Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout__2020-07-02_pFEIS Submission Memo Environmental, Planning, and Engineering Consultants 34 South Broadway Suite 401 White Plains, NY 10601 tel: 914 949-7336 fax: 914 949-7559 www.akrf.com Offices in New York ● New Jersey ● Pennsylvania ● Maryland ● Connecticut Memorandum To: Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees From: AKRF, Inc. (Peter Feroe, AICP) Date: July 2, 2020 Re: 900 King Street Redevelopment: pFEIS Comments cc: Village Staff & Consultants; 900 King Street Team Summary This submission contains the third draft of the preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (pFEIS) for the 900 King Street Redevelopment project. The Applicant and its consultants have worked with the Village’s staff and consultants over the past weeks and believe that we have addressed their technical comments. As you know, the Applicant submitted the first draft of the pFEIS on May 14, 2019. On June 27, 2019, the BoT deemed the pFEIS incomplete and required changes to the document that responded to Board member comments as well as staff and consultant comments. On January 3, 2020, the Applicant submitted the second draft of the preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (pFEIS) to the Village Board, its staff and consultants. On February 7, 2020, the Village’s staff and consultants provided memoranda summarizing their review of the January 3, 2020 pFEIS. This memorandum documents the Applicant’s responses to those February 7, 2020 staff comments and is accompanied by a “redlined” version of Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of the pFEIS that indicates the changes made based on the Village’s comments. Submission Contents All documents associated with this submission are available at: http://bit.ly/900KingJul2020pFEIS. In addition, and as indicated below, certain documents are also being provided in hard copy. Volume 1 – pFEIS Chapters a) “Redlined” version of the pFEIS Chapter text, comparing the January 3, 2020 submission to the July 2, 2020 submission is being provided in hard copy. b) “Clean” version of the updated pFEIS Chapter text, with the accompanying figures is being provided in hard copy. Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees 2 July 2, 2020 Volume 2 The technical appendices have not been modified since the January 2020 submission. Therefore, hard copies of the appendices were not produced. If you would like a hard copy of a particular appendix, or portion thereof, please let us know. Volume 3 – Public Comments This volume is only provided electronically. This volume has not changed since the May 2019 submission. Volume 4 – Engineering and Architectural Plans Hard copies of the revised architectural and engineering plans are being submitted. Please note that these plans have not changed since the January 3, 2020 submission. Itemized Responses to Consultant Memos This section of the memorandum documents the Applicant’s responses to the February 7, 2020 staff/consultant comments on the pFEIS. Keane & Beane, P.C Memorandum (2/6/2020) There were no comments on the substance of the pFEIS in this memorandum. Therefore, the pFEIS was not edited based upon this memorandum. F.P. Clark Associates Memorandum (2/7/2020) 1. The typographical error was corrected. 2. The clarification requested was added. 3. This comment was originally made on the first draft of the pFEIS. As stated in our response memoranda, most recently 1/3/2020, “A new outlet control structure could be installed in the existing stormwater basin to further reduce peak flow rates. The Applicant notes, however, that a new structure is not required to mitigate an impact of the Revised Proposed Project, but rather to improve an existing, off-Site condition.” The Applicant does not believe any changes to the SWPPP or pFEIS are required pursuant to SEQRA. 4. The requested editorial comment was made. 5. As stated in the FP Clark memorandum, the core issue is that the Town’s Tax Assessor cannot support the Applicant’s estimated assessed value with the information currently available about the costs and revenues associated with the project’s construction and operation. As such, the Assessor believes that it is most appropriate to use the approximately $200,000 per unit assessed value of the Atria to estimate the assessed value of the Project. While the Applicant’ disagrees with this estimate and believes it to be too high, the Applicant understands and acknowledges that neither the Village nor the Applicant will ultimately set the assessed value of the project. The Applicant and the Village’s Counsel discussed and agreed upon an approach to resolve this issue for the purposes of the SEQRA review. With respect to the potential assessed value of the project, SEQRA is concerned with whether the project would have an adverse fiscal impact to the Site’s various taxing jurisdictions, including the Village and the School District. Therefore, the pFEIS has been revised to: a. Incorporate both the Tax Assessor’s estimated assessed value and the Applicant’s estimated assessed value and quantify the tax benefit associated with both valuations (see §2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions”); and, Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees 3 July 2, 2020 b. Add a section that summarizes the estimated quantified municipal costs associated with the