CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project Page 22-97
Table 22-26: Alternative 2 – Overall Space Program for Phase I
BUILDING FUNCTIONS1
Total
GSF Lab Office
Building
Support Amenities Vivarium
Core Facilities Mechanical Space, etc. CCNY Science Building 163,107 63,416 20,258 1,762 0 0 2,642 75,029 ASRC I Building 136,408 47,143 18,415 1,473 6,629 0 0 62,748 Total Shared Space2 115,138 24,248 8,083 5,596 0 12,435 11,813 52,963 Phase I Total 414,653 134,807 46,756 8,830 6,629 12,435 14,455 190,740 Notes: 1
The area breakdown by building functions are approximate and reflect programmed percentages. Final construction drawings may vary. The building function categories included in the table are further defined below.
Lab: Research laboratories, laboratory support areas and linear equipment room;
Office: Enclosed offices, open office work stations and office support areas;
Building Support: Central data room, material storage, shipping/receiving, operation and maintenance office and work rooms;
Amenities: Entrance lobbies, auditorium and café;
Vivarium: Animal holding space, procedure space and vivarium support;
Core Facilities: Clean room laboratory, NMR imaging, electron microscope images and MRI;
Mechanical Space, etc.: Mechanical and electrical rooms, toilets, elevators, interstitial space, circulation, stairs, penthouse and wall construction.2
“Total shared space” includes shared ground-floor level and cellar spaces that would be developed in Phase I of the Proposed Project.
Source: Flad and Associates, Inc., 2007.
This alternative involves as-of-right development, like the Proposed Project, and would not require zoning changes or actions in order to construct the proposed science research buildings. Since the new buildings would be consistent with the existing zoning of the Project Site and that of the primary and secondary study areas, Alternative 2 would not result in significant adverse zoning impacts.
Public Policy. Public policy that is relevant to the Project Site and primary and secondary study areas, has been presented in Chapter 3, Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy. Similar to the Proposed Project, Alternative 2 would directly support several of the objectives that have been set forth in the draft 197-a plans for Community Boards 9 and 10, and would not hinder the attainment of the recommended actions presented in either of these plans. Similar to the Proposed Project, the design of Alternative 2 is expected to incorporate green building design criteria. Thus, this alternative would be consistent with a major component of the PlaNYC A Greener, Greater New York and the Manhattan Borough President’s 2006 Strategic Policy Statement. Since this alternative would incorporate New York State-mandated sustainable design performance standards that require improvements in the energy efficiency of new construction, it would further support PlaNYC’s energy-related goals. In addition, because Alternative 2 would increase the density of development on the Development Parcel, it also would be supportive of PlaNYC’s goal to utilize existing land more effectively. Within the open space section of PlaNYC, a new
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York Draft Environmental Impact Statement
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project Page 22-98
ball field is identified as being proposed on the South Campus. It should be noted that CCNY and CUNY did not participate in developing PlaNYC, have not endorsed this proposal, and currently have no plans to include a new ball field on the Project Site as identified in that document. Like the other build alternatives and the Proposed Project, this alternative would not conflict with the recommendations presented in the 2007 Statement of District Needs for Community District 9, nor would it conflict with the goals and objectives of the Upper Manhattan EZ or the Manhattan Borough President’s Strategic Policy Statement.
Socioeconomic Conditions
Similar to the Proposed Project, Alternative 2 would develop modern, efficient research facilities on the South Campus that would benefit the faculty, staff, and students of CCNY and the CUNY system. This alternative, like the Proposed Project, would not result in significant adverse changes to the current socioeconomic patterns exhibited by the study area, as discussed below.
