• Need to look at basis for statements by Police and Fire that service won’t be affected.
• Mitigations for significant adverse impacts on schools are inadequate. If the impacts were to be mitigated, what would the public costs be (whether for charter schools or public)?

TASK 6. OPEN SPACE
Distinctions should be clear between publicly and privately owned open space, publicly and privately managed open space, publicly accessible open space and private open space. Only open space that is designed in such a way that it is clearly and fully open to the public at large should be considered “public.” (From What to Look For in the DEIS)

This is probably the most egregious (if somewhat subjective) problem w/ the open space design. The main areas of publicly assessable space are in blocks 1121 and 1129, the area bordered by Vanderbilt, Carleton, Dean and Atlantic. These spaces, despite the attempt to connect them through a visual maintenance of the street grid, are still interior spaces, surrounded by site-contained buildings, and are not truly integrated into the neighborhood. This effectively privatizes the open space, limiting its use and accessibility to the broader public, and likely enhancing opportunities for negative use.

The public open spaces in blocks 1120 are more accessible and more connected, however they lack destinations with activities and uses that would encourage use and truly connect the neighborhood to the development project.

• Will open space in the project that isn’t connected to the surrounding neighborhoods via an active, open street grid be able to function as public open space?

     See above, no. Moreover, the lack of active edges on these spaces, whether from the building bases, which do not appear to have entrances and activity on the ground floor facing the interior open spaces, or from the street itself, will limit the functionality, accessibility and indeed the success overall of this open space as a true public destination. Vital edge uses are critical to the success of a park or public space. The edges of the main blocks have no vitality at all, as they are not along streets with traffic and parking and ground floor retail, nor do they, to our understanding adjoin buildings with active bases.

• Is the “Urban Room” public open space or private space?

     We think the Urban Room is public space, especially due to the positioning of the subway entrance there. However, the amenities and program within the room are not well enough defined to determine its qualities as a place or destination.

• Look carefully at the detailed design and security measures in the planned open space to see if they encourage or discourage public use.

     There are many, many instances here where we see possibilities for negative use, or over securitization amounting to a limitation on public use. Public spaces in this proximity to large residential buildings usually have to limit the extent and range of programming due to complaints from residents. Ask Battery Park City Park Authority how many programs they have had to cancel. In addition, large courtyard entrances to buildings intimidate the public, but not undesirables.

• Is there a clear distinction made between active and passive recreational facilities in the project?

     The distinction is too clear. There is not enough clustering or “triangulation” of uses to promote a critical mass of uses and activities that will enliven the space and create a destination.

• By not including the heat island effect, is the DEIS ignoring a significant impact?

TASK 7. HISTORIC RESOURCES; / TASK 15. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

Here are some initial general comments.

• There are no feasible alternatives included to the demolition of LIRR Stables and Ward Bakery. Preservation and reuse strategies are not examined. Markets for industrial reuse and residential conversion exist and the DEIS has not disclosed these. Dismissing reuse possibilities because “…retaining the buildings constrains the goals of the master plan,” is a circular argument, which does not satisfy the goal of full disclosure.
• Because an historic building has been previously compromised by thoughtless new construction (by FCR) does not mean that the proposed plan does not increase this isolation or further destroy any visual relationship to the streetscape. Through its previous actions, the developer has isolated historic structures. Should the developer now be allowed to further isolate and even use his previous actions to justify future ones? Historic relationships have already been compromised. Efforts to enhance rather than further isolate historic structures such as the Pacific Branch of the BPL, the Church of the Redeemer, and the IRT Atlantic Avenue Control House, from a built context have not been examined in this document.
• Just to say that an action does not pose an impact does not make it so… A full discussion of the visual and contextual impacts of this project must be included. This project would serve to isolate not only individual buildings but entire historic districts. The proposed development would result in changes that would directly alter the character of historic districts. The historic districts adjacent to the proposed project are not “visually and physically distinct from the areas that surround them,” but rather they are interwoven with their neighboring communities. This project is an abrupt interruption into the low-scale development that makes Brooklyn unique.

TASK 8. URBAN DESIGN

• Even if Pacific St. has to be closed for the arena, there’s no good reason for closing Pacific St. between Carlton & Vanderbilt.
• Many neighborhoods around have contextual zoning. DCP has been rezoning surrounding neighborhoods to insure contextuality. The project design is not contextual.
• Distinctions between public and private open space aren’t clear.
• Right now, it looks like open space is private. No indication it’s public.
• Consider an alternative with stepped up building heights to preserve views of Bank building.
• Need to look at street level perspective along Pacific St., looking at street walls.
• Given the historic significance of the Williamsburg Bank Building, there’s every reason to develop a plan that preserves that building as the tallest, and keeps it visible from all or most directions.
• Need to look critically at the design guidelines. They appear to have little relation to the context. They are very general. There doesn’t appear to be any explanation of how they will be detailed and by who; how they can be changed and by who.

