TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project

A. INTRODUCTION
In November 2006, the New York State Urban Development Corporation, a public benefit
corporation of New York State doing business as Empire State Development (ESD), in cooperation
with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the City of New York (the City), issued
the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment
Project (the Project) in Brooklyn. The 2006 FEIS studied the potential for environmental impacts
with respect to the construction and operation of both Phase I and Phase II of the Project.
On March 28, 2014, ESD issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for
the Project, assessing the environmental impacts of a potential delay in Phase II construction of the
Project, a proposed shift of certain floor area from Phase I to Phase II of the Project, and a proposed
reduction in the number of parking spaces on the project site. On June 12, 2014, Empire State
Development (ESD) issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project.
In 2014, the project sponsors (affiliates of Forest City Ratner Companies [FCRC]) established a
Joint Venture with Greenland USA, a Shanghai-based company acquiring 70 percent of the
ownership interest in the Project. In December 2017, the Joint Venture was restructured to give
Greenland a 95% interest in future developments. In late 2018, the Joint Venture announced the
transfer of development rights to The Brodsky Organization for Building 15 and TF Cornerstone for
Buildings 12 and 13.
To date, the Arena, the new subway entrance and Buildings 2, 3, 11 and 14 have been completed.
The Brodsky Organization has commenced construction on Building 15. Construction at Building 4
(being developed by Greenland and The Brodsky Organization) has also commenced. The TF
Cornerstone sites, Buildings 12 and 13, are expected to commence construction in Q1 2020.
At this time, ESD is considering certain design and use modifications to Phase II project elements
(Proposed Modifications). Overall, the basic scale, function, and location of the Project would
remain unchanged under the Proposed Modifications. The Project would continue to serve the same
purpose and need identified in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS. The purpose of this Technical
Memorandum is to examine the Proposed Modifications and determine whether they would result in
any potential significant adverse environmental impacts not previously identified and considered in
the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS. ESD is the lead agency for the environmental review of the Project.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS
The Proposed Modifications, either individually or together, would not result in any significant
adverse environmental impacts not previously identified and considered in the 2006 FEIS and 2014
FSEIS. Therefore, no Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is required in connection with
ESD’s review and consideration of the Proposed Modifications.

1 August 2019
Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project

B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS

The Proposed Modifications that are the subject of this Technical Memorandum include the
following: (1) allowance for indoor recreational facility use on the ground floor and cellar levels of
Building 12 and Building 13 on Block 1129, (2) a reduction in overall parking, (3) the transfer of
10,000 gsf of floor area from Building 15 to Building 12, (4) the location of parking ventilation
structures within the Project’s publicly accessible open space areas, (5) a shift in the design envelope
previously analyzed for Building 5 towards Atlantic Avenue and away from the Project’s publicly
accessible open space areas to the south, (6) a reduction and relocation of required bicycle parking,
(7) a reduction in the width of the North-South Walkways, and (8) a change in the distinctive
architectural design element required on the façades of Buildings 9, 12 and 13.

BUILDING 12 AND BUILDING 13 GROUND AND CELLAR FLOORS—INDOOR

RECREATIONAL FACILITY USE ON RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS
The Proposed Modifications would permit indoor recreational facility use on the ground floor and
cellar levels of Building 12 and Building 13 on Block 1129. It was previously assumed that there
would be approximately 25,298 gsf of local retail use in these buildings (12,649 gsf of local retail in
each building). The local retail space previously assumed in these buildings would be reduced from
approximately 25,300 gsf by approximately 21,900 gsf, resulting in the planned inclusion of a total
of approximately 3,400 gsf of local retail space in Buildings 12 and 13. Approximately 9,000 gsf of
ground-level space would be combined with approximately 96,000 gsf of cellar space to build out
approximately 105,000 gsf of indoor recreational use. This recreational space would be subdivided
into a Fitness Center of approximately 45,000 gsf and a Field House of approximately 60,000 gsf.
The Proposed Modifications would not affect the amount of commercial office space approved for
the Project. Additionally, while the Proposed Modifications would permit recreational use below
grade, it would not result in additional below-grade square footage on the Project site not considered
in the 2006 FEIS. The Project analyzed in the 2006 FEIS included approximately 3,670 below-grade
parking spaces. In 2014, the parking requirement for the Project was reduced to 1,200 spaces (a
reduction of 2,470 spaces). Using a standard metric of approximately 200 square feet/parking space,
this represents approximately 500,000 square feet of below-grade space that would not be built out.
In comparison, the Proposed Modifications would include 96,000 square feet of below-grade use.

REDUCTION IN PARKING
As part of the 2014 FSEIS, the Project’s accessory parking requirements, established to
accommodate the demand from arena attendees and new residents, was reduced to 1,200 spaces. The
Proposed Modifications would further reduce the Project’s parking requirements to 1,000 spaces.

TRANSFER OF 10,000 GSF FROM BUILDING 15 TO BUILDING 12

The Proposed Modifications would result in the transfer of approximately 10,000 gsf of unused floor
area from Building 15 to Building 12. The maximum allowable square footage on the Building 12
site would increase from 317,185 gsf to 327,185 gsf. There would be no change to the design
envelope of Building 12 established under the GPP.

ADDITIONAL PARKING VENTILATION STRUCTURES

The 2014 FSEIS assumed that the ventilation exhausts associated with the Project’s underground
parking on Block 1129 would be located on the building facades facing sidewalks. The Proposed

August 2019 2
 Technical Memorandum

Modifications would locate two ventilation exhaust structures within the Project’s publicly
accessible open space areas. These structures would be designed for integration into the design of the
Project’s publicly accessible open space, and are proposed to be located within the open space area
to the east of Building 14 (to vent exhaust air from below-grade parking and indoor recreational
spaces) and adjacent to the plaza to the west of Building 11 (to vent exhaust air from below-grade
parking).

MODIFICATION OF BUILDING 5 DESIGN ENVELOPE

The Proposed Modifications to the GPP Design Guidelines would involve a modest shift in the
massing of Building 5 toward Atlantic Avenue and away from the publicly accessible open space
south of Building 5 on the project site, and a slight extension of the building envelope in the east-
west direction (see Figure 1). This modification would address several site constraints.
The Proposed Modifications to Building 5’s design envelope would slightly increase the building’s
design envelope along Atlantic Avenue, reduce required setbacks for the building’s base, middle,
and upper sections along the Atlantic Avenue and 6th Avenue facades, and allow building piers to
extend into the required setback area adjacent to Atlantic Avenue, and into the required Atlantic
Avenue sidewalk width. The Proposed Modifications would not alter the proposed floor area of
Building 5, nor would they increase its height.

REDUCTION AND RELOCATION OF REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING

The Proposed Modifications would eliminate the requirement for 400 indoor bicycle parking spaces
for Arena attendees, and include a requirement for at least 100 bicycle parking spaces. The bicycle
parking spaces would be made available in two locations: 56 new spaces would be provided on the
Arena Block adjacent to the Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center Station, and 44 existing spaces at the
Atlantic Terminal Mall would be made available to Arena attendees (see Figure 2). As the 56 new
bicycle parking spaces on the Arena Block would be within the footprint of proposed Building 1,
these spaces would be relocated on the Arena Block as necessary at the time of Building 1
construction.

MAJOR NORTH-SOUTH WALKWAYS – WIDTH REDUCTION

The Proposed Modifications would reduce the minimum width of the paved areas within the North-
South Walkways from 16 feet to 12 feet (and if split into two or more pathways at any point along its
length, the minimum width of each resulting pathway would be reduced from 12 feet to 8 feet). This
modification would allow for more permeable lawn and planting beds. This reduced walkway width
would conform with New York State Parks and New York City Department of Parks and Recreation
design standards for shared use trails, and New York City Department of Transportation sidewalk
requirements in low-volume and high-volume commercial areas.

DISTINCTIVE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ELEMENT

The Proposed Modifications would change the distinctive architectural design element required on
the façades of Buildings 9, 12 and 13. This modification would limit the distinctive element to two
sides of the rear façades of the buildings rather than all three sides of the rear façades. This would
create a visual break that is integrated into the massing and materiality of the balance of the building
while continuing to be consistent with the intent of the previous requirement, which was to create a
visual interest that ties the three buildings together.

