Anna Natenzon

By the middle of November, in order to warn residents about how expansion will affect their streets, sanitation, air quality, and health of the residents, Columbia University will release an Environmental Impact Statement about its proposed new campus in Manhattanville. “Environment,” in this case, encompasses a myriad of aspects such as neighborhood character, building height, and noise to name a few.

When an organization, such as Columbia, wants to propose any land use changes to the City Planning Commission, it must release an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if the land use changes have the potential to cause environmental damage. The purpose of the EIS is to disclose to the community the potential damages, as well as how the project plans to mitigate these damages. If mitigation is not possible, then the EIS has to consider, though not necessarily institute, alternatives, such as eliminating parts of the project.

The process unfolds as follows. First, a draft EIS is composed and presented at a public meeting of Community Board 9, the most local form of government in the Manhattanville neighborhood, giving the public a chance to comment on it. At this point, Columbia must present various possible mitigations for damages. The final EIS is then prepared, which states the exact mitigation Columbia plans to execute; there is no legal mandate for the final EIS to incorporate commentary from the public.

The failure to hold an institution accountable for its negative environmental impact is the overriding problem with the EIS process. As the Gotham Gazette explained in a July 2004 article, “Contrary to common belief, the environmental impact statement doesn't stop anyone from doing something that damages the environment it forces them to publicly declare it. From the start the environmental review process was skillfully designed to get around potential legal challenges by environmentalists who charged that the impact on the environment wasn't considered, and from developers who would undermine environmental laws saying they interfere with their property rights.” In other words, the EIS may tell the Manhattanville residents that extensive periods of construction are unhealthy for the neighborhood, which already suffers asthma rates five times higher than the national average, but it does not oblige the University to take any extra steps to protect the community.

While the EIS will include Columbia's plans for new biotech facilities, it does not give community residents any viable means to protest the matter. Researching contagious diseases calls for the utmost safety precautions, but Columbia has previously been fined by the Environmental Protection Agency for improper scientific waste disposal. In 2002, the EPA filed complaints against Columbia for violations of federal and state hazardous waste requirements at their Morningside and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory campuses. Columbia was fined a $100,000 civil penalty and agreed to carry out three supplemental environmental projects as part of the settlement.

Columbia's plan is of particular environmental concern, because of its proposed biotech facilities. In biotechnological research, there are four levels of biological safety; the most innocuous is Level 1, while the most potentially harmful is Level 4. While Columbia has expressly stated that it will not build Level 4 facilities, the University does plan to build Level 3 facilities. The National Institute of Health defines biosafety Level 3 as “applicable to clinical, diagnostic, teaching, research, or production facilities in which work is done with indigenous or exotic agents which may cause serious or potentially lethal disease as a result of exposure by the inhalation route.” These laboratories would be located close to public housing projects and other residential buildings.

In addition to physical concerns of construction and biotech facilities, the EIS must address neighborhood character, which includes issues such as building height. If Manhattanville is re-zoned for Columbia's new campus, its floor to area ratio will remain at six, meaning that the average height of a building would have to be six stories. However, the University could easily circumvent the intent of this by buying open space and building high rises; the average height would still remain at six stories. High rise buildings would alter the neighborhood character. It is not that high-rise buildings are inherently destructive to a neighborhood's character; however the current Manhattanville residents have a right to determine the shape and environment of their developing neighborhood.

The EIS must also address issues such as land use, zoning, socioeconomic conditions, community facilities, open space, historical resources, hazardous materials, solid waste and sanitation, energy, air quality, transit, construction, and public health. The EIS must establish “reasonable worst-case development scenarios” and project future neighborhood conditions both with and without the proposed project. While proponents of expansion might argue that the current Manhattanville area, with its parking lots, manufacturing, garages, and gas stations, is not an environmental paradise, Columbia's plan will be compared to what the area would look like in 25 years under the Community Board 9's 197a plan.

The EIS and the Columbia's planned development are problematic in failing to take into account the Manhattanville community's voice and needs. Columbia recently agreed to include the Community Board 9's 197a plan in the EIS, which is a step in the right direction. The community's 197a plan emphasizes environmentally safe conditions and calls for green building standards. Columbia has a responsibility to the community in which it plans to build and should work with the community and alongside the 197a plan to guarantee that its plans do not endanger, but instead generate a healthy environment for Manhattanville.