TASK 11. INFRASTRUCTURE
Much data needed: Requested

Preliminary Findings of Infrastructure Section
(focuses on stormwater and CSO issues only)

Overall Assessment (of water/sewer issues):

• The project does result in an increase in CSOs and in water demand, as would be expected. The reliability of the magnitude of these estimates cannot be verified until the missing reports listed below are provided. These increases are not necessarily insignificant.

Big errors and omissions not explicitly addressed in the text

• The project will increase sanitary flows in the sewer system. This decreases the capacity of the sewer system to buffer against CSOs. Even if AY is stormwater neutral, the additional wastewater can increase CSOs. This may have been considered in the modeling report produced by HydroQual, but this effect is not mentioned in the DEIS. We need the Hydroqual report to look at this carefully.

Faulty (or questionable) methodology and assumptions

• That “voluntary” (p. 11-1) water conservation measures will actually be implemented. How are we assured of this?
• “The impact of CSO events on local water quality is transitory at most locations” Water quality is temporarily impaired after a CSO event by some water quality constituents (like pathogens which eventually die off), but other water quality constituents (like solids) remain long after the event. Also, dilution is not the solution to pollution, if our goal is to gradually improve water quality over time. I challenge the assertions made in the DEIS that an increase in the frequency and volume of CSOs is unimportant.
• Water consumption in the study area during the 2010 and 2016 study years are assumed to be the same as the existing condition, in part because of an assumption that DEP will continue to implement water conservation programs. However, Hydroqual (in its sewer/stormwater modeling) assumes that the population of the study area will increase over time. What is the reason for this discrepancy?
• Page 11-16, and 11-27 “Projected [sanitary] flows are similar to current flows because additional flows from new developments are offset for 2010 [and 2016] by water conservation measures and the natural turnover of more efficient fixtures in existing developments” – Where is the analysis behind this assumptions?
• Page 11-18 and 11-28: There will be increases in water demand. Where is the analysis that demonstrates that “an increase in demand such as this does not adversely impact the City’s water supply system, or DEP’s ability to reliably deliver water to its customers…[or to]… adversely affect local water pressure”
• How was the detention volume (334,000 gallons) calculated on page 11-22?
• Page 11-33: How was InfoWorks actually used to model storage tanks and water reuse? I can’t understand how this could be done with the level of subcatchment and sewer trunk definition incorporated in the model.

Inadequate treatment of alternatives

TASK 12. TRANSPORTATION
Much data needed: Requested

This is a huge item and forthcoming. Issues include modal split assumptions, underestimations of platform crowding, dubious nature of requests for increase in MTA service at game peak hours, problems with parking plan for the arena, failure to address systemic problems of pedestrian circulation, failure to deal with systemic problems of traffic circulation (in both cases, narrow focus on individual intersections), etc.

Two notes on bicycle plan:

TASK 13. AIR QUALITY
Much Data needed: Requested

Initial issue:

• Mitigation measures to deal with particulate matter during construction do not appear to be adequate. They could do much more.