3 August 2019
Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project

C. POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS FROM THE

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
The purpose of the analysis that follows is to assess, with respect to each relevant technical area,
whether the Proposed Modifications may result in any significant adverse environmental impacts not
previously identified and considered in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS.

LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY

With the Proposed Modifications, the Project would continue to be governed by the GPP’s Design
Guidelines, which serve in lieu of the underlying zoning, and would continue to conform to the
height and bulk limits established by the Design Guidelines. With the Proposed Modifications, the
Phase II program would remain substantially unchanged from that assessed in the 2006 FEIS and
2014 FSEIS. As stated in the Project’s Design Guidelines, “[c]ommercial [uses], community facility
uses, and residential uses, including accessory uses,… shall be permitted anywhere on the ground
floor of the buildings fronting on Dean Street.” The Proposed Modifications would be consistent
with providing commercial uses on the ground floor along Dean Street (including local retail and
ground-floor indoor recreational facility use), and would permit indoor recreational facility use on
the cellar levels of Building 12 and Building 13 on Block 1129; previously, the cellar levels would
have been limited to parking uses. With the Proposed Modifications, the Project as a whole would
continue to introduce publicly accessible open space and uses consistent with those found in the
surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Project with the Proposed Modifications would continue
to result in ground floor uses that would activate the nearby sidewalks and be consistent with the
previously approved Project. Overall, once complete, the Project with the Proposed Modifications
would transform the project site into a mixed-use development that would be compatible with the
surrounding area. Therefore, there would be no changes to the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS
conclusions that upon completion, the Project would not result in significant adverse impacts with
respect to land use, zoning, and public policy as a result of the Proposed Modifications.

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
The 2014 FSEIS concluded that while the Project would result in the direct displacement of
residents, businesses, and institutions, their displacement would not significantly alter the
socioeconomic conditions in the study area and would not result in significant adverse
socioeconomic impacts. The Proposed Modifications would not result in any direct displacement of
residences, businesses or institutions not already identified in the 2014 FSEIS, and therefore would
not affect the conclusions of the analyses presented in the 2014 FSEIS with respect to direct
residential or business and institutional displacement. Additionally, with the Proposed
Modifications, the Phase II program would remain substantially unchanged from that assessed in the
2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS and therefore there would be no significant adverse impacts with respect
to indirect residential, indirect business or institutional displacement, or adverse effects on specific
industries not previously identified and considered in the 2006 FEIS or 2014 FSEIS.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The Proposed Modifications would not introduce an additional residential population or result in the
displacement of police stations, fire stations, EMS facilities, or other community facilities.
Therefore, the Proposed Modifications would not have the potential to result in any significant
adverse impacts to Community Facilities not previously identified and considered in the 2006 FEIS
or 2014 FSEIS.

August 2019 4
 Technical Memorandum

OPEN SPACE
The Proposed Modifications would result in several changes that would affect future open space
created by the Project: parking ventilation exhausts that were assumed in the 2014 FSEIS to be
located facing a sidewalk would be located to two vent structures within the Project’s publically
accessible open space areas; the development envelope for Building 5 would be shifted northwards
towards Atlantic Avenue and away from the Project’s publically accessible open space areas to the
south of Building 5; the minimum width of the paved areas within the North-South Walkways would
be reduced; and the distinctive architectural design element required on the façades of Buildings 9,
12 and 13 that would be visible from the proposed open space would be changed. The Proposed
Project would continue to include not less than eight acres of publicly accessible open space.
As discussed under “Air Quality” below, the proposed location of two of the parking ventilation
exhausts to within the Project’s publicly accessible open space area would not result in significant
adverse air quality impacts, and this space would be fully usable by the public once completed.
Likewise the shifting of the development envelope for Building 5 to the north would not adversely
affect the Project’s publicly accessible open space area to the south, and would instead allow more
light and air to reach that area.
The Proposed Modifications would not result in an increase in the residential population and would
not result in a substantial increase in the non-residential population introduced to the open space
study areas evaluated in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS, and therefore would not alter the previous
conclusion, which determined that Phase II of the Project would not result in significant adverse
impacts related to open space upon the Project’s completion. The 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS
identified a temporary significant adverse open space impact in the non-residential (¼-mile) study
area during Phase II construction. This impact would not be altered by the Proposed Modifications,
and would continue until the Phase II open space is phased in, as discussed in the 2014 FSEIS.
With the Proposed Modifications, the reduced North-South Walkway widths would not affect the
analyses presented in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS. In the north-south direction, the open space
would continue to extend to Atlantic Avenue with entrances located across from the terminus of each
of the neighborhood streets to the north. The open space would also continue to extend to Pacific and
Dean Streets, linking the project site to Fort Greene and Clinton Hill to the north both visually and
functionally. Additionally, the change in the distinctive architectural design element on the façades
of Buildings 9, 12 and 13 would not affect the conclusions of the analyses presented in the 2006
FEIS and 2014 FSEIS.
Overall, the Proposed Modifications would not result in any significant adverse open space impacts
not previously identified in the 2006 FEIS or 2014 FSEIS.

SHADOWS
As described in the 2006 FEIS, the Design Guidelines envelopes were developed to provide
flexibility and allow for the final design of the individual buildings to evolve as the Project is built
out. The 2006 FEIS shadows analysis was prepared using a 3D model of the Project that depicted
building forms that were guided by the Design Guideline envelopes.
The 2006 FEIS identified significant adverse shadow impacts on an open space resource at the
Atlantic Terminal Houses (primarily from Buildings 7, 8, and 9, with some contribution from other
buildings including Building 5). The 2014 FSEIS did not alter these conclusions. Apart from the
change in the distinctive architectural design element on the façade of Building 9, which would not
alter the conclusions of the 2006 FEIS shadow assessment, the Proposed Modifications would not

5 August 2019
Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project

result in any changes to Buildings 7, 8 and 9. A screening assessment using three-dimensional

computer modeling software and data were used to examine whether the minor changes to the
massing of Building 5 with the Proposed Modifications would result in any substantial change to the
Project’s incremental shadow effects on the open space resource at the Atlantic Terminal Houses.
The Atlantic Terminal Houses development is located three blocks east of Building 5 and across
Atlantic Avenue. Building 5 as analyzed in the 2006 FEIS would not cast incremental shadow on the
Atlantic Terminal Houses recreation areas on the December 21 or the June 21 analysis days. It would
cast approximately 50 minutes of incremental shadow on a portion of the recreation areas in the late
afternoon of the March 21/September 21 analysis day (adding to more substantial incremental
shadows from other proposed buildings) and a very small area of incremental shadow on the May
6/August 6 day in the late afternoon (along with incremental shadows from other proposed
buildings) lasting for approximately 25 minutes. On the March 21/September 21 analysis day, with
the proposed minor shift northward toward Atlantic Avenue and slight expansion in the east-west
dimension, the upper floors of the modified Building 5 would cast slightly more shadow on the
northern half of the recreation areas during the late afternoon; the increase in duration would be less
than 5 minutes. On the May 6/August 6 analysis day, the 25-minute duration of incremental shadow
from the modified Building 5 would not change, and the extent would be minimally larger. Overall,
the Proposed Modifications would not result in a substantial change to the shadow effects on the
Atlantic Terminal Houses recreational areas, and the required mitigation to improve that open space
would remain.
Additionally, the 2006 FEIS determined that incremental shadows on the Church of the Redeemer
from the proposed development on Site 5 would reduce light through its stained glass windows. The
2014 FSEIS did not alter these conclusions. While the Proposed Modifications would not result in
any changes with respect to Site 5, and incremental shadow from Building 5 as analyzed in the 2006
FEIS did not reach this resource on any analysis day, it should be noted that the Church of the
Redeemer has since been demolished (independent of the Project) and therefore the mitigation
measures stipulated in the MEC to offset and address the shadow impacts to this resource are no
longer needed.
The 2006 FEIS also showed that Building 5 would also cast incremental shadow on South Oxford
Park (located approximately a block to the north), for approximately two hours in the early afternoon
on the winter analysis day. On the March 21/September 21 analysis day, as shown in the 2006 FEIS,
only a small area of incremental shadow from the uppermost floors of Building 5 would pass across
the southern corner of the open space in the early afternoon. The 2006 FEIS concluded that the
Project would not result in significant adverse shadow impacts to South Oxford Park on any analysis
day. The 2014 FSEIS did not alter these conclusions. With the proposed minor shift northward
toward Atlantic Avenue and slight expansion in the east-west dimension under the Proposed
Modifications, Building 5 would cast slightly larger incremental shadow on the park on the
December 21 winter analysis day—particularly resulting from the expanded east-west width—but
the duration of incremental shadow would not appreciably change. Similarly, on the March
21/September 21 analysis day, the minor shift and east-west expansion of the proposed Building 5
would result in a slightly larger area of incremental shadow on South Oxford Park, and
approximately 5 minutes or less of increased duration. Overall, these slight increases in incremental
shadow in fall, winter, and early spring would have a negligible effect on the park and would not
change the conclusions of the 2006 FEIS or 2014 FSEIS with respect to this resource.
Therefore, the Proposed Modifications would not result in any significant adverse impacts not
previously identified and considered in the 2006 FEIS or 2014 FSEIS.

