 125th Street and creating a light manufacturing zone in the area west of Twelfth Avenue. Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden said the agency would also continue working with a competing land-use plan from Community Board 9 197-a.

Columbia’s proposal will now move to the City Council for a final vote, marking the culmination of more than four years of work by the university, which has been buying up land and properties in the neighborhood of the campus-to-be and now owns more than 70% of the area. The university wants to spend $7 billion to build as many as 18 towers with classrooms, offices, student housing and laboratory space, which will give it the facilities to compete with other world-class institutions.

Despite community opposition, there was little doubt that the university would get what it wanted, albeit with a few caveats. At the request of Borough President Scott Stringer, Columbia has agreed to endow a $20 million Manhattanville Neighborhood Preservation Fund, which, together with other measures, would preserve or create 1,139 housing units. The school will also provide $4 million to fund an anti-harassment legal assistance program to address indirect residential displacement, according to the Commission. The West Harlem Local Development Corp., which is negotiating a community benefits agreement with Columbia, is said to be asking for another $100 million in housing funds.

After the City Council votes, the university must submit a general project plan to the Empire State Development Corp., which has the final say over whether properties can be taken by eminent domain, against an owner's will.


Reader Comments

On 2007.11.26 03:12 pm, Clifford Sondock, President of the Land Use Institute said:
Columbia University is a private university. Thus, it is Consitutionally inappropriate for the Empire State Development Corp. to use eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University to expand its private university. That being said, the City of New York certainly has the authority to change the zoning; thus, allowing expansion of Columbia University, which would be both appropriate and a favorable event for both Columbia University and New York City's real estate market.The result of a rezoning without eminent domain would likely be a long-term phased expansion of Columbia University's campus and a more ethical and market-based approach.

Reply to this comment » Link to this comment »

On 2007.11.26 11:53 am, bernie martin said:
To keep the 'system' for which over a million people depend on everyday to get to work, sufficient and sustainable funds to budget for long term maintenance has to guarenteed. Otherwise the MTA will not be able to maintain a state of good repair
Reply to this comment » Link to this comment »

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071126/FREE/71126004/1058/newsletter01

CB9M COMMENTS TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISION REPORT

Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, Chairman

COMMENTS TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISION REPORT

11-26-07

Unequal Review

From the outset, CB9 was led to believe that their 197a Plan and Columbia University’s Plan would move in tandem and that the Department of City Planning would help resolve the differences. Despite some diligent work on behalf of the Community and consultants to Columbia University discussions to resolve land use and zoning differences between the two entities were never scheduled. This despite Commissioner Burden’s stated reason for looking at the two plans simultaneously and despite repeated requests from the Community Board to hold such meetings.

Instead the City went beyond what was required to facilitate discussions concerning the development of a Community Benefits Agreement. The CBA is recommended in the plan but ONLY to focus on the mitigation of the adverse impacts generated by a mutually agreed upon plan, NOT to negotiate land use and zoning issues. However, DCP did not facilitate any land use discussions between CB9 and CU, and EDC, who has facilitated the CBA process, has stepped in as the City agency with which Columbia is negotiating its land use recommendations.

Scenarios based on the 197a Alternative and other development scenarios proposed by the Commissioners themselves were developed with the DCP staff. However despite repeated requests, CB9 and/or its technical representatives never participated in the discussions concerning how these alternatives were interpreted, designed and evaluated by Columbia University and DCP. As a result these alternatives were rejected by the applicant and their arguments presented as “fact’ to the Commission.

The assessments by the “applicant” were often distorted and misleading and developed to solely promote their original proposals.

o CU under-estimated the amounts of academic and research space that could be built upon.

o CU downplayed the beneficial environmental implications of the alternatives proposed by the 197a plan [e.g., less trucking, less excavation, dispersal of traffic, fewer street closing, etc].

o CU vastly exaggerated and/or concocted negatives about the proposed alternatives. [e.g., increased number of curb cuts, moving unsightly service functions from below grade to above grade].

o CB9 was not provided a forum or a mechanism to correct these distortions except to comment on them after the fact and after their presentation to the commission.
Columbia University specified what their need was over a 30 year period and that set of assumptions was never questioned and the 197a alternative was always measured against those unchallenged set of assumptions. However, when the Commission based on their set of aesthetic values chose to reduce the amount of academic and research space they did so, and Columbia acceded to their request.