Alternative 2, like the Proposed Project, would allow CCNY and the CUNY system as a whole to grow and strengthen its science programs. Construction of the proposed science research buildings also would afford CUNY/CCNY with the opportunity to achieve the goals identified in the “Decade of Science” mission statement in terms of attracting and retaining a highly-skilled, versatile faculty roster, continuing to grow its science programs, and recruiting more women and minorities into the sciences. Similar to the Proposed Project, Alternative 2 would help CCNY and the CUNY system to maintain its standing as one of the nation’s most diverse higher learning institutions. With the construction of this alternative, CUNY/CCNY would be able to advance objectives that are critical to the institution’s prestige and ability to compete within a highly-competitive global academic climate. The operation of Alternative 2 would help CCNY/CUNY attract students, secure grant funding and recruit or retain academic and research professors.
Population and Housing. Permanent significant adverse impacts, either direct or indirect, to study area residents or the existing housing stock are not anticipated to result from the operation of this alternative. No significant adverse impact to existing residential activities within the study area would result from the operation of Alternative 2.
Economic Activities: Business and Employment Impacts. Commercial establishments in the study area would likely benefit from an increase of students, researchers, and other workers to the area during the construction and operational phases of Alternative 2. No significant impact to existing economic activities within the study area would result from the operation of this alternative.
Alternative 2 would result in a small yet beneficial impact on the study area economy, since only a slight increase in employment would occur. Like the Proposed Project, the operation of this alternative is expected to generate an additional 117 new workers (security, maintenance, faculty, technicians, and office staff, etc.). It is estimated that the total impact of the new hiring would bring an additional $11.6 million into the New York, Northern New Jersey, and Long Island MSA economy, which is capable of supporting 258 jobs directly and indirectly throughout the region.
Direct and Indirect Displacement. There would be no residential displacement as a result of Alternative 2. Additionally, there would be no direct commercial displacement in this alternative. The temporary indirect displacement of certain research activities would be expected to occur at NYSBC during construction of this alternative, as outlined below.
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York Draft Environmental Impact Statement
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project Page 22-99
Potential Effects on NYSBC. In Alternative 2, the proposed buildings would be sited approximately 200 feet from the NYSBC facility at its nearest point. As discussed in Chapter 20, Construction Impacts, NYSBC has indicated that excavation and construction activities that would occur within 300 feet of NYSBC could impact its equipment and operations.39 Construction-related activities within 300 feet of NYSBC that would cause a disruption of research activities at NYSBC are anticipated to have a duration of approximately 1.25 months, which is less than the approximate 2.5-month period of disruption associated with construction of the Proposed Project. During the period of interruption, researchers would be required to adjust research activities as outlined below.
Cryo Electron Microscopes. During construction of Alternative 2 within 300 feet of NYSBC, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., NYSBC’s CEMs would be inoperable due to construction- realted noise and vibration. These instruments would not be required to be turned off or recalibrated after daily construction is completed. NYSBC operates 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week, as noted in Chapter 4, Socioeconomic Conditions. Therefore, CEMs could be utilized throughout the period of excavation within 300 feet by the use of equipment during hours when construction activities are not ongoing (e.g., at night or on weekends).
Accordingly, CEM-dependent researchers would be required to adjust their work schedules during construction hours, which would result in a disruption in normal work-day routines and possibly a loss of productivity. The availability of CEM equipment on weekends and evenings provides an option for those who would prefer to continue their research activities at NYSBC during the temporary disruption period. Since the instruments would only be inoperable during construction hours while excavation activities within 300 feet of NYSBC are ongoing, no permanent or adverse impacts to researchers utilizing these instruments are anticipated. However, further coordination would be required to perform screening samples on the 120-kV CEM over a 2.5-day period, a process that is anticipated to commence within the next six months.40
Of the four stages involved in the preparation and running of specimens, only one stage (the actual running of the specimen) physically requires the use of the CEM. Sample preparation, screening samples, and data analysis can all be performed as usual at the NYSBC facility during construction hours. The rescheduling of CEM use would be a disruption to NYSBC staff and affiliated researchers, but it is expected that most research activities would continue. Researchers using these instruments after normal business hours would need permission from NYSBC and would have to take a safety course led by FDNY.