August 2019 6
 Technical Memorandum

HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Proposed Modifications would not include any new elements anticipated to affect
archaeological or architectural resources, and thus would not result in different effects to historic and
cultural resources than those discussed in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS. Consequently, the
Proposed Modifications would not result in any significant adverse impacts with respect to historic
and cultural resources that were not previously identified and considered in the 2006 FEIS or 2014
FSEIS.

URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES

As described below, the Proposed Modifications would not result in any new or different impacts to
urban design or visual resources that were not already identified and considered in the 2006 FEIS
and 2014 FSEIS.
The urban design characteristics of the Project with the Proposed Modifications would be largely
consistent with the previously approved Project as analyzed in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS. The
proposed change in use on the ground floor and cellar levels of Buildings 12 and 13 would not
adversely affect urban design or visual resources on the Project site or in the study area as the
Proposed Modifications would continue to result in ground floor uses that would activate the nearby
sidewalks and be consistent with the previously approved Project. These changes would not affect
visual resources.
The reduction in on-site parking with the Proposed Modifications would not result in any new
significant adverse urban design impacts or new or different significant adverse visual resources
impacts as the parking spaces would be located in underground garages that would not contribute to
the urban design of the Project site or study area and would not affect visual resources.
The Proposed Modifications would allow for the transfer of approximately 10,000 sf of unused floor
area from Building 15 (located at the northeast corner of 6th Avenue and Dean Street) to the
Building 12 site (located on the north side of Dean Street between Carlton and Vanderbilt Avenues).
The maximum allowable square footage on the Building 12 site would increase from approximately
317,185 gsf to 327,185 gsf; however, the building envelope of Building 12 would remain consistent
with the previously-approved Design Guidelines because the additional square footage would
continue to be within the approved envelope for this building. The changes to Building 15 and
Building 12 would not result in any new significant adverse urban design impacts as these buildings
would remain consistent with the elements of the GPP Design Guidelines requiring varied massings
and forms and requiring uses that activate sidewalks and on-site open space. Further, the proposed
changes in massing would not result in new or different impacts to visual resources, including the
Williamsburgh Savings Bank Building.
The Proposed Modifications would include changes to the distinctive architectural design elements
to Buildings 9, 12, and 13. These changes would reduce the amount of architectural detailing that
could be viewed from certain vantage points in the nearby Project open space compared to what was
analyzed in the 2006 FEIS. While some views to these building facades would be different with the
Proposed Modifications, these changes would not result in any significant adverse urban design
impacts as the architectural design of these buildings would continue to tie the three buildings
together and provide visual interest with design elements that would be different from other
buildings on the Project site and nearby study area. These changes would not adversely affect any
visual resources or views to visual resources.

7 August 2019
Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project

The Proposed Modifications would locate two of the parking ventilation exhausts to certain locations
within the Project’s publicly accessible open space. The locations of the structures would not
interfere with open space activities. These structures would be integrated into the design of the
Project’s publicly accessible open space and would be consistent with the urban lantern/vent
“kiosks” or sculptural elements that were identified in the 2015 updated Open Space Design
Guidelines for the Project. The ventilation structures are currently proposed to be located within the
open space area east of Building 14 and adjacent to the plaza located west of Building 11. The
ventilation structure east of Building 14 would be approximately 12 feet tall with an approximately
10 foot by 24 foot footprint and would be integrated into the open space. The ventilation structure
adjacent to the plaza west of Building 11 would be shorter, at approximately 3 feet tall, with an
approximately 25 foot by 5 foot footprint, and would be integrated into the open space’s
amphitheater-style seating area. As with the previously approved project that contemplated the
placement of urban lantern/vent structures, with the Proposed Modifications the integrated design of
the ventilation structures within the Project open space would not adversely affect the pedestrian
experience of urban design. At low scales and integrated into the open space design, these structures
within the open spaces on the Project site would not result in any significant adverse impacts to
views of visual resources or result in any new or different significant adverse impacts to visual
resources compared to those identified in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS.
The Proposed Modifications would also allow for a reduction in the widths of the North-South
Walkways through the Project open space. The reduction of each major north-south walkway from
16 feet as analyzed in the 2006 FEIS to 12 feet with the Proposed Modification would continue to
provide a clear unobstructed pedestrian walkway that could split into two or more pathways with a
width no less than eight feet (compared to 12 feet in the 2006 FEIS). These changes in walkway
widths would not result in any significant adverse urban design or visual resources impacts. Further,
these proposed changes would not affect the minimum 60-foot-wide widths of the Project open
space entrances from the sidewalks adjacent to the Project site. Consistent with the analyses in the
2006 FEIS, the numerous pathways and physical connections through the Project site would further
enable movement between the Project site and the surrounding neighborhoods. The reduction in the
width of the walkways would allow for more permeable lawn and planting beds within the new open
space.
The bicycle parking spaces and new and relocated bicycle parking racks in the vicinity of the
Atlantic Avenue—Barclays Center Subway Station and Atlantic Terminal Mall would be located so
as to maintain pedestrian circulation. Due to the location and size of the bicycle racks, the Proposed
Modifications to bicycle parking would not adversely affect urban design or visual resources and
would not result in any new or different impacts not previously identified in the 2006 FEIS or 2014
FSEIS.
The Proposed Modifications would involve a modest shift in the massing of Building 5 toward
Atlantic Avenue and away from the publicly accessible open space south of Building 5 on the
Project site. These changes, along with other modest design changes, have the potential to affect the
pedestrian’s experience along Atlantic Avenue. These changes are assessed below and can be seen in
Figure 1.
The Proposed Modifications would shift the base of Building 5 northward toward Atlantic Avenue
by approximately two feet and to the east away from 6th Avenue by approximately two feet starting
125 feet south of Atlantic Avenue. The Proposed Modifications would reduce required setbacks
from Atlantic Avenue at Building 5’s base, mid-portion, and upper portions, and would allow for
building piers to extend eight inches into the Atlantic Avenue sidewalk. With the Proposed