197-a Plan Alternative to accommodate Columbia University’s proposal

· The Commission believes that the 197-a Plan “does not set forth a comprehensive plan that would integrate Columbia’s long-term growth into the urban fabric in a manner consistent with City objectives”. We believe that Columbia University’s action is an “urban renewal”, thus it does not intend to integrate into the urban fabric but remove the neighborhood to “create” a new urban fabric. Keeping only the street layout does not constitute keeping with the urban fabric.

· The Commission didn’t support the 197-a Plan Alternative on the basis that the plan would result in an “irregular pattern of development with less open space and an inferior public and pedestrian environment that that achievable under the integrated campus proposed by Columbia and that it would accommodate only a portion of Columbia’s proposed program”. We believe that what the Commission calls “irregular” is more in accordance with existing character of the neighborhood. The 197-a Plan never intended to accommodate Columbia University’s entire program, only what it could be developed within its properties.

· According to the FEIS, the 197-a plan alternative would allow Columbia to develop 50% to 53% of its proposed expansion. However, assumptions were never articulated with CB9 to determine the most efficient outcome. Again, the 197-a plan was not intended to accommodate CU’s entire program, only what it could be developed within its property.

· The Commission favors the construction of the Central Below Grade Services Area as support space for Columbia’s program, including truck loading and downloading, parking, central mechanical systems and other support activities. We believe that CB9's proposed alternative to build interconnected, below-grade facilities, as was done at Rockefeller Center, is a viable and safer alternative to the construction of the "bathtub”.

· The academic and research space that could be developed under CB9's 197-a Plan revised scenarios was far greater than described in Columbia’s analysis, the number of curb cuts deemed necessary were inflated and the environmental benefits of our approach were never adequately evaluated.

· CB9 made substantial revisions to the 197-a plan to facilitate greater amount of community facilities and accommodate Columbia’s needs:

o Adjusted the boundary line between Subdistricts 1 and 2 to enlarge the area (Subdistrict 2)

o Eliminated the requirement for manufacturing use on the lower stories

o Allowed for greater flexibility with respect to certain proposed height and setback requirements, principally along the side streets

However, despite these accommodations Columbia University continued to reject any alternative to its original plan. The difference being that the CB9 wanted to establish a “Mixed-use, Mixed Ownership Predominantly Academic Area” while Columbia wanted to create a Mixed-use Academic Community under its sole ownership.

Use of Eminent Domain

· CB9 supports Commissioner Cantor’s on the Commission’s comments on eminent domain, which dismisses the existence of other long-established businesses, whose property value would be determined by Columbia’s, as it would be granted in stages, according to Columbia’s expansion needs alone. This is an unfair treatment of valuable community actors and businesses.

Housing/Inclusionary Zoning

· The Commission did not endorse the 197-a plan’s recommendation for Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning since it is not consistent with city policy. However, it doesn’t recommend the use of the existing voluntary IZ program within the Manhattanville Special District, although it does for other locations in West Harlem.

· Seeking to provide more affordable housing units, the existing voluntary IZ program should be used on Subdistrict C, proposed to be rezoned to C6-2, and not owned by Columbia, and Other Area Broadway, proposed to be rezoned to R8A with a C1-4 overlay, in which one of the two lots is owned by Columbia.

· According to the Commission report, “Columbia will establish a $20 million [in two installments one in about 10 years] to develop or preserve affordable housing within CD 9”. This fund is insufficient because discounted to its present value this will accommodate at best 80 families based on subsidies necessary to house CB9 residents, unless money is diverted from other districts of the city. To get to the number used in their FEIS of 1000 units generated we assume that they are relying on leveraging these kinds of resources from other city and state funding sources and using 160% of AMI for the region, in essence making any of those units unaffordable to CB9 residents.

The Underground Structure / Bathtub

· To date, Columbia has not outlined or disclosed what the environmental, economic and social costs of the construction of the “bath tub” would be on the community.

o Without this information we cannot assess the potential environmental damage and cost to the public nor can we assess what mitigation measures we need to implement.

o Under the present scenario, none of the impacts will be considered until after the land use and zoning action become policy and law, and the use of eminent domain and the shadow it will cast on development in the area will have been approved and allowed to move forward. This violates the spirit and intent of the ULURP and environmental review processes.