project and compare those costs to the tax revenue that could be generated by the project under both assessment conditions (§10.2.6, “Community Facilities Fiscal Impact”). As shown in these sections the project could generate approximately $85,282 in annual Village expenditures. Based on the Applicant’s estimated assessed value, the project would generate $275,339 in property taxes per year to the Village, a $154,882 annual increase from its current condition and a $69,600 annual surplus to the Village after accounting for its expenses. If the assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project were as estimated by the Tax Assessor, the annual surplus to the Village would be $240,878. Therefore, in both assessment scenarios, which could be described as “best case” and “worst case,” the Village would receive significantly more in taxes from the project than it costs in services. In addition, regardless of the final assessed value, BBRUFSD would receive a substantial increase in tax revenue and not experience additional costs associated with the Revised Proposed Project. As such, by presenting both assessment scenarios and determining that even in the “worst case” the Village would receive significantly more tax revenue from the project than it would be required to spend in services, the pFEIS confirms that the project would not result in an adverse fiscal impact to the Village. Ultimately, the magnitude of project’s fiscal benefit would be determined by the project’s actual assessed value, which in turn would be determined by the Town Tax Assessor. 6. The nurse on-Site will be available to both IL and AL residents 24/7. The pFEIS has been updated with additional information about the operational policies that will be implemented on-Site to minimize unnecessary EMS calls, including the on-Site nurse and the ability to provide lift-assist. See §2.10.1.2, “EMS–Increase in Call Volume.” 7. The description of the Site’s open/recreational spaces was relocated to the Project Description (new §1.6.4.5) at the suggestion of the Board of Trustees. Neither §2.10.3 nor §1.4.1.5 compares the OPRHP standards to the size of the areas included on-Site. The requested sentence, regarding the Board of Trustee’s authority to determine the adequacy of the project’s on-Site recreation areas during Site Plan Review, was added. 8. The requested clarification was made to §2.10.5, “Senior Services.” 9. The requested clarifications were made to §2.10.5, “Senior Services.” 10. This comment was originally made on the first draft of the pFEIS. As stated in our response memoranda, most recently 1/3/2020, “The Applicant anticipates that completion of the water system improvements described in the FEIS will be a condition of Site Plan approval. The Applicant has requested from Suez additional information regarding the extent to which other areas within the Village would benefit from the proposed improvements.” There are no changes to the pFEIS required as a result of this comment. 11. This comment was originally made on the first draft of the pFEIS. As stated in our response memorandums, most recently 1/3/2020, “The emergency power systems have not been designed at this point in the process. If the generators require permits from the Westchester County Department of Health, the Applicant will secure the necessary permits.” There are no changes to the pFEIS required as a result of this comment. 12. See response to Comment 11. 13. The typographical error was corrected in Table 2.12-4. 14. The requested clarification was made to Response 69. 15. The requested sentence was added to Response 80. 16. The requested clarification was made to Response 83. Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees 4 July 2, 2020 17. The requested clarifications were made to Response 84. 18. The requested change was made in both Response 88 and Chapter 2. 19. The typographical error was corrected in Response 113. 20. This comment was originally made on the first draft of the pFEIS. As stated in our response memoranda, most recently 1/3/2020, “The HVAC systems have not yet been designed. The potential for noise impacts from the Project’s HVAC systems is addressed in the FEIS.” If ammonia chillers are proposed at the time the HVAC systems are specified, the Applicant would coordinate with the Village Fire and EMS services.” The potential air quality impacts associated with emergency generators was likewise included in the FEIS. See also the response to Comment 11 regarding permitting. The Applicant believes that no changes to the pFEIS are required. Comments re: Appendix D and PUD Concept Plans The following comments were originally made on the first draft of the pFEIS and the responses below were previously provided to the Village as part of the revised pFEIS submission. As stated below, these comments do not require changes to the FEIS. Rather, they are comments that will be addressed as part of the site plan review as they are based on the final site plan and SWPPP. 21. All stormwater runoff from the townhouse roofs would be captured in gutters and conveyed through roof drain leaders into the proposed drainage system. The runoff would either be treated in the proposed infiltration basin IA-2 or the existing stormwater basin. These leaders will be added to Sheet C-500, “Utilities Plan,” during the Site Plan approval process. 