August 2019 8
 Technical Memorandum

Modifications, as with the previously approved Project, the eastern portion of the base of Building 5
would have a wide setback from Atlantic Avenue and the southern portion of the base of the
building’s frontage along 6th Avenue would have a narrow setback. Though Building 5’s massing
would be modestly closer to Atlantic Avenue, the pedestrian experience from street level would not
materially change. Above the base, the building’s middle portion would shift two feet closer to
Atlantic Avenue. Several building piers would extend eight inches into the new setback area adjacent
to Atlantic Avenue. A wide sidewalk would remain on the building’s Atlantic Avenue frontage for
the first 78 feet east of 6th Avenue, and a 35-foot-deep setback area would remain on the building’s
remaining Atlantic Avenue frontage. The Proposed Modifications would also result in changes to the
setbacks and massing at the building’s middle and upper portions. The removal of the setback on the
Atlantic Avenue façade between the middle and upper portions would result in a slab form.
However, these changes, while different than the approved project’s massing, would not adversely
affect the pedestrian experience of Building 5 as the building would continue to have setbacks and
massing changes, and would continue to activate the nearby sidewalk and create visual interest.
The overall square footage, lot coverage, and height of Building 5 would not change with the
Proposed Modifications. Building 5 would continue to have setbacks and breaks in the massing
(with the exception of a break between the middle and upper portions along Atlantic Avenue), in
addition to a substantial setback from Atlantic Avenue (modified slightly from starting 70 feet east
of 6th Avenue to starting 78 feet east of 6th Avenue). These proposed changes to Building 5 would
address existing on-site constraints related to the below grade LIRR rail lines and an access ramp.
The proposed changes to Building 5 would also allow for building efficiencies related to the
building’s vertical circulation core and a double-loaded corridor on the building’s middle and upper
floors. Building 5’s overall square footage, lot coverage, height, materials, and design would not be
substantially different from these building elements as described in the 2006 FEIS and the 2014
FSEIS under the Proposed Modifications. The proposed changes to Building 5 would also support
the Design Guidelines’ objective of maximizing open space across the development site, including in
the area south of Building 5. Like the approved building, the Proposed Modifications would result in
a new building with frontages on Atlantic Avenue and 6th Avenue with setbacks along both streets
that create open views to the Project site buildings, including Building 5. The proposed changes to
Building 5 would not result in any new or additional obstructions or obscuring of views along view
corridors or views to visual resources not previously identified in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS.
The Project buildings, many with ground-floor retail, and the publicly accessible open space that
would be created with the Project would continue to enhance the vitality of the Project site and study
area. The conclusions regarding potential impacts to urban design and visual resources presented in
the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS would remain unchanged, and the Project Modifications, like the
previously approved Project, would not result in any new significant adverse impacts to urban
design; the visual resources impact to the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Buildings would remain and
no new or different visual resources impacts would result due to the Proposed Modifications.
Overall, the Proposed Modifications would not change the conclusions or result in new or different
significant adverse urban design or visual resources effects identified and considered in the 2006
FEIS or the 2014 FSEIS.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The Proposed Modifications would not affect the conclusions of the 2006 FEIS or the 2014 FSEIS,
with respect to hazardous materials. Construction and development of the Project would have the
same potential for exposure and require the same commitments as described in the 2006 FEIS.

9 August 2019
Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project

INFRASTRUCTURE
The Proposed Modifications would not materially alter the water and sewer demands of the Project,
nor would they result in increased stormwater runoff and associated sewer system impacts. The
Proposed Modifications would not obviate the project sponsor’s obligations for the provision of
adequate infrastructure on and around the site, including water supply and sewer infrastructure and
measures to control stormwater runoff. With the Proposed Modifications, the required stormwater
and sewage minimization measures for the Project would continue to be constructed as previously
agreed upon, and the required stormwater controls and BMPs to minimize stormwater and sanitary
flow would be brought online as each building is constructed to satisfy the requirements of the DEP
Site Connection Proposal for each building.
The Proposed Modifications would not affect the Project in a manner that would materially alter the
solid waste and energy demands of the Project. The solid waste generated by development associated
with the Project would be accommodated by The New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY)
solid waste collection services (for solid waste generated from residential uses) and private
contractors (for solid waste generated by commercial users) at the completion of the Project.
Similarly, the Proposed Modifications would not obviate the need for localized upgrades in electrical
and gas transmission lines; these would be completed at the appropriate time to support Project
development as affirmed in the 2014 FSEIS.
Therefore, the Proposed Modifications would not have the potential to result in any significant
adverse impacts not previously identified and considered in the 2006 FEIS or 2014 FSEIS.

TRANSPORTATION

BUILDING 12 AND BUILDING 13 GROUND AND CELLAR FLOORS—INDOOR

RECREATIONAL FACILITY USE ON RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS
The Proposed Modifications would result in indoor recreational facility space on the ground floor
and cellar levels of Building 12 and Building 13 on Block 1129. Specifically, there would be a
reduction of approximately 21,900 gsf of local retail space in these buildings, and the build out of
approximately 105,000 gsf of indoor recreational use. This space would be divided into a Fitness
Center of approximately 45,000 gsf and a Field House of approximately 60,000 gsf. These proposed
modifications would result in changes in the trip-making analyzed in the 2014 FSEIS. An
assessment of these changes is presented below to determine if there would be new or different
significant adverse transportation-related impacts that were not previously identified and considered.
With the Proposed Modifications, Site access to Building 12 and Building 13 would generally
remain as previously contemplated, with most building entrances fronting Dean Street. However, it
is possible that additional parking spaces associated with these buildings would connect under
Building 14 and be accessed from the existing driveway serving that garage. In addition, a curbside
layover or drop-off area in front of the proposed Fieldhouse may be provided to accommodate
activities associated with that new use. This change, if sought, would result in the loss of up to three
curb side parking spaces.

TRANSPORTATION SCREENING
Travel demand estimates were prepared to assess the effects in trip generation from the reduction in
local retail space and introduction of the new Fitness Center and Field House uses in Buildings 12
and 13. Assumptions for the local retail use were based on the 2014 FSEIS; estimates for the two

August 2019 10
 Technical Memorandum

new uses were based on standard references, operating information provided by the operator of
comparable uses, and travel surveys administered for this assessment. The Fitness Center and Field
House proposed for Buildings 12 and 13 are intended to model after comparable facilities at 33 Bond
Street in Downtown Brooklyn and along the Hudson River Park waterfront in the Chelsea
neighborhood of Manhattan, respectively.
Trip Generation
Trip generation assumptions for the local retail, Fitness Center, and Field House uses are
summarized in Table 1 below. The trip generation assumptions for the previously analyzed local
retail use are based on the 2014 FSEIS. The trip generation assumptions for the new Fitness Center
and Field House uses are further described below.
Fitness Center
The Fitness Center trip generation assumptions were developed based on a combination of operating
information compiled for the 33 Bond Street facility, travel surveys administered specifically for
purposes of this assessment, and other previously approved studies. The weekday and Saturday daily
person trip rates, temporal, and directional distributions were developed based on the operating
information (daily member entry logs) provided for the 33 Bond Street Fitness Center in Brooklyn.
In comparison, the Fitness Center at Buildings 12 and 13 would be approximately 20 percent smaller
in size than the 33 Bond Street facility and would not have an on-site pool. As the two locations are
only about one mile apart, there is expected to be some level of overlap of the market share of
facility members. For these reasons, trip generation at the new Building 12 and 13 Fitness Center has
been estimated to be approximately 70 percent of the 33 Bond Street location. This is believed to be
a conservative estimate because some members at the 33 Bond Street facility reside at locations over
two miles away. In addition, a 10-percent surcharge was applied to the above projections to account
for trips made by employees and the general public to arrive at the overall weekday and Saturday
daily person trip rates for the proposed Fitness Center at Buildings 12 and 13. Given the thousands
of residential units under development in the immediate surrounding area, and the fact that some of
the planned buildings are joined by open spaces and connecting paths, there is expected to be a
substantial level of internal capture of trips made to and from the proposed Fitness Center.
Accordingly, a 40-percent linkage was applied to the overall daily trip rates. The Fitness Center
modal split and auto occupancy are based on online travel demand survey results conducted of the
33 Bond Street members during a one-week period in early June 2019. The Fitness Center members
were asked of their weekday and/or Saturday travel mode choices. The nearly 500 survey responses
were tabulated to derive the Fitness Center modal split and auto occupancy assumptions presented in
Table 1. The remaining Fitness Center trip generation assumptions, including taxi occupancy and
delivery trip generation, are based on metrics of a similar use (i.e., health club) presented in the 2016
East New York Rezoning FEIS.