· The technical capacity of the consultants working with Columbia University to carry out the geotechnical /foundation work was never an issue. The concern is that the work has not yet been undertaken and that the information necessary to evaluate the environmental and economic impacts of the yet to be developed “bath tub” proposals is not available to be used in making an informed decision about the proposed rezoning action. In essence, the applicant is asking for an environmental blank check, which we believe constitutes a violation of their public responsibilities.

· Despite the Commission comments on Flooding and Earthquake Risk, we continue to be concerned that the EIS for the Columbia University expansion was not referred to either the NYC or NYS Office of emergency Management since both entities have designated the area in which the bath tub is to be built as environmentally sensitive.

Manufacturing Uses and Creative and Sustainable Industries

· The Department continues to be behind the times and does not yet envision the implications of PlaNYC2030 and its potential to launch the “next ‘urban’ industrial revolution.” Need for green products and achieving goals of PlaNYC2030 will help fuel the need for space to produce those products and a green collar work force for both construction and production jobs.

Community Benefits

· The City Planning Commission notes that “a CBA is a valuable tool for non-land Use issues.” However, the Commission neglects to say that the community strongly states that a CBA should not be used to facilitate the concept of “land-use or zoning for sale.”

Urban Design and Open Space

· The Commission does not support the 197-a Plan recommendation to facilitate the closure of Marginal Street; however it does support the construction of new ramps to the Henry Hudson Parkway. The plan specifically recommends studying the potential for relocating and realigning the parkway on- and off-ramps at 133rd Street to facilitate the closure of Marginal Street. This was omitted from the comments.

· The Commission does not support the creation of a park on the triangular property bounded by West 125th and West 129th streets and Broadway because it is a private property and pursuing this acquisition would represent a significant commitment of City resources. However, one half of that site (one lot) is owned by Columbia, thus changes to the program location should not be a problem.

Historic Preservation

· The Commission accepts the demolition of the Sheffield Farms Stable as an unavoidable significant adverse impact. This historic building does not belong to Columbia but to a long-established business incubator that provides local jobs. The Commission lacks of action would lead to a taking of this property under eminent domain and we reject for two reasons: one this historic building is part of Manhattanville’s industrial past and should be preserved, and second, the use of eminent domain is unfair (see above) and should not be allowed.

City Planning Commission Reports 26Nov07 and ULURP Process

City Planning Commission Reports
City Planning Commission (CPC) Reports are the official records of actions taken by the CPC. The reports reflect the determinations of the Commission with respect to land use applications, including those subject to the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), and others such as zoning text amendments and 197-a community-based plans. It is important to note, however, that the reports do not necessarily reflect a final determination. Certain applications are subject to mandatory review by the City Council and others to City Council "call-up." More >>

http://a030-cpc.nyc.gov/html/cpc/index.aspx

Manhattan ...... 09 West Harlem, Morningside Heights, Manhattanville, Hamilton Heights

ULURP No.
Project Name
CD
CPC Vote

N 070496 ZRM
Columbia University/Special Manhattanville District
MN 9
11/26/2007

C 070495 ZMM
Columbia University/Special Manhattanville District
MN 9
11/26/2007

N 060047 NPM
Community Board 9 Manhattan 197-a Plan
MN 9
11/26/2007

As reference see other Reports involving CB9M

N 060547 HKM
Claremont Theater
MN 9
7/26/2006

C 050204 HAM
Hancock Place Apartments
MN 9
4/13/2005

C 030331 MEM
Grant's Tomb, amendment to the city map
MN 9
6/23/2004

C 040121 PPM
434 West 119th Street and Block 2001, Lot 2, disposition of C-O-P
MN 9
3/10/2004

C 030436 ZMM
Frederick Douglass Boulevard (zoning map change)
MN 9 MN 10
9/10/2003

N 030551 HKM
The Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine (Landmark)
MN 9
8/13/2003

C 030316 HAM
West Harlem Environmental Justice Center (UDAAP designation and project approval)
MN 9
7/23/2003

For further Reference See :

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/luproc/ulpro.shtml

The Uniform Land UseReview Procedure (ULURP)
Uniform Land Use Review Procedure ULURP Rules

Prior to 1976, the City Planning Commission reviewed only applications related to zoning, the city map and urban renewal and housing. In 1976, the list of applications subject to Commission review was enlarged and now includes, pursuant to the City Charter enacted in 1989, those items described below. The Charter's intent in requiring ULURP was to establish a standardized procedure whereby applications affecting the land use of the city would be publicly reviewed.