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometers. During excavation of Alternative 2 within approximately 300 feet of NYSBC, results from NMR instruments housed in the facility may be compromised. No recalibration to these instruments is anticipated since no shutdown would be required. However, it is anticipated that NMRs would be inoperable since the running time for samples is generally
39
As per NYSBC criteria, it is assumed for purposes of this analysis that excavation within 300 feet of NYSBC would compromise the use of vibration-sensitive equipment. This assumption is based upon the results of the preliminary analysis provided by NYSBC to DASNY in correspondence from Willa Appel, PhD., Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer, New York Structural Biology Center to Jack D. Homkow, Director, Office of Environmental Affairs, Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, August 7, 2006.
40
March 26, 2007 correspondence from Willa Appel, Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer, NYSBC to Joanna Oliver, Environmental Manager, DASNY stated that this instrument will be performing this function within six months. However, at present, the sample screening robot that will be used to perform these screens has been ordered and is expected to be delivered within six months.
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York Draft Environmental Impact Statement
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project Page 22-100
longer than the period during which construction would not be ongoing. The period of disruption within 300 feet would be approximately 2.25 months if hoe ramming is used for excavation, and 1.25 months if a combination of hoe ramming and controlled blasting is used.
Chapter 4, Socioeconomic Conditions, describes the NMR instruments and the quarterly scheduling required for the use of each instrument. Each of the ten consortium institutions has access to each NMR for at least one week during the 13-week quarter. The construction schedule for Alternative 2 would disrupt less than one quarterly NMR cycle. The number of experiments performed during a typical quarter varies since some experiments last up to a week.
Depending on the stage of research, some researchers would be more dependent on the instruments and resolution levels than others. As such, other local facilities with NMRs – which include some consortium member institutions, including CCNY — could potentially absorb additional experiments during the period in which instruments would be inoperable.
Certain other regional or national facilities might be able to accommodate some of the temporary demand for NMRs. There are several national facilities, including some with 900 MHz NMR that accept samples via mail and run them for off-site researchers. There is a software program available which allows researchers to remotely program the NMR to perform desired tests. Under such circumstances, the affected researcher would, nevertheless, require someone to place the specimen in the NMR.
Given scheduling restraints, there would only be a small number of researchers who might lose time on the 900 MHz NMR during the period of interruption. As it is the highest resolution NMR available, the demand for its use by research teams is significant. Facilities with the 900 MHz NMR are not located in the region; therefore, researchers currently working with the 900 MHz NMR would either look to other facilities across the country or focus on other elements of their research. Typically, researchers that are largely dependent on the 900 MHz NMR are well known throughout the structural biology profession. While the demand for 900 MHz NMRs is high, select researchers might be able to be accommodated by other facilities during the disruption.
The effects of a short-term interruption of NMR-related research activities would differ depending on the researcher, the stage of their research, and their immediate need for continuous use of instruments during the period of interruption. During the disruption researchers would be able to adjust to the disruption and focus on other elements of their work that would not require the use of the higher resolution NMRs at NYSBC, would put elements of their research on hold until instruments are fully operational, or would utilize other laboratories that could potentially accommodate them during this time. Researchers might be able to perform elements of their research on other lower-resolution NMRs at the consortium or other institutions. For those researchers at a critical stage in their work during the period of interruption, the interruption might affect their ability to meet existing deadlines and grant requirements, to advance research promptly, or to pursue grant monies for follow-up work.
