Bedford Union Armory DEIS Executive Summary

Bedford Union Armory
CEQR No: 16DME005K
Executive Summary
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of New York is seeking a series of discretionary approvals to facilitate the redevelopment of the
historic Bedford Union Armory (the Armory) located at 1555 Bedford Avenue (Block 1274, Lot 1) in the
Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn (the Project Site) into an approximately 542,393 gross square
feet (gsf) three-building mixed-use development. The New York City Economic Development Corporation
(NYCEDC), on behalf of the New York City (NYC) Office of the Deputy Mayor for Housing and Economic
Development (ODMHED), will be the applicant for a zoning text amendment, a zoning map amendment, a
special permit for a large-scale plan, and a parking related special permit. The NYC Department of Citywide
Administrative Services (DCAS) is the applicant only for the disposition action. The Proposed Actions are
subject to environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) in
conformance to City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) guidelines and procedures. ODMHED is the
lead agency for this environmental review.
The redevelopment of the historic Armory would result in approximately 390 residential dwelling units (DUs),
including approximately 177 affordable DUs; up to 48,997 gsf of office space; up to 18,122 gsf of academic
space; approximately 72,252 gsf of community facility space; and a minimum of 118 parking spaces (the
Proposed Development) 1. This development program is discussed as Analysis Scenario 1 for the
remainder of this environmental review.
Used by the military between its opening circa 1908, through its decommissioning in 2011, the Armory is
composed of a Drill Shed that was used for cavalry exercises, a Head House, Stables and a later garage
addition that was added to the Project Site in three phases between 1917 and 1931. The Armory has been
found eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR) by the New York
State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and the New York City Landmark
Preservation Commission (LPC) has determined that the Armory is eligible for Landmark designation. As
part of the Proposed Development, the Head House and Drill Shed components, the most dominant of the
existing historic Armory structures, would be preserved and rehabilitated to include a community
recreational facility, office programming, and event space for use by the community. Both the exterior
faade and interior building elements of the Drill Shed and Head House would be upgraded to meet
accessibility requirements, and to incorporate new mechanical and electrical systems. The Stables would
be replaced with a new condominium building that would include up to 60 DUs, up to 12 DUs (20% of the
total) of which would be set aside as affordable for-sale DUs. The garage, which is located on the eastern
portion of the Project Site, would be replaced with a new mixed-income rental building with approximately
50% affordable DUs, that may also include academic and office space. All new structural components on
the Project Site would be designed to complement the existing historic structure.
The Proposed Development is the outcome of a competitive process led by NYCEDC in December 2015
to redevelop the Armory. Bedford Courts LLC, the Selected Developer was chosen to redevelop the
Armory. The program of uses included in the Proposed Development was developed in response to
comments and guidance from local elected officials and the community received during a comprehensive
outreach campaign led by NYCEDC. The Proposed Actions were crafted to facilitate the redevelopment of
1Should the 18,122 gsf of academic space be determined infeasible, 25 additional DUs (including 14 affordable DUs) would be
incorporated into the Proposed Development in lieu of the 18,122 gsf of academic space and associated office space (approximately
8,278 gsf). The additional 25 DUs will be included in the relevant analysis areas to ensure the most conservative analysis is achieved.
This development program is discussed as Analysis Scenario 2 for the remainder of this environmental review.
S-1 Executive Summary

CEQR No: 16DME005K
the Armory in a way that responds to the comments and guidance received from the public and conforms
to the terms of the agreement between the City and the Selected Developer. The Proposed Development
would support Mayor Bill de Blasios Housing New York: A Five Borough, Ten-Year Plan, which is a
comprehensive plan to build or preserve 200,000 affordable housing units over the next decade.
II. PROPOSED ACTIONS

The Proposed Actions include the following discretionary actions that are subject to review under the City
Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) and CEQR process:
1. Disposition of City-owned Property: The portion of the Project Site on which the condominium
building would be built would be sold to the Selected Developer by the City. The remainder of the
Project Site, including the Armorys existing Drill Shed, Head House, and garage, would be
disposed of through a long-term ground-lease between the City and the Selected Developer. These
dispositions of City-owned property require Mayoral approval pursuant to Section 384(b)(4) of the
New York City Charter.
2. Zoning Map Amendment: The Project Site is currently located in an R6 residential zoning district.
The City is requesting approval by the New York City Planning Commission (CPC) to change the
zoning on the Project Site from R6 to R7-2 with a C2-4 commercial overlay. The proposed C2-4
commercial overlay, mapped to a depth that will capture the entirety of the Head House, will allow
for commercial office uses throughout the Head House, and span eastward from Bedford Avenue
to a point 220 feet west of the Rogers Avenue street-line.
3. Zoning Text Amendment: The City is requesting approval of a Zoning Text Amendment to map
the Project Site as a Mandatory Inclusionary Housing Area (MIHA) in Appendix F of the New York
City Zoning Resolution (ZR), pursuant to ZR sections 23-154 and 23-90. In support of this request,
the Selected Developer proposes that the Proposed Development would comply with ZR Section
23-154(d)(3)(ii) - Option 2 (MIH Option 2). MIH Option 2 requires that a minimum of 30% of the
residential floor area be affordable to residents with a weighted average of three income bands (for
instance, 40%, 50% and 110% of area median income or AMI) that would not exceed 80% of
AMI. To meet this requirement, the Selected Developer would ensure that 30% of the 335,262
zoning square feet (zsf) of the residential floor area of the Proposed Development would comply
with MIH.
4. Special Permit: Pursuant to ZR Section 74-74, the City is seeking approval of a special permit to
create a "large-scale general development" ("LSGD"). The LSGD would allow the Selected
Developer to address the unique circumstances created by preserving the existing Armorys Drill
Shed and Head House, and meet the project goals to provide approximately 50% of the proposed
rental DUs as affordable, a large recreation center, a community multi-purpose space, and
community office space. Specifically, the following special permits under ZR Section 74-74 are
requested:
Building base and building height relief pursuant to ZR Section 74-743(a)(2)
Setback relief pursuant to ZR Section 74-743(a)(2)
Maximum number of stories relief pursuant to ZR Section 74-743(a)(2)
5. Special Permit: Pursuant to ZR Section 74-532, the City is requesting approval of a special permit
to reduce the parking requirements for accessory group parking facilities. The reduction in
accessory residential off-street parking spaces would allow the Proposed Development to meet the

CEQR No: 16DME005K
project goals of maximizing on-site affordable housing while preserving and maintaining the existing
Drill Shed and Head House to the largest extent practicable.
In addition, the Selected Developer may receive public financing by the NYC Department of Housing
Preservation and Development (HPD) and/or the NYC Housing Development Corporation (HDC) to
facilitate the Proposed Development. Depending on the public funding source additional review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) may be required at a later time.
City Environmental Quality Review

The Proposed Actions are classified as unlisted actions under SEQRA and are subject to environmental
review in conformance to CEQR requirements.
As lead agency, ODMHED has overseen the preparation of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) in conformance with CEQR guidelines as detailed in the 2014 CEQR Technical Manual. The
environmental analysis in the DEIS assumes that the Proposed Development will be completed in 2020
and identifies the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Actions and the impacts of other projects in the
vicinity of the Project Site that would be in operation by the 2020 project completion date. The lead agency
has conducted a coordinated environmental review of the Proposed Actions including the NYC Department
of City Planning (DCP) and the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) (Involved Agencies), and
the NYC Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), the NYC Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP), and others (Interested Agencies). Provided below is a statement of the purpose and need for the
Proposed Actions, a description of the Analysis Framework that served as the basis for the assessment
of impacts of the Proposed Actions, and a summary of the anticipated impacts of the Proposed Actions for
each impact area required by CEQR.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS

Project Site
The Project Site is located on Lot 1 of Block 1274 in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn (refer to
Figures S-1: Site Location Map and S-2: Tax Lot Map). It is located on a block bounded by Bedford
Avenue to the west, Union Street to the north, President Street to the south, and Rogers Avenue to the
east. The Project Site has a lot area of approximately 122,156 square feet (sf) (2.8 acres) and its street
address is 1555 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11225. Located in Community District (CD) 9, the Project
Site is currently occupied by the Armory. A public institution owned by the City of New York, the Armory is
a vacant structure with no current active uses (refer to Figure S-3: Land Use Map). As illustrated in Figure
S-4: Aerial Map and Figure S-5, and detailed below, the Armory is composed of three main sections: Head
House, Drill Shed, Stables, and additionally, the Armory includes a garage that was constructed in three
phases between 1917 and 1931.
Head House: The approximately 58,487 gsf Head House is located on the western portion of the
Project Site and was used by the military, when in operation, as administrative space. The Head
House fronts Bedford Avenue, with a long, two-story structure that contains the primary building
entrance, which is reached directly from street level through an arched opening framed by columns
supporting a projecting balcony. The primary entrance faces west, and is marked by turrets on
either side. To the south, a single-entry bay on Bedford Avenue provides a secondary entrance to
the Head House and transitions to a two and a half-story wing that extends along President Street.
Drill Shed: The approximately 57,450 gsf barrel vaulted Drill Shed is located between the Head
House on the west, the garage on the east, Union Street on the north, and the Stables on the south.
It measures approximately 175 feet by 308 feet, and projects above the Head House and Stables.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Seventeen 80-feet tall, steel, crescent-shaped Sickle Trusses support the nearly solid round-
arched roof. Only the side elevation of the Drill Shed fronting Union Street is exposed to the
sidewalk and is characterized by a one-story brick faade that terminates at the Drill Shed roofline.
Stables: The approximately 28,990 gsf two-story Stables structure faces President Street. It is
articulated by pavilions that mark the original stable entrances. The Stables were initially designed
as separate stable bays with large windows for ventilation. The seven bays of the Stables, which
were originally open above the ground floor, were filled in with brick circa 1915. The Stables
supported various military functions, and included pistol and rifle ranges in the lowest level. When
the troop activities shifted from reliance on the cavalry, the Stables configuration was maintained
but transformed into a series of classrooms and supply storage units.
Garage: In addition to the Armorys three main sections, the approximately 30,555 gsf one-story
parking and maintenance garage is located on the eastern portion of the Project Site between
President Street and Union Street. Not part of the original Armory structure, the garage structure
was built in a series of three additions to the original Armory complex between 1917 and 1931 for
additional stabling and equine purposes.
The Armory was designed by Pilcher, Thomas & Tachau and constructed between the years 1904 and
1908. A massive fortress-like complex, it was included in the statewide Intensive Level Survey of Army
National Guard Armories (1993) and evaluated by LPC (circa 1976). It has been recognized as a testament
to the power of the state military and the popularity of the cavalry. OPRHP has determined that the Armory
is eligible for SN/R-listing and LPC has determined that the Armory is eligible for Landmark designation.

ve
lin A
k
Fran
Lincoln Pl
ve
o rd A
Rogers Ave
Bed f
Eastern Pkwy
Eastern Pkwy
Eastern Pkwy
Union St
ve
Rogers Ave
ord A
Bedf
President St
Carroll St
ve
ord A
Rogers Ave
Bedf
Crown St
Feet
0 125 250 500