The Charter also established mandated time frames within which application review must take place. Key participants in the ULURP process are now the Department of City Planning (DCP) and the City Planning Commission (CPC), Community Boards, the Borough Presidents, the Borough Boards, the City Council and the Mayor.

ContentsThe Evolution of ULURPActions Requiring ULURPULURP Review Process
Filing of Application
Certification
Community Board Review
Borough President Review
City Planning Commission Review
City Council Review
Mayoral Review ULURP: diagram of the process

Related pages:
ULURP Rules: as adopted by the City Planning Commission on June 27, 1990, as amended
Land Use Review Applications: Instructions and forms for applications to the NYC Department of City Planning for approval of land use actions

The Evolution of ULURP
On November 4, 1975, the city's voters approved a new City Charter. Section 197-c of the new charter stated that "applications by any person or agency respecting the use, development, or improvement of real property subject to city regulation shall be reviewed pursuant to a uniform review procedure." That section further required the City Planning Commission to establish procedures for such review by June 1, 1976. On June 1, 1976, after a public review process, the Commission adopted these procedures, commonly known as ULURP. The procedures became applicable to applications filed with the City Planning Commission starting on July 1, 1976. Subsequent charter changes in 1989 (and consequent ULURP Rules changes) continued this process with changes to reflect the dissolution of the Board of Estimate and the assumption of land use powers by the City Council.

The establishment of ULURP reflected two trends underway in the 1950’s and 1960’s: the increasing involvement of the city's Community Boards in the development of the city and a substantial increase in community participation in many aspects of government. The boards originated in Manhattan in 1951, when Manhattan Borough President Robert F. Wagner established 12 Community Planning Councils, later known as Community Planning Boards. These boards were the city's first formal participatory vehicles for neighborhood groups. The planning councils were designed to advise the Borough President on local planning and budgetary matters. The other borough presidents created similar groups.

In the late 1960's, there was a significant upsurge in community participation, aided in part by a requirement of community participation in Federal programs such as Model Cities. In 1968, as required by the City Charter of 1963, the city was divided into 62 community districts and the role of community boards as advisors to the city government was statutorily established. Each board was given the responsibility for advising the City Planning Commission on "any matter relating to the development or welfare of its district." In 1968, Section 84 of the City Charter which established Community Planning Boards, was repealed and reenacted under Local Law 39. The law spelled out in greater detail the structure and power of the now renamed Community Boards. Local Law 39 required that city departments shall:
refer to the community boards all matters requiring public hearings by furnishing their calendars or notices of meeting to the board chairman.

note in their records the recommendations of community boards made at public hearings and the failure of community boards to make recommendations.

notify the community boards of actions taken subsequent to public hearings.

give the community boards such information necessary for their work which they shall require.
During the next decade, the boards gained stature as effective vehicles for the expression of local views on a wide variety of public issues, especially those related to land use.

The State Charter Revision Commission for New York City, established by legislation in 1972, viewed the boards as appropriate recipients of new responsibilities and duties in relation to land use and development and these were included in the new City Charter adopted by the voters on November 4, 1975. The city is now divided into 59 community districts, each represented by a Community Board with up to 50 members who live or work within the district. Board members, who serve without pay, are appointed by the Borough President, half on the recommendation of local City Council members.
Return to Contents

Actions Requiring ULURPSection 197-c, subsection a of the City Charter makes the following actions subject to ULURP:
Changes to the City Map. The City Map is the official adopted map of the city. It shows the location, dimension and grades of streets, parks, public places and certain public easements. The Director of City Planning is the custodian of the City Map.

Mapping of subdivisions or platting of land into streets, avenues or Public Places. This section has not been used since 1976.