Summary of Potential Effects on NYSBC. Analysis results indicate that noise, vibration, air quality and EMFs that would be generated by the operation of the Proposed Project or the build alternatives would not significantly affect NYSBC. However, construction activities would temporarily disrupt certain research activities at NYSBC. The duration of disruption varies by alternative. NYSBC has advised that excavation within 300 feet of its site could result in vibration effects that may affect the operation of some of the sensitive, highly-specialized research equipment that is housed in the facility. Operations at NYSBC are expected to resume in full once the initial blasting and excavation activities
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York Draft Environmental Impact Statement
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project Page 22-101
within 300 feet of NYSBC have been completed. Since the NYSBC facility provides a unique function and the disruption would be short term, it is not anticipated that consortium institutions would withdraw their membership causing the dissolution of the consortium. Therefore, long-term and significant adverse impacts to NYSBC and its affiliated parties are not anticipated as the underlying siting and cost factors that gave purpose and mission to NYSBC facility would still be present. Regarding temporary disruption to NYSBC activities during limited portions of the construction period, it is anticipated that NYSBC would receive appropriate financial compensation for the period during which activities would be interrupted. Negotiations between NYSBC and CUNY to minimize the short-term economic impacts incurred by the construction of the Proposed Project are ongoing (see Chapter 4, Socioeconomic Conditions).
Community Facilities
Similar to the Proposed Project, Alternative 2 would not physically displace any community facilities or services within 800 feet of the Project Site. No residential population would be added under this alternative. Therefore, a substantial increase in the demand for community facilities would not be generated and indirect effects would not occur. Thus, like the Proposed Project and build alternatives, significant adverse impacts to community facilities or services would not result from Alternative 2. Like the Proposed Project, this alternative would result in substantial improvements to CCNY, a community facility.
Open Space and Recreational Facilities
Like the Proposed Project, Alternative 2 would not result in direct or indirect effects to publicly- accessible open space resources and recreational facilities, and would not increase the residential user population. The alteration, displacement, or loss of existing public open space resources would not result from this alternative. Similar to the Proposed Project, a central Campus Green would be developed in Alternative 2, comprised of landscaped green space with benches and trees and surrounding walkways. This Campus Green would serve as an on-campus, passive open space resource for students, workers and visitors. It is anticipated that many of the new workers associated with the new buildings would have their passive open space needs, during lunch hour for example, served by this central green space.
Like the Proposed Project, 456 additional workers would be added to the Project Site in Alternative 2. While this new worker population would create additional demand for passive open space, it would not be large enough to result in a significant decrease in the open space ratio. As discussed in Chapter 6, Open Space and Recreational Facilities, the nonresidential passive open space ratio would remain well above the recommended 0.15 acre per 1,000 nonresidents,41 and the passive open space ratio for the combined (worker and residential) population would remain below the planning goal but above the 0.3 acre per 1,000 residents that typically indicates a deficit of residential passive open space.42
41
CEQR guidelines indicate that 0.15 acre of passive open space per 1,000 nonresidents represents a reasonable amount of open space (CEQR Technical Manual, p. 3D-5).
42
For planning purposes and large-scale proposals, the city seeks to attain a planning goal of 2.5 acres of open space per 1,000 residents, with 80 percent (2.0 acres) of active open space and 20 percent (0.5 acre) of passive open space per 1,000 residents, if appropriate and feasible. However, the median community district ratio for the city is 1.5 acres of city parkland per 1,000 residents and typically is considered adequate; open space ratios below 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents generally indicate an open space shortfall (CEQR Technical Manual, pp. 3D-5, 3D-13). Applying the same planning goal breakdown of active versus passive open space (80 percent and 20 percent, respectively), this assessment considers that 0.3 acre of passive open space per 1,000 residents is generally sufficient for a residential user population.
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York Draft Environmental Impact Statement
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project Page 22-102
Shadows
Like the Proposed Project and other build alternatives, Alternative 2 entails the construction of three buildings greater than 50 feet tall and would have the potential to cast additional shadows on publicly-accessible open space and sunlight-sensitive historic resources. Alternative 2 would construct one building that would be approximately 138.5 feet above grade and two buildings that would be approximately 160.5 feet above grade. Since the proposed buildings would be taller than the Proposed Project, Alternative 1 would result in relatively greater incremental shadows effects.
This section describes the results of the shadow analyses that were conducted for Alternative 2. Refer to Chapter 7, Shadows, for a description of the methodology used to evaluate the shadow impacts, as well as the screening analysis that identified and described the publicly-accessible open space and