The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5_Redlined FEIS Chapters900 KING STREET REDEVELOPMENT Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (pFEIS) October 8, 2020 Lead Agency: Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees 938 King Street Rye Brook, New York 10573 Contact: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Phone: 914-939-1121 SEQRA Classification: Type I Action Project Location: 900 King Street, Rye Brook, New York (SBL: 129.68-1-13) Applicant/Petitioner: 900 King Street Owner, LLC c/o George Comfort & Sons, Inc. 200 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Contact: Peter Duncan Phone: 212-481-1137 Prepared by: AKRF, Inc. 34 South Broadway White Plains, New York 10601 Contact: Peter Feroe, AICP Phone: 914-922-2350 DEIS Acceptance Date: September 12, 2018 DEIS Public Hearing: October 22, 2018, November 8, 2018, December 11, 2018, January 8, 2019 DEIS Comments Accepted Through: January 23, 2019 pFEIS Submissions: May 14, 2019; January 3, 2020; July 2, 2020; October 8, 2020 This document is a preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (pFEIS) for the 900 King Redevelopment project. DEIS / FEIS Preparer: AKRF, Inc. 34 South Broadway White Plains, New York 10601 Contact: Peter Feroe, AICP Phone: 914-922-2350 Legal Counsel: Veneziano & Associates 84 Business Park Drive, Suite 200 Armonk, New York 10504 Contact: Anthony Veneziano, Esq. Phone: 914-273-1300 Architect: Perkins Eastman 422 Summer Street Stamford, Connecticut 06901 Contact: Richard Rosen, AIA, LEED AP Phone: 212-353-7650 Site/Civil Engineer: JMC Engineering 120 Bedford Road Armonk, New York 10504 Contact: James Ryan, RLA Phone: 914-273-5225 Traffic Engineer: Maser Consulting, P.A. 400 Columbus Avenue, Suite 180E Valhalla, New York 10595 Contact: John Collins, Ph.D., P.E. Phone: 914-347-7500 This FEIS has been distributed to the following Involved and Interested Agencies: Involved Agencies Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees, Lead Agency Village of Rye Brook Building Department Village of Rye Brook Department of Public Works Village of Rye Brook Planning Board Village of Rye Brook Architectural Review Board Westchester County Department of Health New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 3 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Permits New York State Department of Health New York State Department of Transportation, Region 8 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Interested Agencies Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School District Rye Brook Emergency Services Task Force Town of Greenwich Planning and Zoning Department Westchester County Planning Board Village of Port Chester The Arbors Homeowner’s Associations Rye King Associates, LLP, Applicant DRAFT 1 10/08/2020 Introduction PROCEDURAL CONTEXT 900 King Street Owner, LLC (the “Applicant”) proposes to construct an integrated age-restricted residential community (the “Proposed Project”) that would replace the existing, largely vacant, office building and surface parking lot at 900 King Street (the “Project Site” or the “Site”) in the Village of Rye Brook (the “Village”), New York. To effectuate its proposal, the Applicant has petitioned the Village Board of Trustees (the “Lead Agency”) to amend the Rye Brook Zoning Code to include a section entitled 900 King Street Planned Unit Development, as Section 250-7(E)(6) (the “Proposed Zoning”). The Proposed Project and Proposed Zoning are together referred as the Proposed Action. On June 5, 2017, the Applicant submitted its original petition to the Lead Agency (see DEIS Appendix A-3). On December 18, 2017, after several months of discussions with the Lead Agency and the Village Planning Board, the Lead Agency determined that the Proposed Action may have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts and directed the Applicant to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (Article 8 of Environmental Conservation Law) and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617) (together “SEQRA”). A document determining the scope of the DEIS was drafted by the Applicant in consultation with Village staff and the Lead Agency and was the subject of a public scoping session on January 9, 2018. The Lead Agency approved the DEIS Scope, revised from the original, on January 23, 2018 (see DEIS Appendix A-1). On May 4, 2018, the Applicant submitted the first draft of the preliminary DEIS (pDEIS) to the Lead Agency. The pDEIS was revised based on the review of the Village’s staff and the Lead Agency. On September 12, 2018, the Lead Agency issued a Notice of Completion of the DEIS. Four duly noticed public hearings were held on the DEIS by the Lead Agency on October 22, 2018, November 8, 2018, December 11, 2018, and January 8, 2019 for the purpose of hearing public comment on the DEIS. During the public comment period, which was open from September 13, 2018 through January 23, 2019, no less than 15 days following the close of the public hearing, written comments were received from the public, Village staff and consultants, and other Involved and Interested Agencies. The DEIS is hereby incorporated by reference into this Final EIS (FEIS). Any terms relating to the Proposed Action described in the DEIS are also used in this FEIS. 900 King Street Redevelopment 10/08/2020 2 DRAFT PURPOSE OF THE FEIS This document is an FEIS, which has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of SEQRA. The purpose of this FEIS is to provide the Lead Agency’s responses to the substantive public comments (both written and verbal) made on the DEIS during the public hearings and formal comment period. SEQRA allows an applicant to modify a project in response to public comment on the DEIS as long as any potential environmental impacts of those modifications are described and analyzed in the FEIS. Consistent with SEQRA regulations at 617.9(b)(8), the Applicant has modified the Proposed Project and the Proposed Zoning described in the DEIS. The modifications are referred to herein as the “Revised Proposed Project” and “Revised Proposed Zoning,” respectively—collectively, the “Revised Proposed Action.” As discussed in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” the significant modifications to the original project include the following: •Raising the age restriction for residents of the Proposed Project from 55 years old and older to 62 years old and older, consistent with the existing Site zoning; •Reducing the proposed gross square feet (gsf) of the Proposed Project by 89,098 square feet (sf), a 20 percent reduction in size, through: -Reducing the number of proposed Independent Living (IL) units by 24 units (15 percent) from160 to 136; -Reducing the average IL unit size by 100 sf, or 8 percent; -Reducing the number of two- and three-bedroom IL units and increasing the percentageof one-bedroom IL units, thereby reducing the total number of bedrooms in the IL building by 22 percent; -Reducing the size of the amenity and common spaces in the IL and Assisted Living (AL)building; and, -Reducing the number of townhouse units by 16.7 percent from 24 units to 20 units. •Increasing the setback of the IL building from Arbor Drive and from The Arbors; •Reducing the height of the IL roof closest to The Arbors to reduce the potential for visual impacts; •Increasing the setback of the townhouses from The Arbors; •Reconfiguring the interior layout of the proposed age-restricted townhouses to more clearlymeet the needs of the target population and to differentiate the product from other Villagetownhouses; •Reducing the amount of grading required during construction of the Revised Proposed Project as well as significantly reducing the amount of fill material required to be imported to the Siteby lowering the elevation of the finished floor of the IL and AL building by 18-inches and byreconfiguring the layout and reducing the number of townhouses; and •Expanding the on-Site pedestrian path system and providing an enhanced landscape program,most notably along Arbor Drive. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 3 10/08/2020 FEIS STRUCTURE The organization of the FEIS is as follows: •Volume 1. Volume 1 contains the FEIS Chapters and Figures. -Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project.” This chapter summarizes the modifications tothe original project as described in the DEIS. -Chapter 2, “Environmental Analysis.” This chapter contains an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the Project modifications describe in Chapter 1,“Revised Proposed Project.” This chapter is subdivided into the substantiveenvironmental categories identified in the DEIS and is numbered in accordance with the corresponding DEIS chapter number. -Chapter 3, “Response to Comments.” This chapter provides responses to substantivecomments on the DEIS received during the public comment period. As with Chapter 2, “Environmental Analysis,” this chapter is subdivided into the substantive environmentalcategories identified in the DEIS and is numbered in accordance with the correspondingDEIS chapter number. •Volume 2. Volume 2 contains the FEIS appendices, which include technical reports andcorrespondence. •Volume 3. Volume 3 of this FEIS contains copies of the transcripts of the four public hearingsas well as copies of all written comments provided. •Volume 4. Volume 4 contains the architectural and engineering plans for the RevisedProposed Project.  DRAFT 1-1 7/2/202010/08/2020 Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project 1.1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REVISED PROPOSED ACTION 900 King Street Owner, LLC (the “Applicant”) proposes to construct an integrated age-restricted residential community (the “Proposed Project”) that would replace the existing, largely vacant, office building and surface parking lot at 900 King Street (the “Project Site” or the “Site”) in the Village of Rye Brook, New York (the “Village”). To effectuate its proposal, the Applicant has petitioned the Village Board of Trustees (the “Lead Agency”) to amend the Rye Brook Zoning Code to include a section entitled 900 King Street Planned Unit Development as Section 250-7(E)(6) (“Proposed Zoning”). The Proposed Project and Proposed Zoning are together referred as the Proposed Action. Consistent with State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regulations at 617.9(b)(8), the Applicant modified the Proposed Project and the Proposed Zoning described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The modifications are referred to herein as the “Revised Proposed Project” and “Revised Proposed Zoning”—collectively, the “Revised Proposed Action.” The significant modifications to the Proposed Project are described in further detail in this chapter and include the following:  Raising the age restriction for residents of the Proposed Project from 55 years old and older to 62 years old and older, consistent with the existing Site zoning;  Reducing the proposed gross square feet (gsf) of the Proposed Project by 89,098 square feet (sf), a 20 percent reduction in size, through: - Reducing the number of proposed Independent Living (IL) units by 24 units (15 percent) from 160 to 136; - Reducing the average IL unit size by 100 sf, or 8 percent; - Reducing the number of two- and three-bedroom IL units and increasing the percentage of one-bedroom IL units, thereby reducing the total number of bedrooms in the IL building by 22 percent; - Reducing the size of the amenity and common spaces in the IL and Assisted Living (AL) building; and, - Reducing the number of townhouse units by 16.7 percent from 24 units to 20 units.  Increasing the setback of the IL building from Arbor Drive and from The Arbors, as follows: - Increasing the setback of the three-story portion of the IL building an additional 31 feet from Arbor Drive, for a total setback of 147 feet, and an additional 86 feet from The Arbors, for a total setback of 550 feet from the property line with The Arbors; and, - Increasing the setback of the four-story portion of the IL building an additional 30 feet from The Arbors, for a total setback of 494 feet from the property line with The Arbors.  Reducing the height of the IL roof closest to The Arbors to reduce the potential for visual impacts;  Increasing the setback of the townhouses from The Arbors; 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 1-2 DRAFT  Reconfiguring the interior layout of the proposed age-restricted townhouses to more clearly meet the needs of the target population and to differentiate the product from other Village townhouses;  Reducing the amount of grading required during construction of the Revised Proposed Project as well as significantly reducing the amount of fill material required to be imported to the Site by lowering the elevation of the finished floor of the IL and AL building by 18 inches and by reconfiguring the layout and reducing the number of townhouses; and  Expanding the on-Site pedestrian path system and providing an enhanced landscape program, most notably along Arbor Drive. 1.2. PROJECT SITE The Project Site is located at 900 King Street in the Village and is approximately 17.77 acres (see Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2). The Site is bounded to the north by the Hutchinson River Parkway (the “Parkway”); the east by the Rye Brook Police Department (RBPD), Rye Brook Fire Department (RBFD), Village Hall, and approximately 168 feet along King Street (NYS Rt. 120A); to the south by Arbor Drive, Harkness Park, and the Blind Brook Middle School and High School; and to the west by The Arbors townhouse community. Access to the Site is from Arbor Drive, which connects to King Street at a signalized intersection. Arbor Drive is a private street, owned by The Arbors Homeowner’s Association. The Project Site is the beneficiary of an easement, allowing the Project Site to access an improved Arbor Drive (see DEIS Appendix B-3). The Project Site, The Arbors, and Harkness Park are within the Village’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district. The schools, municipal buildings, the Parkway, and the area to the north are within residential zoning districts (e.g., R-15 and R-20). The Project Site is dominated by a gently sloping surface parking lot in the eastern and northern portions of the Site and a three-story, 215,000-sf office building in the center of the Site. The existing office building is rectangular in shape and measures approximately 220 feet by 430 feet. The Site ranges in elevation (el.) from a low point of approximately 220 feet at the southeastern corner (Arbor Drive and King Street) to approximately 276 feet at the northwestern corner of the property. The center of the Site contains an abrupt, human-made change in elevation from the relatively flat parking area to the east (~el. 246), to a higher plateau (~el. 260) to the west. A total of 15.35 acres, or 85.9 percent of the Site, is sloped less than 15 percent. The Site’s soils primarily consist of those known as “Urban land,” as described in Chapter 4, “Geology, Soils, and Topography” of the DEIS.1 The exterior of the Project Site contains areas of extensive vegetation, which obscures visibility of the interior of the Site during much of the year. Along the Site’s King Street frontage, extending west into the Project Site and along Arbor Drive for approximately 250 feet, is an area of thick wooded vegetation. Similarly, the area between the Project Site and Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD contains wooded vegetation that obscures the view into or out of the Project Site. To the north, between the parking lot and the Parkway, is an area of thick wooded vegetation that obscures views into and out of the Project Site from the Parkway. The western edge of the Project Site contains an undeveloped area of thick wooded vegetation in which a stream corridor and wetland are present. This vegetation, along with the rise in topography within the area to the east of the stream, restricts 1 The United States Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) describes urban soil mapping units as areas where the land surface is covered with buildings, structures, or parking lots and where the natural soil layers have been altered or mixed. Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project DRAFT 1-3 7/2/202010/08/2020 views into and out of the Project Site from The Arbors community. An approximately 0.72-acre area of maintained lawn on the Project Site is located between this wooded area and the easternmost townhouses within The Arbors. The Project Site’s southern frontage is heavily vegetated with the exception of the area between the Site’s two driveways. As such, the interior of the Project Site is currently only visible from approximately 400 feet along Arbor Drive. Five wetlands were identified on the Project Site (see Figure 1-3). Wetlands B and C are hydrologically supplied by runoff from the Parkway. Wetland E’s hydrology is partially supplied by a drainage pipe from an adjacent residential property. Wetland D was created as a stormwater retention basin when the Site was developed with the current office building. Its hydrology is supplied by stormwater runoff that is conveyed from the developed portion of the Project Site and off-Site parcels to the east. Stream S, which is associated with Wetland D, flows southeast from the retention basin to a culvert under Arbor Drive. Wetland A and Stream A are located in a heavily vegetated corridor in the western portion of the Site. Stream A runs southeast across the lawn in the southwestern corner of the Site and continues under Arbor Drive via a culvert. The Project Site is currently improved with an approximately 215,000-sf office building (see DEIS Appendix B-1) and approximately 595 parking spaces. The Site’s improvements create approximately 7.46 acres of impervious cover, which is approximately 42 percent of the Project Site. The office building is a three-story structure, with an area of covered parking provided on a portion of the building’s lower level. 1.3. REVISED PROPOSED ZONING SEQRA allows for, and in principle encourages, applicants to modify projects in response to public comment on the DEIS, so long as those modifications, and any potential environmental impacts of those modifications, are described and analyzed in the FEIS. In response to comments from the public, Involved and Interested Agencies, and Village officials, staff, and consultants, the Applicant has modified the Proposed Zoning. This section summarizes the Revised Proposed Zoning. Contemporaneous with this FEIS, the Applicant revised the text of the zoning amendment proposed for the Project Site. As with the zoning described in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Zoning (see Appendix A) would add a new site-specific section to the Rye Brook Zoning Code as Section 250-7(E)(6), entitled 900 King Street Planned Unit Development. Specifically, the Revised Proposed Zoning would include the following:  Permit only the “senior living facility” use on the Project Site, except as otherwise allowed by the existing PUD zoning for other sites in the Village;  Establish site-specific density standards for the proposed “senior living facility” of 13.6 residential units per acre, made up of 8.8 dwelling units per acre and 4.8 AL units per acre;  Establish site-specific setback and area requirements for the Project Site, including a front- yard setback of 42 feet, a side yard setback of 84 feet, and a rear yard setback of 30 feet;  Establish a maximum gross land coverage for the Project Site of 40 percent, which is less than the Site’s currently developed condition (42 percent); and  Increase the maximum permitted height of senior living facilities from 35 feet to 45 feet, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 1-4 DRAFT In response to comments, the Revised Proposed Zoning makes the following changes from the original zoning proposed in the DEIS:  The Applicant is no longer requesting that the Village change the minimum age for residents of senior living facilities from 62 years old to 55 years old. The Applicant is now proposing that the Revised Proposed Project be a 62 years old and older community;  The site-specific density standard for the proposed “senior living facility” has been reduced to match the corresponding decrease in the density of the Revised Proposed Project; and  The site-specific setback and area requirements have been modified to match the changes to the Revised Proposed Project. 1.4. REVISED PROPOSED PROJECT As with the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project is the construction of an integrated age-restricted residential community that includes IL, AL, and age-restricted residential townhouse units. The Revised Proposed Project proposes 241 residential units, including 136 IL units, 20 townhouse units, and 85 AL units. The community is anticipated to be owned and operated by a single entity that would offer the various units for rent. Residency within the community is proposed to be restricted to those 62 years old or older—a change from the DEIS, which proposed a community restricted to those 55 years old and older. To construct the Revised Proposed Project, the existing 215,000-sf office building and 5.3-acre surface parking lot on the Project Site would be removed. Construction of the Revised Proposed Project would occur on the portions of the Project Site that have been previously disturbed by prior development (see Appendix B for site plans depicting the condition of the Site prior to development of the current office building). The Revised Proposed Project would not disturb the existing vegetation in the western portion of the Project Site, between the Project Site and The Arbors. 1.4.1 BUILDINGS AND USES As with the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project would include the construction of an integrated age-restricted residential community consisting of a three- and four-story IL facility in the center of the Site; a three- and four-story AL structure in the northeast portion of the Site; and residential townhouses in the western portion of the Site. Figure 1-4 illustrates the layout of the Revised Proposed Project. The full-size PUD Concept Plan2 contains floorplans, elevations, sections, and exterior dimensions of the proposed buildings. As shown in Table 1.4-1, the Revised Proposed Project is 89,098 sf smaller than the original project—a reduction of 20 percent. The majority of the reduction in floor area (i.e., 70,922 sf) was achieved in the IL building by reducing the number of IL units by 24 units (15 percent), the size of the units, incorporating a larger proportion of one-bedroom units, and reducing the size of the common and amenity spaces. 