Designation or change of zoning districts. The Zoning Resolution guides the development of the city and includes regulations dealing with use, bulk and parking. Zoning districts and boundaries are shown on the zoning maps and identify the permitted use, density, height, setback, yard and other bulk regulations and parking requirements for development on individual sites. Changes to the zoning maps, including district designations and boundaries are subject to ULURP.

Amendments to the Zoning Resolution are not subject to ULURP but go through a similar public review process.

Special Permits within the Zoning Resolution requiring approval of the City Planning Commission (CPC). Special permits are discretionary approvals that can modify zoning controls such as use, bulk and parking. (Note: CPC authorizations pursuant to the Zoning Resolution are not subject to ULURP. Variances and Special Permits reviewed by the Board of Standards and Appeals are also not subject to ULURP.)

Site selection for capital projects. This includes the selection of sites for new city facilities such as sanitation garages, fire houses, libraries and sewage treatment plants. A capital project is the construction or acquisition of a public improvement classified as a capital asset of the City.

Revocable consents, requests for proposals and other solicitations or franchises, and major concessions. A franchise is a grant by an agency of a right to occupy or use the inalienable property of the city to provide a public service such as a private bus line or bus stop shelters. A revocable consent is a grant by the city, revocable at will, for private use on, over or under city property such as bridges over streets or street furniture. Revocable consents that the Department of City Planning has determined do not have land use impacts or implications are not subject to ULURP. (Note: sidewalk cafes are revocable consents that are reviewed pursuant to a process established in the city's Administrative Code. The City Planning Commission does not review such applications). A major concession is a grant made by an agency for the private use of city-owned property, and which has significant land use impacts and implications or which requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement. The City Planning Commission has established rules for determining if a concession is major and requires ULURP review.

Improvements in real property the costs of which are payable other than by the City.

Applications for such non-city improvements are rarely made.

Housing and urban renewal plans and project pursuant to city, state and federal laws. Urban Renewal Plans developed pursuant to the General Municipal Law (Article 15) are required to be reviewed by the Charter and State Law.
Sanitary or waterfront landfills.

Disposition of city owned property. This includes sale, lease or exchange of real property.
Acquisition of real property by the city. Office space acquisition is excluded and subject to a separate review pursuant to Section 195 of the City Charter.
Return to Contents

ULURP Review Process Filing of Application. An applicant must file a standardized Land Use Review Application and all required accompanying documentation with the Department of City Planning (DCP). Copies of all applications and accompanying material are sent to the affected Borough President, Community Board and the City Council within five business days of receipt. If the application involves land in more than one community district it is also sent to the appropriate borough board. The Borough Board is comprised of the Borough President, all Community Board chairs and City Council members within the affected borough.

Certification. DCP is responsible for certifying that the application is complete, and ready for public review through the ULURP process.

An application cannot be certified until DCP determines that the application includes all forms, plans and supporting documents that are necessary to address all issues related to the application. If the particular application is subject to environmental review, a negative declaration or a conditional negative declaration or a notice of completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be issued before an application can be certified. There is no mandated time by which this pre-certification review must be completed. The Charter permits applicants or the affected Borough President to appeal to CPC for certification after six months from the date of application submission.

Certified applications are sent within nine days to the affected Community Board, Borough President and the City Council and if appropriate, to the Borough Board.

Community Board Review. Within sixty (60) days of receiving the certified application, the Community Board is required to hold a public hearing and adopt and submit a written recommendation to CPC, the applicant, the Borough President and when appropriate, the Borough Board. The ULURP rules include provisions relating to the notice and conduct of a Community Board public hearing. ULURP provisions also govern the quorum, vote and content for a Community Board recommendation. If a Community Board fails to act within its time limit or waives its right to act, the application proceeds to the next level of review.

Borough President Review. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a Community Board recommendation, or if the Community Board fails to act, within thirty (30) days of the expiration of the Community Board's review period, the Borough President shall submit a written recommendation to the City Planning Commission. If an application involves land in more than one community district, the Borough Board may (within the Borough President's review period) also review and submit a recommendation to CPC. If the Borough President fails to act within the time limit, the application proceeds to CPC.