Source: 2015 Pluto, NYCDCP 1555 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn
Project Site SITE

LOCATION
MAP
Figure S-1
18 70 1
7
20
8
9
11
16 76 52
21
1
66
70
22 75
45
1287
5
74
Fran
24 16 k

19
lin A
25 73
1273
ve
26 72 19
27
1294
71
5
22 20
1
58
28 70
61
1280
12
1266
1
29 69
68 23 10
30 62 12
25 67 17
60 64 61 13
59 33 54 66 18 60
25 14
58 28 65 62 59
Study Area
Source: 2015 Pluto, NYCDCP
15
Project Site
64 7501 58
53 63
37 52 30 57 16
58
62 31 56
48 51 31 61 22
150 32 55 17
32 60 33
50
400-Foot Radius
33 59 34 54 19
39 49 133 53
58 35 20
34 57 52
53
135 21
35
46
56 36 51 151
9
26 121
44
55 37
41
54 137 22
39
Bedf
53
38
ord A 38 47 23 122
36
ve 138 24
39
47
25
1259
46 31 26
1 45 126
40
1295
78 27
1288
1
77
3
76 36
10
5
Bedf
29
7
75 14
ord A
9
ve
59
74 15
11
60
13
20 73 16 65
21 72 17
22
61 62
71 64 36 89
18
34
23 70 19 63
24
1288
69 20 62
Tax Lot
25
87
68
26 67 21 61 1
Tax Block
27 24
Bed f
66 60
1252 85
75 01
17
o rd A
28 65 25 ve
59
Crown St
29 64 26
30 58
63 10
1
27
31 62 57
28
1281
32 61 56
29
33
1274
60 55 14
1295
30 5
Carroll St
34 59 54
31
1260
35 58 25
President St
32 53
1
36 57
1 16
Union St
37 56 33 52
1253
27 37 12
38 55 34 51
1267
36 13
39 54 35 50 35
1
40 53 14
36 49 34
Eastern Pkwy
41 15 40
30 133
Eastern Pkwy
1274
48 21 33 16 38
Lincoln Pl
32 17 37
Feet 42
143
45 18
38 31
7501
0
44
43
40 19 36
30
39
41
38
37
40
139
36
39
35
38
37
36
35
35
33
124
32
129
29
34
Lot
42
27 29
23
45
21
Block
Rogers Ave
27
33
32
31
30
34
26
25
Number
Number
8
Rogers Ave
125
40
2
1
3
4
10
5
6
7
8
9
Rogers Ave
0
10
11
1
4
12
5
11
6
6
'
7
9
1
8
12
1
1 2
13 64
76
3
4
5
6
9
1
2
14
3
4
63
5
14
6
1296
250
75 15 7501
76 73
16 16 11 61
73 7
17
74 18 71 58
71 18 13
8
19 70
25
70 72 20
63
20 68 7501 55
21
12
22
66 69 13
23
1282
1261
22 51
64
24 17 14
114
1289 66 25
1268
64 15
1275
1254
26 63
500
63 25 48 16
27 62 21
62
Eastern Pkwy
64 28 17
61
61 18 62
29 60
60 29 63 23 19 61
30 59 45
121 23
59 31 20
61 58
58 32 32 25 21 57
57
44 22
33 56

57 59
25
43 23
56 34 55
34 54 27 41 56
Figure S-2
35 24

MAP
TAX LOT
55 54 51
1555 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn

ve
lin A
k
Fran
Lincoln Pl
ve
o rd A
Rogers Ave
Bed f
Eastern Pkwy
Eastern Pkwy
Eastern Pkwy
0 '
40
Union St
ve
Rogers Ave
ord A
Bedf
President St
Carroll St
ve
ord A
Rogers Ave
Bedf
Crown St
Feet
0 125 250 500

Source: 2015 Pluto, NYCDCP and verified through field visits March 2016
1555 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn
Project Site
One & Two Family Transportation / Utility
LAND
Residence
Multi-Family
Public Facilities & Institutions
USE
400-foot Parking
Land Use
Residence (Walkup)
Multi-Family MAP
Study Area Residence (Elevator) All Others or No Data (Vacant Structure)
Mixed Residential In Development
& Commercial
Commercial Use Figure S-3
ve
lin A
k
Fran
Lincoln Pl
ve
o rd A
Rogers Ave
Bed f
Eastern Pkwy
Eastern Pkwy
Eastern Pkwy
0 '
2 3
8 40
Union St 7
Rogers Ave
Drill Shed
ve
ord A
Garage
Head
Bedf
House Stables
President St
5 6
4
Carroll St
ve
ord A
Rogers Ave
Bedf
Crown St
Feet
0 125 250 500

Source: Google Earth Pro 1555 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn
Location &
Project Site
Photograph Number
AERIAL
400-Foot Radius
(Keyed to Figure S-5) MAP
Study Area
Figure S-4
Photo 1 - View of Project Site from Bedford Ave, Facing East Photo 2 - View of Project Site from Bedford Ave, Facing South East
Photo 3 - View of Project Site from Union St, Facing South Photo 4 - View of Project Site from President Street, Facing North
1555 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn Figure S-5

Photo 5 - View of Project Site from President St, Facing East Photo 6 - View of Project Site from President St, Facing West
Photo 7 - View of Project Site from Union St, Facing West Photo 8 - View of Project Site from Union St, Facing Southeast
1555 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn Figure S-5 (continued)

CEQR No: 16DME005K
IV. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

Building on previous efforts of Congressman Major Owens and others, in 2011, then Brooklyn Borough
President Marty Markowitz initiated the Bedford Union Armory redevelopment process, a community
engagement and visioning process that brought together local elected officials, residents, and other
community stakeholders to help determine appropriate future uses for the Armory. As part of this initiative,
graduate students at New York Universitys Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service authored,
for their capstone project, a report which outlined a set of visions for the Armory based on a study of the
neighborhood context, community engagement (interviews and community meetings) and technical
research.
The report identified the following conditions in Central Brooklyn:
Lack of access to physical recreation facilities;
Physical inactivity, obesity, and Type 2 diabetes concerns;
Inadequate community services, specifically youth and senior programs;
Lack of safe community spaces; and
Need for youth development services.
After extensive study and outreach, it was determined that three critical issues existed in CD 9 that could
be at least partially addressed by the redevelopment of the Armory: the need for additional affordable
housing, the need for additional community space, and the need for an improved City University of New
York (CUNY) facility. These goals led to the refinement of the Selected Developers proposal for the
redevelopment of the Armory.
In 2013, NYCEDC issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to transform the vacant Bedford Union Armory
into a valuable amenity for the local residents through the development of a significant amount of
community-serving space, while also preserving the historic character of the Armory. The RFP sought
respondents whose proposals would meet community needs and ensure the future success of the Armory
within the Crown Heights neighborhood. The Proposed Development was chosen by NYCEDC as it met
the goals laid out in the RFP to preserve the Head House and Drill Shed components of the historic Armory,
and would provide a recreational facility, office programming, and event space that would be available to
the community for year-round use.
As mentioned previously, the provision of the Proposed Developments approximately 177 affordable DUs
would support Mayor Bill de Blasios Housing New York: A Five Borough, Ten-Year Plan, which is a
comprehensive plan to build or preserve 200,000 affordable housing units over the next decade. The
proposed commercial space on the Project Site would be devoted to fostering small, local businesses. The
Proposed Actions would facilitate the redevelopment of the Bedford Union Armory and provide much-
needed high quality affordable housing and community facility space (including recreational opportunities
and affordable community office space) in Brooklyn, generally, and in Crown Heights in particular.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
V. FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

In conformance with SEQRA and CEQR, the lead agency (the agency leading the environmental review
process) is required to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of proposed actions and, to the
maximum extent practicable, avoid, minimize or mitigate potentially significant adverse impacts on the
environment, consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations. An Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is a comprehensive document used to systematically consider environmental
effects, evaluate reasonable alternatives, and identify and mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, any
potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The EIS provides a means for the lead and involved
agencies (an agency that has or will have a discretionary decision to make regarding some aspect of the
proposed action) to consider environmental factors and choose among alternatives in their decision-making
processes related to a proposed action. This section outlines the conditions to be examined in the EIS.
Reasonable Worst Case Development Scenario (RWCDS)

To assess the possible effects of the Proposed Actions, a reasonable worst case development scenario
(RWCDS) was developed to account for the future No-Action condition and the future With-Action condition.
The incremental difference between the future No-Action and future With-Action conditions serves as the
basis for the impact analysis of the environmental review. As described below, the incremental difference
would be the full extent of the Proposed Development. Under the With-Action condition, the Proposed
Actions are expected to result in an increase over the No-Action condition of approximately 542,393 gsf
comprised of the following uses: residential uses comprising approximately 390 DUs (including
approximately 177 affordable DUs); up to 48,997 gsf of office space; up to 18,122 gsf of academic space;
approximately 72,252 gsf of community facility space; and a minimum of 118 parking spaces (Analysis
Scenario 1) 2. Unless otherwise noted, analyses will be based on Analysis Scenario 1.
Analysis Year
Receipt of all approvals of the requested discretionary actions is expected to occur prior to start of
construction in the first quarter of 2018. Demolition, foundation, superstructure, and interior-fit-out of the
Proposed Development are expected to occur through the third quarter of 2019. It is anticipated that the
Proposed Development would be completed and operational in 2020. Accordingly, a 2020 analysis year is
assumed for analysis purposes.
Future without the Proposed Actions (No-Action Condition)

In the future without the Proposed Actions, the Project Site in the future (2020) would remain as under
existing conditions, which would be a primarily vacant Armory with its use limited to occasional events held
within the space (the No-Action condition). For each technical analysis in the DEIS, the No-Action
condition will also incorporate approved or planned development projects that are likely to be completed by
the 2020 analysis year. These projects are discussed below.
No-Action Development Projects

Based on coordination with DCPs Brooklyn Office, a review of recent building permits through the New
York City Department of Buildings (DOB), and coordination with HPD, six projects were identified within
approximately 0.25 miles of the Project Site that would potentially be fully occupied by the end of 2020
(refer to Figure S-6 and Table S-1: No-Action Development Projects). Three of these projects are
undergoing DCP review for rezoning, which, if approved, would result in larger developments than currently
2 Should the 18,122 gsf of academic space be determined infeasible, 25 additional DUs (including 14 affordable DUs) would be
incorporated into the Proposed Development in lieu of the 18,122 gsf of academic space and associated office space (approximately
8,278 gsf) (Analysis Scenario 2). The additional 25 DUs will be included in the relevant analysis areas to ensure the most conservative
analysis is achieved (see Table 1-3 below).