2 The complete PUD Concept Plan, as well as the preliminary site plan for the Revised Proposed Project, is provided in the full-size drawings prepared by JMC Engineering and Perkins Eastman Architects located in Volume 4 of this FEIS. An index of the requirements for submission of a PUD Concept Plan and preliminary site plan and the location of all the required elements therein can also be found in Volume 4. Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project DRAFT 1-5 7/2/202010/08/2020 Table 1.4-1 Proposed Building Sizes Project Component Original Project (DEIS) Gross Floor Area (sf)1 Revised Proposed Project (FEIS) Gross Floor Area (sf)1 Town Homes 50,000 41,443 Assisted Living 90,000 80,381 Independent Living 305,000 234,078 Total 445,000 355,902 Note: 1 Gross Floor Area calculated pursuant to Section 250-2 of the Village Code. 1.4.1.1. Independent Living As was proposed in the DEIS, the center of the Site with the Revised Proposed Project would be improved with a three- and four-story IL building. Independent Living is housing for able-bodied, healthy seniors who can care for themselves within a setting that provides enhanced support and recreational services. Each IL unit would contain a full kitchen and full bathroom. The units are designed to accommodate accessibility and aging in place. In response to public and Village comments, the Applicant has reduced the number of IL units 15 percent, from 160 units to 136 units), the average size of the IL units, the number of two- and three-bedroom units, and has increased the number of one-bedroom units (see Table 1.4-2). As a result of these reductions, and reductions in the size of the amenity spaces, the IL building was reduced in size by 70,922 sf—a 23 percent reduction. Table 1.4-2 Independent Living Building Size Reduction DEIS Plan FEIS Plan Average Unit Size 1,219 sf 1,119 sf Number of Bedrooms 301 236 Largest Unit Size 1,800 sf (36 units >1,500 sf) 1,440 sf (2 units @ 1,440 sf) 3-Bedroom Units Number of Units 18 13 Percent of Total 11% 10% Average Size (sf) 1,700 sf 1,368 sf 2-Bedroom Units Number of Units 99 74 Percent of Total 62% 54% Average Size (sf) 1,270 sf 1,200 sf 1-Bedroom Units Number of Units 43 49 Percent of Total 27% 36% Average Size (sf) 900 sf 985 sf Source: PerkinsEastman As with the DEIS, the IL building in the Revised Proposed Project will contain a full commercial kitchen that can provide three meals a day for residents and also serve the AL building. Other amenity spaces, including a fitness center, multipurpose room, library, and a personal care suite, may be included. Figure 1-5, Figure 1-6, and Figure 1-7 present the conceptual floor plans and exterior dimensions of the IL and AL building. Additional floorplans, as well as detailed elevations of the IL building, are included in Volume 4. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 1-6 DRAFT The IL building is proposed to be three stories in the front, facing Arbor Drive, and four stories in the back, facing the Parkway (see Figure 1-8 and Figure 1-9). However, as shown in Figure 1-10, the Revised Proposed Project increases the IL building setback from Arbor Drive from the original project. The closest point of the IL building, which is a three-story building, is now 147 feet from Arbor Drive—an increase of 31 feet. While the setback from Arbor Drive to the four-story portion of the IL building was reduced by about 20 feet to 283 feet, the setback between the Site’s western property line with The Arbors and the IL building increased to 550 feet for the three-story portion and 494 feet to the four-story portion—increases of 86 feet and 30 feet, respectively. The overall height of the building in the Revised Proposed Project, pursuant to the PUD zoning regulations, is 41.81 feet, a slight reduction from the DEIS, which was 44.75 feet. However, the change in height as viewed from The Arbors has been more substantially reduced as a result in a change to the proposed roof design from the original project, a slight lowering in the finished floor elevation of the IL building, and an increase in the building’s setback. As shown in Figure 1-11 and Figure 1-12, and the roof plan included as sheet A- 301 in Volume 4, the tallest portion of the peak of the roof facing The Arbors has been lowered in elevation by 10.5 feet from the original project. Together with the 30 foot increase in setback from The Arbors, which makes the closest Arbors unit 550 feet from this location, the reduction in the elevation of the highest portion of the roof has reduced the perceived height of the IL building as viewed from The Arbors. 1.4.1.2. Assisted Living As with the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project proposes an 85-unit three- and four-story AL building attached to the northeast portion of the IL building. As was the case with the original project, the AL building included in the Revised Proposed Project would provide 94 beds. Assisted Living provides care for individuals who need help with one or more tasks of daily living, but who do not require skilled nursing care. The AL units will not have a kitchen and therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, do not meet the definition of a “dwelling unit” as set forth in the Village’s Zoning Code. Twenty-five AL units would be reserved for “memory care,” which provides services to those with some form of dementia. All memory care units would be on the fourth floor and the remaining 57 AL units would be located on the first, second, and third floors. As shown in Figure 1-4, the AL building has been reconfigured to improve operational efficiency and reduce its size. Figure 1-5, Figure 1-6, and Figure 1-7 illustrate the typical floor plan of the AL building. The reconfigured AL building is approximately 9,619 sf (or 11 percent) smaller than in the original project (see Table 1.4-3). Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project DRAFT 1-7 7/2/202010/08/2020 Table 1.4-3 Assisted Living Building Size Reduction DEIS Plan FEIS Plan Gross Square Feet 90,000 sf 80,381 sf Total Number of Units 85 85 Memory Care Units 26 25 Assisted 1-bed units 50 51 Assisted 2-bed units 9 9 Total Number of Beds 94 94 Source: Perkins Eastman Consistent with the original project, in the Revised Proposed Project the AL building would share back-of-house space with the IL building, including mechanical equipment, housekeeping, kitchen, and receiving facilities. To the east of the AL building would be a secure “wandering garden” in which AL residents could safely and securely access the outdoors. 1.4.1.3. Townhouses Twenty townhouses, a reduction of 16.7 percent or 4 units from the DEIS, are proposed to the west of the IL building. The 20, two-bedroom townhouses would be age-restricted to those at least 62 years old, an increase in the minimum age of 55 years old proposed in the original project. Each townhouse unit would include a one-car garage and driveway space for one additional car. As with the other components of the Revised Proposed Project, it is anticipated that these units would be rental units. The townhouses in the Revised Proposed Project would be set back farther from The Arbors, especially in the southwest of the Site. The townhouses would be architecturally reconfigured from those proposed in the original project. While each unit would still be two stories, they would be configured as “master- down” units with the master bedroom on the first floor (see Figure 1-13 and Figure 1-14). Together with the change in the site layout of the townhouse buildings, this architectural change reinforces the intended market for the townhouses (e.g., senior citizens that desire to live in a lifestyle community) and further differentiates the townhouses from existing Village housing. 1.4.1.4. Affordable Housing As required by Section 209-3F of the Village Code, similar to what was included in the original project, 15 dwelling units would be provided as affordable units in accordance with the requirements of Section 250-26.1F(3)(d) of the Village Zoning Code. In the Revised Proposed Project, it is anticipated that one of these units would be within the townhouses. The balance of the affordable units, 14 units, would be within the IL building. The same proportion of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units would be made available under the Village’s affordable housing program as are provided in the IL building. 1.4.1.5. Open Space The Revised Proposed Project would preserve approximately 11.01 acres of the Project Site, or 62 percent, as open space—an increase of 0.7 acres from the current condition. Of that space, at least 1.89 acres would be programmed 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 1-8 DRAFT open and recreational space that serves the needs of the project residents, as shown on Figure 1-15 and summarized in Table 1.4-4. Table 1.4-4 On-Site Recreation Areas Open Space Area Approximate Area Description East Garden (Memory Garden) 5,155 sf For AL and memory care residents West Sun Deck Garden 3,539 sf Primarily for IL residents North Courtyard Garden 12,254 sf Primarily for IL residents Walking Path 31,950 sf For all Project residents and staff Backyard 29,830 sf For all Project residents and staff Total 82,728 sf (~1.89 acres) The five main areas of open and recreation space are described in more detail below:  A Memory Garden (the East Garden, approximately 5,155 sf) would be located east of the AL facility for use by the facility’s residents. This secure, outdoor area would be landscaped and programmed to allow AL residents to safely enjoy the outdoors.  Various landscaped gardens and terraces would be provided adjacent to the IL building. These spaces would be programmed for a various uses, including passive activities, such as reading or having a conversation, as well as for slightly more active activities.  The existing Walking Path would be extended to the north within the Site and would terminate at a landscaped loop in the Site’s northeast corner. This path, and the landscaped area to its east, would give Project residents the opportunity to enjoy longer walks on the Project Site. In addition, this Linear Walking Path would connect to the existing sidewalk that connects the Project Site to Harkness Park, as well as to the Backyard walking path.  The Backyard walking path would connect to pedestrian paths located at the northern and southern portions of the Site. This path would meander through a slightly wooded area and provide residents and staff with a more serene setting to recreate or simply sit and relax. 1.4.2 SITE OPERATION As with the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to be owned by a single entity. A managing agent and/or operator may be retained to manage and operate the Revised Proposed Project, and that party may be an affiliate of the owner. There is no plan to subdivide the Project Site. All units (IL, AL, and townhouse) are anticipated to be rental units and residency will be limited to those 62 years old and older. As with the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project would contain accessory uses (e.g., library, café, dining, sale of sundries), which would be for the exclusive use by residents of the Project Site and their guests. The facilities would not be open to the public nor would memberships be offered to the public. The Applicant has agreed to coordinate with the Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School District (BBRUFSD) to ensure that shift changes for Project staff are not scheduled during morning school drop-off times or afternoon dismissal times. This commitment will help ensure that the Revised Proposed Project does not concentrate trip generation during times of peak roadway congestion. Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project DRAFT 1-9 7/2/202010/08/2020 The IL facility is anticipated to have a director, activity/social program staff, as well as administrative staff during the day. The AL facility would be staffed with resident aides around the clock. Dining staff would serve both the AL and IL uses and housekeeping, building maintenance, and site maintenance staff would serve all three project components. The anticipated approximate staffing levels are presented in Table 1.4-5. Table 1.4-5 Anticipated Staffing Levels Staffing Category and Time of Day* Approximate Number of Staff IL Administration, Social/ Activity (Day only) 6 AL Resident Aides Morning to Afternoon 30 Afternoon to Evening 25 Overnight 6 Dining Staff (Shared) Morning 15 Afternoon/Evening 15 Housekeeping (Shared) Morning 15 Afternoon/Evening 4 Building and Site Maintenance (Shared) Day 4 Night 1 Note: *Shift changes will be coordinated with the School District so they do not occur within approximately 30 minutes of MS/HS arrival or dismissal times, which are currently at approximately 7:50 AM and 2:40 PM. Source: Anticipated staffing levels provided by the Applicant 1.4.3 PARKING AND CIRCULATION With the Revised Proposed Project, parking and circulation would remain similar in layout and operation to the original project. 1.4.3.1. Vehicular Circulation The Project Site would continue to be accessed from Arbor Drive and there would continue to be two access points from Arbor Drive. Vehicular access would be provided within a two-way, 26-foot-wide circular access drive that loops around the Site (see Figure 1-16). Loading for the IL and AL building would continue to be located on the north side of the IL building and would be screened from off-Site view (see Figure 1-17). The townhouses would be accessed from a single driveway off the main driveway. The Applicant proposes to construct an emergency access driveway in the northeast corner of the Project Site, as described in the DEIS. During normal operation, this driveway would be secured at both ends with a bollard and chain assembly. 1.4.3.2. Parking The Revised Proposed Project would include 238 parking spaces, 64 fewer spaces than the original project. As with the original project, the number of parking spaces proposed exceeds that required by the Revised Proposed Zoning and the current PUD zoning (see Table 1.4-6). The adequacy of the parking provided is discussed in Section 2.12.8, “Parking.” 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 1-10 DRAFT Zoning and the current PUD zoning (see Table 1.4-6). The adequacy of the parking provided is discussed in Section 2.12.8, “Parking.” Table 1.4-6 Proposed Parking for the Revised Proposed Project Use Original Project Revised Proposed Project Revised Proposed Zoning Current PUD Zoning1 Independent Living 179 136 136 1021 Assisted Living 60 52 43 641 Townhouse 61 50 50 602 Total 300 238 229 226 Notes: 1 “Senior Living Facility” defined in the PUD zoning district as those that provide a range of living accommodations for people age 62 years old and older, requires 0.75 spaces per unit pursuant to Section 250-7E(2)(g). 2 Calculated pursuant to Section 250-6G(1)(c)[3]. Entrance to the underground parking would be consolidated from two entrances with the original project to one entrance in the Revised Proposed Project. This entrance would be located in the rear of the building to minimize impacts to visual resources and to reduce the grading required around the sides of the proposed IL building. It is noted that the Village’s Emergency Services Task Force (ESTF) has recommended that the underground parking be serviced by two remote points of vehicular entry/exit. The Applicant does not believe a second vehicular entry/exit is necessary or required by the Building and Fire Codes. This issue is discussed further in Section 2.10.1.5, “Emergency Service Site Design.” 1.4.3.3. Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian circulation with the Revised Proposed Project has been expanded from the original project. In addition to the five-foot-wide sidewalk around the IL and AL building and extension of the four-foot-wide paved walking path along the Site’s eastern boundary, paved walking paths would be created along the Site’s northern boundary and to the west of the proposed townhouses (see Figure 1-18). These paths would include crosswalks at all Site roadways and would allow residents the opportunity to safely and securely recreate throughout the landscaped Site. As with the original project, access to the walking path on the eastern side of the Site would be provided to the public pursuant to an easement with the BBRUFSD, which is currently responsible for its maintenance (see DEIS Appendix B-3). Given the integration of this path into the design and operation of the Revised Proposed Project, the Site’s owner/operator will assume responsibility for maintaining this path on the Project Site and will preserve public access to the path from the southern property line to the intersection with the path to the Village Hall/Fire Department property. The internal Site sidewalk system would connect to the southern end of this walking path at Arbor Drive. As part of the Revised Proposed Project, the Applicant would install standard crosswalk markings on Arbor Drive at this location to better identify the crossing. Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project DRAFT 1-11 7/2/202010/08/2020 1.4.4 LANDSCAPING As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project is designed to promote health and wellness. As such, the grounds around the building would have pathways for walking within the overall landscaped site. Additional paved walking paths along the Site’s northern boundary and behind the townhouses have been proposed to allow residents the opportunity to recreate throughout the Site. The IL and AL buildings would also feature six landscaped terraces, which would be programmed for use by Site residents. As with the original project, the existing vegetation within the western portion of the Project Site, between the Site and The Arbors, would remain with the Revised Proposed Project, maintaining the buffer between the two properties. In addition, the vegetation along the Site’s King Street frontage, extending west along Arbor Drive to the new Site driveway, would also remain, maintaining this significant vegetative buffer between King Street and the interior of the Project Site. Similarly, the majority of the existing vegetation along the Site’s northern boundary and between Arbor Drive and the southernmost townhouse would also be preserved. Most of the vegetation to be removed (a total of 74 trees with a diameter at breast height [dbh] greater than 10 inches) is located along the eastern boundary of the Site, between the Site and the Village-owned land and in the vicinity of the proposed easternmost site access point. The vegetation proposed to be removed between the Site and the Village property would allow for expansion of the stormwater management basin. As shown on sheet L-300 in Volume 4, an extensive landscape plan has been developed for the Proposed Project. In total, a minimum of 438 trees and 309 shrubs are proposed to be planted within the Project Site with emphasis on providing or enhancing the visual buffer between the Site and the properties to the east and west. In addition, the area along the Site’s Arbor Drive frontage has been prioritized for additional buffer landscaping. Specifically, the large planted island between the Site’s two main driveways has been designed to provide an enhanced visual buffer between the interior of the Project Site and Arbor Drive. As a result of the reduction in size of the IL and AL building and the increased setback of that building from Arbor Drive, this landscaped island was also extended approximately 25 feet farther—“deeper”—into the Project Site. As a result, this island is now proposed to be approximately 75 feet wide at its most narrow point. The result would be increased screening of the IL building from Arbor Drive and a visual “framing” of the main entrance to the IL building. Additional trees and shrubs would be planted to the west of the westernmost Site access, to enhance the visual screening of the townhouses from Arbor Drive. Within the interior of the Site, the landscaping would include a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, ornamental flowering trees, and shrub areas, to present an attractive appearance for the residents and the surrounding community and to provide seasonal interest. Along the Site’s northern site boundary with the Parkway, additional trees and shrubs will be planted. These plantings will serve several purposes, including enhancing the wetland buffers, maintaining the limited wildlife corridor along the Parkway, and helping to screen the views of the interior of the Project Site from the Parkway. The landscaping plan utilizes native species to the maximum extent practicable and carefully avoids the introduction of invasive species. As such, these plantings will require less watering once established. The Applicant has not retained a landscaping or pest management service; however, at the time that such firms are retained, consideration will be given to utilizing an Integrated Pest Management approach. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 1-12 DRAFT 1.4.5 GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1.4.5.1. Grading The Site ranges in elevation from a low point of approximately 220 feet at the southeastern corner (Arbor Drive and King Street) to approximately 276 feet at the northwestern corner of the property. The center of the Site contains an abrupt, human-made change in elevation from the relatively flat parking area to the east (~el. 246), to a higher plateau (~el. 260) to the west. A total of 15.35 acres, or 86.4 percent of the Site, is sloped less than 15 percent. The proposed grading for the Revised Proposed Project, similar to the original project, was designed to create a relatively level Site. Age-restricted residential communities seek to provide pedestrian paths and sidewalks with minimal slope so residents can easily walk throughout the Site. However, reducing the number of townhouse units and reconfiguring the layout of that portion of the Site allowed for the townhouses to be located at a slightly higher elevation than the original project, reducing the amount of “lowering” or “cut” required. As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project includes “raising” the elevation of the eastern side of the Site to level the terrain. The proposed grading also allows for underground parking, which in addition to reducing the adverse visual impact of expansive surface parking lot, reduces the amount of impervious cover on the Site concomitant potential for adverse stormwater impacts. To minimize the impacts of this regrading, the finished floor elevation of the IL and AL building and the underground parking garage, has been lowered by 18 inches, significantly reducing the amount of fill required for the Revised Proposed Project (±36,686 cubic yards) as compared to the original project (±51,600 cubic yards), resulting in a more “balanced” site in terms of cut and fill (±1,472 net export for the Revised Proposed Project compared to ±9,000 cubic yards of import with the original project). As described in more detail in Section 2.4, “Geology, Soils, and Topography,” the Project Site, including the vegetated area that is “up the hill” from the current parking lot, is not indicative of the “native” contours of the Project Site having been heavily disturbed during the Site’s prior development through mass-grading and building construction. As discussed in more detail in Section 2.4, “Geology, Soils, and Topography,” the Proposed Project would disturb approximately 0.95 acres of slopes greater than 15 percent, much, if not all of which, is associated with the human-made slope in the center of the Site. The proposed grading plan would result in a Site that has approximately 3.39 acres of slopes greater than 15 percent, which is 0.94 acres more than the Site has at present. As detailed in Section 2.4, “Geology, Soils, and Topography,” areas of steep slope in the proposed condition that would be similar to the existing condition would occur on the eastern portion of the Site around the existing stormwater basin (i.e., Wetland D) and Stream S to its south, the southern portion of the wooded area between the existing Site building and The Arbors, the northern boundary of the Site, and the Site’s frontage along King Street. New steep slope areas in the proposed condition would be on either side of the entrance drive to the sub- surface parking garage, on the western portion of the Site behind the Chapter 1: Revised Proposed Project DRAFT 1-13 7/2/202010/08/2020 townhomes, and on the eastern side of the proposed IL building between the building and the proposed interior drive. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed grading plan are discussed in Section 2.4, “Geology, Soils, and Topography,” Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management,” and Section 2.16, “Construction.” In general, with the implementation of Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (ESCP) during construction, it is the Applicant’s opinion that there would be no adverse environmental impacts from disturbance of the Site’s steep slopes during construction. Upon completion of the Revised Proposed Project, the remaining steep slopes of the Project Site would be stabilized and would not be anticipated to create an adverse environmental impact. 1.4.5.2. Proposed Stormwater Management As summarized in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management,” and presented more fully in Appendix D, the general drainage patterns of the Site would not be significantly altered with the Proposed Project. Off-Site areas that currently discharge to the Project Site, including areas from the north (i.e., the Parkway) and east (i.e., Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD), would continue to do so. The vast majority of the Project Site, including the entire area of the existing building and parking lot, would continue to drain to the southeast. The westernmost portion of the Site that currently drains through Wetland A, in between the Project Site and The Arbors, would not be adversely affected by the Revised Proposed Project. A small area of the Site that currently drains to the west would, with the Proposed Project, instead drain to the east. As described more fully in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management,” despite the slight increase in area draining to the east, the rate and volume of runoff draining from the Site will be reduced with the Revised Proposed Project. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been developed for the Proposed Project in accordance with State and Village regulations and design guidelines.3 The proposed stormwater management system consists of standard stormwater practices, including vegetated swales, subsurface infiltration systems, and improvements to the existing stormwater detention basin. Implementation of these practices will enhance stormwater quality and reduce peak rates of runoff from the Project Site when compared to the existing condition. In addition, runoff volumes would be reduced in all analyzed storms compared to the existing condition. As such, there would be no off-Site stormwater impacts as a result of the Revised Proposed Project. 1.4.6 IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE As described more completely in Section 2.11, “Infrastructure and Utilities,” the Project Site is currently served by a 4-inch potable water line that is connected to an 8-inch water 3 Applicable stormwater requirements are found in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit No. GP- 0-15-002, effective January 29, 2015, last modified November 23, 2016, the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, last revised January 2015 and Chapter 217 “Stormwater Management” of the Village Zoning Code. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 1-14 DRAFT main in Arbor Drive. Sanitary Sewer service to the Project Site is currently provided by a 10-inch sewer line that exits the Project Site to the west. With the Revised Proposed Project, an 8-inch water main is proposed to loop around the IL and AL building, with extensions provided to serve the proposed townhouses. The water main would connect to the existing municipal main within Arbor Drive at two locations. Fire hydrants are proposed within the Project Site in accordance with fire code requirements. A 4-inch domestic water service and a 6-inch fire service are proposed to serve the main building. With the Revised Proposed Project, an 8-inch sanitary service would connect the IL and AL building to the existing 10-inch private main. Separate connections for the townhouses would be made to the 8-inch main. 1.5. PURPOSE AND NEED The Revised Proposed Project would return the Site to productive use for the benefit of the owner and the Site’s various property taxing jurisdictions with uses that would minimize impacts to the surrounding residential and institutional uses. Specifically, the Revised Proposed Project would dramatically minimize the generation of traffic as compared to the full occupancy of the existing office building.4 In addition, the Revised Proposed Project would maintain the current landscaped buffers between the Project Site and the surrounding uses, including the residential uses to the west. The Revised Proposed Project would also serve a community and market need by providing senior living options in the region—a need documented by the Village’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. The current need market need for this type of age-restricted community was confirmed by the demographic studies in the DEIS as well as a recent economic market study by JLL, a leading real estate valuation and advisory firm (see Appendix C). The JLL study concludes, in pertinent part, that within the market area “the assisted living (including memory care) and independent living segments [are] under-supplied at this time. This is supported by the higher occupancies reported throughout each segment (95 percent for assisted living (including memory care), 92 percent specific to memory care, and 93 percent for independent living).”5 The report goes on to note that though there are 399 IL units and 346 AL units forecast to come online within the next three years, including the Revised Proposed Project, there is forecast to be excess demand of 720 AL beds, 319 memory care beds, and 1,417 IL units.  4 The Revised Proposed Project would generate 51 trips in the Weekday Peak AM Hour; 59 trips in the Weekday Peak Midday Hour; and 67 trips in the Weekday Peak PM Hour. This is 19-23 fewer trips per hour than the original project, which would have generated 70, 80, and 90 trips in the respective peak hours analyzed. When compared to the existing conditions at the office building when counted in 2017 and 2018, the Revised Proposed Project would generate only 17 additional trips in the AM Peak Hour, 34 additional trips in the midday hour, and 46 additional trips in the PM Peak Hour. That is to say the Revised Proposed Project is only expected to add one additional car to Arbor Drive every 1.3 to 3.5 minutes during the peak hours. 5 Page 4 of: Market Study: Rye Brook Senior Living, 900 King Street. JLL. October 2017. Included as Appendix C. DRAFT 2-1 7/2/202010/08/2020 Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 2.1. PROCEDURAL CONTEXT Subsequent to the Village of Rye Brook’s (the “Village”) adoption of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on September 12, 2018 and based primarily on public and agency input, the Applicant, 900 King Street Owner, LLC, proposes the following changes to the Proposed Project:  Raising the age restriction for residents of the Proposed Project from 55 years old and older to 62 years old and older, consistent with the existing Site zoning;  Reducing the proposed gross square feet (gsf) of the Proposed Project by 89,098 square feet (sf), a 20 percent reduction in size, through: - Reducing the number of proposed Independent Living (IL) units by 24 units (15 percent) from 160 to 136; - Reducing the average IL unit size by 100 sf, or 8 percent; - Reducing the number of two- and three-bedroom IL units and increasing the percentage of one-bedroom IL units, thereby reducing the total number of bedrooms in the IL building by 22 percent; - Reducing the size of the amenity and common spaces in the IL and Assisted Living (AL) building; and - Reducing the number of townhouse units by 16.7 percent from 24 units to 20 units.  Increasing the setback of the IL building from Arbor Drive and from The Arbors, as follows: - Increasing the setback of the three-story portion of the IL building an additional 31 feet from Arbor Drive, for a total setback of 147 feet, and an additional 86 feet from The Arbors, for a total setback of 550 feet from the property line with The Arbors; and - Increasing the setback of the four-story portion of the IL building an additional 30 feet from the Arbors, for a total setback of 494 feet from the property line with The Arbors.  Reducing the height of the IL roof closest to The Arbors to reduce the potential for visual impacts;  Increasing the setback of the townhouses from The Arbors;  Reconfiguring the interior layout of the proposed age-restricted townhouses to more clearly meet the needs of the target population and to differentiate the product from other Village townhouses;  Reducing the amount of grading required during construction of the Revised Proposed Project as well as reducing the amount of fill material required for import by lowering the elevation of the finished floor of the IL and AL building by 18 inches and by reconfiguring the layout and reducing the number of townhouses; and  Expanding the on-Site pedestrian path system and providing an enhanced landscape program, most notably along Arbor Drive. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-2 DRAFT Accordingly, the Applicant has updated the proposed zoning amendments (the “Revised Proposed Zoning”) to correlate with the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix A). The Revised Proposed Project and Revised Proposed Zoning are collectively known as the Revised Proposed Action. This chapter presents the evaluation of potential environmental impacts associated with the Revised Proposed Action, described in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project.” Special attention is paid to evaluating whether the Revised Proposed Action would result in any new or substantially different impacts than were described in the DEIS. 2.2. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Table 2.2-1 summarizes the reduction in potential environmental impacts of the Revised Proposed Project resulting from Project changes in response to comments received on the DEIS. Table 2.2-1 Changes in Environmental Impacts with the Revised Proposed Project Revised Proposed Project Potential Environmental Impact 62+ age restriction (changed from 55+) Reduce traffic, change community character impacts, reduce potential for school-age children Reduced size IL and AL building Reduce visual impacts, reduce traffic, change community character impacts, reduce physical site impacts (impervious cover, grading, etc.) Reduced IL units, unit size and bedrooms, reduce number of townhouse units Reduce traffic, change community character impacts, reduce water and sewer impacts Reduce height of IL building facing The Arbors Reduce visual impacts Increase setbacks from Arbor Drive and The Arbors Reduce visual impacts and community character impacts Reconfigure townhouses (e.g., master-down) Change community character impacts Enhanced landscaping plan Visual and aesthetic impacts The balance of this chapter presents environmental impacts attributable to the Revised Proposed Project as compared to the original project analyzed in the DEIS. 2.3. LAND USE, PUBLIC POLICY, AND ZONING 2.3.1. LAND USE The Project Site is currently improved with an approximately 215,000-square-foot (sf) office building, a use allowed by the current Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the office building is approximately 0.28, which is more than twice that allowed by the current Site zoning. The roof of the building is approximately 39 feet from ground level, which exceeds current PUD regulations, and the fascia extends another 7.5 feet, which is also greater than that which is permitted in the zoning code. The area within ½-mile of the Project Site consists primarily of detached single-family residential uses, with some exceptions, most notably adjacent to the Project Site. Immediately to the south of the Project Site is the Blind Brook Middle School and High School. The approximately 21-acre campus serves grades 6–12 and includes a Middle School and High School building and gymnasium, multiple baseball and football fields, a track, and various small ancillary buildings. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-3 7/2/202010/08/2020 The Applicant proposes to construct an age-restricted residential campus on the Project Site, defined by the Village zoning code as a “senior living facility.” The proposed use is permitted within the existing PUD zoning district. A senior living facility, which is a residential use, is compatible with both the non-age-restricted residential uses and the institutional uses adjacent to the Site. 2.3.2. PROPOSED DENSITY In response to comments from the Village Board of Trustees (the “Lead Agency”) and the community, and to reduce the potential for adverse impacts, the Applicant has reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project from that analyzed in the DEIS. Specifically, the Applicant has reduced the size of the project by 89,908 sf through reductions in the number of IL and Townhouse units, reductions in the average IL unit size, reductions in the number of IL bedrooms, and reducing the size of the IL and AL building’s common and amenity spaces. As shown in Table 2.3-1, when considered on its own (e.g., not part of the entire PUD of which it is a part), the density of the Revised Proposed Project is less than The Atria, Rye Brook (both in terms of sf per acre and number of units per acre). The Revised Proposed Project is less dense than the Doral Green PUD in terms of square feet per acre. While the number of units or dwelling units per acre for the Revised Proposed Project exceeds that of other PUDs, it is still within the range of “low- to medium-density” housing as defined by the Comprehensive Plan (see Section 2.3.4.1, “Comprehensive Plan”). Further, the units included in the Revised Proposed Project are smaller than the units included in other PUDs and, most importantly, are age-restricted housing units, including AL units, which have different impacts per unit than market-rate housing. Table 2.3-1 Comparative Project Density Development Dwelling Units per 5,000 sf Dwelling Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Square feet per Acre Average Unit Size (sf) The Arbors 0.8 6.9 0.37 15,900 2,304 The Atria, Rye Brook 3.9 34.1 1.11 48,352 ukn Revised Proposed Project 1.01 (1.55)* 8.8 (13.51)* 0.46 20,032 1,127 (IL) 2,072 (TH) 647 (AL) PUD with Revised Proposed Project 0.77 (0.93)* 6.7 (8.1)* 0.35 15,407 1,895 (1,685)* Doral Green 0.9 7.9 0.54 23,369 2,943 Sun Homes 0.4 3.6 0.28 12,109 3,364 Note: * Includes dwelling units and AL units Considering the entire PUD District of which the Project Site is a part, with the Revised Proposed Project the PUD would have 6.7 dwelling units per acre, of which 38 percent would be age restricted (see Table 2.3-1). Including the AL units in the Revised Proposed Project, which are not dwelling units, the PUD would have 8.1 total units per acre, 49 percent of which would be age-restricted and 17 percent of which would be AL units. With the Revised Proposed Project, the FAR of the PUD District as a whole would increase by 0.05 FAR to 0.35 FAR. The PUD of which the Revised Proposed Project would be a part would consist of fewer dwelling units per acre (6.7 compared to 7.9) and 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-4 DRAFT less square feet per acre (15,407 sf/acre compared to 23,369 sf/acre) than Doral Green, which contains no age-restricted housing. When compared to Sun Homes, the PUD of which the Revised Proposed Project would be a part would consist of more dwelling units per acre (6.7 compared to 3.6) and slightly more square feet per acre (15,407 sf/acre compared to 12,109 sf/acre). The Revised Proposed Project, and the PUD of which it would be a part, both have smaller average unit sizes than both Doral Green and Sun Homes. 2.3.3. ZONING The Project Site is located within the Village’s PUD zoning district (see DEIS Figure 3-1). The Site is part of a larger PUD, one of three within the Village, which was established between 1979 and 1981 when the Site was under the zoning jurisdiction of the Town of Rye and prior to the establishment of the Village. The Village’s current PUD regulations allow residential, office, senior living, and retail uses. As such, the Revised Proposed Zoning would not change the allowable uses on the Project Site. Rather, the Revised Proposed Zoning includes changes to the allowable height and density of senior living facilities on the Project Site. Specifically, the Revised Proposed Zoning includes the following provisions:  Permit only the “senior living facility” use on the Project Site, except as otherwise allowed by the existing PUD zoning for other sites in the Village;  Establish site-specific density standards for the proposed “senior living facility” of 13.6 residential units per acre, made up of 8.8 dwelling units per acre and 4.8 AL units per acre (see Table 2.3-2);  Establish site-specific setback and area requirements for the Project Site, including a front-yard setback of 42 feet, a side yard setback of 84 feet, and a rear yard setback of 30 feet (see Table 2.3-2);  Establish a maximum gross land coverage for the Project Site of 40 percent, which is less than the Site’s currently developed condition (42 percent) (see Table 2.3-2); and  Increase the maximum permitted height of senior living facilities from 35 feet to 45 feet, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations (see Table 2.3-2). In response to public comments and comments from the Lead Agency, and to reduce the potential for adverse impacts, the Revised Proposed Zoning includes two notable changes to the zoning originally proposed. First, the Applicant no longer is requesting to lower the minimum age for residents of senior living facilities from 62 years old to 55 years old. Second, the Applicant has reduced the gross floor area and number of units permitted by the Revised Proposed Zoning (see Table 2.3-2). As was the case in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Zoning would only apply to senior living facilities on the Project Site and would not change the regulations governing any other use in the Village’s PUD, including residential, office, conference center, or retail. Further, as was the case in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project tracks closely with the requirements of the Revised Proposed Zoning. That is, the Revised Proposed Zoning would not allow the development of a project on the Project Site that is meaningfully different from the Revised Proposed Project in terms of the number of units proposed for the senior living facility and each component thereof, the amount of impervious land coverage, the height of the buildings, or the required yards (see Table 2.3-2). The Revised Proposed Zoning does not fundamentally change the nature of the uses that would be allowed on-Site from what is currently allowed on-Site. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-5 7/2/202010/08/2020 Table 2.3-2 Zoning Comparison Current Zoning Current Condition Proposed Zoning (DEIS) Revised Proposed Zoning (FEIS) Revised Proposed Project (FEIS) Requirements for Project Site Front Yard (building setback) No site minimum, only PUD buffers -- 42 feet 42feet 42 feet Side Yard (building setback) No site minimum, only PUD buffers -- 90 feet 84 feet 84 feet Rear Yard (building setback) No site minimum, only PUD buffers -- 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet1 Gross Land Coverage (maximum) No maximum 42% 40% 40% 38.04% Building Height (maximum) 35 feet 39 feet 45 feet / 4 stories 45 feet / 4 stories 41.81 feet / 4 stories Floor Area per Acre 5,227 sf 12,196 sf 26,000 sf^ 20,100^ 20,032 All Units 6 per acre -- 15.2 per acre^ 13.6 per acre^ 13.5 per acre^ Dwelling Units 6 per acre -- 10.4 per acre^ 8.8 per acre^ 8.8 per acre^ AL Units -- -- 4.8 per acre 4.8 per acre 4.8 per acre PUD Site-wide Requirements Buffer Areas (Section 250-7E(2)(e)) 25% of PUD Site (Board of Trustees may increase or decrease by 20%) N/A No Change No Change N/A 150 feet building setback from property line abutting existing (public) road 623 feet (King Street) No Change No Change 330 feet (King Street) 100 feet along zoning district boundary 130 feet—Northern boundary 385 feet—Eastern boundary 244 feet-South No Change Same as Yard Requirements 30 feet-North 84 feet-East 92 feet-South1 Parking set back 50 or 100 feet from perimeter PUD property line 12 feet—North 77 feet—East No Change Same as Yard Requirements 77 feet-North 26 feet-East Public Open Space 10% of PUD Site Applies to PUD Site as a whole. See Chapter 10 in DEIS. No Change No Change N/A Parking Office: 1 per 200 sf2 (1,075 spaces) 595 spaces No Change No Change N/A Two-family dwelling: 2.5 per unit3 N/A No Change No Change 50 Age-restricted multifamily: 0.75 spaces per unit N/A 1 per unit (160 total) 1 per unit (136 total) 136 Senior living facility: 0.75 spaces per unit4 N/A 0.5 per unit (43 total) 0.5 per unit (43 total) 52 Notes: ^ Applies only to senior living facilities, including AL facilities, and not to “standard” residential developments. 