Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019.01.08 J. Klein Comments900 King Street DEIS Comments Jason Klein I believe that many good points were brought up in the public hearing, and in written comments from public, consultants, and staff alike and I look forward to seeing them answered in the FEIS. Additionally I have the following comments: Generally  It seems to me as a general comment that much of the concern about the project, aside from traffic, is regarding the construction phase and not the operational phase. Greater attention should be paid in the FEIS to mitigating measures to disturbance to the school and the Arbors during the construction phase, as mentioned below, and a Construction Management Plan should be cognizant of these concerns. Chapter 8 – Visual Resources and Community Character  No balloon tests have been done. These should be conducted and pictures added to Volume 2, Chapter 8 to show from different locations o And at this time, as suggested by public comment, permission should be sought to take pictures from 2nd floor windows of selected Arbors residences  Figures 8-20 and 8-21 have trees added by computer graphic. These should be removed and replaced with appropriate pictures showing proper view sheds Chapter 10 – Community Facilities  10.4.3 should include mitigation for loss of use of the tennis courts at Harkness due to construction during the 21 months of heavy construction anticipated  Agree with Bradbury comments that Village Board determines what is appropriate Chapter 12 – Traffic and Transportation  It is unclear in the traffic study if staff trips are incorporated in the numbers o Table 2-4 in section 2.4.2 shows expected staffing levels however Appendix F in the Proposed Project Section does not seem to incorporate staff trips during the commuting hours o Additionally, mitigating measures in 12.6 should include proposed staff schedules that will mitigate traffic  There is too much comparison to full re-occupancy of the existing office building in the traffic study and subsequently in the DEIS. New York State DOT has commented as such in their 1/4/19 letter and the FEIS should include builds from existing conditions as specified in FP Clark letter also dated 1/4/19 Chapter 16 – Construction  16.2.2 – while blasting is not expected, is rock chipping or pile driving expected and if so at what stages and for how long  16.2.3 – DEIS states that materials processing will not be done on site yet Figure 16-1 includes a crusher as part of the included equipment in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 – please clarify  16.3.2.2 – given that the waiver has not been granted, the traffic study should examine an 8 AM start time for construction  16.3.2.3 – please specify the amount of weeks for typical truck activity and peak truck activity are expected (located in the first paragraph)  16.3.3.5 – given that the construction is happening so close to a school I would differ and would prefer that further analysis be done once a specific CMP is complete and specific timing of activities is known  16.3.4 – Noise o 16.3.4.4 – how far is the high school from the AL and IL work areas where more prolonged construction is taking place? o Table 16-4 should include additional points of the high school baseball field, football field, and King Street Fields (or generally the closest point at the combined athletic fields) with noise summary analyzed o Why are there not mitigation measures listed in this section as with other sections?  These could include measures around testing times  How can you limit the noise to the school? – i.e. paying to increase insulation on the walls closest to the construction.  Additional comment – pedestrian access to the school from the Arbors should be guaranteed during construction Chapter 17 – Alternatives  There is too much commentary in the alternatives section as a whole – the point is to present straight alternatives and it will be up to the various boards to determine the merits of the alternatives.  In my opinion 17.5 does not meet the intention of this alternative. While size is the listed factor, this alternative simply made the units smaller and kept nearly the same number of units. o Through the multiple public hearings the applicant has mentioned that they will in the FEIS submit a reduced scope project. I hope that this meets both size and density reductions, which I think was really the true intention of 17.5.