22. The following sentence, taken from Section VI, “Soil Erosion & Sediment Control” under the Concrete Material and Equipment Management subsection of the SWPPP: a. “Hardened solids either whole or broken must be removed and then they may be reused onsite or hauled away for recycling.” Will be replaced with: b. “Hardened solids, either whole or broken, shall be removed and hauled offsite. No hardened materials shall be reused onsite or crushed and reused onsite.” 23. The following sentence will be added to Section VI titled “Soil Erosion & Sediment Control” under the subsection titled “Solid Waste Management and Portable Sanitary Management” of the SWPPP: “If any spill occurs, The Village Public Works Department shall be notified immediately, and the DEC Spill response hotline contacted immediately (1-800-457-7362). Spill Kits shall be supplied by the owner on-site in areas readily available to emergency responders.” 24. The following sentence will be added to Section VI titled “Soil Erosion & Sediment Control” under the subsection titled “Solid Waste Management and Portable Sanitary Management” of the SWPPP: “All containers collecting food trash shall have covers installed before any food trash is disposed of in the container.” 25. The following sentence will be added to Section VI titled “Soil Erosion & Sediment Control” under the Permanent Control Measures and Facilities for Long-Term Protection subsection of the SWPPP: All catch basins shall be cleaned annually and the Village of Rye Brook’s Best Management Practices Reporting form shall be filled out annually and submitted to the Village. The Village of Rye Brook’s Best Management Practices Reporting form has been added to the Appendix of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 26. The following sentences will be been added to Section VII titled “Construction Phase and Post- Construction Maintenance” of the SWPPP: “The Village of Rye Brook’s Best Management Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees 5 July 2, 2020 Practices Reporting form shall be completed on an annual basis and submitted to the Village. The owner shall ensure that all on-site streets shall be swept with a street sweeper as part of the MS4 requirements.” The Village of Rye Brook’s Best Management Practices Reporting form has been added to the Appendix of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 27. The SWPPP will be updated during the Site Plan approval process with limitations on the use of fertilizers in specified areas of the Site, including those areas proximate to on-Site wetlands, as well as other methods for reducing phosphorous and nitrogen loading. The SWPPP will also encourage the use of mulching mowers and leaves as appropriate. The Applicant will work with the Village Engineer to identify the specific appropriate techniques to be utilized based on the final site plan. 28. The Applicant will verify the correct NY MUTCD Handicap Symbol is used on the final site plans. No changes are required to the FEIS as this is a site plan comment. 29. The location of the floor drains, oil separator location(s), and grease interceptor will be finalized during the Site Plan approval process. Final locations would be shown on Sheet C-500, “Utilities Plan.” No changes are required to the FEIS as this is a site plan comment. 30. Areas of snow storage are shown on sheet C-300 in Volume 4, the full size plans. 31. As stated in section 2.13.3, “Air Quality: Parking Analysis,” the garage will vent using one or more areaways with a minimum airflow of 0.75 cubic feet per minute of fresh air per gsf of garage area. 32. The floor plans for the IL building indicate there will be four exit stairs serving the garage, which based on a preliminary code review, exceeds the minimum number of stairs required. These stairs will egress directly to the outside of the building at grade. In addition, the garage will be serviced by four elevator banks, at least one of which will be provided with emergency electrical power. All elevators in the Project would be sized to fit a gurney. Finally, in the event that both elevators banks and all four stairs are not operable, emergency personnel could access the garage from the vehicular ramp in an emergency situation. 33. As stated in FP Clark’s memorandum, the ESTF believes that a second vehicular entrance to the garage should be included in the project. The Applicant does not believe a second means of vehicular access is necessary nor is it required by the building or fire code. The ESTF believes that two points of entry/exit would provide emergency responders with two remote options to access the garage as well as improve the speed with which vehicles could be evacuated in an emergency. The ESTF also notes that some occupants evacuating the building in an emergency may seek to get out via the garage and their car as this may be their normal path of travel. The Applicant had a meeting with representatives of the ESTF in February 2018 to discuss this, and other, comments. The Applicant does not believe a second means of vehicular access is necessary nor is it required by the building or fire code. The second means of vehicular access would not be needed for traffic flow or circulation. With respect to the ability of people to evacuate the garage in the event of an emergency, it is noted that the garage would be served by four elevator banks (with five elevators) and four sets of fire-rated