1 This is the setback of the southernmost 2-story townhouse. The IL building is set back further from Arbor Drive than the existing office building. 2 Section 250-6G(c)(1)(b)[11]. 3 Section 250-6G(c)(1)(b)[3]. 4 Section 250-7E(2)(g) Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-6 DRAFT The consistency of the Revised Proposed Zoning with applicable public policy documents, including the Comprehensive Plan, is discussed in Section 2.3.4, “Public Policy.” The potential environmental impacts of the Revised Proposed Zoning, including potential impacts to visual resources and community character, are described throughout the DEIS and this Final EIS (FEIS). Consistent with the Board of Trustees’ existing authority to establish site-specific PUD buffer standards, pursuant to Section 250-7E(2)(e)[1][d] of the Zoning Code, the Revised Proposed Zoning explicitly states that Site Plans in conformance with the site-specific yard requirements established by the Revised Proposed Zoning shall also be deemed to have an adequate PUD buffer. As with the original zoning, the Revised Proposed Zoning does not propose changes to the Village’s regulations with regard to the provisions of fair and affordable housing or adequate parks and open space. As required by Section 209-3F of the Village Code, the Revised Proposed Project would include 15 affordable units, as defined in Section 250-26.1D of the Village Code. These units would be provided in both the townhouses and IL facility in proportion to the total number, and type, of market-rate units. Section 250-7E(2)(f) of the Village Code requires that 10 percent of a PUD site be offered and dedicated to the Village for recreational use or a fee in lieu of providing such land be paid to the Village. This provision of the Village Code applies to a PUD site as a whole at the time that it is mapped a PUD, and not to individual lots within a PUD site, including the Project Site. The Village retains its authority to require the provision of adequate recreational facilities on the Project Site at such time as the Site is redeveloped pursuant to its authority under Section 209-15 of the Village Code. Specifically, Section 209-15 of the Village Code states that site plans must, when required, contain a suitably sized park or parks for active or passive recreation or applicants must remit a fee in lieu thereof. The ability of the Revised Proposed Project to meet the requirements of Section 209-15 and provide adequate recreational facilities for the projected population of the Project Site is discussed in detail in Section 2.10.3, “Open Space.” With respect to the purposes of the PUD district as codified in §250-7E(1), and as provided in more detail in Section 3.2.2.2 of the DEIS, “Consistency with the Intent and Current Condition of the PUD”:  The Revised Proposed Zoning would not introduce any new uses to the PUD zoning district. In addition, the Revised Proposed Project would remove a large commercial office building from the Project Site, consistent with the legislative intent of providing “limited commercial” uses within the PUD.  The Revised Proposed Project would conserve natural resources and preserve open space by focusing development within an area that has been disturbed by prior development. In addition, the Revised Proposed Project would preserve the wetland corridor in the western portion of the Site and would increase the amount of open space and decrease the amount of impervious land cover by 0.7 acres (or approximately nine percent of the Site) from the current condition. The Project Site is within the Village’s Scenic Roads Overlay District (SROD). The SROD, codified in Section 250-7F of the Zoning Code, was “established for the purpose of preserving the Village of Rye Brook’s historic resources, stone walls, natural features and views from its roadways…” As demonstrated in detail in Section 3.2.2.3 of the DEIS, 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-7 7/2/202010/08/2020 “Consistency with Scenic Roads Overlay District,” the Revised Proposed Project would be consistent with the requirements of the SROD. Specifically, and for the reasons set forth in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project would:  Be architecturally compatible with the surrounding structures and the important scenic and natural features of the Site shall be preserved;  Include a setback of 330 feet from King Street, the street frontage regulated by the SROD, which would be maintained in its current condition, consisting of dense wooded vegetation, as part of a future site plan approval;  Maintain the approximate location of the building signage along King Street;  Not include above-ground utility equipment within 35 feet of King Street;  Not include parking within the SROD vegetative buffer; and  Not include earth moving within the SROD vegetative buffer. 2.3.4. PUBLIC POLICY 2.3.4.1. Comprehensive Plan General As demonstrated in detail in Section 3.3.1.1 of the DEIS, “General Recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan,” the Revised Proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant general recommendations of the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, and for the reasons set forth in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project would:  Promote sustainable development; encourage a stable and enduring economic base; provide for safety health and education; preserve the natural cultural, recreational, and historic assets of the Village; enhance the design of the built and natural environment; and serve as an example of smart-growth development.  Enhance the quality of life of Village residents, business, interest groups, and future generations.  Promote a diversity of housing choices.  Include 15 affordable dwelling units. Site-Specific The Village’s Comprehensive Plan makes several site-specific recommendations for the Project Site. The consistency of the Revised Proposed Project with those recommendations is described in detail in Section 3.3.1.2 of the DEIS, “Site Specific Recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan,” and summarized below.  The Revised Proposed Project would reposition a property that is improved with an office building with a long history of vacancy. The Revised Proposed Project would provide significant tax revenues to the Village and other taxing jurisdictions, including the Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School District (BBRUFSD), while placing no additional burden on the BBRUFSD. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-8 DRAFT  The Revised Proposed Zoning would allow for four-story age-restricted housing buildings that are carefully controlled to avoid potential visual impacts and would reduce the parking requirements for AL units in recognition that these facilities are extremely low traffic generators. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends that the Village “[a]djust the density requirement for residential uses [within PUD districts] to a less restrictive regulation that still maintains Rye Brook’s low-density character.” Based on comments from the Lead Agency and the public with respect to the impact of the original project on community character, the Applicant has reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project by 89,098 sf—a 20 percent reduction in gross floor area. With regard to allowable density for new residential developments within PUD districts, the Comprehensive Plan prioritizes preservation of the Village’s low- density residential character. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically opine or ascribe a density limit or cap for new PUD district residential development, which would be antithetical to the explicit recommendation to allow increased density in the PUD zones. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan, the Village is developed with a wide variety of residential densities. In general, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Village’s single-family zoning districts (e.g., R-5 to R-25) as “low density,” allowing up to one unit per 5,000 sf of lot area. Low- to medium-density is recognized as generally occurring within the Village’s two-family zoning districts (e.g., R-2F), which allow two units per 5,000 sf of lot area. Finally, the medium- to high-density residential areas are defined as attached housing, regardless of the number of units per lot area. Explicitly included in this definition of high-density housing is Doral Greens, The Arbors, and Talcott Woods. The Revised Proposed Project proposes 156 dwelling units, a density of 8.8 dwelling units per acre, or 1.01 dwelling units per 5,000 sf. If AL units, which are not dwelling units, are included in calculation, total units per acre would be 13.51, or 1.55 units per 5,000 sf. Using the Comprehensive Plan’s measure of density, the Revised Proposed Project would be classified as “low- to medium-density.” Using the Comprehensive Plan’s consideration of housing type, regardless of the number of units, though, the Revised Proposed Project would be considered medium- to high-density housing, similar to The Arbors and Doral Greens. It is important to note that, as described in the Responses to Comments 20 and 36 in Chapter 3, “Response to Comments,” comparing the number of units per acre of an age-restricted residential project to the number of units in a market-rate residential project does not provide sufficient information to evaluate differences in the “look and feel,” or “character,” of a project. Age- restricted residential projects are inherently different from market-rate projects in terms of architecture, site layout, and off-Site impacts per unit. This latter differentiating factor is critical to understanding how the “character” of a site may change with a given use. For example, an age- restricted residential community tends to generate significantly fewer car trips per unit than a market-rate development. Residents of these communities 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-9 7/2/202010/08/2020 are—by requirement—older, potentially less active, and much less likely to have children than residents in market-rate developments. 2.3.4.2. Village’s Affordable Housing Policies The Village has adopted policies and zoning provisions that encourage the development of Fair and Affordable Housing. As discussed above, the Revised Proposed Project is fully consistent with these policies and would be compliant with all zoning regulations with respect to the provision of affordable housing. Specifically, as required by Section 209-3F of the Village Code, the Revised Proposed Project would include 15 affordable units, as defined in Section 250-26.1D of the Village Code. One of these units would be within the Revised Proposed Project’s townhouses, which are proposed to be the same size. The balance of the affordable units, 14 units, would be within the IL building. The same proportion of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units would be made available under the Village’s affordable housing program as are provided in the IL building. 2.3.4.3. Applicable Documents of Westchester County As detailed in Section 3.3.3 of the DEIS, “Applicable Policy Documents of Westchester County,” the Revised Proposed Project is consistent with the Westchester County’s (the “County”) various land use policies. Specifically, the Revised Proposed Project is consistent with the County’s 1996 Patterns for Westchester plan by redeveloping an existing built site with convenient access to transportation instead of developing a greenfield; being consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan; providing affordable housing for seniors; and protecting of the character of the Village. The Revised Proposed Project is also consistent with Westchester 2025, a County-wide planning effort. Specifically, the Revised Proposed Project redevelops an existing built site and preserves natural resources by not developing a greenfield. Finally, the Revised Proposed Project is consistent with the Westchester County Greenway Compact Plan, which was adopted by the Village and encourages projects that reduce impacts to natural and cultural resources, are consistent with regional planning goals, and would promote economic development. 2.4. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY The overwhelming majority of the area within the proposed Limit of Disturbance (LOD) for the Revised Proposed Project is within areas disturbed by the immediately preceding Site development (i.e., the current office building and parking lot). Any area of proposed disturbance outside the existing building and parking lot footprint was likely disturbed by the prior development on the Site (e.g., the residential use). By concentrating development in activated areas previously disturbed by construction, the Revised Proposed Project avoids and minimizes impacts to mature vegetation, native soils, and native topography to the maximum extent practicable. For example, the soils proposed to be disturbed are classified as “Urban Fill.” This classification is the consequence of prior disturbance through mass grading and building construction. The majority of proposed steep slopes disturbance occurs on human-made steep slopes, including those around the existing stormwater basin on the Site’s eastern edge and the Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-10 DRAFT vegetated slope towards the Site’s western edge (see Appendix B for site plans depicting the condition of the Site prior to development of the current office building as well as the changes in topography proposed by construction of the office building). To further reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the area of the Site within the LOD from 13.21 acres to 12.54 acres. 2.4.1. SOILS As with the original project, the vast majority of the disturbance associated with the Revised Proposed Project would be to soils defined as Urban land (Uf and UhB) (see Table 2.4-1 and Figure 2-1). Similarly, a small amount of disturbance to the Paxton fine sandy loam (PnB and PnC) and Charlton fine sandy loam (ChB) soil type would be required in the area of the proposed emergency access drive. Table 2.4-1 Proposed Disturbance by Soil Type Soil Unit Original Project (sf) Revised Proposed Project (sf) ChB—Charlton Fine Sandy Loam (3-8 percent slope) 2,766 0 PhB—Paxton fine sandy loam (3-8 percent slope) 38,229 41,825 PhC—Paxton fine sandy loam (8-15 percent slope) 1,814 1,814 Uf—Urban Land 531,329 498,365 UhB—Urban land-Charlton complex (2-8 percent slope) 276 1,127 UhC—Urban land-Charlton complex (8-15 percent slope) 255 0 WdB-Woodbridge Loam (3-8 percent slope) 912 3,116 Source: JMC Engineering The proposed grading for the Revised Proposed Project, similar to the original project, was designed to create a relatively level Site. Age-restricted residential communities seek to provide pedestrian paths and sidewalks with minimal slope so residents can easily walk throughout the Site. However, reducing the number of townhouse units and reconfiguring the layout of that portion of the Site allowed for the townhouses to be located at a slightly higher elevation than the original project, reducing the amount of “lowering” or “cut” required. As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project includes “raising” the elevation of the eastern side of the Site to level the terrain. The proposed grading also allows for underground parking, which in addition to reducing the adverse visual impact of expansive surface parking lot, reduces the amount of impervious cover on the Site concomitant potential for adverse stormwater impacts. In addition to reducing the area of the Site proposed for disturbance, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the excavation, or cut, required as well as the fill required for the Site. As shown in Table 2.4-2, the Revised Proposed Project also reduces the net import of fill material required from the original project, which reduces potential adverse impacts related to on-Site construction activities and off-Site trucking of earthen material. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-11 7/2/202010/08/2020 Table 2.4-2 Cut-and-Fill Analysis Total Cut (cubic yards) Total Fill (cubic yards) Net Cut-and-Fill (cubic yards) Original Project ±42,600 ±51,600 ±9,000 net import Revised Proposed Project ±38,158 ±36,686 ±1,472 net export Source: JMC Engineering. As described in Section 2.7, “Vegetation and Wildlife,” of this FEIS, the grading of the Project Site would result in a temporary loss of habitat for species that use highly fertilized, mowed lawn as a dominant habitat. Immediately adjacent to the Project Site is similar habitat that will be available to wildlife during construction. No species of special concern were found on-Site. After construction, the Revised Proposed Project would result in a net increase in the amount of lawn habitat for existing wildlife. To reduce the potential for erosion of soils during construction and to protect from the loss of mature vegetation, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) have been prepared (see Appendix D). The revised SWPPP is described in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management,” and the preliminary ESCP is described in Section 2.16, “Construction.” These plans include measures to prevent untreated stormwater runoff or sediments from leaving the Project Site during construction. Measures proposed include the installation of stabilized truck entrances, silt fencing, inlet protection, and a temporary sediment basin. Prior to final site plan approval, the Village will review and approve the final SWPPP and ESCP to ensure compliance with state and local regulations. With the implementation of the Village-approved SWPPP and ESCP, the Revised Proposed Project would not be expected to have a significant adverse impact to on-Site soils. 2.4.2. TOPOGRAPHY The original project would have required approximately 13.17 acres of disturbance to the Site. As stated above, the area of the Site proposed to be disturbed for the Revised Proposed Project was decreased to 12.54 acres. In addition, the area of existing steep slope disturbance on the Site has been reduced from 0.97 acres in the original project to 0.95 acres with the Revised Proposed Project (see Figure 2-1 and Table 2.4-3). As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would create certain new areas of steep slope on the Project Site, most notably in areas around the access ramp to the underground parking area (see Figure 2-2 and Table 2.4-4). These areas of steep slope are necessary to allow for a grading plan that accommodates the underground parking, the need for a relatively flat pedestrian experience outside of the buildings, and the need to meet the existing grades on Arbor Drive at the driveway connections. Another small area of moderately steep slope would be created within the landscaped area between the two driveways on Arbor Drive. This area would provide visual screening of the buildings and Site from Arbor Drive. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-12 DRAFT Table 2.4-3 Steep Slopes Analysis Slopes Category Current Condition Original Project Area of Disturbance Revised Proposed Project Area of Disturbance Area Percent of Project Site1 <15% 668,842 sf (15.35 acres) 85.9% 530,125 sf (12.17 acres) 507,422 sf (11.65 acres) Moderately Steep Slope (15–25%) 58,554 sf (1.34 acres) 7.7% 19,166 sf (0.44 acres) 17,314 sf (0.40 acres) Very Steep Slope (25–35%) 29,885 sf (0.69 acres) 4.0% 18,295 sf (0.42 acres) 16,590 sf (0.38 acres) Extremely Steep Slope (>35%) 18,304 sf (0.42 ares) 2.4% 6,098 sf (0.14 acres) 5,090 sf (0.17 acres) Note: 1 Numbers may not add due to rounding. Sources: JMC Engineering; Village Code Chapter 213. Table 2.4-4 Proposed Steep Slopes Slopes Category Total Area Percent of Project Site1 Net Change from Existing Condition Original Project Revised Proposed Project Original Project Revised Proposed Project Original Project Revised Proposed Project <15% 637,736 sf (14.64 ac.) 627,835 (14.41 ac.) 82.4 80.9 -31,106 sf -41,007 sf Moderately Steep Slope (15–25%) 69,518 sf (1.60 ac.) 84,982 (1.95 ac.) 9.0 11.0 +10,964 sf +26,428 sf Very Steep Slope (25–35%) 45,641 sf (1.05 ac.) 40,734 (0.94 ac.) 5.9 5.3 +15,756 sf +10,849 sf Extremely Steep Slope (>35%) 22,690 sf (0.52 ac.) 22,034 (0.51 ac.) 2.9 2.8 +4,386 sf -3,730 sf Note: 1 Numbers may not add due to rounding. Sources: JMC Engineering; Village Code Chapter 213. 2.4.3. CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSURFACE STRUCTURE As a result of changes to the layout of the Revised Proposed Project, a single subsurface infiltration practice is proposed, which combines the two separate practices proposed in the original project. As described in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management,” the bottom of the infiltration basin is located at elevation 239.60. Based on the geotechnical data collected on the Site and soils testing performed by JMC Engineering, included in Appendix H of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), this elevation allows for more than the required minimum three feet of clearance between rock and groundwater, which were not found at elevations greater than 235.5. As such, and as was the case with the original project, it is not anticipated that rock blasting would be required to accommodate the construction of the subsurface infiltration practices with the Revised Proposed Project. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-13 7/2/202010/08/2020 Competent rock is not expected within 11 feet of the bottom of the garage, which based upon the current design, would be the lowest excavation (see sheet C-410 in Volume 4, and the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (DEIS Appendix I) and Phase II ESA (DEIS Appendix H-2). Bedrock height can be unpredictable but from the accessible information, no blasting or rock crushing is anticipated during construction. As rock blasting, rock crushing, rock chipping, and pile driving are not anticipated during construction, on-site materials processing will not be necessary. 2.5. WATERS AND WETLANDS Five wetlands meeting the three requirements for wetland identification were located on the Project Site based on wetland investigations and delineations performed in accordance with federal and Village standards (see DEIS Appendix D-2). The on-Site wetlands and/or streams are created and sustained by untreated stormwater runoff from the adjacent Hutchinson River Parkway (the “Parkway”) or by stormwater from impervious surfaces conveyed from Village Hall, Rye Brook Police Department (RBPD), and Rye Brook Fire Department (RBFD), and the Project Site. The wetlands are of comparatively low ecological value, dominated by a limited number of common plant species, and are stressed by untreated stormwater runoff hydrology inputs of short duration. Nevertheless, they do serve some habitat and modification of surface water quality functions (see DEIS Appendix D-5 for a functional assessment of the wetlands). The wetland and watercourse buffers within the Project Site are currently encroached upon by on-Site and off-Site developments, including parking lots, roads, buildings, and manicured lawns. 2.5.1. DIRECT IMPACTS TO WETLANDS AND WATERBODIES As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not fill any wetland or waterbody. The only activity that would occur within a wetland would be the clearing and removal of debris within the existing stormwater basin (Wetland D). 2.5.2. DIRECT IMPACTS TO WETLAND AND WATERBODY BUFFER AREAS In response to public comments and to reduce potential impacts to wetland buffers as well as to mitigate the overall impact of the Revised Proposed Project, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the total amount of construction required within 100 feet of on-Site wetlands to 2.25 acres—a reduction of 0.33 acres (13 percent) from the original project. Further, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the total amount of additional impervious area proposed to be created within 100 feet of on-Site wetlands to 0.163 acres—a reduction of 0.013 acres (7.4 percent) from the original project (see Table 2.5-1). The increase in impervious area within 100 feet of on-Site wetlands would be approximately 7,100 sf with the Revised Proposed Project. As discussed in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management,” the amount of impervious area within the Project Site would be reduced by 0.7 acres from the current condition with the Revised Proposed Project. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-14 DRAFT Table 2.5-1 Cumulative Changes to Wetland Buffers by Wetland Area Existing Buffer Area (acres) Existing On-Site Impervious Coverage in Buffer (acres)1 Proposed Impervious in Buffer (acres) Net Increase/Decrease in Impervious in Buffer (acres) Original Project Revised Proposed Project Original Project Revised Proposed Project Wetland A / Stream A 2.363 0.025 0.005 0.000 -0.020 -0.025 Wetland B/C 0.893 0.098 0.370 0.366 0.272 0.268 Wetland D / Stream S 1.444 0.630 0.473 0.469 -0.157 -0.161 Wetland E2 0.248 0.000 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 Total 4.948 0.753 0.929 0.916 0.176 0.163 Note: 1 There is additional impervious area within the 100-foot buffer that is located on-Site but outside of the proposed Limit of Disturbance as well as additional impervious area on adjacent parcels. 2 The FEIS considers the grasscrete emergency access drive to be impervious, consistent with the Village Code, while the DEIS considered this area to be permeable. Source: JMC Engineering As with the original project, the majority of the buffer area proposed to be affected by construction of the Revised Proposed Project consists either of regrading areas that are currently permeable (e.g., existing lawn area), redevelopment of existing impervious surfaces with new buildings/pavement, or converting areas that are currently impervious (e.g., parking lot) to lawn. As shown in Figure 2-3, construction of the Revised Proposed Project requires activity within approximately 2.25 acres of area within 100 feet of on- Site wetlands. This is a decrease of approximately 0.33 acres from the original project. The majority of this reduction is the result of reducing the amount of regrading required within the buffer surrounding Wetland A, the wetland with the greatest ecological value on the Project Site, from the original project. This reduction was achieved through the reduction in the number of townhouses proposed as well as the re-orientation of the townhouses within the Site. As noted above, approximately 0.753 acres of land within 100 feet of the on-Site wetlands and the proposed limit of disturbance is currently impervious (e.g., building or parking area). These areas currently provide no beneficial wetland buffer function. As shown in Figure 2-3, with the Revised Proposed Project, approximately 0.56 acres of vegetated functional wetland buffer would be converted to impervious surface (adjacent to Wetlands B/C, E, and Stream S); however, approximately 0.40 acres of currently impervious wetland buffer (adjacent to Wetlands A and D) would be restored to a vegetated condition. Approximately 0.35 acres of wetland buffer that is currently impervious will remain impervious. The remaining 0.94 acres of wetland buffer that would be affected by construction of the Revised Proposed Project would consist of regrading and revegetating areas that are currently maintained lawn or wooded areas, most of which have been previously disturbed by previous on-Site development (see Figure 2-3). By locating development within the central, previously disturbed and developed portion of the Project Site, the total amount of impervious area within the Site’s wetland buffers would increase by approximately 7,100 sf with the Revised Proposed Project from its current condition. As discussed in Section 5.3.2 of the DEIS, “Direct Impacts to Wetland and Waterbody Buffer Areas,” and for the reasons below, the Revised Proposed Project would not 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-15 7/2/202010/08/2020 adversely impact the ecological functions of the Site’s wetland buffers. Both Wetlands A and D would realize a net decrease in the amount of impervious surface within their 100- foot Village-regulated wetland buffers from the current condition. Wetland A would have a 0.025 acre reduction of impervious surface within its wetland buffer as a result of removing the existing building and Wetland D would have a 0.163 acre reduction of impervious surface within its buffer as a result of removing the existing parking lot, which will allow for additional infiltration of runoff in the buffers and a reduction in surface water pollutants entering these wetlands. Buffers surrounding Wetlands B, C, and E would have slight increases in impervious areas with the Revised Proposed Project as compared with the existing condition. It is important to note, however, that Wetlands B, C, and E are of low ecological value, deriving their hydrology from the discharge of drainage from the Parkway or other off-Site practices and that the wetland buffers are dominated by invasive species or manicured lawn and are heavily disturbed by development. As such, in their current condition, they provide little in the way of functional benefit to their associated wetlands. Section 245-8(A) of the Village Code states that the following factors, highlighted below, should be considered, to determine “the impact of the proposed activity upon public health, safety and welfare, flora and fauna, rare and endangered species, water quality, and additional wetland functions.”  Wetland hydrology: The Revised Proposed Project would avoid interference with existing wetland hydrology and wetland water circulation. The Site’s five wetlands occur around the periphery of the Project Site; therefore, and as described in more detail above, redevelopment of the interior of the Project Site would not substantially change wetland water circulation or hydrologic inputs to the Site’s wetlands.  Wetland flora and fauna: By avoiding direct disturbance to all wetlands, impacts to wetland flora and fauna are avoided. The Revised Proposed Project would limit disturbance to natural vegetation by keeping development within the previously developed portions of the Site with the exception of minimal tree clearing for the loop road and emergency access drive. All landscape plantings will be native species and will include revegetation (i.e., enhancement) of portions of the existing lawn within the wetland buffers, thereby improving the habitat functions of the existing wetland buffers.  Endangered species: There are no New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)-listed or federally listed threatened, endangered, rare, or special concern plant or animal species on the Project Site, as discussed in Section 2.7, “Vegetation and Wildlife.”  Public health, safety, and welfare: Wetland functions would be retained on the Project Site for the benefit of public health, safety, and welfare. This would be achieved principally by reducing overall impervious surface coverage on-Site by 0.7 acres and increasing the treatment of stormwater runoff.  Sedimentation and turbidity: The Revised Proposed Project would prevent the influx of sediments and other pollutants to the Site’s wetlands and waters by treating runoff from the Revised Proposed Project in a new stormwater management system that would improve treatment and result in reduced post-construction runoff rates, in accordance with NYSDEC GP-0-15-002, as discussed in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management.” Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-16 DRAFT  Influx of toxic chemicals or thermal changes: The Revised Proposed Project would avoid the release of toxic or heavy metals through the construction of the proposed stormwater management system. The stormwater management system would remove such pollutants through sediment settling and absorption/adsorption. Thermal changes to wetland water supply would be avoided by reducing the amount of impervious surface on the overall Site by 0.7 acres, which would increase stormwater infiltration and minimize the potential for thermal impacts. In addition, the stormwater management plan will utilize subsurface runoff storage that would similarly avoid the thermal impacts associated with surface detention ponds.  Cumulative effects: The cumulative effects of the Revised Proposed Project would not affect or jeopardize off-Site/downstream wetlands because the Revised Proposed Project’s stormwater management plan and landscaping plan would prevent degradation of stormwater runoff and would use native plants to improve vegetation diversity on the Project Site. As noted by the Village’s Planning Consultant, Chapter 245 of the Village Code recommends that projects be located and designed to minimize impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers. The consistency of the Revised Proposed Project with that standard is discussed below.  Wetland Buffer A—The area proposed to be disturbed within Wetland Buffer A consists of manicured lawn, which provides relatively low levels of wetland buffer functionality, as well as impervious surface in the form of a portion of the existing building, which provides no beneficial wetland buffer function. The Revised Proposed Project would remove the existing portion of the building within the wetland buffer and replace it with porous surface (e.g., lawn), which would improve the buffer function from its current condition. The remainder of the disturbance proposed within this wetland buffer area would consist of regrading existing areas of manicured lawn, which would be returned to the same condition. As such, there would be no change to the existing wetland buffer function in this area. Importantly, the Revised Proposed Project avoids disturbing the wooded area of the wetland buffer, which currently provides the highest level of ecological value to the wetlands within the Project Site. Portions of the existing wooded area of the Wetland Buffer that would not be disturbed would be selectively planted with native species as part of the wetland buffer mitigation program described below.  Wetland Buffers B and C—Wetlands B and C are located primarily off-Site, within the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)-owned right-of-way for the Parkway. The on-Site area within 100 feet of the wetlands is characterized primarily by manicured lawn, which provides relatively low levels of wetland buffer functionality, an asphalt parking lot, which provides no beneficial wetland buffer function, and, in the northeastern most corner of the buffer, an area of shrubs and trees. The Revised Proposed Project would limit disturbance primarily to the area of the buffer that is manicured lawn or existing parking lot. Approximately ten trees within the wetland buffer would be removed. Overall, the amount of impervious area within 100 feet of Wetlands B and C after construction of the Revised Proposed Project would increase by approximately 0.268 acres, or 11,674 sf, from the current condition. The Applicant and the Lead Agency considered an alternate placement of the proposed IL and AL building that would “slide” the building and access drive to the 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-17 7/2/202010/08/2020 south, toward Arbor Drive. With this alternative configuration, the amount of new construction and grading within the buffer to Wetlands B and C would be less than the Revised Proposed Project. Given the comparatively low ecological value of Wetlands B and C (see the Wetland Functional Analysis included as DEIS Appendix D-5), as well as the relatively low functionality of their wetland buffers, and the relative importance of reducing the visual impacts of the Revised Proposed Project from Arbor Drive, the layout of the Revised Proposed Project (with the buildings further north) balances the need to reduce visual impacts and reduce adverse impacts to wetland buffers.  Wetland Buffer E—As with the original project, the disturbance to Wetland Buffer E with the Revised Proposed Project is solely attributable to the construction of the secondary, emergency Site access. As described in the DEIS, the Applicant evaluated the potential for the emergency access drive to be located in a different location that would have fewer impacts to Wetland Buffer E (see DEIS Figure 10-2). This alternative location, however, would have required a steeper driveway connection and the turning movements into and out of the Site from this driveway would be more constrained than in the proposed location. For these reasons, and after conversations with Village staff, the Lead Agency decided, and the Applicant agreed, to advance the proposed emergency access location.  Wetland/Stream Buffer D/S—Wetland D is a human-made settling basin that was created to serve as the stormwater detention basin for the existing 900 King Street improvements, as well as several off-Site locations (e.g., Village Hall and RBFD firehouse). Off-site areas within 100-feet of the stormwater basin include a portion of Village Hall and the Rye Brook Police Department (RBPD) station, the parking lot for the police station, and a portion of the building associated with the cell tower on Village property. On-Site, approximately 0.630 acres of the buffer around Wetland D and Stream S—the stream that drains the stormwater basin—is improved with the existing parking lot for 900 King Street. This area provides no beneficial wetland buffer function. Other portions of the wetland/stream buffer include areas of maintained lawn and areas of woody vegetation. In order to comply with current stormwater regulations, redevelopment of the Project Site requires the expansion of the existing stormwater basin. (This is true even though the Revised Proposed Project is reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on the Project Site from the current condition.) As such, impacts to the wetland buffer associated with this expansion are not avoidable. In addition, the stormwater basin and its surrounding area is in relatively poor ecological health; it is dominated with invasive species. Therefore, it is necessary to impact the area around the stormwater basin to improve the current functionality of both the basin and the buffer. In addition, the area of the wetland buffer currently improved with a parking lot will be removed with the Revised Proposed Project. Replacing this area would be various permeable surfaces (e.g., lawn) and a small portion of the access road as well as a small portion of the IL building. In total, the Revised Proposed Project will modify 1.29 acres within 100 feet of Wetland D/Stream S. The overall amount of impervious area within this wetland buffer will be reduced by 0.163 acres compared to the existing condition. Finally, as described in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” the Revised Proposed Project was reduced by 89,098 gsf from the original project, thereby reducing the overall width of the IL building. This reduction in width allowed the IL and AL building to either Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-18 DRAFT be set back further from The Arbors or set back further from the existing stormwater basin. Given the relative importance of reducing the visual impacts of the Revised Proposed Project from The Arbors, and the fact that the Revised Proposed Project is already reducing the amount of impervious area adjacent to the stormwater basin, the layout of the Revised Proposed Project (with the buildings further east) balances the need to reduce visual impacts and reduce adverse impacts to wetland buffers. 2.5.3. INDIRECT IMPACTS TO WETLAND AND WATERBODY HYDROLOGY As was the case with the original project, with the Revised Proposed Project the hydrology inputs to Wetlands B, C, and E would remain unchanged and the wetlands would continue to receive surface water inputs exclusively from the Parkway or paved surfaces off-Site. Drainage inputs to Wetland D (on-Site detention basin) from on-Site and off-Site sources would similarly be retained, thereby sustaining the proposed revegetated and enhanced wetland (e.g., stormwater basin). As was the case with the original project, the proposed SWPPP for the Revised Proposed Project includes the use of vegetated swales, subsurface infiltration system, reduction in overall site impervious cover, and improvements to the existing detention basin to manage the Site’s stormwater. These measures will improve Wetland D’s ability to provide “modification of water quality” and “storm and floodwater storage” wetland functions and will result in a decrease in post-construction runoff rates. The Revised Proposed Project would reduce the drainage area to Wetland A by approximately 0.218 acres (a smaller reduction than the 1.0 acre proposed by the original project), resulting in a small, 3.92 percent reduction in runoff volume for the 1- or 2-year storm events (a smaller reduction than the 10–13 percent reduction proposed with the original project). This small reduction would have minimal indirect impacts to Wetland A, which would continue to receive adequate surface and unchanged groundwater inputs considering its depressional landscape position and small size. The Revised Proposed Project would redevelop a previously disturbed and a currently developed site, and eliminate the large parking lot and office building currently on-Site, creating a net reduction in overall impervious surface within the Site. This would enhance groundwater infiltration that helps to sustain hydrology and improve water quality to downstream wetlands and streams during dry weather. The Revised Proposed Project’s stormwater management system would also substantially reduce the influx of sediment and other pollutants to Wetland A. 2.5.4. WETLAND BUFFER MITIGATION The Applicant proposes mitigation that satisfies the Village Code requirement for wetland buffer disturbance by providing 4.5 acres of wetland buffer mitigation—two times the amount of wetland buffer being affected by construction of the Revised Proposed Project. As shown in Figure 2-4, the Applicant has identified approximately 2.4 acres of area on- Site that could serve as wetland buffer mitigation areas. The Applicant’s wetland buffer mitigation plan for these areas, which would be formally submitted during the site plan approval process, would include a mixture of the following elements:  Replanting select areas within wetland buffers that would be re-graded with a diverse mix of woody and herbaceous hydrophytic (i.e., wetland) vegetation; 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-19 7/2/202010/08/2020  Selectively planting areas within the wetland buffer that would not be disturbed by the Revised Proposed Project with native plants to increase floristic diversity and wetland functions; and  Removal of invasive species within select areas of the on-Site wetland buffers. The Applicant proposes that the other 2.1 acres of mitigation that is required be located off-Site. All on- and off-Site mitigation measures will require review and approval by the Village Planning Board. 2.6. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The Project Site generally slopes, and surface water runoff generally flows, from north to south. An existing detention basin (also identified as Wetland D) is located along the east side of the Project Site. This basin receives stormwater runoff from the existing building and parking lot, as well as runoff from adjacent Village properties to the east. Stormwater runoff exits the detention basin and is discharged to the municipal drainage system below Arbor Drive, through Harkness Park, and then along the Blind Brook High School driveway to King Street. There are two easements onto the Project Site containing storm drain lines that drain into the existing detention basin from Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD property. 