11 August 2019
Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project

Table 1
Transportation Planning Factors
Land Use Local Retail Fitness Center Field House
(1) (2) (5)
Trip Generation: Weekday 205 30.58 23.78
(Person-trips) Trip Linkage 25% 40% 20%
Net 153.75 18.35 19.02
Saturday 240 24.93 13.52
Trip Linkage 25% 40% 20%
Net 180.00 14.96 10.81
(trips/1,000 gsf) (trips/1,000 gsf) (trips/1,000 gsf)
(1) (2) (5)
Temporal Distribution: AM (8-9) 3.0% 11.6% 3.7%
MD (12-1) 19.0% 3.9% 8.1%
PM (5-6) 10.0% 11.0% 18.1%
Pre-game (7-8 PM) 3.0% 12.4% 7.8%
Saturday (1-2 PM) 10.0% 10.1% 17.1%
(1) (3) (6)
Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday
Modal Split: Auto 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 3.0% 6.0% 9.0%
Taxi 3.0% 3.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3.0% 2.0%
Subway 20.0% 20.0% 29.0% 17.0% 35.0% 25.0%
LIRR 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bus 5.0% 5.0% 3.0% 4.0% 6.0% 4.0%
Walk/Other 70.0% 70.0% 65.0% 76.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(1) (3)(4) (3)(6)
Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday
Vehicle Occupancy: Auto 2.00 2.00 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45
Taxi 2.00 2.00 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30
(1) (2) (5)
In Out In Out In Out
Directional Distribution: AM (8-9) 50% 50% 45% 55% 69% 31%
MD (12-1) 50% 50% 62% 38% 3% 97%
PM (5-6) 50% 50% 66% 34% 42% 58%
Pre-game (7-8 PM) 50% 50% 41% 59% 56% 44%
Saturday (1-2 PM) 55% 45% 37% 63% 41% 59%
(1) (4) (7)
Daily Truck Trip Weekday 0.35 0.29 0.29
Generation: Saturday 0.04 0.29 0.29
(trips/1,000 gsf) (trips/1,000 gsf) (trips/1,000 gsf)
(1) (4) (7)
Truck Trip AM (8-9) 8.0% 9.6% 9.6%
Temporal Distribution: MD (12-1) 11.0% 11.0% 11.0%
PM (5-6) 2.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Pre-game (7-8 PM) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Saturday (1-2 PM) 11.0% 0.0% 0.0%
(1) (4) (7)
Truck Trip: In Out In Out In Out
Directional Distribution: AM (8-9) 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
MD (12-1) 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
PM (5-6) 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Pre-game (7-8 PM) 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Saturday (1-2 PM) 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Notes:
(1) 2014 Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project FSEIS
(2) Based on operating information provided for the 33 Bond Street Fitness Center; adjusted for Building 12 and 13 location
(3) 33 Bond Street Fitness Center (Brooklyn) Travel Demand Surveys
(4) 2016 East New York Rezoning FEIS
(5) Hudson River Park waterfront Field House Travel Demand Surveys; adjusted for Building 12 and 13 location
(6) Adjusted based on the 33 Bond Fitness Center travel demand survey results
(7) Assumed the same as health club use; based on 2016 East New York Rezoning FEIS

August 2019 12
 Technical Memorandum

Field House
Similar to the Fitness Center, the trip generation assumptions for the Field House were developed
based on a combination of operating information compiled for the Hudson River Park location,
travel surveys administered specifically for this assessment, and other previously approved studies.
In comparison, the Field House at Buildings 12 and 13 would be approximately 25 percent smaller
in size than the Hudson River Park facility. The latter is an established business located in a
destination setting with multiple revenue channels and substantially more visibility, whereas the
proposed Field House would be more akin to a traditional commercial anchor tenant that operates in
the cellar of a primarily residential development. For these reasons, trip generation at the proposed
Field House at Buildings 12 and 13 has been estimated to be approximately 50 percent of the Hudson
River Park location. Counts at this location were conducted via a combination of video recordings and
manual pedestrian tracking on a typical weekday and a typical Saturday to develop daily trip rates for
the Field House land use. The surveyed trip rates were then reduced by 50 percent to arrive at the
proposed Building 12 and 13 Field House’s projected weekday and Saturday daily person trip rates.
Temporal, and directional distributions patterns are assumed to be the same at both locations.Like
the Fitness Center, this Field House would be surrounded by a large population with means to travel
via local paths that are outside of the City’s public pedestrian network (i.e., sidewalks, corners, and
crosswalks). Accordingly, a 20-percent linkage was applied to the overall daily trip rates. The modal
split and auto occupancy assumptions are based on the 33 Bond Street Fitness Center online survey
results and review of other metrics analyzed for similar recreational facilities, adjusted for the
Building 12 and 13 location. The Field House trip generation assumptions for taxi occupancy and
delivery trip generation are the same as those for the Fitness Center, which are based on health club
metrics presented in the 2016 East New York Rezoning FEIS.
Summary
Applying the transportation planning factors presented in Table 1, the estimated incremental person
and vehicle trips resulting from the Proposed Modifications, as compared to those analyzed in the
2014 FSEIS, are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

13 August 2019
Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project

Table 2
Travel Demand Forecast for Block 1129 (Building 12 and 13)
Person Trips
Component Local Retail Fitness Center Field House Net Difference
-21,900 GSF 45,000 GSF 60,000 GSF
Peak Hour Trips:
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
AM (8-9) Auto -1 -1 -2 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 3
Taxi -2 -2 -4 0 1 1 1 0 1 -1 -1 -2
Subway -10 -10 -20 12 15 27 10 5 15 12 10 22
LIRR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bus -3 -3 -6 1 2 3 2 1 3 0 0 0
Walk/Other -35 -35 -70 28 34 62 15 7 22 8 6 14
Total -51 -51 -102 42 53 95 30 14 44 21 16 37
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
MD (12-1) Auto -6 -6 -12 0 0 0 0 5 5 -6 -1 -7
Taxi -10 -10 -20 0 0 0 0 3 3 -10 -7 -17
Subway -64 -64 -128 6 4 10 1 31 32 -57 -29 -86
LIRR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bus -16 -16 -32 1 0 1 0 5 5 -15 -11 -26
Walk/Other -224 -224 -448 13 8 21 1 45 46 -210 -171 -381
Total -320 -320 -640 20 12 32 2 89 91 -298 -219 -517
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
PM (5-6) Auto -3 -3 -6 1 1 2 5 7 12 3 5 8
Taxi -5 -5 -10 1 0 1 3 4 7 -1 -1 -2
Subway -34 -34 -68 17 9 26 30 42 72 13 17 30
LIRR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bus -8 -8 -16 2 1 3 5 7 12 -1 0 -1
Walk/Other -118 -118 -236 39 20 59 43 60 103 -36 -38 -74
Total -168 -168 -336 60 31 91 86 120 206 -22 -17 -39
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Pregame (7-8 PM) Auto -1 -1 -2 1 1 2 3 2 5 3 2 5
Taxi -2 -2 -4 0 1 1 1 1 2 -1 0 -1
Subway -10 -10 -20 12 18 30 17 14 31 19 22 41
LIRR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bus -3 -3 -6 1 2 3 3 2 5 1 1 2
Walk/Other -35 -35 -70 27 39 66 25 20 45 17 24 41
Total -51 -51 -102 41 61 102 49 39 88 39 49 88
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Saturday (1-2 PM) Auto -4 -4 -8 1 1 2 4 6 10 1 3 4
Taxi -7 -5 -12 0 0 0 1 1 2 -6 -4 -10
Subway -43 -35 -78 4 7 11 11 16 27 -28 -12 -40
LIRR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bus -11 -9 -20 1 2 3 2 3 5 -8 -4 -12
Walk/Other -152 -124 -276 19 33 52 27 39 66 -106 -52 -158
Total -217 -177 -394 25 43 68 45 65 110 -147 -69 -216

August 2019 14
 Technical Memorandum

Table 3
Travel Demand Forecast for Block 1129 (Buildings 12 and 13)
Vehicle Trips
Component Local Retail Fitness Center Field House Net Difference
-21,900 GSF 45,000 GSF 60,000 GSF
Peak Hour Trips:
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
AM (8-9) Auto -1 -1 -2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2
Taxi -1 -1 -2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2
Truck 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 4
Total -2 -2 -4 3 3 6 3 3 6 4 4 8
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
MD (12-1) Auto -3 -3 -6 0 0 0 0 3 3 -3 0 -3
Taxi -5 -5 -10 0 0 0 2 2 4 -3 -3 -6
Truck 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 4
Total -8 -8 -16 1 1 2 3 6 9 -4 -1 -5
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
PM (5-6) Auto -2 -2 -4 1 1 2 3 5 8 2 4 6
Taxi -3 -3 -6 1 1 2 4 4 8 2 2 4
Truck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total -5 -5 -10 2 2 4 7 9 16 4 6 10
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Pregame (7-8 PM) Auto -1 -1 -2 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 3
Taxi -1 -1 -2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2
Truck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total -2 -2 -4 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 2 5
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Saturday (1-2 PM) Auto -2 -2 -4 1 1 2 3 4 7 2 3 5
Taxi -4 -4 -8 0 0 0 1 1 2 -3 -3 -6
Truck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total -6 -6 -12 1 1 2 4 5 9 -1 0 -1