CEQR No: 16DME005K
permitted by zoning. These No-Action development projects would generate a combined 1,113 DUs (198
of which would be affordable), 37,813 sf of commercial space, 3,947 sf of community facility space, and a
38,300-sf hotel. These six projects are listed in Table S-1.
Table S-1: No-Action Development Projects 3
Map Block and

Project Name Future Use Status
No. Lot
1 1519-1535 Block 1260, 11-story mixed-use building with local retail FRESH food Undergoing
Bedford Lot 1 and 5 store on the ground floor. The total development would DCP review for
Avenue be 150,352 sf with 188 rental units (38 of which would be rezoning
affordable) in 133,189 sf residential, 17,163 sf
commercial space (with 7,030 sf commercial and FRESH
area), and 83 enclosed parking spaces
2 931 Carroll Block 1188, 126,950 sf (7.2 FAR) residential building comprising of Undergoing
Street Lot 58 approximately 150 DUs, 38 of which would be affordable. DCP review for
60 off-street accessory parking spaces (40% of DUs) rezoning
would be provided in the cellar.
3 40 Crown Block 1190, 448,365 sf residential and commercial building with Undergoing
Street Lots 29, 45, approximately 488 DUs, 122 of which would be DCP review for
46, 48, and affordable (25%). The development would contain rezoning
50 approximately 20,650 sf of commercial space for ground
floor retail and 195 off-street accessory parking spaces
(40% of DUs) in the cellar.
4 267 Rogers Block 1289, 5-story (55-feet tall) residential development for Use Under
Avenue Lot 1 Group 2. The total as-of-right development would be Construction
112,155 sf with 165 DUs and 35 enclosed parking
spaces
5 1515 Bedford Block 1253, 10-story (100-feet tall) residential building with Under
Avenue Lot 1 community facility and retail uses on the first floor for Construction
Use Group 2 and 4. The total development is 97,469 sf
with 142 DUs, 3,947 sf of community facility, and 61
enclosed parking spaces.
6 1550 Bedford Block 1266, 5-story, 38,300 total sf development with the banquet DOB permit
Avenue Lot 36 hall and retail space on the first floor, 100-room hotel on filed
the second, third and fourth stories, and a retail bar and
public terrace on the fifth floor
3 The application for 931 Carroll Street and 40 Crown Street (submitted to DCP under the name 1451 Franklin Avenue Rezoning)
was withdrawn shortly before the completion of this DEIS, which considered them as No-Action developments. If the DEIS analysis
were to exclude these two no-build projects, no new impacts would occur.

Sterling Pl
St Johns Pl
East
ern P
5
kwy
1253,1
Lincoln Pl
le
1260,
East
ern P
5
1 m i
kwy 1
5 -
Eastern Pkwy 0.2
1266,
36
6
Union St
Nostrand Ave
2 1274, 1
1188,
58
0
40
ve
President St
ord A
Rogers Ave
Carro
ve
Bedf
ll St
klin A
3
Fran
1190,
29
1289, 1
4
50
45
Crown St
46
48
Dearborn Ct
Mont
gome
ry St
Stoddard Pl
Ludlam Pl
r Pl
eeve
McK
Sullivan Pl Feet
0 250 500 1,000

Empire Blvd

Source: 2015 Pluto, NYCDCP 1555 Bedford Avenue, Bronx
Development Site No-Action Sites NO-ACTION

DEVELOPMENT
400-Foot
Radius 4 No-Action Map PROJECTS
(Keyed to Table S-1)
0.25-Mile
Radius
Figure S-6
CEQR No: 16DME005K
Future with the Proposed Actions (With-Action Condition)

In the future with the Proposed Actions, the disposition of City-owned land, zoning map and text
amendments, and special permits would facilitate the Proposed Development on the Project Site (the With-
Action condition). The Project Site would be rezoned from R6 to R7-2 with a C2-4 commercial overlay in
addition to participation in the MIH program. The Proposed Development would be comprised of an
approximately 542,393 gsf, three-building mixed-use development with community facility space (including
a recreational center and a community multi-purpose space) and commercial office space in the existing
Armory Head House and Drill Shed (Building 1), a residential condominium building (Building 2), and a
mixed-income rental building (Building 3) with academic and office space on the first floor (the With-
Action condition). The existing Head House and Drill Shed components of the Armory would be preserved
and redeveloped (see description below) while the existing Stables would be demolished and replaced with
a new condominium building. The garage structure on the eastern portion of the Project Site would also be
demolished and replaced with a mixed-income rental building. The programming of the approximately
542,393 gsf Proposed Development would be as follows (refer to Figure S-7: Proposed Development):
Armory (Building 1): The renovated Armory would include the existing Head House and Drill Shed
and have an approximate total floor area 112,971 gsf, comprised of approximately 72,252 gsf of
community facility use and 40,719 gsf of commercial use 4. The approximately 72,252 gsf of
community facility use would include an approximately 67,752 gsf recreational center and an
approximately 4,500 gsf community event space. The commercial use in the Armory building would
be comprised of office space.
The approximately 67,752 gsf recreational facility would be located within the original barrel-vaulted
Drill Shed and most of the first floor of the Head House, and would be open to the local community.
Programmed uses for the recreational facility include three multi-sport courts, a turf field, a
swimming pool, fitness areas, and associated administrative and support spaces.
The Armory building would continue to be available, approximately twice a year, to the local
community for large events such as conferences and banquets with approximately 2,000 people in
attendance. As under existing conditions, these events would likely occur in November and
February, with participants primarily arriving from the immediate Crown Heights neighborhood
either by walking or via a shuttle bus.
The faade of the existing Head House structure (plus partial basement floor, which is at grade on
President Street) along Bedford Avenue, between Union Street and President Street in the western
portion of the Project Site, would be preserved to provide approximately 40,719 gsf of office and
storage space. In addition, it would provide an approximately 4,500 gsf community event space.
Condominium Building (Building 2): The two-story Stables section of the Armory facing
President Street in the southern portion of the Project Site would be demolished and replaced with
a new, approximately 80,630 gsf, seven-story residential condominium building, which would
consist of up to 60 DUs, up to 12 DUs (20% of the total) of which would be set aside as affordable
for-sale units.
Mixed-Income Rental Building (Building 3): The existing garage on the eastern portion of the
Project Site would be demolished and replaced with an approximately 348,792 gsf, 16-story with
basement mixed-income rental building. This building would be comprised of approximately 330
DUs (including up to 165 affordable DUs), approximately 8,278 gsf of office space and
4While the additional 40,719 gsf space in the Armory would be programmed for community facility office space, as noted in the Land
Use Application, for CEQR purposes, these areas will be analyzed as office space in the EIS.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
approximately 18,122 gsf of academic space on the first floor 5. The office space would be
accessory to the academic space, and be used for administrative, non-classroom purposes.
Alternatively, the first floor may be programmed to provide an additional 25 DUs (including 14
affordable DUs) in lieu of office and academic space. Due to site constraints that result from the
preservation of the Drill Shed and Head House, the number of accessory parking spaces required
pursuant to zoning may not be attainable, however, a minimum of 118 parking spaces would be
provided on the basement level of the mixed-income rental building.
Two development scenarios will be considered for the mixed-income rental building (Building 3). Medgar
Evers College, a senior college of The City University of New York (CUNY), has been given an option to
build out the first-floor space in Building 3, but has not yet committed to using the space. As described
above, as an alternative to the academic space, this space may be used for additional residential
development.
The development programs for each of the two scenarios is presented in Table S-2 and Table S-3. To
disclose the reasonable worst case impacts of the Proposed Actions, the analyses of Socioeconomic
Conditions, Community Facilities, Open Space, and Water and Sewer Infrastructure are based on Analysis
Scenario 2, while the assessments of the impacts of all other technical areas are based on Analysis
Scenario 1.
As summarized in Tables S-2 and S-3, the Proposed Development would consist of an approximately
542,393 gsf three-building mixed-use development. The building programs for both Building 1 (Armory) and
Building 2 (condominium building) would be the same for both Analysis Scenario 1 and Analysis Scenario
2, and include residential, community facility and office uses. However, under Analysis Scenario 1, Building
3 (mixed-income rental building) would include a total of 330 DUs of which 165 DUs would be affordable,
8,278 gsf of office space, 18,122 gsf of academic use, and a minimum of 118 parking spaces, while under
Analysis Scenario 2, Building 3 would include a total of 355 DUs, of which 179 DUs would be affordable,
and a minimum of 118 parking spaces. The total amount of development (348,792 gsf) in Building 3 would
be the same in either Analysis Scenario 1 or 2.
5While the office and academic space on the first floor would be programmed as community facility space, as described in the Land
Use application, for CEQR purposes, these areas will be analyzed as office and academic space in the EIS.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Table S-2: Development Program for Analysis Scenario 1 (With-Action Condition) 6
Buildings Building 1 Building 2 Building 3 Total

Uses (Armory) (Condominium (Mixed-income
Building) Rental Building)
Residential 60 DUs/80,630 330 DUs/322,392 gsf 390 DUs/403,022 gsf
gsf
Affordable 12 DUs 165 DUs 177 DUs
Comm. Facility 72,252 gsf* 72,252 gsf*
Office 40,719 gsf 8,278 gsf 48,997 gsf**
Academic Use 18,122 gsf 18,122 gsf
Parking*** 118 spaces 118 spaces
Total GSF 112,971 gsf 80,630 gsf 348,792 gsf 542,393 gsf
*The 72,252 gsf of community facility space is comprised of 67,752 gsf of recreational center space and 4,500 gsf of community event
space.
***Additionally, approximately 48,997 gsf of the space zoned for community facility use will be used as commercial office space and
was analyzed as such for CEQR purposes.
***Due to site constraints that result from the preservation of the Drill Shed and Head House, the number of accessory parking spaces
required pursuant to zoning (129 spaces) may not be attainable, however a minimum of 118 parking spaces would be provided.
Table S-3: Development Program for Analysis Scenario 2 (With-Action condition)7
Buildings Building 1 Building 2 Building 3 Total

Uses (Armory) (Condominium (Mixed-income
Building) Rental Building)
Residential 60 DUs/80,630 355 DUs/348,792 gsf 415 DUs/429,422 gsf
gsf
Affordable 12 DUs 179 DUs 191 DUs
Comm. Facility 72,252 gsf* 72,252 gsf*
Office 40,719 gsf 0 gsf 40,719 gsf**
Academic Use 0 gsf 0 gsf
Parking*** 118 spaces 118 spaces
Total GSF 112,971 gsf 80,630 gsf 348,792 gsf 542,393 gsf
*The 72,252 gsf of community facility space is comprised of 67,752 gsf of recreational center space and 4,500 gsf of community
event space.
**Additionally, approximately 40,719 gsf of the space zoned for community facility use will be used as commercial office space and
was analyzed as such for CEQR purposes.
**Due to site constraints that result from the preservation of the Drill Shed and Head House, the number of accessory parking spaces
required pursuant to zoning (129 spaces) may not be attainable, however a minimum of 118 parking spaces would be provided.
6 Program provided in gross square feet (gsf), which equals the zoning square feet (zsf) plus all other floor area in the building,
including mechanical space, below grade, quality housing requirements etc.

