Similar to the Proposed Project, Alternative 1 would develop modern, efficient research facilities on the South Campus that would benefit the faculty, staff, and students of CCNY and the CUNY system. Alternative 1 would support CCNY’s effort to remain competitive in today’s scientific fields and would help return CCNY to its status as one of the top research institutions in the United States. Since new research equipment and laboratories could not be accommodated in the existing Marshak Science Building or other existing CCNY facilities, the development of a new science building for CCNY was recommended. Similarly, construction of the ASRC Buildings would enable CUNY to compete within a highly-competitive global academic climate. The operation of the Proposed Project would help CCNY and CUNY attract students, secure grant funding and recruit or retain academic and research professors. Alternative 1 also would play an integral role in helping the CUNY system achieve its goals as outlined in the “Decade of Science.”
With the exception of one nighttime noise impact at the exterior wall of The Towers, Alternative 1 would not result in significant adverse immitigable environmental impacts. The traffic analysis findings indicate that the Amsterdam Avenue and West 125th Street intersection would experience potentially significant adverse impacts during the a.m. peak hour as a result of Alternative 1. However, the proposed mitigation measures would allow the impacted movements to operate at an LOS equal to or better than the LOS projected in the No Build Condition without affecting any approaches or movements that were not previously impacted. Therefore, the identified traffic impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level and no traffic impacts would remain significant as a result of this alternative.
This alternative, like the Proposed Project, would introduce stationary sources of noise (laboratory ventilation fans). Based on the design considered, the noise analysis indicates that this alternative would result in a significant and adverse environmental impact on exterior nighttime noise levels at noise receptor Site 8, The Towers (because the applicable 3.0-dBA increase impact guidance threshold would be exceeded). (Note that the noise assessment for the Proposed Project indicates that the Proposed Project would not significantly increase the nighttime noise levels at the exterior of The Towers.) The placement, type and height of the rooftop acoustical-louvered screens and the selection and location of fans would be completed as part of final design Alternative 1 (should it be selected). Depending on the final design, it is possible that the exterior nighttime noise impact at The Towers, could be lesser or greater than that calculated in the noise analysis. Thus, the potential exists for Alternative 1 to cause a significant unavoidable and immitigable adverse environmental impact on the exterior nighttime noise levels at The Towers. However, since Alternative 1 would be designed to comply with the octave band requirement of the New York City Noise Control Code, it is anticipated that exterior noise levels would be similar to those presented in the noise analysis, and with the inherent attenuation of the building, interior noise levels at The Towers would be expected to remain acceptable.
Alternative 1 would not meet the established goals and objectives of the Proposed Project as effectively as the Proposed Project. The linear alignment of the buildings would compromise the size of the floor plates in the CCNY Science Building and result in the need for an additional five stories on that building (relative to the Proposed Project) in order to accommodate the space program. Thus, in this alternative the CCNY Science Building would be 105 feet taller than in the Proposed Project. Relative to the Proposed Project, the scale of the CCNY Science Building in Alternative 1 would not be as consistent with the existing built environment of the campus. The CCNY Science Building would be almost 30 feet taller than the Marshak Science Building, the tallest existing campus building, and would be over 150 feet taller than the SAUDLA Building that would be situated immediately to the north. As such, the
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York Draft Environmental Impact Statement
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project Page 22-91
development of Alternative 1 would be less compatible with the existing Project Site and surrounding area than the Proposed Project and the other build alternatives.
The design of this alternative is not as flexible as that of the Proposed Project or the other build alternatives. In Alternative 1, the smaller floor plate sizes would be less efficient with respect to the use of space, since a typical floor plate could only house 15 laboratory modules (compared with 18 laboratory modules that could be accommodated by a larger floor plate). In addition, because the building arrangement is not triangulated (as in all other build alternatives), the common vivarium constructed as part of Phase I could not be effectively shared with the ASRC II Building and the construction of a second vivarium for that building would be required as part of Phase II of the Proposed Project. The need to duplicate the vivarium would represent a space redundancy (ineffective use of building space), and would increase the size and both construction and operational costs of this alternative. As a result, this alternative does not fully meet the objective of providing adaptable and flexible floor plates, and would not be able to support the evolving nature of scientific research over time as effectively as the Proposed Project.
Alternative 1 also is lacking in that it would not enable the development of a central Campus Green. While this alternative does include the creation of a Campus Green, it would not be centrally located and would be smaller (given that it would be one-sided and would be sited to maximize distance from the NYSBC facility). Furthermore, the greatest shadow impacts to St. Nicholas Park would occur in this alternative. Finally, the construction cost of this alternative is substantially greater (14 percent or $96,619,580 more) than that of the Proposed Project.
The positive aspect of this alternative is that it is the furthest away from the NYSBC facility relative to the Proposed Project and two other build alternatives. Thus, construction impacts to NYSBC in Alternative 1 would be relatively less than in the other build alternatives or the Proposed Project.
Alternative 2
Description of Alternative 2. As indicated in the Overview section of this chapter and illustrated in Figure 22-17, the arrangement of the three buildings in Alternative 2 represents a “mirror image” of the Proposed Project. In this alternative the 163,107-gsf CCNY Science Building and the 136,408-gsf ASRC I Building would be situated just north of The Towers and the 212,000-gsf ASRC II Building would be located immediately south of the SAUDLA Building. The CCNY Science Building would contain four stories and a mechanical penthouse in this alternative, and would be 138.5 feet tall (or at an elevation of 255.5 feet when the ground elevation of 117.0 feet is accounted for). Relative to the Proposed Project, the CCNY Science Building would be one story — approximately 20 feet — taller. Similar to the Proposed Project, each of the ASRC Buildings would be comprised of five stories and a mechanical penthouse, and would be 160.5 feet tall (or at an elevation of approximately 277.5 feet when factoring in the ground elevation). The shared ground-floor level and cellar would connect the three buildings and would house approximately 115,138 gsf, which is greater than that of Alternative 1 but 10,000 gsf less than that of the Proposed Project.