stairs, located throughout the garage. Each set of stairs provides direct, grade-level access to the exterior of the building. The provision of a second means of vehicular access to the garage would not, in the Applicant’s opinion, improve the ability of people to evacuate the garage in the event of an emergency. Similarly, since fire and EMS vehicles would not access the garage (both because the garage would not be tall enough and because it would not be prudent to bring emergency vehicles under the building in the event of a fire), regardless of the number of vehicular entry points, providing a second vehicular access point would not increase the accessibility of the garage for emergency responders. In both the one and two vehicular access point scenarios, fire and EMS personnel would access the garage from the interior of the building, in the same way that they would access any other floor of the building in the event of an emergency. Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees 6 July 2, 2020 The Applicant and the Village’s Counsel discussed and agreed upon an approach to resolve this issue for the purposes of the SEQRA review. Recognizing that the decision as to whether a second vehicular entrance is needed is more closely aligned with issues of building code compliance and final site details and that the inclusion of a second entrance does not significantly affect the environmental impacts of the project, Section 2.10.1.5, “Emergency Service Site Design,” of the pFEIS was modified as follows: a. Text was added stating that the ESTF recommends that the garage be serviced by two remote vehicular entrance points for the reasons so indicated; b. Text was added stating that the Applicant did not believe the second vehicular entrance was needed or required for the reasons so indicated; c. Text was added describing the approximate changes in environmental impacts (i.e., site coverage, wetland buffer impacts, cut/fill, and visual impacts) of adding a second entrance; and, d. Text was added stating that the decision to require a second vehicular entrance is most appropriately decided during the Site Plan review phase. 34. All elevators in the Project would be sized to fit a gurney. 35. The Applicant’s architect met with representatives of the ESTF on February 18, 2020 to discuss this issue and identify measures to address the concern. It was agreed at that meeting that full width platforms and steps would be added to the back side of the parapets at the roof areas adjacent to aerial apparatus staging spots. In addition, roof mounted ladders will be added to allow firefighters to traverse from roof to roof. Pending final design, portions of the false mansard roof in some of the areas facing the Hutchinson River Parkway may be removed. These changes will be added to the architectural site plan drawings following approval of the zoning text changes and will be coordinated with the ESTF. As such, no updates to the pFEIS are required. 36. The Applicant’s architect met with representatives of the ESTF on February 18, 2020 to discuss this issue and identify measures to address the concern. It was agreed that cab-in access will be provided at certain locations around the building. The locations would be reviewed and approved by the Village (and the ESTF) during final Site Plan review when the final building and site details are determined. As such, no updates to the pFEIS are required. 37. The Applicant’s architect met with representatives of the ESTF on February 18, 2020 to discuss this issue and identify measures to address the concern. It was agreed that the precise method by which the communications concerns of the Village’s first-responders will be addressed, including the products, vendors, and building/site location of any equipment, will be determined during development of the building permit drawings in consultation with the ESTF. Until the building’s final design is complete and approved by the BoT, it is not possible to finalize the communications equipment. As such, no updates to the pFEIS are required. 38. The Applicant’s engineer met with representatives of the ESTF on February 18, 2020 to discuss this issue and identify measures to address the concern. It was agreed that the final site plan will provide for dedicated space for an ambulance/ emergency services at the main entrance to both the IL and AL. This will likely be accomplished by reducing the number of convenience, accessible spaces at the IL and modifying the driveway at the AL. The project would still provide at least the required minimum number of accessible parking spaces. As such, no updates to the pFEIS are required. Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees 7 July 2, 2020 HDR Memorandum Air Quality 1. The Revised Proposed Project as well as the original (DEIS) project analyzed would not include significant sources of sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone, or lead (lead in gasoline has been banned under the Clean Air Act). Natural gas would be burned in the proposed heat and hot water systems. The sulfur content of natural gas is negligible. Furthermore, Vehicular sources of SO2 and ozone are not significant; therefore, no analysis was undertaken to estimate the future levels of SO2 from the HVAC system. The pFEIS has been updated to reflect the reasoning. 