Traffic
As summarized in Table 3, the Proposed Modifications would yield 8, -5, 10, 5, and -1 incremental
vehicle trips during the weekday AM, midday, PM, pregame, and Saturday peak hours, respectively.
When dispersed to the surrounding street network, these differences would not result in perceptible
differences in traffic levels at intersections analyzed in the 2014 FSEIS. Further, the Project’s overall
parking supply has been reduced since the 2006 FEIS. The 2006 FEIS assumed 1,970 parking spaces
would be provided on Block 1129. The 2014 approved Project included 910 parking spaces on Block
1129, based on the Reduced Parking Alternative in the 2014 FSEIS. The Proposed Modifications
would further reduce the parking supply on Block 1129 to 693 spaces (see “Reduction in Parking”
below). With this reduction, fewer vehicles trips would be made to the Block 1129 parking facility
than analyzed in the 2014 FSEIS. Therefore, the Proposed Modifications are not expected to result in
new or different traffic impacts that were not previously identified and considered.
In response to community concerns relating to traffic, a sensitivity analysis of the above trip
estimates was conducted to assess the differences in travel demand if proportioning by size alone.
This assessment showed that when proportioning the trip estimates for the proposed fitness center
and field house based on the sizes of the 33 Bond Street fitness center and Chelsea Piers field house,
respectively, the maximum peak hour difference would be 18 vehicles during the weekday PM peak
hour, instead of the 10 vehicles shown above. Considering the surrounding intersections are
projected to serve approximately 500 to 2,000 vehicles during peak hours, neither of these trip
differences (i.e., 10 or 18) when distributed across area intersections would result in perceptible
differences in traffic levels at intersections analyzed in the 2014 FSEIS.

15 August 2019
Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project

Transit
As summarized in Table 2, the Proposed Modifications would yield 22, 30, and 41 incremental
subway trips during the 2014 FSEIS weekday AM, PM, and pregame analysis peak hours,
respectively. The Project-generated subway trips, when distributed to the various station elements at
the Barclays Center and Bergen Street stations, would not result in perceptible differences compared
to the 2014 FSEIS at individual analysis locations. Therefore, the Proposed Modifications would not
have the potential to result in new subway impacts that were not previously identified and
considered.
For City buses, the Proposed Modifications would yield 0, -26, -1, 2, and -12 incremental riders
during the 2014 FSEIS weekday AM, midday, PM, pregame, and Saturday analysis peak hours,
respectively. Compared to the 2014 FSEIS analysis, the weekday AM, midday, PM, and Saturday
analysis peak hours would experience either the same or fewer Project-generated bus trips. For the
weekday pregame analysis peak hour, the minimally higher number of Project-generated bus trips,
when distributed to the multiple local bus routes in the area, would not result in perceptible changes
to the analysis results presented in the 2014 FSEIS. Therefore, as with the 2014 FSEIS, the Proposed
Modifications would not be expected to result in any significant adverse impacts to local bus
conditions.
Pedestrians
In terms of incremental person trips traversing the surrounding sidewalks, corner reservoirs, and
crosswalks, the Proposed Modifications would result in 37, -517, -39, 88, and -216 incremental
pedestrian trips during the weekday AM, midday, PM, pregame, and Saturday peak hours.
Compared to the 2014 FSEIS, the weekday midday, PM, and Saturday analysis peak hours are
expected to experience reductions in pedestrian trips, particularly on the Project block and along the
Dean Street frontage. Changes during the other analysis hours would be less. When distributed
across various pedestrian elements in the surrounding area, these differences would not yield
perceptible changes to the analysis results presented in the 2014 FSEIS. Therefore, the Proposed
Modifications would not result in new or different pedestrian impacts not previously identified and
considered.

REDUCTION IN PARKING
Absent the Proposed Modifications, the Project is required to provide 1,200 parking spaces (based
on the Reduced Parking Alternative in the 2014 FSEIS), including the 300 Arena parking spaces, 24
NYPD parking spaces, and 876 residential parking spaces.
As described in the Alternatives chapter of the 2014 FSEIS, the zoning text amendment to the
Special Downtown Brooklyn District approved in 2012 reduced parking requirements in the District,
which includes the portion of Phase I of the Project site west of 5th Avenue. The text amendment
reduced the amount of parking that new residential developments are required to provide (from 0.4
spaces per market-rate dwelling unit to 0.2 spaces, with no parking requirement for affordable
housing units) and provided more flexibility to locate required accessory parking off-site, to build
small underground public garages in Downtown Brooklyn and to allow accessory parking garages to
be available to all residents, workers, and visitors in Downtown Brooklyn. The text amendment was
expected to result in the provision of a parking supply that better reflects actual parking demand in
Downtown Brooklyn, which—like the Project site—features some of the best transit access in the
city, including numerous subway lines and bus routes. The Reduced Parking Alternative analyzed a
condition on the entire Project site that would be consistent with the parking requirements of the

August 2019 16
 Technical Memorandum

Special Downtown Brooklyn District zoning, with an additional 300 spaces for Arena parking and
24 spaces for the New York City Police Department (NYPD) parking. In light of the policy
considerations associated with the Special Downtown Brooklyn District parking controls, ESD
lowered its parking requirements for developments planned for the Project to 1,200 spaces.
The Proposed Modifications would further reduce the total parking supply to approximately 1,000
parking spaces, which would be comprised of approximately 300 Arena parking spaces, 24 NYPD
parking spaces, and 676 residential parking spaces. Of the total 6,430 residential units, 4,180 would
be market rate units and 2,250 affordable units. Therefore, with the Proposed Modifications, the
Project’s 676 residential parking spaces would represent a ratio of approximately 0.16 spaces/market
rate unit.
Since the 2014 FSEIS approvals, several Project buildings have been completed and occupied, with
parking provided in accordance with ESD’s modified requirements. Actual parking demand at the
parking facilities has proven to be even lower than the reduced levels provided. A 2019 survey of
residential parking utilization at the below-grade parking garage at Building 14 (see Table 4)
indicated that only 12 percent of the market-rate units had on-site monthly parking accounts. For
affordable units, this share was even lower, at 4 percent.
Table 4
Building 11 and Building 14 Residents On-Site Parking Demand
Percentage of Monthly Parking by Average Spaces
On Site Dwelling Units Affordable Units Residents of Building per DU
B14 298 100% 13 0.04
B11 278 0% 34 0.12
Note: Based on 2019 parking surveys conducted by the project sponsor.

The project sponsor also conducted parking surveys during highly-attended Arena events to evaluate
the adequacy of the 300 spaces allocated for Arena parking. These surveys showed that, for most
events, the on-site Arena parking demand could be fully accommodated by the 300 allotted Arena
parking spaces. On the few occasions when the demand exceeded the 300-space capacity, there was
ample supply from the available residential parking spaces to accommodate the overflow.
Under the 2014 FSEIS’s residential mixed-use variation, the full build-out of the Project would yield
a total of 6,430 residential units, including 4,180 market rate and 2,250 affordable units. Using the
parking demand ratio shown in Table 4, the 4,180 market rate units would generate an overnight
parking demand of approximately 502 spaces (at 0.12 spaces/unit), and the 2,250 affordable units
would generate an overnight parking demand of approximately 90 spaces (at 0.04 spaces/unit). The
overall peak resident overnight parking demand would therefore be approximately 592 spaces,
representing aggregate ratios of 0.09 spaces/unit or 0.14 spaces/market rate unit. Therefore, it is
expected that the 676 residential parking spaces that would be required with the Proposed
Modifications would fully accommodate demand from the residential units that would be built out
over time.
As assumed in the 2014 FSEIS, the 1,200 total parking spaces across the Project development sites
would consist of 240 parking spaces on Site 5, approximately 50 to 100 parking spaces on the Arena
Block, and up to 910 spaces on Block 1129. The parking garage on the Arena Block has been
completed and provides 67 spaces and 240 parking spaces are still planned for Site 5. Out of the
approximately 1,000 total on-site parking spaces that would be required with the Proposed
Modifications, 693 parking spaces would be provided on Block 1129. The completed Building 14 on

17 August 2019
Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project

Block 1129 provides 303 of the parking spaces allotted for Block 1129. Therefore, Buildings 12 and
13 on Block 1129 would provide the balance of 390 parking spaces.
For these reasons, the reduction in the number of residential parking spaces will not result in
significant adverse impacts not previously considered in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS.