City Planning Commission Review. CPC must hold a public hearing and approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the application within 60 days of the expiration of the Borough President's review period. City Planning Commission hearings are generally held twice a month on Wednesdays in Spector Hall at 22 Reade Street. Adoption of a CPC report approving, modifying or disapproving an application requires an affirmative vote of seven commissioners. If the Borough President has recommended against an application for site selection, disposition of city owned property or acquisition and has recommended an alternative site pursuant to the fair share provisions of the Charter (section 204), then nine affirmative votes are required. CPC then files copies of its decision with the City Council. In most cases, disapproval of an application by CPC is final and terminates ULURP. Disapproved applications for urban renewal plans are subject to Council review. In addition, disapproved applications for special permits, zoning text changes and zoning map changes that the Mayor has certified as necessary are subject to review by the City Council. (Note: No "certificate of necessity" has been issued by any mayor since ULURP went into effect).

City Council Review. The City Council does not automatically review all ULURP actions that are approved by CPC. The Charter requires the Council to review certain actions, some only under special circumstances, and makes provision for the Council to elect to review other actions.

The City Council automatically reviews (Mandatory Review):
zoning map changes; zoning text changes (not subject to ULURP but subject to Charter section 200 and 201); housing and urban renewal plans; disposition of residential buildings, except to non-profit companies for low-income housing.

The Council may elect to review the following by voting to take jurisdiction within 20 days after CPC files its report (Council "call-up"):
- City Map changes;
- maps of subdivisions or plattings;
- zoning special permits;
- revocable consents, franchise RFP’s, and major concessions;
- non-City public improvements;
- sanitary and waterfront landfills;
- disposition of commercial or vacant property;
- disposition of residential buildings to nonprofit companies for low-income housing;
- acquisition of real property; and
- site selection.

Applications disapproved by the Community Board and Borough President (Triple no):
An application which is subject to elective review by the Council, will be reviewed if that application was disapproved by the Community Board and Borough President, was approved or approved with modifications by the City Planning Commission, and the Borough President files an objection to CPC approval with the Council and CPC within 5 days of receipt of CPC's approval.

Within 50 days of receipt of the CPC report on an application that is either subject to mandatory review, is "called-up" by the Council, or is a "triple no" application, the Council must hold a public hearing, and approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the decision of the City Planning Commission.

If, during the course of its 50-day review period, the Council decides it wants to approve an application with a modification, it can do so only by referring the proposed modification back to CPC. CPC must then determine if the modification is of such significance that additional environmental review is necessary or that additional review pursuant to ULURP is required. If CPC determines that additional review is needed, the Council may not adopt the modification. If no additional review is needed, the Council can adopt the application with the modification. When the Council proposes a modification, CPC has 15 days to make its determination and during that period the City Council's 50-day clock is stopped.

A City Council action approving, approving with modifications or disapproving most CPC actions, requires a majority vote of the Council. Urban Renewal Plans that have been disapproved by CPC can only be approved by a 3/4 vote of the Council.

If the Council fails to act within its review period, the Council shall be deemed to have approved the decision of the City Planning Commission.

Mayoral Review. Mayoral approval is not required. A decision by the City Council to approve or disapprove a land use application is considered to be final unless the Mayor elects to veto a Council action within 5 days of the vote. The Council, by a 2/3 vote, can override a Mayor's veto of its decision within 10 days of the veto.

Applications approved by CPC that the Council did not assume jurisdiction or act on within its 50 day review can also be vetoed by the Mayor within 5 days of the expired Council time period. The Council , by a 2/3 vote, can override a Mayor's veto of the CPC decision within ten days of the veto.

Return to Contents
ULURP graphic:
The ULURP process is graphically shown in a diagram in PDF format (22K).
To view and print the graphic file, you will need the most recent version of the Adobe Acrobat Reader. The pdf file has been optimized for Adobe Acrobat Reader version 4.0 to save significantly on file size and download time. Earlier versions of the Reader will not view these files correctly. The Adobe Acrobat Reader is available for free downloading.

Related pages:
ULURP Rules: as adopted by the City Planning Commission on June 27, 1990, as amended
Land Use Review Applications: Instructions and forms for applications to the NYC Department of City Planning for approval of land use action
ULURP Fees
CEQR Fees