2. As discussed in the pFEIS, more stringent NO2 and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards were promulgated after the development of the CEQR screening process; therefore, the CEQR screening process is not able to assess the potential for exceedances of these thresholds. While the Revised Proposed Project is shown to pass the CEQR screening process, an AERSCREEN analysis was performed for the Revised Proposed Project in order to assess the potential for impact to the new standards. The conclusions of the pFEIS have been revised to indicate that the Revised Proposed Project would pass both the CEQR screening process as well as the AERSCREEN analysis. 3. The 8-hour NAAQS for CO is more stringent than the 1-hour NAAQS for CO. The pFEIS has been revised to include both the 1-hour and 8-hour values. 4. The values presented in Table 2.13-2 of the pFEIS, and repeated in this comment, are cumulative values. That is, they account for emissions associated with the entire development (both the IL and AL building as well as all of the Townhouses). As part of the pFEIS, an additional analysis was performed to assess the potential for air quality impacts from the lower stacks of the potential Townhouses. The values presented in Table 2.13-3 are exclusively associated with the Townhouses (also conservatively combined into a single stack). When determining the cumulative concentrations from the parking garage emissions and other stationary source emissions, the values in Table 2.13-3 were not included as this would result in double counting of concentrations associated with the Townhouse. Noise No changes to the pFEIS are required based on these comments. It is understood that the pFEIS provides accurate and adequate analysis of the potential construction-period noise impacts of the project. The comments by HDR reflect their recommendation to the BoT with respect to mitigation measures that may required based on the analysis. A final decision by the BoT on potential mitigation measures is more appropriately made in the BoT’s Statement of Findings, and not the pFEIS. As stated in our January 3, 2020 memorandum, and repeated below, it is the Applicant’s position that a construction-period noise wall is not necessary along the construction area’s border with the Arbors or Village Hall for the reasons set forth below. However, as with HDR’s recommendation as to the appropriateness of the various mitigation measures, these opinions are not included in the pFEIS; rather, they are provided for the BoT’s information when considering their Statement of Findings.  Arbors - The maximum exterior noise level during construction at the single closest townhouse unit in the Arbors is approximately 70.1 dBA. Standard facade attenuation would be expected to result in interior noise levels of approximately 45 dBA, which is considered acceptable. Maximum exterior noise levels of 70.1 dBA (a 12.0 dBA increase) would occur during periods of the approximately six months of site demolition/ground clearing. Increments of 9 dBA (up to 67.1 dBA) would occur during periods of another 11 months. The demolition/ground clearing estimates are conservative in nature and assume simultaneous demolition and ground clearing activities closest to the receptor. As discussed during the demolition application, this simultaneous demolition and clearing is not likely to occur, certainly not that close to the Arbors. At other locations in the Arbors, this increase in noise during construction would be lower. Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees 8 July 2, 2020  Village Hall/ PD/ FD - It is the Applicant’s opinion that these are not sensitive receptors, which generally include residential uses. The maximum approximately 12 dBA noise increment would occur during portions of the approximately 5-month framing of the AL building. Increments of 9 dBA would occur during demolition and ground clearing, which would last six months in total, but would be proximate to the receptor for only a portion of that timeframe. The Applicant understands that there are sleeping quarters in the Fire Department that are occasionally used during the day. Vibration No changes are required to the FEIS based on this comment. The Applicant has committed, in the FEIS, to conduct vibration monitoring during demolition of the existing office building. Hazardous Materials No changes to the FEIS are required based on this comment. Recommendations for Permit/Approval Conditions No changes to the FEIS are required based on these comments. These comments restate the mitigation measures outlined in the various technical areas in the FEIS. With the exception of the noise walls between the Site and the Arbors and Village Hall/PD/FD, the Applicant has incorporated the proposed mitigation measures in the FEIS as part of the project. Dolph Rotfeld Engineering Memorandum 1. No changes to the FEIS are required. The Applicant understands that the upgrades required by Suez, as already described in the FEIS, will be conditions of any project approval. 2. No changes to the FEIS are required. The Superintendent of Public Works requested that the language in the FEIS regarding I&I be amended to allow for a monetary contribution or project- specific mitigation. 3. No changes to the FEIS are required as this comment pertains to Site Plan Review. 4. Comment noted. No changes required. 5. No changes to the FEIS are required as this comment pertains to Site Plan Review.