REDUCTION IN BICYCLE PARKING

As discussed above, the Proposed Modifications would also reduce the number of Barclays Arena
guest bicycle parking spaces from 400 to 100. A 400-space bicycle storage facility was to be
provided adjacent to Building 3 and the Arena with access along Dean Street between Flatbush and
6th Avenues, but due to logistical, locational and security concerns this location is no longer
feasible. With the Proposed Modifications, 100 bicycle parking spaces would be made available in
two locations; 56 new spaces would be provided on the Arena Block adjacent to the Atlantic
Avenue-Barclays Center Station, and 44 existing spaces at the Atlantic Terminal Mall would be
made available to Arena attendees.
Recorded usage data in 2012 to 2013 showed that there were on average approximately 15 bicycle
spaces being used per event at the 400-space facility (with a maximum of 99 bicycle spaces being
used for one event). Additional bicycle demand surveys conducted between 2016 and 2018 found no
significant growth in bicycle usage for Arena events. Based on this data, the reduction in the number
of guest bicycle parking spaces from 400 to 100 would continue to adequately accommodate bicycle
travel to/from Arena events. Additionally, the proposed bicycle parking locations would enhance
access and circulation for both vehicular and bicycle traffic, while not adversely affecting pedestrian
flow, during Arena events.
For these reasons, the change in Arena-related bicycle parking facilities will not result in significant
adverse impacts not previously considered in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS.

AIR QUALITY

BUILDING 12 AND BUILDING 13 GROUND AND CELLAR FLOORS—INDOOR

RECREATIONAL FACILITY USE ON RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS AND REDUCTION IN PARKING
As described above under “Transportation,” the net increase in peak hour vehicular trips would be
negligible under the Proposed Modifications as compared with the Project as analyzed in the 2006
FEIS and 2014 FSEIS. Furthermore, with the Proposed Modifications requiring fewer parking spaces,
there would be fewer vehicles entering/exiting the on-site parking facilities, resulting in lower mobile
source emissions than what was analyzed in the 2014 FSEIS. Therefore, the conclusions from the 2006
FEIS and 2014 FSEIS that the Project would not result in any significant adverse air quality impacts
from mobile sources would not be altered with the Proposed Modifications.

TRANSFER OF 10,000 GSF FROM BUILDING 15 TO BUILDING 12

The Proposed Modifications would result in the transfer of approximately 10,000 gsf of unused floor
area from Building 15 to Building 12. The maximum allowable square footage on the Building 12
site would increase from 317,185 gsf to 327,185 gsf.
The 2014 FSEIS examined the potential air quality impacts associated with natural gas-fired boilers
from Phase II of the Project. An air dispersion modeling analysis of the emissions and dispersion of 1-
hour average NO2 from the Project’s stationary sources determined that such emissions would not result
in violation of the 1-hour average NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated

August 2019 18
 Technical Memorandum

after the publication of the 2006 FEIS. Other pollutants were not modeled since the proposed gas-fired
Phase II boilers were smaller in capacity than the boiler capacities modeled in the 2006 FEIS.
The transfer in floor area represents a less than three percent increase in size at Building 12. It is
expected that heating and hot water emissions would increase by approximately the same amount,
which is considered very minor. Furthermore, with respect to NO2 and PM2.5, which were identified
previously as the critical pollutants for analysis, background concentrations of these pollutants have
decreased since the 2014 FSEIS, which reduces the potential for a significant adverse impact as the
background concentrations along with modeled concentrations are used to evaluate compliance with
the air quality standards. Therefore, any increase in emissions for Building 12 associated with the
Proposed Modifications would not result in concentrations that would exceed the 1-hour NO2
NAAQS. Any minor increase in PM2.5 emissions associated with the additional heat and hot water
requirements to service the 10,000 gsf increase of Building 12 would not change the conclusion of
the earlier air quality analysis that the Project will not result in an exceedance of the City’s PM2.5 de
minimis criteria. Therefore, as with the 2014 FSEIS, no significant adverse air quality impacts are
anticipated from stationary sources with the Proposed Modifications.

ADDITIONAL PARKING VENTILATION STRUCTURES

The analysis presented in the 2014 FSEIS assumed a parking capacity on Block 1129 of 1,846
below-grade spaces. Potential air quality impacts associated with ventilation of the planned parking
garage for Block 1129 previously assumed the ventilation system would discharge from a building
façade. The Amended GPP in 2014 reduced the required number of parking spaces for the Project
based on the 2014 FSEIS Reduced Parking Alternative. Absent a further reduction in parking
proposed as part of the current Proposed Modifications, the total below-grade parking capacity for
Block 1129 would be approximately 893 spaces, which consists of a completed single below-grade
facility with 303 spaces below the Building 14 site, with the remaining capacity of 590 spaces
planned below the site for Buildings 12 and 13.
Since the 2014 FSEIS, the design of the parking ventilation system has been advanced, and it is
currently proposed that garage air for Buildings 12 and 13 would be vented to four separate
discharge locations. Two of the exhausts would be discharged from louver locations on the building
facades; therefore, no further analysis of these ventilation systems is required since these systems are
consistent with the analyses presented in the 2014 FSEIS. The other two garage exhausts would vent
to the plaza area located west of Building 11 (exhaust location 1) and in the open space area east of
Building 14 (exhaust location 2). Since these locations are within the proposed open space on Block
1129, potential air quality effects from each of these vents were analyzed for emissions of carbon
monoxide (CO), particulate matter (i.e., particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5]
and less than 10 microns in diameter [PM10]).
To evaluate the potential air quality impacts of the proposed garage vent design for exhaust locations
1 and 2, emissions of CO, PM10 and PM2.5 were analyzed. Potential impacts from the proposed
parking garage on CO, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations were assessed at multiple receptors near each
of the proposed exhaust vent locations.
Traffic data for the parking garage analysis under the Proposed Modifications were based on the trip
generation analysis presented in the 2014 FSEIS, with adjustments made to the garage traffic
volumes based on the parking capacity requirements from the 2014 Amended GPP. Thus, the
assessment is conservative since it does not account for the lower emissions that would result from
the Proposed Modifications, which would further reduce the size of the below-grade parking
facilities on Block 1129. Consistent with the methodology used in the 2014 FSEIS, emissions from

19 August 2019
Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project

vehicles entering, parking, and exiting the parking facility were estimated using the EPA MOVES
mobile source emission model. All arriving and departing vehicles were conservatively assumed to
travel at an average speed of 5 miles per hour within the parking facility. In addition, all departing
vehicles were assumed to idle for 1 minute before exiting.
Mechanical ventilation systems for garages are designed to limit concentrations of CO within the
garage, in accordance with New York City Building Code requirements, and discharge vehicle
exhaust along with air within the garage. Ventilation rates for each garage zone were based on
design information. For exhaust location 2, garage air would be mixed with ventilation exhaust air
from below-grade recreational spaces. Therefore, the volume of air that was analyzed for this
exhaust location included the garage exhaust (13,900 cubic feet per minute [cfm]) and the
recreational space ventilation air exhaust (17,000 cfm); the exhaust air from the below-grade
recreational spaces would not have pollutant emissions, as it would consist of general ventilation
(non-contaminated) exhaust, rather than pollutant emissions from a process or combustion source
(the boilers for Buildings 12 and 13 would be vented from stacks to be located on the roofs of these
buildings, as assumed in the prior air quality analyses in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS).
Under normal operation, garage air would be ventilated to the exhausts in response to measured levels
of CO from vehicles operating within the garage. However, in the event of a smoke condition in the
garage, additional ventilation capacity would be provided to purge smoke from within the garage.
Since this would only occur under a temporary emergency condition that would occur rarely, if at all,
the effect of such a potential condition was not analyzed for the purpose of this Technical
Memorandum.
Since the exhaust location 1 would potentially be located at a pedestrian level (i.e., less than 6 feet
above grade) with amphitheater seating on the side opposite of the exhaust, it was conservatively
assumed that receptors would be equal in height to the exhaust, with a receptor distance of 7 feet
modeled to simulate the other side of the amphitheater, as well as a distance of 21 feet, which is the
nearest distance to Building 12. Public access to this exhaust would be restricted by a wall screen
and planting barrier. Nevertheless, to be conservative in the analysis, it was assumed that public
access to this exhaust would not be restricted. A worst-case scenario was analyzed under which
emissions were calculated assuming no setback between the garage exhaust and the receptor location.
The structure at exhaust location 2 was analyzed at a centerline exhaust height of 7 feet. Receptors
were analyzed at distances of 10 feet and 60 feet (the nearest distance to Building 13), including a
worst-case assumption of zero feet at pedestrian level. The concentrations were determined for the time
periods when overall usage would be the greatest, considering the hours when the greatest number of
vehicles would enter and exit the Project site.
To determine compliance with the applicable standards, CO concentrations were determined for the
maximum 1- and 8-hour average periods, and PM concentrations were determined for the maximum
24-hour and annual average period. At downwind receptor locations, a persistence factor of 0.81
(based on EPA dispersion modeling guidance, and as referenced in the CEQR Technical Manual)
was used to convert the calculated CO 1-hour average maximum concentrations to 8-hour averages,
accounting for meteorological variability over the average 8-hour period, while persistence factors of
0.6 and 0.1 (based on EPA modeling guidance) were used to convert the calculated PM 1-hour
average maximum concentrations to 24-hour and annual averages, respectively (for receptors where
no setback was assumed, persistence factors were not used). Background CO and PM10
concentrations from the nearest NYSDEC monitoring station with available data were added to the
modeling results to obtain the total concentrations. The results are presented in Table 5.