1
DRILL SHED AND HEAD HOUSE
PRESERVE AND REHABILITATE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO

SERVE NEW COMMUNITY FACILITY AND OFFICE PROGRAM
23
RESIDENTIAL RENTAL
ON FORMER GARAGE SITE
EFFICIENTLY ACCOMMODATES 330 RENTAL APARTMENTS
32
RESIDENTIAL CONDO
ON FORMER STABLE SITE
RESIDENTIAL UNITS REPLACE THE EXISTING STABLES

BUT RETAIN THE RHYTHM AND SCALE RELATIONSHIP TO
THE DRILL SHED AND HEAD HOUSE
Source: Marvel Architects

1555 Bedford Avenue, Bronx
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Figure S-7

CEQR No: 16DME005K
VI. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

As described in Section V, Analysis Framework, two development programs were considered due to the
alternative scenarios for the mixed-income rental building (Building 3). For the purposes of the
environmental review, the more conservative of the two alternative use scenarios for Building 3 were
considered for each of the required technical assessments. Therefore, the analysis of Socioeconomic
Conditions, Community Facilities, Open Space, and Water and Sewer Infrastructure is based on Analysis
Scenario 2, while the analysis of all other technical areas were based on Analysis Scenario 1.
Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

No significant adverse impacts on land use, zoning, or public policy, as defined by the guidelines for
determining significant impacts as set forth in the CEQR Technical Manual, are anticipated in the future
with the Proposed Actions for both the Project Site and 400-foot land use study area.
While changes in land use and zoning would occur on the Project Site, analyses determined that these
changes would be consistent with the current large-scale, mixed-use residential and commercial
development trends occurring within the surrounding area. As the Proposed Actions would generate a
substantial amount of new affordable housing, which would advance City housing policy goals, the
Proposed Actions would be consistent with applicable public policies.
Socioeconomic Conditions
As summarized below, the Proposed Actions would not result in any significant adverse impacts as a
consequence of direct residential displacement, direct business/institutional displacement, indirect
residential displacement, indirect business/institutional displacement, and adverse effects on specific
industries, which are the five areas of concern identified in the CEQR Technical Manual.
Direct Residential Displacement

The Proposed Actions would not directly displace any residents as the Project Site does not contain any
existing residential units. Therefore, the Proposed Actions would not result in significant adverse impacts
due to direct residential displacement.
Indirect Residential Displacement

The Proposed Actions would not result in significant adverse impacts due to indirect residential
displacement. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, indirect displacement of a residential population
most often occurs when an action increases property values, and thus rents, making it difficult for some of
the existing residents to continue to afford to live in the area. The Proposed Actions would introduce 415
DUs to the study area, of which 191 would be developed as affordable units. Preliminary analysis found
that there is an observable trend towards increasing rents and property values within the study area.
Though the Proposed Actions would generate a residential development with over 200 units, the study area
population would increase by less than 5%, which per the CEQR Technical Manual is not large enough to
be considered a contributing factor toward a readily observable trend of increasing rents that would result
in indirect residential displacement. In addition, the Proposed Development would introduce only a small
fraction of new units in comparison to the overall volume of existing housing and new residential units being
developed within a 0.25-mile of the Project Site. For these reasons the residential units generated by the
Proposed Actions would not result in indirect residential displacement by introducing a trend or accelerating
a trend that may potentially displace a vulnerable population to the extent that the socioeconomic character
of the neighborhood would change.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Direct Business Displacement

The Proposed Actions would not directly displace any businesses since the Project Site does not contain
any existing commercial uses. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impacts due to direct
business displacement.
Indirect Business Displacement

As the Proposed Actions would not generate commercial development that would surpass the 200,000 sf
CEQR threshold, a preliminary indirect business displacement analysis was not warranted. Therefore, there
would be no significant adverse impacts due to indirect business displacement.
Adverse Effects on Specific Industries

The Proposed Actions would not result in significant adverse impacts on any specific industries. The
Proposed Actions would not affect conditions within a specific industry, nor would it result in the loss or
substantial diminishment of a particularly important product or service within the City.
Community Facilities and Services

Pursuant to CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, detailed analyses of potential indirect impacts on public
elementary/intermediate schools and publicly funded day-care facilities were conducted for the Proposed
Actions. Based on the CEQR Technical Manual screening methodology, demand generated by the
Proposed Actions would not exceed screening thresholds for high schools, libraries, and outpatient health
care facilities and police and fire protection services, and thus detailed analyses of these are not warranted.
As described below, the Proposed Actions would not result in significant adverse impacts on community
facilities and services.
Public Schools
With the Proposed Actions, the collective elementary school utilization rate in Sub-district 2 of Community
School District (CSD) 17 in Brooklyn would increase from 84.13% to 86.43%, and the capacity of seats
would decrease from 833 to 713. Since the Proposed Actions would not have a collective utilization rate
that is equal to or greater than 100% in the With-Action condition, no significant adverse impact on
elementary schools would occur.
The collective intermediate school utilization rate in Sub-district 2, with the Proposed Actions would increase
from 62.17% to 63.50%, and the capacity of seats would decrease from 1,417 to 1,367. Since the Proposed
Actions would not have a collective utilization rate that is equal to or greater than 100% in the With-Action
condition, a significant adverse impact on intermediate schools would not occur. Therefore, in conformance
with guidance in the CEQR Technical Manual, there would be no significant adverse impacts on public
elementary and intermediate schools.
Child Care Services

According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a significant adverse child care impact may result, warranting
consideration of mitigation, if a proposed project would increase the study areas utilization rate by at least
5%, and the resulting utilization rate would be 100% or more. The analysis found that the study area would
have a utilization rate of 87.70% and capacity for 254 seats; therefore, the Proposed Actions would not
exceed the CEQR Technical Manual impact threshold in the collective utilization rate of publicly funded
child care centers in the study area. Therefore, the Proposed Actions would not result in a significant
adverse impact on child care services.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Consequently, the Proposed Actions would not result in a significant adverse impact on community facilities
and services.
Open Space
According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a proposed action may result in a significant impact on open
space resources if: (a) there would be direct displacement/alteration of existing open space within the study
area that would have a significant adverse effect on existing users; or (b) it would reduce the open space
ratio (OSR) and consequently result in the overburdening of existing facilities or further exacerbating a
deficiency in open space. The Proposed Actions would not have a direct impact on open space resources
in the study area, as they would not result in the direct physical loss of existing public open space resources,
or affect the usefulness of open space resources. Rather, the Proposed Actions would generate
approximately 67,752 gsf of publicly-accessible indoor recreation space that would be available to the public
through a nominal fee. As the Proposed Actions are expected to introduce 1,137 residents and 467 workers
compared to the future without the Proposed Actions, a detailed open space analysis for both a non-
residential (0.25-mile) study area and residential (0.5-mile) study area was conducted, in conformance to
guidance in the CEQR Technical Manual. The detailed analysis determined that the Proposed Actions
would not result in any significant adverse indirect impact to passive and active open space in the non-
residential and residential study areas.
The Project Site is in an area that is considered underserved by open space. The CEQR Technical Manual
indicates that a decrease in the OSR of 5% or more may be considered significant. For areas that are
extremely lacking in open space, a decrease of as little as 1% may be considered significant. An open
space impact assessment also considers qualitative factors.
In the future with the Proposed Actions (With-Action condition), while the non-residential study areas
passive OSR would decrease by more than 5% from No-Action condition (31.51%), it would remain well
above the Citys benchmark ratio of 0.15 acres per 1,000 workers, at 2.003 acres per 1,000 workers.
Therefore, workers in the 0.25-mile study area would continue to be well-served by passive open space
resources, and there would be no significant adverse impact in the non-residential study area due to the
Proposed Actions.
Within the residential study area, the total active and passive OSR would remain below the Citys
benchmark ratio of 2.5 acres, which includes 2.0 acres of active and 0.5 acres of passive space per 1,000
residents, in the future with the Proposed Actions. The total residential study area OSR would decline by
1.95% to 0.271 acres per 1,000 residents; the active residential study area OSR would decline by 1.95%
to 0.146 acres per 1,000 residents; and the passive residential study area OSR would decline by 1.95% to
0.125 acres per 1,000 residents. Prospect Park, which is a 526.25-acre flagship regional park with
combined active and passive open space facilities, is located less than a half-mile to the west of the Project
Site, but was excluded from the OSR as it is located outside of the census tracts that comprise the open
space study area. Furthermore, also not included in the OSR is the approximately 67,752 gsf of publicly-
accessible indoor recreation space generated by the Proposed Actions, which would include three multi-
sport courts, a turf field, a swimming pool, and fitness areas, and be available to the public for free and/or
a deeply discounted fee. With these additional resources in place, there would be no significant adverse
impact on publicly-accessible open space resources in the residential study area due to the Proposed
Actions.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Shadows
A shadows assessment conducted in conformance with CEQR Technical Manual guidelines showed that
shadows from the Proposed Development would be cast on two potential resources of concern: 1) Eastern
Parkway, which is an open space resource, and 2) the Armory itself, which is a historic architectural
resource eligible for S/NR-listing and LPC landmark designation. Results from a detailed shadows analysis
show that the incremental shadows from the Proposed Development would not result in significant adverse
impacts on either of these resources. New incremental shadows on Eastern Parkway would only occur on
the December 21st analysis day, but would not reduce the usability of the open space resource as
temperatures would be lower and the use of active recreational space would not be as high, compared to
warmer months. New incremental shadows on the Armory would occur on all four representative analysis
days for durations of six hours to over ten hours. However, as the new incremental shadows would cover
only the roof of the Drill Shed, no sunlight-sensitive resources would be affected.
Historic and Cultural Resources

The historic and cultural resources analysis considers the effects of a project on both historic architectural
and archaeological resources. There are no archeological resources on the Project Site and therefore the
Proposed Actions will not have the potential to result in any significant adverse impacts on archeological
resources. However, the Project Site contains the historic early 20th century Bedford Union Armory, which
the OPRHP has determined is eligible for S/NR-listing, and LPC has determined is eligible for landmark
designation. Consequently, OPRHP and LPC will be consulted throughout the project design and
development process.
While the most dominant of the existing historic Armory structuresincluding the Head House and Drill
Shed componentswould be preserved and repurposed as part of the Proposed Development, design
efforts to transform the Armorys historic Stables into living spaces that meet building codes for light and
air, while remaining functional, were met with insurmountable constructability hurdles. Therefore, the
existing Stables would be demolished and replaced with a new building that would provide approximately
60 new condominium units, 20% of which would be affordable. The later addition that has functioned as a
garage, located on the eastern portion of the Project Site, would also be demolished and replaced with a
mixed-income rental building that will include approximately 330 DUs, approximately 165 of which would
be affordable.
OPRHPs initial review pursuant to Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act
established that the garage addition to the Armory, and the Stables along President Street were contributing
features of the historic property, and therefore their demolition would result in a significant adverse impact
on this historic resource. In accordance with OPRHPs finding an exploration of alternatives (Alternatives
Analysis) was prepared and submitted for OPRHP review. OPHRP concurred with the Alternatives
Analysis conclusion that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives to the demolition of the Stables and
later garage addition of the Armory, and suggested preparation of a Letter of Resolution (LOR) that
identifies mitigation measures.
The LOR is being developed in consultation with OPRHP and LPC, and will be executed before the
issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The LOR will be signed by OPRHP, the
relevant City Agencies, HDC, and the Selected Developer. The final mitigation measures outlined in the
executed LOR would be incorporated in the appropriate documents prior to the disposition of the property
to the Selected Developer. The LOR will include a Construction Protection Plan (CPP), which will be
developed and implemented in consultation with LPC prior to construction of the Proposed Development.
Since the dominant features of the Armory would be preserved under the Proposed Actions, the measures
provided in the LOR would fully mitigate the significant adverse impact on this historic resource. This would