2.6.1. ON-SITE STORWMATER MANAGEMENT The Revised Proposed Project would result in a decrease in the amount of impervious area on the Project Site from the current condition of 7.46 acres to 6.76 acres—a decrease of 0.7 acres of impervious cover from the current condition and 0.29 acres more than the original project. In order to manage stormwater runoff from the Revised Proposed Project, the Applicant’s engineer prepared a SWPPP in accordance with Chapter 9, Redevelopment Projects of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, and Chapter 217, Stormwater Management, of the Village Code (see Appendix D1). As with the original project, the stormwater management system for the Revised Proposed Project includes standard stormwater practices, including vegetated swales, a subsurface infiltration system, and improvements to the existing stormwater detention basin. To accommodate an increase in the Site’s main drainage area as a result of proposed Site grading and layout, the existing stormwater detention basin would be slightly expanded. In addition to this slight expansion, the Revised Proposed Project would enhance the functionality of this basin area by removing overgrown and dead vegetation, debris, etc. The Project Site does not currently have any known stormwater practices with infiltration to provide water quality and runoff reduction. To further mitigate the potential for stormwater impacts, the SWPPP for the Revised Proposed Project includes practices that 1 The SWPPP in Appendix D was prepared based on an interim site plan (the “pFEIS Plan”) that had the same basic layout, including the location of the driveways, townhouses, stormwater practices, and buildings; but that had slightly more impervious surfaces interior to the loop driveway. The Revised Proposed Project has less impervious surface than the plan in the SWPPP, and those differences are limited to the interior of the ring road around the IL and AL building. The stormwater practices, both the design and location, would remain unchanged from the interim plan to the Revised Proposed Project. Therefore, the SWPPP accurately reflects the intended stormwater system for the Revised Proposed Project and may be slightly conservative as it accounted for more impervious surface than is currently proposed. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-20 DRAFT enhance water quality and provide runoff reduction volume through infiltration. Infiltration measures include the grasscrete paver emergency drive, vegetated swales, and disconnected impervious areas throughout the Site. These practices will result in additional infiltration that was not considered in the SWPPP’s hydrologic model, resulting in a conservative analysis presented in the SWPPP. Two Design Points (DP), which are the same as the existing condition DPs and the same as was used in the original project, were designated on-Site and convey water from the Site’s two Proposed Drainage Areas (PDAs) (see Figure 2-5). In general, PDA-1 includes the developed portion of the Site, similar to the existing condition, and the same off-Site areas and “bypass.” PDA-2 would continue to include the western, undeveloped portion of the Site. As with the existing condition and the original project, stormwater from the developed portion of the Site with the Revised Proposed Project (i.e., PDA-1) would flow through a piped network into the existing detention basin. However, an underground infiltration system would be installed to promote infiltration and improve water quality.2 The stormwater generated from off-Site locations that pass through the Project Site would be accommodated with the Revised Proposed Project in the same manner as present. As with the existing condition and the original project, with the Revised Proposed Project DP-2 would collect stormwater runoff from the western, undeveloped, portion of the Project Site, shown as PDA-2 in Figure 2-5. PDA-2 is approximately 0.2 acres smaller than its corresponding Existing Drainage Area (EDA), EDA-2, due to slight changes in the grade in the adjacent area. As demonstrated in the SWPPP, and as was the case with the original project, the stormwater design of the Revised Proposed Project would result in a reduction in both the rate and volume of stormwater exiting the Site for each modeled storm event when compared to the existing condition. Tables 2.6-1 and 2.6-2 summarize the reductions and compares those reductions to the original project. 2.6.2. OFF-SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES The existing downstream drainage infrastructure accepting stormwater runoff from the Site is composed of two separate systems. The first system conveys stormwater runoff exiting the Site from the southeastern area where Stream S flows beneath Arbor Drive via an existing 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), (DP-1). From this point the system continues south underground through Harkness Park. As noted above, the existing 24- inch RCP under Arbor Drive has a maximum capacity of 58.08 cfs. With the Revised Proposed Project, during periods of peak flows (e.g., the 50- and 100-year storms), the maximum flow rate through the 24-inch RCP would be 44.22 cfs and 44.29 cfs, respectively, which is a reduction from the current maximum flow rate (see Appendix D). Therefore, as was the case with the original project, the existing RCP under Arbor Drive has the capacity to accommodate the projected stormwater flow from the Revised Proposed Project. 2 Soil testing has been performed on-Site in an area chosen because of its accessibility and proximity to the system that is, in fact, outside of the limits of the proposed infiltration system. The entire footprint of this proposed system lies within the footprint of the existing building to be demolished. Soil testing for this infiltration practice will be performed when the site design is further advanced, and the results would be provided during the site plan approval process. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-21 7/2/202010/08/2020 Table 2.6-1 Proposed Peak Runoff Rate Design Point Storm Recurrence Interval Existing Peak Runoff Rate (cfs) Proposed Peak Runoff Rate (cfs) Percent Reduction (%) Original Project Revised Project Original Project Revised Project 1 1 year 25.99 22.83 22.86 12.16 12.04 2 year 41.34 33.13 33.05 19.86 20.05 10 year 87.22 72.45 71.94 16.93 17.52 25 year 115.96 102.18 103.18 11.88 11.02 50 year 144.14 132.71 133.72 7.93 7.23 100 year 177.34 170.85 171.99 3.66 3.02 2 1 year 3.18 2.81 3.06 11.64 3.77 2 year 5.05 4.38 4.85 13.27 3.96 10 year 10.96 9.30 10.53 15.15 3.92 25 year 15.98 13.45 15.35 15.83 3.94 50 year 20.81 17.42 20.00 16.29 3.89 100 year 26.64 22.20 25.60 16.67 3.90 Note: cfs = cubic feet per second Source: JMC Engineering Table 2.6-2 Proposed Peak Runoff Volume Design Point Storm Recurrence Interval Existing Peak Runoff Volume (cf) Proposed Peak Runoff Volume (cf) Percent Reduction (%) Original Project Revised Project Original Project Revised Project 1 1 year 187,631 183,267 184,201 2.33 1.83 2 year 265,706 257,159 257,374 3.22 3.14 10 year 495,031 480,065 486,680 3.02 1.69 25 year 680,786 670,383 673,676 1.52 1.04 50 year 856,809 850,937 850,957 0.69 0.68 100 year 1,067,613 1,067,361 1,063,328 0.02 0.40 2 1 year 14,536 12,646 13,966 13.00 3.92 2 year 21,963 18,907 21,102 13.91 3.92 10 year 46,072 39,049 44,266 15.24 3.92 25 year 67,072 56,476 64,442 15.80 3.92 50 year 87,696 73,534 84,257 16.15 3.92 100 year 113,019 94,427 108,588 16.45 3.92 Note: cf = cubic feet Source: JMC Engineering 2.6.3. MITIGATION MEASURES As summarized above, and presented in more detail in the SWPPP in Appendix D, the Revised Proposed Project utilizes a variety of practices to enhance stormwater quality and reduce peak rates of runoff associated with the Revised Proposed Project. With the implementation of the SWPPP, runoff volumes would be reduced in all the analyzed storms from the existing condition and result in water quantity and quality enhancements that exceed the regulatory requirements. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-22 DRAFT 2.7. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 2.7.1. HABITAT The Revised Proposed Project would reduce the amount of impervious surface on-Site by 0.7 acres. Wooded areas of the Site would decrease by 0.63 acres with the Revised Proposed Project, which is 0.22 acres less than what was proposed in the original project. Finally, the Revised Proposed Project would increase lawn habitat by 1.33 acres, which is a slightly larger increase than the 1.26 acres contemplated with the original project (see Table 2.7-1). As with the original project, much of the wooded area that would be disturbed with the Revised Proposed Project is located to the north of the stormwater basin in the narrow area between the Site’s existing parking lot and Village Hall. Table 2.7-1 Habitats of the Project Site Habitat Existing Acreage Proposed Acreage Change from existing (acres) Original Project Revised Project Original Project Revised Project Impervious 7.46 7.05 6.76 - 0.41 -0.7 Wooded 3.61 2.76 2.98 - 0.85 -0.63 Lawn 6.70 7.96 8.03 + 1.26 +1.33 Total 17.77 17.77 17.77 — — Note: Wooded and lawn habitats include acreage for wooded and emergent wetlands respectively. Source: JMC Engineering. During the construction period there would be a temporary loss of habitat for wildlife species. However, immediately adjacent to the Project Site is a similar habitat that would be available to wildlife during construction. After construction, the Revised Proposed Project would result in a net increase in the amount of lawn habitat for existing wildlife. 2.7.2. WILDLIFE As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact on rare, threatened, or endangered species, or species of special concern, nor would it have an adverse impact on significant natural communities. As discussed above, the Project Site does not currently provide high-quality habitat for wildlife. After the construction period the Revised Proposed Project would provide a net increase in pervious surface (lawn) and a reduction in impervious surfaces. During the construction period, there would be a temporary disruption of habitat; however, that would not adversely affect existing wildlife due to the availability of similar habitat immediately adjacent to the Site. 2.7.3. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES No State or federally listed endangered, threatened, special concern, rare, or exploitably vulnerable species of plants or animals were identified on-Site during site inspections nor are any known for the Project Site or vicinity based on information from NYSDEC and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Therefore, no impacts to listed species would occur from the Revised Proposed Project. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-23 7/2/202010/08/2020 2.7.4. TREES The Revised Proposed Project would require the removal of approximately 134 trees with 6 inches diameter breast height (dbh) or greater; 77 of which have 10 inches dbh or greater. Four of these trees (Trees #408, 436, 591, and 686) are considered “significant” under the Village Code. This is a decrease from the tree removal contemplated with the original project, as shown in Table 2.7-2. Table 2.7-2 Tree Removal DBH of Tree Removed Trees Removed Original Project Revised Project Less than 10 dbh 79 57 10 to 24 dbh 120 69 25 to 36 dbh 12 6 37 to 48 dbh 2 2 49 dbh or more 0 0 Total 213 134 Sources: Village Zoning Code Section 235-18; AKRF, Inc. There would be temporary impacts of reduced on-Site shade and tree habitat associated with tree loss during the construction period. In addition, as further discussed below, the Revised Proposed Project includes the planting of 438 new trees and 309 new shrubs. 2.7.5. MITIGATION MEASURES Section 235-18 of the Village Code requires that native, non-invasive trees with 2 to 2.5 inches dbh be planted on-Site to mitigate the removal of trees with 10 inches dbh or greater. The number of trees required to be planted is based on the size of the tree being removed. Based on the formula in the Village Code, the Revised Proposed Project would be required to plant at least 87 native, non-invasive 2- to 2.5-inch dbh caliper trees on- Site (see Table 2.7-3). Table 2.7-3 Tree Removal Mitigation DBH of Tree Removed Required Replacement (number of 2- to 2.5-inch dbh caliper trees) Number of Trees Removed Number of Trees Required to be Planted Less than 10 dbh No replanting necessary 54 0 10 to 24 dbh 1 69 69 25 to 36 dbh 2 6 12 37 to 48 dbh 3 2 6 49 dbh or more 4 0 0 Total 134 87 Sources: Village Zoning Code Section 235-18; AKRF, Inc. A planting plan has been developed for the Revised Proposed Project (see Sheet L-300 in Volume 4) that proposes to plant 438 new trees and 309 new shrubs. All 438 trees proposed to be planted would be at least 2.5-inch caliber trees that the requirements of Section 235-18 as mitigation for the proposed removal of on-Site trees, though some of the trees (e.g., evergreens) are typically sold by height and not caliper size. It is noted that, Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-24 DRAFT as with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would plant more trees (i.e., 438) than would be removed by the project (i.e., 134) and more trees than required to replace removed trees (i.e., 87). All trees would be installed in accordance with the Village’s planting guidelines.3 The new trees would be planted throughout the Site with ornamental trees closer to the buildings and trees that would help restore habitat closer to the edges of the Project Site. Trees added along the right-of-way that parallels the Parkway would help control erosion in this steep slope area. Trees would also be added along the Site’s Arbor Drive frontage for the full length of the Project Site, except for the drive curb cuts, which would help obscure views of the Revised Proposed Project from Arbor Drive. New trees planted after construction would be monitored and maintained for five years by a horticultural consultant and replaced as necessary due to potential mortality during this monitoring period. As discussed in Section 2.5, “Waters and Wetlands,” the Revised Proposed Project includes a wetland buffer mitigation plan that includes the planting of wetland facultative tree species in the areas surrounding the Site’s wetlands. Wetland buffer planting zones are indicated on Figure 2-4 and their preservation in a wooded (unmowed) condition will be included in the restrictions provided on the final drawings submitted to the Village. For existing on-Site trees proposed to remain during and after construction, a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) will be developed during site plan approval for review and approval by the Village. This plan would be designed and implemented in accordance with the Village’s tree protection guidelines and specifications.4 Specifically, this plan would identify trees designated for protection and would include specifications for installation of protection fencing, directives to avoid root pruning, air-spading, tunneling, and use of root curtains where applicable. If root pruning is unavoidable, tree roots would be cleanly cut and the crown would not be trimmed back. After cutting, excavations would be backfilled within one hour and the root zones watered. 2.8. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER 2.8.1. ON-SITE VISUAL CHARACTER The Project Site is dominated by a large footprint (approximately 94,600 sf) three-story white concrete office building and a 5.3-acre surface parking lot. Areas of mature vegetation along the northern and eastern periphery of the Site buffer its visibility from adjacent properties. The western portion of the Site is dominated by a large wooded area, containing a wetland and a stream, providing a visual buffer between the interior of the Project Site and the residential neighborhood to the west. As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would transform the on-Site visual character from one dominated by a large surface parking area and rectangular three-story office building to a landscaped campus featuring several residential uses, building sizes, and building types. The western portion of the developed area of the Site would feature two-story townhouse units, which would be similar in visual impact to the character of The Arbors townhouses 3 Village Attachment 235-1 PLANTING GUIDELINES FOR TREES AND SHRUBS 4 Village Attachment 235-2 TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-25 7/2/202010/08/2020 located to the west of the Project Site. The northern portion of the developed area of the Site would feature a three- and four-story IL and AL building. The IL and AL building would rise to three stories closest to Arbor Drive and rise to four stories approximately 283 feet from Arbor Drive. As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would increase the amount of open space on the Project Site. Specifically, with the Revised Proposed Project, 11.01 acres, or 62 percent of the Site would be vegetated, an increase of 0.7 acres from the existing condition and 0.34 acre from the original project. In addition to the increase in open space on the Project Site, the redistribution of the pervious and impervious area within the Site would have a dramatic effect on the Site’s visual character. The Revised Proposed Project would break up areas of continuous impervious area (e.g., building coverage and parking areas) and provide areas of landscape interspersed with buildings and driveways. 2.8.2. VISIBILITY OF PROJECT SITE As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would maintain the vegetative buffer that currently exists around the Site’s perimeter. As a result, the interior of the Project Site would continue to be visible from locations off-Site only through screening provided by existing tree cover, with the exception of a short area along Arbor Drive. With the Revised Proposed Project, the view into the Site from Arbor Drive would feature residential buildings of similar scale, style, and character as found on adjacent properties, as opposed to the existing view of the office building and surface parking lot. The proposed residential buildings would be visible from North Ridge Street, King Street, and the Parkway only through screening provided by existing tree cover.5 Looking north from King Street into the Project Site from the southern end of Harkness Park, existing on- and off-Site trees provide partial screening of the interior of the Site in the leaf off condition and complete screening in the leaf-on condition (see DEIS Figure 8-10). The mature oak and maple trees located between the park and the Project Site provide most of the screening. All trees shown in DEIS Figure 8-10 are existing trees—no proposed trees were added to the simulation. A few of the on-Site trees would be removed with the Revised Proposed Project, in the area of the new easternmost driveway (see Sheet C-130 in Appendix 4). These trees appear in the image as the “2nd” or “3rd” row of trees in the image. However, the majority of on-Site trees shown in this figure would remain with the Revised Proposed Project. In addition, as shown in Figure 1-4 and Sheet L-300 in Appendix 4, new trees would be planted along the entrance drive that would further screen the interior of the Site from this Vantage Point. Looking west into the Project Site from King Street in the vicinity of Village Hall, existing on-Site trees would screen view of the interior of the Project Site (see DEIS Figure 8-14). As noted in DEIS Section 8.2.2.6, “Vantage Point 5,” this vantage point is the only location along King Street north of Arbor Drive where the interior of the Project Site is visible. All trees shown in DEIS Figure 8-14 are existing trees—no proposed trees were added to the simulation. These trees are located around the existing stormwater 5 See DEIS Figures 8-10, 8-14, 8-15, 8-20, and 8-21 for photo simulations of the original project that depict the extent to which to existing on- and off-Site trees screen visibility of the interior of the Project Site from N. Ridge Street, King Street, and the Hutchinson River Parkway. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-26 DRAFT management basin. Most of these trees, located to the west of the basin, would remain with the Revised Proposed Project though a few, to the left and right of the image, would be removed (see Sheet C-130 in Appendix 4). Additional trees located between the proposed driveway and the IL building, would be planted to further screen views from this location. Looking south into the Project Site from N. Ridge Street at the Hutchinson River Parkway entrance, the Project Site is almost entirely screened during leaf-off condition and is completely screened during leaf-on condition (see DEIS Figure 8-15). As noted in DEIS Section 8.2.2.7, “Vantage Point 6,” this is the only location along N. Ridge Street where there is a break in the existing vegetation between N. Ridge Street and the Parkway, which vegetation completely screens the Project Site. All trees shown in DEIS Figure 8-15 are existing trees—no proposed trees were added to the simulation. The majority of these trees are located off-Site, in the NYSDOT right-of-way. A few trees would be removed in the area of the secondary access driveway (see Sheet C-130 in Appendix 4). However, the majority of the screening from this Vantage Point would remain as it is located in the NYSDOT right-of-way. In addition, new trees would be planted to the north of proposed driveway, adding additional screening from this location. Looking south into the Project Site from the Hutchinson River Parkway right-of-way, the Project Site partially screened during leaf-off condition (see DEIS Figures 8-20 and 8-21). All trees shown in DEIS Figures 8-20 and 8-21 are representative of existing trees—no proposed trees were added to the simulation. The majority of these trees are located off- Site, in the NYSDOT right-of-way. As shown in Sheet C-130 in Appendix 4, approximately five trees would be removed with the Revised Proposed Project that are visible in Vantage Point 9a, and approximately two that are visible in Vantage Point 9b. However, the majority of the screening from this Vantage Point would remain as the vegetation is located in the NYSDOT right-of-way. In addition, new trees would be planted to the north of proposed driveway, adding additional screening from these locations. Finally, as noted in DEIS Sections 8.3.2.12 and 8.3.2.13, “Vantage Points 9a and 9b,” views from these vantage points would be experienced by motorists on the Parkway, in which case speed would distort views of the project and offer only a brief view into the Project Site. The Revised Proposed Project includes several changes from the original project to further mitigate potential visual impacts. First, the size of the IL and AL building has been reduced by 80,541 sf. In addition to the change in visibility attributable to the reduction in building size, the reduced size allows for the building to be set back further from Arbor Drive than in the original project, further reducing potential visual impacts. Second, the southernmost wings of the IL building have been “narrowed” in shape from the original project and now present a smaller profile as viewed from Arbor Drive as compared to the original project. Third, the three-story portion of the IL building has been set back an additional 24 feet from The Arbors townhouses to the west as compared to the original project and the four-story section of the IL building has been set back an additional 71 feet. As a result, with the Revised Proposed Project, the IL building is at least 488 feet from the property line with The Arbors. Finally, the height of the IL building has been reduced from the original project. Specifically, the peak of the roof of the four-story section of the IL building is approximately 10.5 feet lower than the original project. This is a result of a change to the shape of the roof that lowered the peak of the roof 9 feet, combined with a smaller, 18-inch, lowering of the finished floor elevation of the IL building. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-27 7/2/202010/08/2020 Figure 1-11 and Figure 1-12 provide illustrative sections through the Project Site. As shown, the reduction in height of the building and the increased setback from the Arbors reduces the visual impact of the Revised Proposed Project as compared to the original project. 2.8.3. CONSISTENCY OF THE REVISED PROPOSED PROJECT WITH THE EXISTING VISUAL AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would increase open space on the Project Site from 10.3 acres to 11 acres and transform the monolithic visual character of the Site caused by the large footprint rectangular building and the 5.3 acres of surface parking to one of a landscaped residential campus. In order to mitigate potential impacts resulting from the original project, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the proposed gross square footage by 89,098 sf—a 20 percent reduction from the original project. In addition, while still maintaining the four-story portions of the IL and AL building, consistent with the recommendation of the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the visual impact of the four-story buildings by increasing the setback from The Arbors to the west an additional 30 feet to a distance of 494 feet. The Revised Proposed Project also reduces the maximum height of the roof of the four-story IL building as it faces The Arbors by seven feet. In terms of height, the Revised Proposed Project is consistent with the recommendations of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, and with many buildings within the Village that are at least four stories in height, specifically The Atria, Rye Brook (a three- and four- story IL building with 168 units on 4.92 acres), and the Hilton Westchester. The setbacks of the proposed IL building from neighboring residences and Arbor Drive are consistent with, or greater than, the setbacks of other four-story, and taller, buildings to their neighboring residential properties (see Figures 2-6 to 2-10 and Table 2.8-1). While the context of each building and residential neighborhood is different (e.g., surrounding topography, level of activity on adjacent Site, intervening features), the comparison of the setbacks of Revised Proposed Project to other Village properties illustrates the nature of the setbacks proposed. On- and off-Site vegetation screens or partially screens the Project Site from off-Site locations, including the Parkway, King Street, and North Ridge Street (see Section 2.8.2, “Visibility of Project Site”). From Arbor Drive, the interior of the Project Site is currently visible as there is no tree cover to screen the Site. With the Revised Proposed Project, new trees would be planted between Arbor Drive and the proposed buildings and Site roadways to increase visual screening. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-28 DRAFT Table 2.8-1 Setback Comparison Development Setbacks Notes Revised Proposed Project ±540 feet from four-story IL building to nearest Arbors residence ±302 feet from Arbor Drive to four- story section of IL building ±400 feet from AL building to closest residence on N. Ridge St. ±280 feet from AL building to closest residence on King St. Through wooded buffer Through wooded buffer Across Parkway Doral Greens ±100 feet from closest residence to parking lot for Arrowwood ±330 feet from closest residence to ballroom ±500 feet from closest residence to front door of Arrowwood Relatively flat and unvegetated area between Doral Green and Arrowwood BelleFair ±48 feet from closest residence to four-story section of Atria Other nearby residences are ±72 feet; 64 feet; and 138 feet Hilton Westchester ±250 feet from four-story hotel wing to residence ±115 feet from hotel parking lot to closest residence Through wooded buffer; hotel sits at higher topography than residences to the west and south, but lower than residences to the north and east 800 Westchester Ave ±305 feet and 415 feet from building to closes residences Building is ±560,000 sf with ±1,125 parking spaces and is four and five stories above several stories of parking With respect to building and site coverage, as with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would increase building coverage on the Site by 0.76 acres from the current condition, but would decrease the amount of surface parking and interior roadways by an even larger amount (1.46 acres) from the current condition. As a result, the Revised Proposed Project would result in a decrease in gross land coverage on the Project Site from the existing condition. The relative amount of building and Site coverage proposed is consistent with other properties in the Village, especially when considering the Project Site’s location, its visibility from areas outside of the Site, and the reduction in total coverage from the Site’s current condition (see Table 2.8-2). Specifically, the Revised Proposed Project’s building coverage, relative to its parcel size, would be similar to The Arbors and the Hilton Westchester and slightly higher than 800 Westchester Avenue and the Doral Arrowwood Conference Center. As with the original project, by using clapboard and stone siding, and incorporating dormers and gabled roofs for the IL and AL building, the Revised Proposed Project is architecturally compatible with the predominant characteristics of residential construction within the Village. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-29 7/2/202010/08/2020 Table 2.8-2 Parcel Coverage Comparison Site Parcel Size (ac) Building Coverage (ac) Roads, Drives, Parking (ac) Total Site Coverage (ac) Percent Building Coverage Percent Other Coverage Percent Total Coverage Existing Condition 17.77 2.17 5.29 7.46 12.22% 29.77% 41.99% Original Project 17.77 3.14 3.91 7.05 17.67% 22.00% 39.67% Revised Proposed Project 17.77 2.93 3.83 6.76 16.49% 21.55% 38.04% The Arbors 35.29 5.58 6.26 11.83 15.80% 17.73% 33.53% Arbors (w/o Arbor Dr) 33.49 5.58 5.26 10.83 16.65% 15.70% 32.34% 800 Westchester Ave 44.94 5.46 6.30 11.76 12.15% 14.02% 26.17% Hilton Westchester 35.52 3.80 7.10 10.89 10.69% 19.97% 30.67% Doral Arrowwood Conference Center 105.93 10.67 13.51 24.18 10.07% 12.76% 22.83% Doral (w/o golf) 46.46 10.38 11.89 22.26 22.34% 25.58% 47.92% Sources: Westchester County GIS; JMC Engineering As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project, save for views along a small portion of Arbor Drive, would be minimally visible from outside of the Project Site. The IL and AL building would barely be visible from North Ridge Street and would be minimally visible from two points along King Street. As shown in the photosimulations included in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project would be visible from a small area of the parking lot of the Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD, similar to the visibility of the existing office building. From the northwestern perimeter of Harkness Park, the Revised Proposed Project would be visible through the existing and proposed vegetation, as the current building and parking lot are in the existing condition. From this vantage point, however, the IL building in the Revised Proposed Project would be perceived as smaller than the original project, owing to the increased setback from Arbor Drive, and the “narrowing” of the front wings. As with the original project, the view into the Site with the Revised Proposed Project from this location would be of residential buildings as opposed to the existing office building and surface parking lot. In addition, as with the existing condition, the view from this vantage point would be screened by existing vegetation. As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would also be plainly visible from Arbor Drive. The view into the Project Site from Arbor Drive would be of a landscaped campus, which includes buildings of a residential-type use, scale, and character, instead of a wide expanse of surface parking. The Project Site would be re- graded to create a relatively level surface on which to build. As noted previously, existing vegetation would be maintained to the greatest extent possible and new vegetation would be added to help reinforce the existing vegetated screening of the Revised Proposed Project. To mitigate the potential visual impact of the Revised Proposed Project from Arbor Drive, the Revised Proposed Project increases the setback of the IL building from Arbor Drive by 31 feet and modifies the configuration of the wings closest to Arbor Drive. As a result, the IL building with the Revised Proposed Project will be perceived as smaller from Arbor Drive than the original project. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-30 DRAFT Finally, a detailed landscaping plan has been prepared, which will increase the tree and shrub cover on the Project Site through the planting of 438 new trees and 309 new shrubs (see Sheet L-300 in Volume 4). As shown, landscaping is proposed along the Site’s boundaries, including along Arbor Drive and to the west of the proposed townhouses. Implementation of this landscaping program will dramatically alter the visual character of the Site from one dominated by a 5.3-acre parking lot to one of buildings interspersed with landscaping and tree cover. In addition to the visual character of a building, the character of a site is also determined by the traffic generated by a site and the noise generated by a site’s operation. As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would generate significantly less traffic than an office use or a market-rate residential use—even a residential use with significantly fewer units. 2.9. SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS 2.9.1. DEMOGRAPHICS With respect to demographic and housing characteristics, the Village population has grown 10.8 percent since 1990 and the median age of Village residents has increased from 40.7 to 44.2 years old. This is consistent with the trend in the nation and Westchester County (the “County”) as well, though the Village’s median age continues to be above both that of the Town of Rye and the County and, as stated in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, the Village has a larger proportion of senior citizens compared to other municipalities in Westchester. As such, the Revised Proposed Project would be expected to absorb a portion of the anticipated increase in senior citizen residents within the Village that is anticipated to occur with or without the Revised Proposed Project. The Revised Proposed Project would be anticipated to add a population of approximately 406 people to the Project Site, which is slightly less than five percent of the Village’s 2016 population and 56 fewer people than the original project as a result in the number of IL and Townhouse units.6 The impacts of this increased population on community services are addressed in Section 2.10, “Community Facilities.” 2.9.2. FISCAL CONDITIONS As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would be expected to significantly increase the assessed value of, and subsequently the property tax revenue generated by, the Project Site. For the reasons set forth in the DEIS, the Applicant estimated the assessed value of the original project by applying the per unit assessed value of The Atria, Rye Brook to the total number of units proposed for the original project. Based on conversations with the Town of Rye Tax Assessor and guidance from a certiorari attorney, the Applicant now believes it is most appropriate to use an income-based capitalization approach to estimate the assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project. This methodology applies a standard capitalization rate to the estimated net operating income of the Revised Proposed Project’s rental income. Using this methodology and 6 To estimate the future population of the Project Site, the following multipliers were assumed: one person per bed at the 94-bed AL facility; two people within each of the 136 IL units; and two people within each of the 20 townhomes. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-31 7/2/202010/08/2020 projections of revenue and expenses associated with operation, the Applicant estimates that the Revised Proposed Project, upon stabilized operation, would have an assessed value of approximately $29,715,260, which is more than twice the current assessed value of the Project Site. In correspondence with the Applicant and the Village, the Town’s Tax Assessor has estimated the Revised Proposed Project’s assessed value at $55,000,000. The Tax Assessor noted that the final assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project would be based on the final project that is constructed and operated. The Town of Rye Tax Assessor, while agreeing that the income capitalization approach should be used to generate the assessed value ofAs shown in Table 2.9-1, if the Revised Proposed Project, has noted in correspondence to the Village that she cannot support the Applicant’s estimated assessed value based on information available at this time. Therefore, the Tax Assessor believes that it is most appropriate to estimate the assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project using the approximately $200assessed at $55,000 per unit assessed value of the Atria, which was derived using an income capitalization approach. Therefore, the Tax Assessor estimates that the assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project would be approximately $48,200,000. Finally, the Tax Assessor notes that the final assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project would be based on what is actually constructed, occupied, and operated. As shown in Table 2.9-1, based on the Applicant’s estimated assessed value, the Project Site would be estimated to generate approximately $1.4272.32 million per year in property taxes, which is approximately $802,6701.78 million more than the Site currently generates. Of this, $275,339469,187 would go to the Village, which is an increase of $154,882358,288 from the revenue currently generated, and $1,028,161627,150 would go to the BBRUFSD, representing an increase of $578,3551,242,551 from the current revenue generated by the Project Site. If the Revised Proposed Project was assessed at $48.2 million, the Project Site would generate approximately $2.315 million per year in property taxes, which is approximately $1.690 million more than the Site currently generates (see Table 2.9-1). Of this, $446,616 would go to the Village, which is an increase of $326,160 from the revenue currently generated, and $1,667,741 would go to the BBRUFSD, representing an increase of $1,217,935 from the current revenue generated by the Project Site. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-32 DRAFT Table 2.9-1 Projected Property Tax Revenue of the Revised Proposed Project Jurisdiction 2018/2019 Tax Rate Current Assessed Value Current Taxes Projected Assessed Value Projected Taxes Difference Village of Rye Brook 9.2659 $13,000,000 $120,457 $29,715,260 $275,339 $154,882 $48,200,000 $446,616 $326,160 BBRUFSD 34.60044 $13,000,000 $449,806 $29,715,260 $1,028,161 $578,355 $48,200,000 $1,667,741 $1,217,935 Westchester County 3.174954 $13,000,000 $41,274 $29,715,260 $94,345 $53,070 $48,200,000 $153,033 $111,758 Town of Rye 0.140742 $13,000,000 $1,830 $29,715,260 $4,182 $2,353 $48,200,000 $6,784 $4,954 Blind Brook Sewer 0.573843 $13,000,000 $7,460 $29,715,260 $17,052 $9,592 $48,200,000 $27,659 $20,199 Solid Waste 0.264324 $13,000,000 $3,436 $29,715,260 $7,854 $4,418 $48,200,000 $27,659 $20,199 Total 48.02021 $13,000,000 $624,263 $29,715,260 $1,426,933 $802,670 $48,200,000 $2,314,574 $1,690,311 Source: Tax Rates: https://www3.westchestergov.com/property-tax-rates, last accessed 12/22/2019 Table 2.9-1 Projected Property Tax Revenue of the Revised Proposed Project Jurisdiction 2020/2021 Tax Rate Current Assessed Value Current Taxes Projected Assessed Value Projected Taxes Difference Village of Rye Brook 8.530673 $13,000,000 $110,899 $55,000,000 $469,187 $358,288 BBRUFSD 29.584546 $13,000,000 $384,599 $55,000,000 $1,627,150 $1,242,551 Westchester County 3.174954 $13,000,000 $41,274 $55,000,000 $174,622 $133,348 Town of Rye 0.140742 $13,000,000 $1,830 $55,000,000 $7,741 $5,911 Blind Brook Sewer 0.573843 $13,000,000 $7,460 $55,000,000 $31,561 $24,101 Solid Waste 0.264324 $13,000,000 $3,436 $55,000,000 $14,538 $11,102 Total 42.269082 $13,000,000 $549,498 $55,000,000 $2,324,800 $1,775,301 Sources: Village, Sewer, Solid Waste, Town, County Tax Rates from: https://www.westchestergov.com/property-tax-rates; accessed 10/7/2020. School Tax Rates from most recent property tax bill. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-33 7/2/202010/08/2020 While it is noted that based on the Applicant’s estimated assessed value, the projected property tax revenue of the Revised Proposed Project at full stabilization is approximately $510,808, or 28 percent, less than was estimated in the DEIS, part of this decrease is due to the reduction in the number of units included in the project. On a per unit basis, the property taxes estimated to be generated by the Revised Proposed Project is $5,921, which is 14 percent lower than thwe per unit figure of $6,862 estimated in the DEIS. As discussed in the DEIS, the Applicant and owner of the property is a for-profit entity and will remain so. Similarly, the Applicant will not be seeking standalone tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code. However, certain tax exemptions or reductions may be available through the Westchester County Industrial Development Agency (IDA). Under New York Law, IDAs are public benefit corporations with many of the same benefits as governmental entities. These benefits are primarily associated with exemption from various taxes, including mortgage recording tax, sales tax on construction costs, and property taxes to municipalities. If the IDA confers partial property tax abatement benefits on the Project Site, the IDA will require the negotiation and execution of a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Agreement pursuant to which the Applicant makes arrangement for payment of monies to the various taxing jurisdictions. In the County, the consent of the municipality is required for the IDA to provide assistance and, accordingly, the municipality plays an important role in the negotiation of the PILOT Agreement. At this time, the Applicant intends to explore the use of an IDA transaction with the understanding that the consent of the Village would be required before the IDA can provide any benefits. As described in Chapter 9 of the DEIS, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” while the Revised Proposed Project may change the base proportions of the Village with respect to homestead and non-homestead properties, it is not expected to adversely impact the property tax rate of homestead properties. Instead, as with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would decrease the homestead property tax rate. Non-homestead properties would experience a temporary increase in tax rates until such time as a PILOT payment is equal to the taxes that would be paid on a valuation of $23,761,84822,204,093, which is approximately 8040.4 percent of the estimated assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project as estimated by the Applicant and 49 percent of the assessed value as estimated by the Town of Rye Tax Assessor. Once PILOT payments, or property tax payments, are equal to or greater than that amount, non-homestead properties would also experience a decrease in their property tax rates as a result of the Revised Proposed Project. Therefore, as with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would increase the amount of property taxes generated by the Project Site. While some level of additional services will be required, as discussed in Section 2.10, “Community Facilities,” the increased cost of providing these services would be mitigated by the anticipated increase in property tax revenue. Specifically, Section 2.10, “Community Facilities,” estimates that the Revised Proposed Project has the potential to generate approximately $85,282 in additional annual costs to the Village. UsingBased on the Applicant’sTown Tax Assessor’s estimate of the Revised Proposed Project’s assessed value, the Village would receive $154,882358,288 more in property taxes per year from the Project Site than it Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-34 DRAFT does at present. This would create an annual surplus of $69,600273,006 for the Village. If the assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project is as estimated by the Tax Assessor, the annual surplus to the after accounting for increases in Village would be $240,878. Regardless of the final assessed value,costs. The BBRUFSD would receive a substantial increase in tax revenue (i.e., $1.24 million) and not experience additional costs associated with the Revised Proposed Project. As such, the taxing jurisdictions serving the Project Site, including the Village and BBRUFSD, would be anticipated to receive a net increase in revenue from the Revised Proposed Project. Finally, homestead properties would experience a reduction in tax rates as a result of the Revised Proposed Project. 