August 2019 20
 Technical Memorandum

Table 5
Proposed Block 1129 Parking Garage
Maximum Pollutant Concentrations from Exhaust Vent Locations
Pollutant Averaging Background Maximum Total Concentration Standard/
Period Concentration Including Background De Minimis Criteria
Exhaust Location 1 (West of Building 11)
CO 1-hour 1.9 ppm 3.57 ppm 35 ppm
CO 8-hour 1.4 ppm 2.56 ppm 9 ppm
PM10 24-hour 44.0 µg/m3 48.48 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
(1)
PM2.5 24-hour 0.34 µg/m3 7.7 µg/m3
(1)
PM2.5 Annual 0.24 µg/m3 0.3 µg/m3
Exhaust Location 2 (East of Building 14)
CO 1-hour 1.9 ppm 2.74 ppm 35 ppm
CO 8-hour 1.4 ppm 1.99 ppm 9 ppm
PM10 24-hour 44.0 µg/m3 45.99 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
(1)
PM2.5 24-hour 0.12 µg/m3 7.7 µg/m3
(1)
PM2.5 Annual 0.092 µg/m3 0.3 µg/m3(2)
Notes:
(1)
PM2.5 24-hour and annual concentrations are evaluated on an incremental basis; therefore, background concentrations are
not listed.
(2)
PM2.5 de minimis criteria—annual, discrete receptor.

As shown in the table, maximum pollutant concentrations were predicted from exhaust locations 1
and 2. The maximum modeled receptor was determined at the ventilation louver within the open
space. Concentrations at other modeled receptor locations in the vicinity of the exhausts were
determined to be lower. Overall, maximum predicted concentrations were predicted to be below
NAAQS and CEQR PM2.5 de minimis criteria for both of the garage exhaust vents proposed for the
open space area. Therefore, this analysis demonstrates that the parking garage ventilation design
with the Proposed Modifications, like the conservative design analyzed in the 2014 FSEIS, would
not result in any significant adverse air quality impacts.

MODIFICATION OF BUILDING 5 DESIGN ENVELOPE

The Proposed Modifications would involve a modest shift in the massing of Building 5 toward
Atlantic Avenue and away from the publicly accessible open space south of Building 5 on the
Project site. The proposed change in massing would not adversely affect air quality as exhaust stacks
for heating and hot water systems were assumed to be approximately in the center of the upper roof
of Building 5, and there are no buildings of a similar or greater height to the north.
Overall, the Proposed Modifications would not result in any significant adverse air quality impacts
not previously identified or considered in the 2006 FEIS or 2014 FSEIS.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The Proposed Modifications would not alter the conclusions of the 2014 FSEIS with respect to
greenhouse gas emissions. As required for the Project, all Phase II buildings would obtain the United
States Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
certification for new construction with the goal of achieving a Silver rating for each proposed
building. Specific sustainable measures would be incorporated into the design and construction of
the Project, which would decrease the potential GHG emissions. Based on the sustainable measures
that would be included, the design of Phase II of the Project would continue to be consistent with the
City’s emissions reduction goal, as defined in the CEQR Technical Manual. In addition, the Project
site is located at one of the largest transportation hubs in the City and construction of this high

21 August 2019
Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project

density transit-oriented development at this location would encourage use of mass transit, thereby
reducing GHG emissions from automobile travel. The Project would also promote non-motorized
modes of transportation, including cycling and walking. With the Proposed Modifications, the
Project would continue to be consistent with the City’s GHG emission reduction goal.

NOISE
As described above under “Transportation,” the net increase in peak hour vehicular trips would be
negligible under the Proposed Modifications as compared with the Project analyzed in the 2006
FEIS and 2014 FSEIS. Additionally, the Proposed Modifications would not affect the Project
requirements for window/wall attenuation at Project buildings. As in the 2006 FEIS and 2014
FSEIS, noise levels in the newly created open spaces would be greater than the 55 dBA L10(1) prescribed
by CEQR criteria, but would be comparable to other parks around New York City, and would not
constitute a significant impact. Therefore, the Proposed Modifications would not result in significant
adverse impacts not previously identified and considered in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS.

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
Consistent with previous analyses, the Project with the Proposed Modifications would not result in
any significant adverse impacts on neighborhood character. Traffic impact locations and magnitude
would not change from those identified in the 2014 FSEIS and no changes to previous analyses
regarding noise would result from the Proposed Modifications. The urban design characteristics of
the Project with the Proposed Modifications would be largely consistent with the previously
approved Project as analyzed in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS. Therefore, the conclusions
regarding potential impacts to urban design and visual resources presented in the 2006 FEIS and
2014 FSEIS would remain unchanged, and the Proposed Modifications, like the previously approved
Project, would not result in any new significant adverse impacts to urban design. The visual
resources impact to the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Buildings would remain and no new or
different visual resources impacts would result due to the Proposed Modifications. Unmitigated
traffic impacts associated with the Project, coupled with increased pedestrian activity, would
continue to result in localized neighborhood character impacts along Dean Street and Bergen Street,
but these localized impacts would not result in significant adverse neighborhood character impacts in
the Prospect Heights neighborhood. With the Proposed Modifications, the Project would continue to
transform the site into a vibrant mixed-use neighborhood with publicly accessible open space,
improve the streetscape, and connect neighborhoods to the north and south of the railyard.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
The 2006 FEIS studied the impacts of an intense level of construction activity to complete both
Phase I and Phase II of the Project over a 10-year period. The 2014 FSEIS analyzed a more extended
construction schedule for Phase II than was assumed in the 2006 FEIS. Both the 2006 FEIS and
2014 FSEIS identified significant adverse impacts in the areas of construction-period open space,
construction transportation and construction noise. The Proposed Modifications would not materially
modify the assumptions with respect to construction means and methods and would not alter the
construction-related conclusions of the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS, nor the construction-related
obligations outlined for the Project. Therefore, with the implementation of the applicable control and
measures, no new significant adverse construction-related impacts would occur with the Proposed
Modifications.

August 2019 22
 Technical Memorandum

PUBLIC HEALTH
The Project as analyzed in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS was found not to cause any significant
adverse public health impacts. As described in the sections above, the Proposed Modifications would
not result in any new significant adverse impacts in any analysis area affecting public health.
Therefore, the Proposed Modifications would not result in any significant adverse public health
impacts not previously identified and considered in the 2006 FEIS or 2014 FSEIS.

CONCLUSION
Based upon the analyses detailed above, the Proposed Modifications either individually or together
would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts not previously identified and
considered in the 2006 FEIS and 2014 FSEIS. Therefore, no Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement is required in connection with ESD’s review and consideration of the Proposed
Modifications. 

23 August 2019