CEQR No: 16DME005K
allow the Proposed Development to proceed and deliver significant community benefits, including provision
of the recreation facility and affordable housing.
Urban Design and Visual Resources

Based on the guidelines set forth in the CEQR Technical Manual, the Proposed Actions would not result in
significant adverse impacts on urban design and visual resources. While the Proposed Actions would
include changing the existing R6 zoning to a R7-2/C2-4 (MIH) zoning district, and would result in
development that is taller and greater in density than those in the immediate surroundings of the Project
Site, the new development would not obstruct any important visual resources, or result in any changes to
block form or street arrangement and orientation.
The Proposed Actions would retain a significant portion of the historic Armory structure on the Project Site
and repurpose it primarily for community use. The new structural components on the Project Site, including
the condominium building and mixed-use residential building, would be designed to relate to the historic
structure. The style and character of the Proposed Development would be cohesive with the existing
buildings in the neighborhood, utilizing similar architectural details and materials as those already found in
the study area. The condominium building design is meant to maintain a connection to the past and not
overwhelm the pedestrian experience at street level. The proposed lower base height, in conjunction with
a significant setback would allow for increased light and air along President Street, which would help provide
a more spacious atmosphere at the street level, enhancing the pedestrian experience. Additionally, as part
of the Proposed Development the Selected Developer would improve the east sidewalk of Bedford Avenue
between Union Street and President Street by finishing tree pits with paving blocks and would effectively
widening the sidewalk width available for pedestrian use by approximately one foot. There are also buildings
with greater heights and bulk located just outside the perimeter of the study area.
While the Proposed Developments new structures would be taller than those currently within the study
area, several proposed development projects would bring new, taller buildings of up to 17 stories in height
to the study area. Proposed uses would be consistent with the prevalence of residential units and the
presence of institutional facilities, including schools and places of worship, in the surrounding area.
Consequently, the Proposed Actions would not result in a change to the arrangement, appearance, or
functionality of the built environment in a way that would negatively affect a pedestrians experience of the
area. Therefore, the Proposed Actions would not result in any significant adverse impacts to urban design
or visual resources in the study area.
Hazardous Materials
With the Proposed Actions, the Head House and Drill Shed would remain on the Project Site and would be
renovated, while the Stables and garage structures would be demolished and replaced with new
construction which would entail subsurface disturbance and excavation.
Five Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified in a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) prepared for the Project Site: historic petroleum use and storage, current petroleum use
and storage, historic automotive services, petroleum sledge on the basement floor in the Stables section,
and a hard, black tar-like material on the basement floor in the Stables section. Additionally, the Armory
contained a rifle range, and there has been partial lead dust and asbestos abatement in the ventilation
system near the rifle range as well as in the rifle range. A Phase II ESA was performed to see if the RECs
identified in the Phase I ESA affected the soil, soil vapor, and concrete on the Project Site. A conceptual
site model of the findings was prepared. Prior to construction, the Selected Developer will hire a DEP-
certified asbestos investigator to survey the Armory.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and associated Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP) will be
prepared before construction to address findings of the Phase I and Phase II ESAs. To avoid any potential
significant adverse impacts associated with hazardous materials, an (E) designation for hazardous
materials will be mapped on the Project Site (E-428), which would require the development of a RAP and
CHASP, and subsequent review and approval by the New York City Mayors Office of Environmental
Remediation (OER) prior to any future development on the Project Site. The (E) designation would ensure
that the Project Site would not be developed unless remedial measures would be implemented in
coordination with OER. With these measures in place, there would be no significant adverse impact with
regard to hazardous materials.
Water and Sewer Infrastructure

Based on the methodology set forth in the CEQR Technical Manual, the analysis found that the Proposed
Actions would not result in a significant adverse impact on the Citys water supply or wastewater and
stormwater conveyance and treatment infrastructure.
All new, proposed, sanitary connections would be directed to combined sewers in President Street or Union
Street, more specifically to regulator RH-20 and/or RH-20A. An amended drainage plan (ADP) is required
by DEP and would be prepared by the Selected Developer. The ADP would be submitted to DEP for review
and approval. If needed, based on consultation with DEP, a hydraulic analysis of the existing sewer system
would be provided at the time of submittal of the site connection proposal application to determine whether
the existing sewer system can support higher density development and related increase in wastewater flow,
or whether there would be a need to upgrade the existing sewer system. With new sanitary connections
restricted to regulators RH-20 and RH-20A, storm water retention measures, and preparation of an ADP
and hydraulic analysis in consultation with DEP, the Proposed Development would not result in a significant
adverse impact on water and sewer infrastructure.
Water Supply
The Proposed Actions would not result in significant adverse impacts on the Citys water supply system.
The With-Action condition (under Analysis Scenario 2) would result in an increase of 415 residential DUs.
The additional water usage from the Proposed Development due to the Proposed Actions is expected to
total approximately 144,212 gallons per day (gpd), compared to water usage in the No-Action and existing
conditions. This incremental demand would represent less than 1% of the Citys overall water supply and
would not trigger the need for a preliminary or detailed assessment of potential impacts as demand would
not be large enough to have a significant adverse impact on the Citys water supply system.
Wastewater Treatment
In the future with the Proposed Actions, wastewater from the Proposed Development would be primarily
treated by the Red Hook Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). The Proposed Development is expected
to generate approximately 125,007 gpd or 0.13 mgd of sanitary sewage, which would represent less than
0.5% of the existing average dry weather flow of 26 mgd at the Red Hook WWTP compared to the No-
Action and existing conditions. The Red Hook WWTP would continue to have ample reserve capacity with
the Proposed Actions.
The Proposed Development is located within the RH-004 and RH-005 sub-catchment areas of the Red
Hook WWTP. Sub-catchment area flows would increase by 0.02 to 0.10 million gallons during storm events
with up to 2.5 inches of rainfall. These increased flows to the Citys combined sewer system may be
discharged as combined sewer overflow (or CSOs) into the East River during rain events.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Because of the available assimilative capacity of the Red Hook WWTP, the projected increased flows to
the combined sewer system would not have a significant adverse impact on water quality. Therefore, the
Proposed Actions would not result in significant adverse impacts to local water supply or wastewater and
stormwater conveyance and treatment infrastructure.
Stormwater Drainage and Management

With the Proposed Development, the impervious surfaces on the Project Site would be similar to existing
conditions, and as such, there would be no change in stormwater runoff associated with the Project Site.
The Proposed Development would require the demolition of the existing Stables and garage sections of the
Armory, which would be replaced by an approximately 80,630 gsf residential condominium building
(Building 2) and an approximately 348,792 gsf mixed-use rental building (Building 3), with the project
retaining 100% lot coverage in the With-Action Condition. The remaining portions of the Armory would
continue to utilize the existing six site connections. New sewer connections are anticipated for the new
rental and condominium buildings, for which site connection proposals will be submitted to DEP. Both
buildings would incorporate separate detention systems to limit their respective storm water discharge to
0.25 cubic feet per second (cfs) for each individual building, including the following:
The proposed mixed-income rental building is currently designed for an approximately 24,648 sf of
roof detention area discharging to an approximately 435 sf detention tank.
The proposed condominium building is currently designed for an approximately 296 sf detention
tank.
Transportation
To assess the potential transportation impacts associated with the Proposed Development, the study area
was defined based on principal access routes to and from the Project Site, traffic conditions in the
surrounding area, and key intersections that would likely be affected by trips generated by the Proposed
Development. In total, four signalized intersections and two unsignalized intersections were selected for
the vehicular analyses. Three pedestrian elements were selected for the pedestrian analysis. The safety
assessment was conducted for all vehicular and pedestrian study locations.
The transit criteria specified in the CEQR Technical Manual and thresholds established by New York City
Transit/Metropolitan Transportation Authority (NYCT/MTA) were used to determine which subway/rail and
bus routes in the study area would be analyzed. According to the criteria, if a proposed project is projected
to result in fewer than 200 peak hour subway/rail passengers assigned to a single subway station or on a
single subway line or 50 bus passengers assigned to a single bus line (in one direction), further transit
analyses are not typically required, as a proposed project is considered unlikely to create a significant transit
impact. It was determined that the number of new subway trips and new bus trips generated by the
Proposed Development would not exceed these thresholds during any of the peak hours; therefore,
analyses of subway lines and subway station elements and bus routes were not conducted.
Traffic Flow and Operating Conditions

The Proposed Actions are forecast to result in significant adverse traffic impacts at the following locations
and time periods in the 2020 analysis year:
Weekday AM Peak Hour (3 locations)

Bedford Avenue and President Street
Bedford Avenue and Eastern Parkway

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Bedford Avenue and Eastern Parkway (westbound service road)
Weekday MD Peak Hour (2 locations)

Weekday PM Peak Hour (3 locations)

Bedford Avenue and President Street
Saturday MD Peak Hour (1 location)

As described in greater detail below in Mitigation, the significant adverse impact at the intersection of
Bedford Avenue and President Street could be fully mitigated by modifying traffic signal timing. The
significant adverse impact at the intersection of Bedford Avenue and Eastern Parkway would remain
unmitigated during the Weekday AM peak hour. It would be partially mitigated during the Weekday MD and
Weekday PM peak hours by modifying traffic signal timing. As described in greater detail below in
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts the impact at the intersection of Bedford Avenue and Eastern Parkway
Westbound Service Road would remain unmitigated during all peak hours during which impacts have been
identified.
Pedestrian Facilities
Corners
Under the With-Action condition for the Proposed Development, all corners included in the transportation
analysis are projected to operate at LOS A or better. Therefore, there would not be any corner-related
significant adverse impacts.
Sidewalks
As part of sidewalk improvements that would be undertaken by the Selected Developer, tree pits on Bedford
Avenue, along the Armory, would be finished with paving blocks, and would effectively widen the sidewalk
width available for pedestrian use by approximately one foot. With this project improvement, the east
sidewalk on Bedford Avenue between Union Street and President Street is projected to operate at LOS C
or better under the With-Action condition for the Proposed Development. Therefore, the Proposed Actions
would not result in any sidewalk-related significant adverse impacts.
Parking Conditions
The Proposed Development would provide a minimum of 118 on-site parking spaces for the residential use.
The remainder of the parking demand would be accommodated on-street. Since there would be sufficient
on-street parking capacity to accommodate the on-street parking demand, the Proposed Actions would not
result in any parking-related significant adverse impacts.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety Assessments

