What Empire State Development needs to hear at the Phase II Scoping Hearing

Graphic: Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Report

Empire State Development (ESD) began the environmental review process for Phase II of the Atlantic Yards Project on August 24 by issuing a Draft Scope of Work for its environmental consultant, AKRF. On Thursday, September 24 at 6:00PM, ESD will hold a virtual public scoping hearing to take comments from members of the public. ESD is obligated to respond to comments requesting additional analyses for environmental review, so this meeeting represents your opportunity to ensure your concerns related to air, noise, shadows, traffic, and increased population, as well as public benefits like affordable housing and open space are included in its review. The meeting will take place via Zoom, and you can register here.

The topics studied in an environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) are extensive. Here are some of the key issues we believe must be addressed in the Atlantic Yards Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SSEIS).

The SSEIS must consider the whole Atlantic Yards project, not only the unbuilt lots.

The current proposal is an amendment to a project approved and built in stages over roughly two decades. Some earlier mitigation commitments and public benefits like affordable housing remain in force, and completed elements such as Barclays Center continue to affect traffic, neighborhood conditions and cumulative impacts. A whole-project framework would help show what has been delivered, what remains outstanding, and how the 2026 changes affect the project as a whole.

The SSEIS must update the 2006 blight analysis using current conditions.

Atlantic Yards was approved in large part to remove blight, but physical and economic conditions around the project have changed substantially since 2006. The SSEIS should distinguish between the remaining uncovered rail yard itself and the earlier claim that the yard suppressed development on surrounding blocks. A current parcel-by-parcel analysis would show which original conditions remain and which have changed or been eliminated.

The SSEIS must measure the real public benefit of the affordable housing program, not just count "affordable" units.

Affordable units at different AMI levels serve very different households. The SSEIS should compare the 2006/2014 affordability framework, units already delivered, the proposed remaining units and the final project-wide mix. That comparison could also show how well each program serves rent-burdened households, locally vulnerable residents and representative working- and middle-income households.

The SSEIS should determine what is necessary for the final project to restore the previously approved roughly 35% share of affordable apartments at the original income-band distribution.

Looking only at the 1,242 proposed future affordable units does not show the final project-wide result. An alternative analysis should treat completed units as fixed, then calculate the mix of future units needed to bring the project as close as practicable to both the earlier overall affordable share and the income-band distribution that supported the 2006 and 2014 approvals, including any changes to program or subsidy.

The SSEIS must reexamine Barclays Center event traffic using actual operating conditions.

The Arena has operated for more than a decade, so the SSEIS can compare earlier forecasts and mitigation with real-world conditions. That would include street closures, bus staging and idling, ride-hail activity, illegal standing and parking, resident parking displacement, pedestrian conflicts and events that are not publicly advertised but still generate neighborhood impacts.

Site 5 traffic should be tested against the goal of a pedestrian-oriented Pacific Street.

The Draft Scope places residential access, hotel access, loading and possible garage access on Pacific Street. If the block becomes one-way westbound, trucks and passenger vehicles may travel much of this low-scale residential street. The SSEIS should quantify those trips, map truck routes, define what a "shared" or "slow" street means in measurable terms, and test lower-traffic design options.

The SSEIS must analyze what happens if Block 1121—and its open space—is delayed for many years.

The eastern rail yard block 1121 is planned as the last major phase and requires a separate rail-yard platform. It also contains an important share of the proposed public open space. Because the Draft Scope already acknowledges that construction may extend beyond 2040, the SSEIS must analyze the actual environmental and public-benefit condition if Site 5 and Block 1120 are completed but Block 1121 is substantially delayed.

Construction complaints should have measurable response times and a public accountability dashboard.

Construction noise, dust, truck activity and other problems can be temporary and difficult to verify after the fact. The SSEIS should establish standards for acknowledgment, field investigation, interim correction, final disposition and escalation. A public dashboard could track actions by the developer's Community Liaison, contractors, ESD's environmental monitor, ESD staff and City agencies such as NYPD, FDNY, DOB, DEP and DOT.

The SSEIS must compare more than just the No Action and No Unmitigated Impact alternatives.

Additional comparisons should include the existing approved/2014 program, the project-wide affordability restoration alternative, a reduced-scale or reduced-density alternative, a Site 5 design with less vehicle activity on Pacific Street, and an open-space-first or alternative phasing scenario for Block 1121.