Relative to the Proposed Project, the full build-out of Alternative 2 includes approximately 30,000 more gsf of space and the CCNY Science Building would house one additional story. Like the Proposed Project, this alternative also includes the development of a central Campus Green between the CCNY Science Building and the ASRC Buildings, above the shared-ground floor level. The construction cost for this alternative is estimated at $744,649,168, which is approximately 9 percent (or $60,367,296)
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York Draft Environmental Impact Statement
CCNY Science Building/CUNY ASRC Project Page 22-92
more than the Proposed Project. Construction of Alternative 2 would take approximately 6 weeks longer than the Proposed Project to construct. Refer to Table 22-2 for the overall space program associated with Phase I of Alternative 2. See Figure 22-17 for a conceptual site plan of Alternative 2, and Figure 22-18 for the elevation profile of the proposed buildings (relative to the context of the existing built environment of the Project Site). Figure 22-19 exhibits the profile section of the CCNY Science Building and the ASRC I Building that would be constructed in Phase I, and Figure 22-20 illustrates the shared ground- floor level plan for Alternative 2.
Because each build alternative would generally satisfy the programmatic goals of the Proposed Project, the number of building users and new employees that would be generated by each build alternative, including Alternative 2, is the same as that of the Proposed Project. As shown in Table 2-1 of Chapter 2, Regulatory and Analytical Framework, up to 740 workers would use the new buildings. Of the 740 workers, 117 would be new employees (8 for the CCNY Science Building and 109 for the ASRC Buildings). Up to 339 of the 740 workers would be existing CUNY workers utilizing the ASRC Buildings on the CCNY campus and, therefore, would be new to the Project Site. Of the 740 workers, 284 would be existing CCNY employees who already work at the Project Site.
Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy
The effects of Alternative 2 on land use, zoning and public policy would be similar to the Proposed Project. Like the Proposed Project, three multi-story science research buildings would be built on the Development Parcel in this alternative. Similarly, the demolition of two existing structures, the removal of the athletic track and field facility, and the relocation (and conversion to natural gas) of the existing CCNY fleet vehicle fueling station also would occur. By constructing new, as-of-right facilities for CCNY and CUNY within the existing campus boundaries, Alternative 2 would comply and conform to existing zoning and land use patterns that exist in the surrounding neighborhood. Similar to the Proposed Project, significant adverse land use, zoning or public policy impacts would not result from Alternative 2, as summarized below.
Land Use. Alternative 2 would develop campus-related uses that are already well established as part of the community. The development of the 626,653-gsf Alternative 2 would add bulk to the South Campus but would not modify the existing use type of the Development Parcel, and would not affect existing land use patterns in the primary and secondary study areas. Two vacant buildings and the athletic track and field would be removed in this alternative and the density of development on the South Campus would increase, but the overall use of the land would not change. The new buildings would be buffered from the surrounding residential uses in the study area by the existing campus, and St. Nicholas Park would serve to further buffer the buildings from the residential areas that are situated east of the Project Site. The operation of science research buildings would be compatible with the surrounding land uses and developed character of the campus. No significant adverse impacts to land use in the primary or secondary study areas would result from Alternative 2.
Zoning. The entire Project Site is included in an R7-2 General Residence District, which permits and contains medium-density residential development as well as public educational uses that are classified as community facilities. As a permissible use situated on a parcel within an R7-2 General Residence District, the South Campus could be developed at a FAR of 6.5 and could contain up to 4,940,000 gsf of development. Taking into account the amount of new development that would occur by 2013 in Alternative 2 (as a result of the NYSBC Phase IV Project and the full build-out of Alternative 2), a zoning analysis indicates that an additional approximately 4,017,985 gsf of development would be permissible on the South Campus, as of right, under exiting zoning.
- ?? ? ? ???? ?3?5' /61 ?? 4- ?
P.S. 129 Mott School The Towers at CCNY New York Structural Biology Center Aaron Davis Hall SAUDLAThe Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Source: Figure 22-17 Potential Future Campus Development Potential Future Campus Development
Alternative 2: Conceptual Site Plan
CCNY Science Building/ CUNY ASRC Project
+320’-0” MARSHAK T.O. Bldg. +277’-6” ASRC T.O. Barrier +255’-6” CCNY T.O. Barrier
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Figure 22-18
CCNY Science Building/ CUNY ASRC Project Building Elevations in Alternative 2
Source: Flad / KPF / gpr
Source: Flad / KPF / gpr
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Alternative 2: Phase I Profile, Facing North
Figure 3-8 CCNY Science Building/ CUNY ASRC Project
Figure 22-19
CCNY Science Building ASRC I Building
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Alternative 2: Shared Ground Floor Level
Figure 3-8 CCNY Science Building/ CUNY ASRC Project
Figure 22-20
Source: Flad / KPF / gpr
Aaron Davis Hall NYSBC SAUDLA Building ASRC I Building CCNY Science Building The Towers ASRC II Building SWITCH GEAR SUBSTATION LOADING DOCK
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York Draft Environmental Impact Statement
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