There were no study intersections classified as high vehicular or pedestrian/bicycle crash locations as per
CEQR Technical Manual thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Actions would not result in any significant
adverse impact on vehicular and pedestrian safety due to the increase in vehicle and pedestrian trips.
Air Quality
Air quality analysis included assessment of the potential impact of the Proposed Actions from mobile
sources, parking facilities, stationary HVAC systems, and air toxics. The results of this assessment
indicated that the Proposed Actions would not result in significant adverse impacts on air quality. This
includes the effects of the Proposed Actions on the surrounding community, the effects of air pollutant
emissions sources in the surrounding community on the Proposed Actions, and potential Project-on-
Project impacts (i.e., the impacts of air pollutants generated by one of the three buildings on the other
buildings included in the Development Program).
As detailed below, the results of the analyses are summarized below:
A screening analysis was completed to determine the impact of carbon monoxide (CO) and
particulate matter (PM) from additional motor vehicles due to the Proposed Development. The
results of this analysis indicated that modeling of traffic air quality was warranted for PM2.5 and
PM10 at the intersection of Bedford Avenue and President Street. Further screening of this
intersection based on a Tier I CAL3QHCR analysis showed that air pollutant emissions from motor
vehicles due to the Proposed Development would not result in a significant adverse impact on air
quality.
Due to the number of parking spaces (118 spaces) in the proposed on-site parking garage, a
detailed analysis was completed of the impact of PM2.5 emissions from the parking facility. This
analysis concluded that the parking garage would not result in a significant air quality impact.
An (E) Designation (E-428) will be assigned to the Project Site and will require the use of natural
gas and restrict boiler types, stack heights, and/or locations for all project site buildings. With these
measures in place, the emissions from on-site HVAC systems would not cause significant air quality
impacts to other project site buildings or existing sensitive land uses.
There are no major sources of emissions from stationary HVAC sources within 1,000 feet of the
Project Site. Consequently, these sources would not cause a significant air quality impact to the
Proposed Development.
On-line information from DEP and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) was reviewed to identify permitted industrial facilities within 400-feet of the Proposed
Development. Field reconnaissance was carried out to identify any unpermitted facilities. A review
of this information indicated there are no active operational permits for industrial operations within
400-feet of the Project Site. The results of the field reconnaissance confirmed that there are no
major industrial sources of air pollution within this area. Consequently, there would be no significant
adverse air toxics impacts on the Proposed Development.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change

The Proposed Actions would be consistent with New York City Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions
reduction goals, as defined in the CEQR Technical Manual, and would be consistent with New York City
policies regarding adaptation to climate change.
The direct (building operation) energy use and indirect (motor vehicle) energy use associated with the
Proposed Development would result in up to approximately 4,409 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e) emissions per year, including approximately 1,800 metric tons/year from building operations and
2,609 metric tons/year from on-road motor vehicle emissions. The Proposed Development would include a
cogeneration plant, which is a highly efficient process that uses one fuel to generate two types of energy,
electrical and thermal. This would reduce off-site emissions from electricity generation and increase on-site
emissions from natural gas combustion. The Proposed Development may also generate on-site power from
a photovoltaic system, which is a low-carbon, renewable energy source.
The CEQR Technical manual identifies five goals on which a projects consistency with the Citys GHG
emissions reduction goal is evaluated: (1) efficient buildings; (2) clean power; (3) sustainable transportation;
(4) construction operation emissions; and (5) building materials carbon intensity.
The Proposed Actions would be well-served by public transit with nearby access to five subway stations
and multiple bus routes, including the B49 bus route along Bedford and Rogers Avenue, B48 on Franklin
Avenue, and B44 on Nostrand Avenue. There are also protected bike lanes in both directions along Bedford
Avenue, and the Eastern Parkway Greenway has protected paths for bicycling and pedestrians. The
Proposed Development would incorporate a cogeneration plant, which would be more efficient and less
GHG-intense than traditional GHG-intense power generation systems. The Selected Developer may also
incorporate a photovoltaic system, which would generate on-site power from low-carbon renewable
sources.
The Proposed Actions would support transit-oriented development and advance New York Citys GHG
reduction goals since the Project Site would be well-served by public transit with nearby access to five
subway stations and multiple bus routes, including the B49 bus route along Bedford and Rogers Avenue,
B48 on Franklin Avenue, and B44 on Nostrand Avenue. There are also protected bike lanes in both
directions along Bedford Avenue, and the Eastern Parkway Greenway has protected paths for bicycling
and pedestrians. The Proposed Development will incorporate a cogeneration plant, which would be more
efficient and less GHG-intense than traditional GHG-intense power generation systems. The Proposed
Development may also incorporate a photovoltaic system, which would generate on-site power from low-
carbon renewable sources. Thus, the Proposed Actions would support the goal for using clean power.
The Project Site is located beyond the 100- and 500-year flood zones, and would not be susceptible to
storm surge and coastal flooding. It is also located beyond the 100- and 500-year projections developed by
the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) for the 2020s and 2050s. Accordingly, an assessment
of the effects of climate change on rising sea levels, storm surge and coastal flooding due to the Proposed
Actions is not warranted.
Noise
No significant adverse noise-related impacts are projected due to the Proposed Actions. The primary source
of noise associated with the Proposed Actions is increased auto traffic on nearby streets that would be
generated by activity caused by the Proposed Actions. The assessment of increased vehicular noise was
completed through the application of methods prescribed in the CEQR Technical Manual. The results of
this assessment indicated that no sensitive receptors would experience a relative increase of 3 dBA due to
the Proposed Actions. An increase of 3 dBA is not perceptible to the human ear, and, consequently, the

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Proposed Actions would not result in a significant adverse impact on noise. With regard to the potential
impact of ambient noise levels on sensitive uses introduced by the Proposed Actions, including residential
uses, the assessment indicates that no impacts would occur provided that the Proposed Development
incorporate window/wall attenuation sufficient to ensure that interior noise levels are 45 dBA or less. To
accomplish this, an (E) designation (E-428) will be mapped for the Project Site, indicating the required noise
attenuation levels for the facades of the buildings on the Project Site. An (E) designation provides notice of
the presence of an environmental requirement pertaining to potential high ambient noise levels on a tax lot.
These designations will comply with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines
and CEQR requirements. Alternate means of ventilation would also be required for all sites with an exterior
noise level of 70 dBA. With these measures in place, no noise impacts would occur with the Proposed
Actions.
Public Health
Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) were completed for the Project Site.
Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified in the Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA), including: historic and current petroleum use and storage, historic automotive services,
and petroleum sledge and other tar-like material on the basement floor in the Stables section. A Phase II
ESA was performed to see if the RECs identified in the Phase I ESA affected the soil, soil vapor, and
concrete on the Project Site. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and associated Construction Health and Safety
Plan (CHASP) will be prepared before construction to address findings of the Phase I and Phase II ESAs.
The RAP and CHASP would be subject to approval by OER. Therefore, the Proposed Development would
not increase pathways for human or environmental exposure to hazardous materials.
Furthermore, the results of the air quality and noise impact assessments indicated that the Proposed
Actions would not result in any significant adverse impact on air quality or noise levels. As such, the
Proposed Actions would not have the potential for significant adverse impacts related to public health..
Neighborhood Character
The Proposed Actions would not result in a significant adverse impact on neighborhood character. Uses in
the neighborhood surrounding the Project Site are primarily smaller residential buildings and institutional
uses, with a transition towards larger scaled, mixed-use residential and ground floor commercial
development. The Proposed Actions would not cause significant adverse impacts regarding land use,
zoning & public policy; socioeconomic conditions; open space; urban design and visual resources;
shadows; or noise. While the Proposed Actions would have significant adverse impacts on traffic, these
impacts would be partially mitigated and would not change the character of the neighborhood, which already
is subject to high traffic levels. Additionally, the Proposed Actions would have significant adverse impacts
on historic and cultural resources; however, the Head House and Drill Shed components, the most
dominant features of the existing historic Armory, would be preserved and new structural components on
the Project Site would be designed to complement the existing historic structure. A LOR would be
developed in coordination with the OPRHP and LPC, and required measures would be implemented to
mitigate the identified significant adverse historic impact to the largest extent practicable. Consequently,
the potential significant adverse impacts to the historic Armory would not alter neighborhood character.
Furthermore, the combination of the moderate effects from each of the other technical areas would not
result in significant adverse impacts on neighborhood character. Therefore, the Proposed Actions would
not result in significant adverse impacts on neighborhood character.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Construction
The construction analysis finds that the Proposed Development would result in significant adverse
construction period traffic impacts at intersections near the Project Site. Construction-related activities are
not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts on other impact areas evaluated in this EIS,
including air quality, noise, land use and neighborhood character, socioeconomic conditions, community
facilities, open space, historic and cultural resources, and hazardous materials.
Transportation
Traffic
Significant adverse traffic impacts are expected at the intersection of Bedford Avenue and President Street,
Bedford Avenue and Eastern Parkway, and Bedford Avenue and Eastern Parkway Westbound Service
Road during the Weekday AM peak hour during the peak construction period. The construction-related
traffic impacts at these intersections can be mitigated by advancing the implementation of proposed
mitigation measures for these intersections with the exception of the impact at the intersection of Bedford
Avenue and Eastern Parkway Westbound Service Road, which would remain unmitigated during the peak
construction period.
Transit
A portion of construction workers are expected to take the bus or subway to travel to/from the Project Site.
The projected number of transit trips generated during the construction peak hours would be less than
those generated during operation of the Proposed Development. Since no operation-related transit impacts
were identified, no construction-related transit impacts are expected during the peak construction period.
Pedestrians
New pedestrian trips generated during the construction period would consist of construction workers
walking between the Project Site and nearby residences, transit stops, and on-street parking spaces. The
number of pedestrians on the adjacent block faces around the Project Site would be less than during
operation of the Proposed Development. Construction-related pedestrian impacts can be avoided if the
project improvement to effectively widen the sidewalk on Bedford Avenue is implemented before the peak
Parking
During construction, construction workers are expected to park on-street near the Project Site. The
construction worker parking demand would be accommodated within the available on-street parking
spaces; therefore, no construction-related parking impacts are expected.
Air Quality
Assessments were completed of the potential construction-related impacts on carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and coarse dust particles (PM10) using EPAs
AERMOD dispersion model for the peak of the construction activities. The construction air quality
assessment was based on the level of construction activity that would occur during the peak construction
quarter, conservatively assumed to last an entire year.
In addition, the analysis is based on the Selected Developers commitment to implement measures to
minimize pollutant emissions during construction, including use of Tier 3 or newer equipment and the use
of diesel particulate filters and selective catalyst reduction (SCR) retrofit kits on some stationary equipment
with 100 horsepower or more. Based on the assumed implementation of these measures, the construction
period air quality analysis indicated that on-site construction period activities would not have the potential