TASK 14. NOISE

• In the section NOISE FUNDAMENTALS, the authors state the following: “If sufficiently loud, noise may adversely affect people in several ways.” Noise may affect people even if not loud. For example, a dripping faucet, although not that loud on a dBA scale, is intrusive and disturbing. For that matter, a neighbor’s television set not that loud in the apartment of the neighbor below can still prevent that neighbor from falling asleep. Noises are disturbing and intrusive sounds which bother people and such disturbances can lead to stress and in turn bring about physiological harm. On the other hand, loud noises are especially damaging to ears even if the individual listening to the loud sounds enjoys them. Pete Townshend of the Who suffered hearing damage because of the loud music of his band.
• In using “may” to describe effects of noise on health when research clearly demonstrates that noise has an adverse effect on mental and physical health indicates the failure of AKRF to acknowledge the large body of literature that speaks to the adverse impacts of noise on human health and well-being. Since I pointed this out in earlier reviews of AKRF’s statements on the noise/health link, I can’t believe they haven’t bothered to look at this literature. AKRF’s continued dismissive attitude to noise impacts in general is illustrated by their following statement: “...it must be remembered that all the stated effects of noise on people vary greatly with each individual.” This gives the impression that many people are not adversely impacted by noise. Emphasizing that effects vary from person to person tends to understate significant findings that can be generalized to larger populations. Medicines are dispensed as healing agents to large populations based on research findings on samples, recognizing that some individuals may not respond to the particular medicine. Their statement that effects vary greatly with each individual indicates a lack of knowledge as to how significant findings of research are to be interpreted.
• Even though AKRF concludes that “...the proposed project would result in significant adverse noise impacts at a number of locations along feeder roadways to and from the project,” the consultants fail to accurately describe the physiological and psychological impacts of noise. By so doing, their EIS analysis doesn’t give the reader the actual meaning of “significant noise impacts.” Noise effects have to be spelled out, e.g. ischemic heart disease, hypertension, loss of sleep, impeded learning in children etc. The World Health Organization acknowledges that noise diminishes quality of life and diminished quality of life denotes an unhealthy physical state, even if physical symptoms have not yet appeared.
• With respect to the “new open space areas” created on-site as part of the proposed project, the noise levels will exceed the 55 dBA for outdoor areas that provide for serenity and quiet. To say that these areas will be as noisy as other open space areas and parks in New York City to justify the absence of quiet is comparable to justifying underachievement in one school because there are many other schools with large numbers of underachieving children. Children are supposed to succeed in school and open green areas and parks are supposed to be quiet places. Furthermore, outdoor areas serving residential complexes are different from larger parks in that residents tend to spend more time in their residential open spaces than visitors to city parks.
• AKRF continues to use the same “old table” (Table 15-4 ) to define noise levels that are acceptable or unacceptable, namely a table based on aircraft noise contours cited by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection in 1983. Even if we could generalize from aircraft noise contours to noises generated by highway traffic, one would have to question whether assumptions made in 1983 still hold in 2006.
• There have been many criticisms in the past 20 years that the FAA thresholds for defining noise impacts in urban residential areas had been set too high (Stenzel, 1996; Schomer, 2002), namely at the 65 dBA level. Even when the FAA set 65dBA as level when noise should be mitigated, the EPA in the 1970s had already identified 55 dBA to be the level, half of what the FAA recommended. Today, the many complaints the FAA has received from residents living below the 65 dBA contours underscores their error in setting 65 dBA as the level. Ms. Stenzel (1996) reported that a Natural Resources Defense Council study tracking airport noise complaints in one community found that over ninety percent (90%) fell outside the 60 dBA contour level.
• I had earlier pointed out in reviews of AKRF analyses that they have to familiarize themselves with more recent studies and reports but they persist in citing dated tables that are no longer accepted by individuals familiar with the research on the effects of noise on people.
• AKRF notes that after construction significant adverse noise impacts would be felt at the Dean Playground. Will this playground be able to continue as a playground with these added noise impacts? Sounds generated by children playing are far different from noises imposed upon them when they are playing and such noises can make it very uncomfortable for the children, as well as their caretakers.
• Now let us examine impact of children learning in schools. AKRF concludes that categories 7 and 8, where schools are located would fall into the “Marginally Unacceptable category”. Yet, AKRF does not discuss the potential impact of “Marginally Unacceptable” with respect to reading and learning. The evidence is overwhelming that outside noises adversely affect learning in school. I would like to see a discussion of these impacts in the EIS analysis. May I add that the increased adverse noise impacts at residential locations noted by AKRF will also adversely affect the children living in these homes, potentially impeding cognitive and language development as well as learning skills.
• Unless consultants are asked to do independent measurements at the noise receptors, the community must rely on measurements reported by AKRF. Can one rely on the methodology and measurements employed by a consulting firm that has ignored the literature concerning the impacts of noise on people, especially children, and continues to cite outdated tables and data to arrive at conclusions about impacts on people? My wise Columbia University psychology professor, now deceased, could be quoted here: “If one section of a report is carelessly prepared, it casts doubt on all the other sections as well.”
  

TASK 17. PUBLIC HEALTH

• This section omits any analysis of mental health impacts, or the disparate health impacts on low-income minority communities (environmental justice).

TASK 19. ALTERNATIVES

• The main argument advanced for the project over the No Arena/Reduced Density alternative is that because the project has more housing units and jobs, it produces more benefits. But there is no discussion of costs vs. benefits. Although the analysis shows that the project would have more significant adverse impacts than any of the alternatives, and more unmitigated impacts, the line of argument is still that the project plan is superior because it brings more housing units and jobs. This does not consider qualitative aspects of the difference, and substitute these gross figures for environmental impacts, and it’s the latter not the former that should be the main criterion for the environmental review.