CEQR No: 16DME005K
to exceed any National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) or de minimis criteria at sidewalks, open
space, or residential windows near the Project Site.
Consistent with guidance in the CEQR Technical Manual, further analysis was carried out for construction
traffic air quality because the period of construction-related traffic would exceed two years. Review of peak
construction traffic projected for each quarter showed that daily construction traffic would be highest in the
third and fourth quarters of 2018 and would drop substantially during the subsequent construction periods.
Review of the duration and magnitude of the construction traffic increments indicated that the significant
increases in traffic would be temporary and would last approximately 64 weeks. This is less than the two-
year period that would be considered a significant impact. Therefore, a detailed traffic assessment is not
warranted, and the construction-related traffic would not result in a significant adverse air quality impact.
Noise and Vibration

Consistent with guidance in the CEQR Technical Manual, further analysis was carried out for construction
noise because construction-related activities would exceed two years. The analysis was based on the
Selected Developers commitment to use equipment with noise levels quieter than typical noise levels for
such equipment, as well as path controls placed between the equipment and specific sensitive receptors.
As a result, with the implementation of noise control measures, including noise path and source controls,
construction of the Proposed Development would not result in significant adverse noise impacts on existing
sensitive receptors in the surrounding areas, including open space resources. While interior noise levels at
existing nearby residential buildings would, during some time periods, exceed the 3 dBA impact criterion,
such exceedances would be temporary, lasting less than two years, and, in most cases, would not be of a
significant magnitude (i.e., an increase of 18 dBA or an absolute Leq of 85 dBA). However, construction
noise level increments at the southwest corner of Rogers Avenue and Union Street would range from 14.7
to 17.6 dBA for six consecutive quarters during 2018-2019. This is due primarily to the construction of the
mixed-income rental building and the difficulty of providing shielding for the upper floors of the nearby
residences due to their proximity and direct line of sight to the construction site. Therefore, this was
considered to represent a significant adverse impact. The identification of feasible mitigation measures to
reduce the level of impact during construction will be coordinated with DEP prior to the issuance for the
FEIS, as appropriate. If feasible mitigation measures are not identified, the significant adverse impact would
remain unmitigated.
Other Technical Areas

Land Use and Neighborhood Character
Construction activities for the Proposed Development would affect land use on the Project Site, but would
not alter surrounding land uses. Throughout the construction period, measures would be implemented to
control noise, vibration, and dust on the Project Site, including the erection of construction fencing and
barriers. While construction activities at the Project Site would be evident to the local community, the limited
duration of construction would not result in any significant or long-term adverse impacts on local land use
patters or the character of the nearby area.
Socioeconomic Conditions
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Development would not result in significant adverse
impacts on socioeconomic conditions since construction activities would not block or restrict access to any
residences or businesses in the area, affect the operations of any nearby businesses, or obstruct major
thoroughfares providing access to residences or business.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Community Facilities
No community facility would be directly displaced or altered by construction activities, nor would
construction activities substantially restrict access to any community facility during the construction period.
Any potential effect would be short term and limited to the construction period. The Project Site would be
surrounded by construction fencing and barriers during construction that would limit the effects of
construction on nearby facilities. Therefore, no significant adverse construction-related impacts on
community facilities are anticipated.
Open Space
No open space resources currently exist on the Project Site, nor would any open space resource be used
for staging or other construction activities. Consequently, no open space resources would be disrupted
during the construction of the Proposed Development. In addition, construction activities would not limit
access to any existing or proposed publicly available open space. Therefore, there would be no significant
adverse construction-related impacts on open space resources.

The Bedford Union Armory, located on the Project Site, is an architecturally significant intact example of an
early twentieth century armory that the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation OPRHP has determined to be eligible for S/NR-listing and the LPC has identified eligible for
landmark designation. OPRHPs initial review of the Proposed Actions pursuant to Section 14.09 of the
New York State Historic Preservation Act established that modifications to the Bedford Union Armory would
result in a significant adverse impact on this historic resource. Mitigation measures will be identified in
consultation with OPRHP and LPC, and documented in a LOR, which will be executed before the issuance
of the FEIS.
Further, to avoid the potential for adverse physical impacts on the historic Armory, such as effects from
ground-borne construction-period vibrations, falling debris, and damage from heavy machinery, the LOR
will include a Construction Protection Plan (CPP), which will be developed and implemented in consultation
with LPC prior to construction of the Proposed Development. The CPP will be prepared in coordination with
a licensed professional engineer and would follow the guidelines set forth in Section 523 of the CEQR
Technical Manual, including conformance to New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission
Guidelines for Construction Adjacent to a Historic Landmark and Protection Programs for Landmark
Buildings. The CPP will also comply with the procedures set forth in the DOB Technical Policy and
Procedure Notice (TPPN) #10/88.
With implementation of the measures identified in the LOR and the CPP, and conformance with LPC and
DOB construction period requirements, there would be no significant adverse impacts to historic and
cultural resources during construction of the Proposed Development.
Hazardous Materials
The Proposed Development would include construction of a new condominium building and mixed-income
rental building, which would entail subsurface disturbance of the existing Stables and garage structures. In
addition, construction of the Proposed Development would entail limited disturbance of the existing Armory
building during the renovation of the original Armory structure. The greatest potential for exposure to any
contaminated materials would occur during building material disturbance and subsurface disturbance
associated with the excavation, and the demolition of both the Stables and garage structures, which would
be replaced with new construction and which would entail subsurface disturbance and excavation. The
Project Site may contain chromium, lead, mercury, copper, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) specifies procedures to follow for closure
of identified petroleum spills and removal of any associated contaminated soil. Recommendations from the

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) will also be implemented including the development and
implementation of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and associated Construction Health and Safety Plan
(CHASP). Both the RAP and CHASP will be submitted for review and approval by DEP and the New York
City Mayors Office of Environmental Remediation (OER) prior to initiation of construction.
With compliance to the recommendations stated in the Phase II ESA and implementation of a RAP and
CHASP, there would be no significant adverse impacts from hazardous materials resulting from the
construction of the Proposed Development.
VII. ALTERNATIVES
The assessment of alternatives indicates that neither the No-Action Alternative nor the No Unmitigated
Significant Impacts Alternative would meet the project goals to transform the vacant Bedford Union Armory
into a valuable amenity for local residents through preserving the historical character of the Armory and
providing high quality affordable housing and community facilities, including recreational opportunities and
affordable community office space.
No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative assumes that the Project Site in the future (2020) would remain as under existing
conditions, which would be a primarily vacant Armory with the potential for significant structural deterioration
without sufficient investment in its upkeep. The Proposed Development would result in a significant adverse
impact on the historic Armory, which would be mitigated with the implementation of mitigation measures
developed in consultation with LPC and OPRHP, and documented in a LOR. The Proposed Development
would also result in significant adverse traffic impacts at two intersections within the study area which
cannot be fully mitigated with standard traffic capacity improvement measures. The No-Action Alternative
would avoid these impacts. However, under this alternative, the Bedford Union Armory would remain
primarily vacant and unimproved. The No-Action Alternative would not create additional affordable housing,
office space, or recreational opportunities for the community and, consequently, would not meet the goals
of the Proposed Development.
No Unmitigated Significant Impacts Alternative

The No Unmitigated Significant Adverse Impacts Alternative examines a scenario in which the density and
other components of the Proposed Actions are changed specifically to avoid the unmitigated significant
adverse impacts associated with the Proposed Actions. There is the potential for the Proposed Actions to
result in unmitigated significant adverse impacts related to historic resources, transportation (traffic), and
construction transportation (traffic). As detailed below, a No Unmitigated Significant Impacts Alternative that
meets the goals of the Proposed Development is not feasible.
Potential unavoidable significant adverse impacts that could result from the Proposed Actions include an
unmitigated significant adverse impact on the Armory. OPRHPs review pursuant to Section 14.09 of the
New York State Historic Preservation Act established that the garage addition to the Armory and the Stables
along President Street were contributing portions of the historic property, and therefore their demolition
would result in a significant adverse impact on this historic resource. In accordance with OPRHPs finding
dated August 5, 2016, an exploration of alternatives (Alternatives Analysis) was prepared and submitted
for OPRHP review on October 13, 2016. The analysis included an option that would retain the Stables
faade and build behind it, as well as an alternative to reinforce the current Stables structure and build a
new building within. OPHRP concurred on October 28, 2016 with the Alternatives Analysis determination
that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives to demolition of the Stable Wing and Garage portions of
the Armory.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
The Proposed Actions would result in unmitigated significant adverse traffic impacts at three intersections
within the study area, two of which cannot be fully mitigated with standard traffic capacity improvement
measures. Due to constrained operating conditions at these intersections, the scope of the Proposed
Development would have to be reduced such that it would generate approximately 10% of the number of
trips. This could be achieved by reducing the number of proposed residential units by 93%, reducing the
office space by 77%, reducing the community facility space by 98%, and reducing the academic space by
46%. A No Unmitigated Significant Impacts Alternative would result in a substantial reduction in affordable
housing and office space, community facility space, and academic space that would occur with the
Proposed Actions. This reduction would significantly compromise the goals of the Proposed Development.
Therefore, the No Unmitigated Significant Alternatives is not feasible.
Overall, to fully mitigate all identified significant adverse impacts, the Proposed Actions would have to be
modified to a point where the principal goals and objectives would not be realized.
VIII. MITIGATION MEASURES

Where significant adverse impacts have been identified, in the technical areas of Historic and Cultural
Resources, Transportation, and Construction, measures have been examined to minimize or eliminate the
anticipated impacts.

OPRHP has determined the Project Site, which contains the historic Bedford Union Armory, eligible for
S/NR-listing, and the LPC have determined is eligible for City landmark designation. Consequently, OPRHP
and LPC will be consulted throughout the development process. Though the Head House and Drill Shed
components, the most dominant of the existing historic Armory structures, would be preserved and all new
structural components on the Project Site would be designed to complement the existing historic structure
with the Proposed Actions, OPRHP has determined that modifications to the Armory, including the
proposed demolition of the Stables and later garage addition, would result in a significant adverse impact
on this historic resource.
Measures to mitigate the impacts on the historic Bedford Union Armory are being developed in consultation
with OPRHP and LPC, and will be formalized as project commitments in a formal Letter of Resolution
(LOR), which will be executed before the issuance of the FEIS. The LOR will be signed by OPRHP, the
relevant City Agencies, HDC, and the Selected Developer. Since the dominant features of the existing
Armory will be preserved under the Proposed Actions, the measures provided in the LOR will fully mitigate
the significant adverse direct impact on this historic resource.
The final mitigation measures outlined in the executed LOR will be incorporated in the appropriate
documents prior to the disposition of the property to the Selected Developer.
Transportation
Three intersections in the study area would experience significant adverse traffic impacts due to traffic
associated with the Proposed Development during one or more of the analyzed peak periods:
Bedford Avenue and President Street during the Weekday AM and Weekday PM peak hours.
Bedford Avenue and Eastern Parkway during the Weekday AM, Weekday MD, Weekday PM, and
Saturday MD peak hours.
Bedford Avenue and Eastern Parkway Westbound Service Road (unsignalized) during the
Weekday AM, Weekday MD, and Weekday PM peak hours.

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Subject to review and approval by NYCDOT, the significant adverse impact at the intersection of Bedford
Avenue and President Street could be fully mitigated. After the implementation of mitigation measures, the
significant adverse impact at the intersection of Bedford Avenue and Eastern Parkway would remain
unmitigated during the Weekday AM peak hour and partially mitigated during the Weekday MD and
Weekday PM peak hours. The impact at the intersection of Bedford Avenue and Eastern Parkway
Westbound Service Road would remain unmitigated during all peak hours during which impacts have been
identified. Consequently, the Proposed Actions would result in unavoidable significant adverse traffic
impacts.
Construction
Significant adverse traffic impacts were identified at the intersection of Bedford Avenue and President
Street, Bedford Avenue and Eastern Parkway, and the intersection of Bedford Avenue and Eastern
Parkway Westbound Service Road (unsignalized) during the Weekday AM peak hour of the peak
construction period condition, which is expected to take place during the fourth quarter of 2018 (Q4 2018).
Significant adverse construction traffic impacts would be temporary since they would only occur during the
construction period. Subject to review and approval by the relevant agencies, including NYCDOT, the
significant adverse impacts at Bedford Avenue and President Street and Bedford Avenue and Eastern
Parkway could be fully mitigated during the peak construction period. The impacts at the intersection of
Bedford Avenue and Eastern Parkway Westbound Service Road would remain unmitigated during the peak
In the time between issuance of the DEIS and the FEIS, the lead agency in consultation with NYCDOT will
continue the review of proposed mitigation measures for these two intersections to confirm adequacy and
feasibility of their implementation and recommend changes as necessary.
However, if it is determined that feasible measures are not available to mitigate the identified impacts, either
in part or in whole, the impacts would be identified in the FEIS as unavoidable significant adverse impacts.
Consequentially, these impacts would constitute unavoidable significant adverse construction traffic
impacts due to the Proposed Actions.
IX. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

The Proposed Actions would result in significant adverse impacts with respect to transportation, specifically
to traffic, and historic and cultural resources. To the extent practicable, mitigation has been proposed for
the identified significant adverse transportation impacts. However, as described below, in two instances no
practicable mitigation was identified to fully mitigate significant adverse impacts, and there are no
reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Development that would meet their purpose and need, eliminate
their impacts, and not cause similar significant adverse traffic impacts. Measures that would mitigate the
significant adverse impact on historic and cultural resources are being developed.; Without the
implementation of these measures this impact would be partially unmitigated and would result in an
unavoidable significant adverse direct impact.

The Proposed Actions would result in a significant adverse impact on historic and cultural resources.
Though the Proposed Development would preserve and repurpose the most dominant portions of the
existing historic Armory, including the Head House and Drill Shed components, OPRHP has determined
that modifications to the Armory, including the proposed demolition of the Stables and garage, would result
in a significant adverse direct impact on this historic resource. Measures to mitigate the impacts of the
Proposed Development on the historic Bedford Union Armory are being developed in consultation with

CEQR No: 16DME005K
OPRHP and LPC, and will be formalized as project commitments in a formal LOR, which will be executed
before the issuance of the FEIS. The LOR will be signed by OPRHP, the relevant City Agencies, HDC, and
the Selected Developer. Since the dominant features of the existing Armory would be preserved under the
Proposed Actions, the measures provided in the LOR would fully mitigate the significant adverse direct
impact on this historic resource.
The final mitigation measures outlined in the executed LOR will be incorporated in the appropriate
documents prior to the disposition of the property to the Selected Developer.
Transportation
The results of the assessments included in this EIS indicate that the Proposed Development would result
in significant adverse traffic impacts at two intersections for which no reasonably practicable mitigation
measures would be available. Traffic conditions were evaluated at a total of six intersections for the
Weekday AM, midday and PM peak hours, and the Saturday midday hour. The analysis found that the
Proposed Development could result in significant adverse traffic impacts at three intersections during the
Weekday AM peak hour, at two intersections during the Weekday midday peak hour, at three intersections
during the Weekday PM peak hour, and one intersection during the Saturday midday peak hour.
The traffic mitigation analysis found that readily implementable traffic improvement measures were
available to mitigate the identified impacts at one of the intersections during the AM peak hour, one
intersection during the PM peak hour, and one intersection during the Saturday midday peak hour.
However, two intersections would not be mitigated during the Weekday AM peak hour, one intersection
would be partially mitigated and one would not be mitigated during the Weekday midday and PM peak
hours. These would be considered unavoidable adverse impacts of the Proposed Actions, as shown in
Table S-1: Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Traffic Impacts.
Table S-1: Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Traffic Impacts
Intersection Impacted Peak Hour

Bedford Avenue and Eastern Parkway Weekday AM, Weekday MD, Weekday PM
Bedford Avenue and Eastern Parkway Westbound

Weekday AM, Weekday MD, Weekday PM
Service Road (unsignalized)
Implementation of the recommended traffic improvement measures is subject to review and approval by
NYCDOT prior to implementation. If, prior to implementation, NYCDOT determines that an identified
mitigation measure is infeasible, an alternative and equivalent mitigation measure may be identified.
X. GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

As indicated in the CEQR Technical Manual, the term growth-inducing aspects generally refers to the
"secondary" impacts of a proposed project that trigger further development in areas outside the project site
that would otherwise not have such development without the proposed project. Guidance in the CEQR
Technical Manual indicates that an assessment of the growth inducing aspects of a proposed project is
generally appropriate when a project would:

CEQR No: 16DME005K
Add substantial new land use, new residents, or new employment and could potentially induce
additional development of a similar kind or of support uses (e.g., stores to serve new residential
uses) or
Greatly expand infrastructure capacity (e.g., sewers, central water supply).
While the Proposed Actions would result in more intensive land uses on the Project Site, it is not anticipated
that the resulting development would generate significant secondary impacts. The Proposed Development
would not alter land use patterns. While the Proposed Development would add new housing to the Project
Site, the resulting population would be less than 5% of the total population in the socioeconomic study area.
Based on guidance in the CEQR Technical Manual, this population would not be large enough to affect real
estate market conditions in the study area, nor would it have the potential to induce an increase in rents or
accelerate an observable trend in the growth in housing. There is the potential that the Proposed
Development could prompt some new retail development from retailers attempting to service the areas
increased consumer base. Additional commercial development, if it were to occur, would be limited and
would likely include local retail stores near the Project Site catering to the areas increased population.
It is not anticipated that either the new community facility space or the academic space for use by the
nearby Medgar Evers College (proposed under Analysis Scenario 1) would have the potential to induce
major new development. Similarly, the relatively modest increase in office space would not be expected to
induce a major increase in office space. In addition, none of the proposed uses that would be facilitated by
the Proposed Actions would result in the need for major new infrastructure, including significant changes in
central water supply or sewer system capacity. While the proposed uses would be expected to contribute
to growth in the City and State economies, these uses would not be expected to induce additional notable
growth outside the Project Site. Overall, the Proposed Actions are not expected to induce any significant
additional growth beyond that identified and analyzed in this EIS.
XI. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

Consistent with guidance in the CEQR Technical Manual, this section summarizes the resources, both
man-made and natural, that would be expended during the construction and operation of the Proposed
Development. These resources would include the materials used in construction; energy in the form of gas
and electricity consumed during construction and operation of the Proposed Development; and the human
effort (i.e., time and labor) required to develop, construct, and operate various components of the Proposed
Development. These resources are considered irretrievably committed because their reuse for some
purpose other than the Proposed Development would be highly unlikely.
As the Project Site has been previously developed, it does not possess any natural resource values. The
Proposed Development would constitute a commitment of the Bedford Union Armory as a built resource
and the Project Site as a land resource.
These commitments are weighed against the benefits of the Proposed Actions. The most dominant portions
of the vacant Bedford Union Armory (the Drill Shed and Head House structures) would be retained and
repurposed into valuable amenity space, including recreational opportunities and affordable community
office space for local residents. While preserving the historical character of the Armory, the Proposed
Actions would also facilitate the creation of new high quality affordable housing for the Crown Heights
neighborhood of Brooklyn, advancing the Citys affordable housing goals. These proposed uses would be
compatible with existing conditions and trends in the area as a whole and would be appropriate for the
Project Sites location, which is well-served by existing infrastructure, public facilities, and residential
amenities.

Bedford Union Armory DEIS Executive Summary

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bedford Union Armory DEIS Executive Summary

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bedford Union Armory

CEQR No: 16DME005K

S-1 Executive Summary

II. PROPOSED ACTIONS

Building base and building height relief pursuant to ZR Section 74-743(a)(2)

Setback relief pursuant to ZR Section 74-743(a)(2)

Maximum number of stories relief pursuant to ZR Section 74-743(a)(2)

S-2 Executive Summary

City Environmental Quality Review

III. EXISTING CONDITIONS

S-3 Executive Summary

S-4 Executive Summary

Project Site SITE

Bedford Union Armory

1555 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn

Source: Google Earth Pro 1555 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn

1555 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn Figure S-5

1555 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn Figure S-5 (continued)

IV. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

The report identified the following conditions in Central Brooklyn:

Lack of access to physical recreation facilities;

Physical inactivity, obesity, and Type 2 diabetes concerns;

Inadequate community services, specifically youth and senior programs;

Lack of safe community spaces; and

Need for youth development services.

S-11 Executive Summary

V. FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

Reasonable Worst Case Development Scenario (RWCDS)

Future without the Proposed Actions (No-Action Condition)

No-Action Development Projects

S-12 Executive Summary

Table S-1: No-Action Development Projects 3

Map Block and

S-13 Executive Summary

Development Site No-Action Sites NO-ACTION

Future with the Proposed Actions (With-Action Condition)

S-15 Executive Summary

S-16 Executive Summary

Table S-2: Development Program for Analysis Scenario 1 (With-Action Condition) 6

Buildings Building 1 Building 2 Building 3 Total

Table S-3: Development Program for Analysis Scenario 2 (With-Action condition)7

Buildings Building 1 Building 2 Building 3 Total

S-17 Executive Summary

PRESERVE AND REHABILITATE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO

EFFICIENTLY ACCOMMODATES 330 RENTAL APARTMENTS

 RESIDENTIAL UNITS REPLACE THE EXISTING STABLES

Source: Marvel Architects

Bedford Union Armory

VI. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

Direct Residential Displacement

Indirect Residential Displacement

S-19 Executive Summary

Direct Business Displacement

Indirect Business Displacement

Adverse Effects on Specific Industries

Community Facilities and Services

Child Care Services

S-20 Executive Summary

S-21 Executive Summary

Historic and Cultural Resources

S-22 Executive Summary

Urban Design and Visual Resources

S-23 Executive Summary

RESIDENTIAL UNITS REPLACE THE EXISTING STABLES