2.10. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 2.10.1. EMERGENCY SERVICES 2.10.1.1. EMS—Municipal Contribution to Budget The Village receives Emergency Medical Services (EMS) services from the Port Chester-Rye-Rye Brook EMS. This shared municipal service provides EMS coverage to the Villages of Port Chester and Rye Brook, as well as the City of Rye. Approximately 71 percent of the EMS’ revenue was generated by insurance recovery over the past three years and approximately 25 percent comes from municipal contributions. The municipal contribution is an annual fixed fee that is allocated between the three municipalities according to a formula; each municipality pays an equal share of 75 percent of the municipal contribution and the remaining 25 percent is allocated based on relative population. As noted by the Village Administrator in his response to the DEIS, the EMS service requested a five percent increase in the municipal contributions for 2019, an increase to $713,800, for the first time since 2010 (see Appendix E-1). This increase was needed to provide additional coverage for the number of calls currently being generated within the three municipalities. The Administrator also notes that the EMS service is discussing the need to add an ambulance on certain shifts to meet the current call demand within the three municipalities. Table 2.10-1 details the municipal contributions to the EMS service inclusive of the new level of municipal contributions. Table 2.10-1 2019 EMS Municipal Contribution 75% of contribution split evenly 2010 Census Population % of Population 25% of contribution by population Total Contribution Port Chester $178,450 29,247 54% $96,363.00 $274,813.00 City of Rye $178,450 15,868 29% $51,750.50 $230,200.50 Rye Brook $178,450 9,347 17% $30,336.50 $208,786.50 Total $535,350 54,462 100% $178,450.00 $713,800.00 Source: October 11, 2018 letter to the EMS Committee (see Appendix E-1) The increase in the Village’s population that could result from the Revised Proposed Project, conservatively estimated at 406 people as described in Section 2.9, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” would necessarily change 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-35 7/2/202010/08/2020 the relative population of the Village as compared to Port Chester and the City of Rye. If the City of Rye and Village of Port Chester were to experience no growth in their population and the Village’s population were to increase solely as a result of the Revised Proposed Project, the Village’s relative population would change from 17.16 percent (rounded to 17 percent) to 17.78 percent (rounded to 18 percent). This change would increase the Village’s annual contribution to the EMS service by $1,784.50 and would lower the Village of Port Chester’s by the same amount. However, if the Village of Port Chester and the City of Rye were to also experience population growth, this increase may be reduced or avoided altogether. As discussed both above and below, the increase in taxes associated with the Revised Proposed Project (an annual increase of approximately $154,882358,288 to the Village of Rye Brook) would more than cover this potential increase in the Village’s municipal contribution to the EMS service (approximately $1,784.50785). 2.10.1.2. EMS—Increase in Call Volume As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would create an increased demand for EMS services. As described in the DEIS, The Atria, Rye Brook had an average call volume of approximately 1.7 calls per unit per year to the EMS, while The Osborn had an average call volume of 1.3 calls per unit per year.7 A third facility, The Bristal in Armonk, had a call volume of 0.25 calls per unit per year. Subsequent to the publication of the DEIS, the Applicant obtained information on the number of falls and the number of EMS calls from two senior living facilities operated by the prospective operator for the Revised Proposed Project from January 2018 until June of 2019. One facility has both IL and AL uses (with approximately twice as many IL residents as AL residents) and the other facility has only AL and memory care uses. In the combined IL/AL facility, there were 0.59 EMS calls per resident per year.8 In the AL-only facility, there were 0.68 EMS calls per resident per year. One factor contributing to these relatively low rates of EMS calls per unit is that in the combined IL/AL facility, there were more than three and one-half recorded falls for every EMS call. That is to say, even if it was the case that all EMS calls were the result of falls, which would not allow for other emergencies, 72 percent of falls from the combined IL/AL facility operated by the prospective operator do not result in an EMS call. Accounting for other types of emergencies, the percentage of falls resulting in an EMS call is, in actuality, likely less than one in four or five. The operational policies of the prospective operator, and the presence of a nurse on-Site 24 hours a day (though not required by regulations) and 7 The Osborn contains a mix of apartments, garden homes, rental units, memory care, and skilled nursing care. The Atria contains only IL units, which are smaller in size than the Revised Proposed Project. 8 The operator tracks and provides all statistics on a per resident basis; however, the operator also stated that most units were occupied by only a single resident. Therefore, it is assumed that the per resident metrics are materially equivalent to per unit metrics and therefore should not be adjusted up (based on more than one person in some units) or adjusted down (based on an average unit occupancy rate). Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-36 DRAFT available to both IL and AL residents, help lead to the relatively low EMS call rate. According to the prospective operator, staff at their facilities do not automatically call 911 if a resident falls. If a resident has hit their head, is unsure of how they fell, or seems unsteady, the staff will call 911. If, however, the resident does not have pain, trained staff will evaluate the resident and will help the resident up if it is safe to do so without calling 911. In order to reduce the number of EMS calls from the Revised Proposed Project, the Applicant and its prospective operator, plan to institute similar policies related to the evaluation of and assistance provided to residents who fall. These procedures outline the process by which IL and AL residents would be triaged by facility staff prior to calling for EMS services. Each room will be equipped with an emergency response system. Activation of this system (e.g., pulling cord or pushing button on a pendant) will result in notifications being sent to the main desk as well as to a designated pager/phone, which will be carried by a specified staff person at all times. The facility’s staff, including concierge, security, and Wellness staff, will coordinate and proceed to the resident’s apartment to triage the situation. In the IL facility, the concierge/security may attempt to call the resident before proceeding to the apartment. In addition, although not required by New York State regulation, the Applicant intends to have a nurse on-Site 24 hours a day to assist with the evaluation of both the IL and AL residents who fall or have another emergency. The main wellness office would be located on the first floor of the AL building and would house the facility’s Health and Wellness Director. It is anticipated that there will be nursing “touchdown” stations on the second and fourth floor of the AL. In addition, a Physical Therapist / Occupational Therapist will be on-Site most days, as will an Exercise Therapist. These various staff members, as well as all other on-Site staff, will be available to assist in the event of resident emergencies. If a resident has hit their head, is unsure of how they fell, or seems unsteady, the staff will call 911. If, however, the resident does not have pain, trained staff will evaluate the resident and will help the resident up if it is safe to do so without calling 911. It is noted that the on-Site nurse would be available to both IL and AL residents and would not be limited by regulation or policy to being physically present within the AL at all times. Given the similarities in unit mix between the combined IL/AL facility and the Revised Proposed Project, the fact that the same operator is anticipated to operate the Revised Proposed Project, and the Applicant’s commitment to have a nurse on-Site 24 hours a day, the Applicant believes it is most appropriate to use a rate of 0.59 EMS calls per unit per year to estimate the potential number of EMS calls from the Revised Proposed Project. Using this rate, the Revised Proposed Project would be estimated to have approximately 141 EMS calls per year. This represents an approximately 2.3 percent increase in calls system- wide and an increase of approximately 11.2 percent in calls within the Village. The increase in the number of EMS calls system-wide would also likely result in an increase in operational costs to the EMS service. While it is unlikely that a 2.3 percent increase in call volumes would translate into a 2.3 percent 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-37 7/2/202010/08/2020 increase in costs,9 this FEIS includes a conservative analysis of a potential 2.3 percent increase in costs to the EMS service. A 2.3 percent increase in expenses for the EMS service would be approximately $58,814 based on 2017 data, the last year for which data is available. Assuming a 71 percent insurance recovery ratio, this would create an increase in annual expenses of approximately $17,056 per year that would need to be made up through municipal contributions or other sources. If this increased expense were offset by a corresponding increase in municipal contribution, each of the three municipalities would pay an additional $4,635 per year plus an amount based on their relative population as shown in Table 2.10-2. Table 2.10-2 Potential Increase in EMS Municipal Contributions 75% of contribution split evenly % of Population (Revised to include Project) 25% of contribution by population Total Contribution Port Chester $4,635 53% $2,456.44 $6,523.93 City of Rye $4,635 29% $1,344.09 $5,500.57 Rye Brook $4,635 18% $834.26 $5,031.53 Total $13,904 100% $4,635 $17,056.04 Note: Assumes an increase of $12,792 in municipal contributions and assumes a revised relative population percentage inclusive of the population of the Revised Proposed Project. The Applicant notes, however, that it is unlikely that the Revised Proposed Project will require an increase in EMS expenses equal to the percentage increase in calls. More likely, a smaller increase in expenses, and required revenue, would likely be needed. The Applicant bases this assumption on two findings. First, and as noted earlier, the EMS service did not raise the municipal contribution to the service for nearly a decade, during which the number of calls to the service increased. This indicates that the number of calls is not directly proportional to the required municipal contribution. Second, the EMS service has indicated that they are considering adding another ambulance to certain shifts to meet the current demand of the service. This fixed cost of service would be required with or without the Revised Proposed Project. Further, it is likely that the recent increase in municipal contributions to the EMS service was required, in part, to fund this anticipated current need. Therefore, it is likely that the Revised Proposed Project, while increasing the number of calls to the service, may not require the addition of new staff or equipment; rather, it may lead to a higher utilization of the staff and equipment that are currently budgeted for the EMS service. 9 The marginal cost of an additional EMS call is necessarily less than the average cost per EMS call as the average cost per call includes several fixed costs, such as the ambulance costs and staff salaries. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-38 DRAFT Finally, even in the most conservative, worst case, the Village, could experience an increase of approximately $5,032 per year to support the EMS service and the Village of Port Chester and City of Rye would also experience increased costs. The costs to the Village would be offset by the increase in property taxes attributable to the Revised Proposed Project. In the unlikely event that the Revised Proposed Project directly increases the costs to the EMS service in proportion to the anticipated increase in calls as described above, the costs to the City of Rye and Village of Port Chester would not be offset by increases in property tax revenue to those municipalities. 2.10.1.3. Police Services As described in the DEIS, the RBPD indicated that the original project, considered with the other previously approved residential developments in the Village, would require additional police personnel and associated equipment. For the fiscal year 2017, the average salary of a RBPD patrolman was approximately $107,500.10 However, the “fully loaded” cost of a patrolman, including benefits, is approximately $225,750.11 As described in Section 2.9, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” the Revised Proposed Project is expected to result in an increase of approximately $154,885358,288 per year in property taxes to the Village. As the need for an additional police officer is the result of several projects within the Village, including the Revised Proposed Project, the share of the total cost attributable to the Revised Proposed Project would be some fraction of the $225,750. Even when combined with the potential increased costs associated with EMS service of up to $5,031 per year, described above, the additional tax revenue provided by the Revised Proposed Project is expected to be in excess of the additional costs to the Village. 2.10.1.4. Fire Services As with the original project, the buildings within the Revised Proposed Project would include modern life-safety equipment, alarm, and monitoring systems, and would be fully sprinklered. Based on the relatively low call volume to the RBFD from The Atria, Rye Brook, it is not anticipated that the Revised Proposed Project would result in a significant increase in the number of calls to the RBFD. As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project’s buildings would not be of a height or construction type that is not already present within the Village. Finally, in RBFD’s correspondence to the Applicant, the RBFD did not opine on whether additional personnel or equipment to serve the original project would be needed. 10 Correspondence from the RBPD indicated that there are 26 sworn officers. The fiscal year 2017 budget, available on the Village’s website, lists the total salary by officer rank. The number of officers by rank was estimated based on the total of 26 officers and assuming an increase in salary for each level of rank. This yields a total of 16 patrolmen, 2 patrolmen/detectives, 6 sergeants, 1 lieutenant, and 1 chief. 11 Employee benefits are assumed to be 1.1 times the cost of the salary, the rate reflected in the 2017 Village budget. Therefore, the “fully loaded” cost of an employee would be 2.1 times their salary. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-39 7/2/202010/08/2020 2.10.1.5. Emergency Service Site Design As with the original project, appropriate access to the IL and AL building has been provided in accordance with preliminary meetings with Village fire officials, as shown on drawing C-320 in Volume 4. During site plan review, the Applicant will coordinate with Village fire and emergency service officials to ensure that design of the buildings’ roofs and entrances facilitate the safe movement of emergency personnel as well as provide for adequate interior and exterior emergency response communication. Further, the IL and AL building will be designed to comply with all applicable fire and life safety codes, including but not limited to the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and the 2017 New York State Uniform Code Supplement. In addition, all elevators will be designed to fit a gurney to enable full EMS operations on the second through fourth floors and the garage. Based on the nature of the Revised Proposed Project as an age-restricted residential community and comments received from the public as well as the Lead Agency and Planning Board, the Applicant has proposed to construct a secondary means of access to the Project Site in cases where the Site’s primary access from Arbor Drive may not be available. Specifically, the Applicant proposes to construct a minimum 24-foot-wide access drive that would connect the northeast corner of the Site’s internal access road to the northern terminus of the existing parking lot behind the Village’s firehouse (see Figure 1-15). The drive would be constructed with grasscrete pavers and during normal operation this driveway would be secured at both ends with a bollard and chain assembly. The drive would only be used in the case of emergencies and only authorized Site or Village personnel would be allowed to unlock the chain. The Applicant would maintain this drive, including providing for the necessary removal of snow during the winter. As described in the DEIS, the Applicant evaluated the potential for the emergency access drive to be located in a different location (see DEIS Figure 10-2). This alternative location would require a steeper driveway connection and the turning movements into and out of the Site from this driveway would be more constrained than in the proposed location. For these reasons, and after conversations with Village staff, the Applicant decided to advance the proposed emergency access location. It is noted that the Village’s Emergency Services Task Force (ESTF) has recommended that the underground parking garage be serviced by two remote points of vehicular entry/exit. 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. With respect to this second point, the ESTF notes that vehicular evacuation may be important as modern vehicles include a major increase in the use of flammable plastics and a subsequent increase in fire loads. 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. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-40 DRAFT The Applicant notes that the New York State Building Code does not require a second vehicular ramp and specifically prohibits the use of vehicular ramps for emergency egress. With respect to evacuating the garage, the Applicant notes that the building’s design prioritizes the evacuation of people. The garage has four, two-hour fire rated egress stairs that exit directly to grade. Occupants that mistakenly try to evacuate to the garage in the event of an emergency would be instructed to exit the building as quickly as possible, without their vehicle. With respect to emergency responders accessing the garage, the Applicant notes that emergency vehicles would not enter the garage with or without the secondary vehicular entrance for two reasons. First, the garage would not be tall enough to accommodate a fire truck or an ambulance; and second, in the event of a fire in the building, it would not be prudent to bring emergency vehicles under the building. The Applicant notes that access to the garage for first responders would be the same as it would for access to any other floor of the building. There are four sets of emergency access stairs accessible at grade that serve the garage and five elevators servicing the garage, all of which fit a gurney. Standpipes would be provided within the two-hour rated stair enclosures. With respect to the potential changes in environmental impacts associated with a second vehicular entrance, the Applicant notes that providing a second vehicular entrance to the underground garage will require the construction of large retaining walls in the front of the building to accommodate the ramp. The ramp’s potential location, to the east of the IL building’s eastern front wing, would be readily visible from the Site’s main entrance and would replace a location that would otherwise be a gently sloping grass and landscaped area in the front of the building (see Figure 2-11). The second vehicular entrance would add approximately 3,361 sf of impervious surface to the Project Site, 390 sf of which would be located in the wetland buffer. As the location of the second vehicular entrance would otherwise be a “fill” area of the project, an additional approximately 260 cubic yards (cy) of material that would be excavated elsewhere on the Site would be exported off-Site. This would increase the next export of material from approximately 1,472 cy to 1,732 cy and result in approximately 19 additional truck trips from the Site. over the course of construction. Finally, the “average grade” around the IL/AL building would be “lowered” by approximately three inches. As such, the zoning height of the IL/AL building would be approximately 42.06 feet, though the location and actual elevation of the building would not change. The Lead Agency notes that the decision on whether to require a second vehicular entrance to the underground parking is most appropriately decided during the detailed Site Plan review. The potential environmental impacts of both scenarios, one or two vehicular entrances, are analyzed in this FEIS. 2.10.2. SCHOOLS The original project proposed a Site-wide age restriction of 55 years old. In order to estimate the number of school-age children that could be expected to live in the original project, the Applicant collected information on the number of school-age children living 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-41 7/2/202010/08/2020 at eight residential developments totaling 1,173 units that are age-restricted to those 55 years old and older located within seven different school districts. Based on information collected directly from the school districts, there were a total of three school-age children enrolled from those units. The Applicant also requested information from the Superintendent of the BBRUFSD regarding the number of school-age children residing at The Atria, Rye Brook and the King Street Rehab facility, two age-restricted senior living communities located on King Street. To the best of the Superintendent’s knowledge, there were no children living at either facility. Nevertheless, in response to comments from the Lead Agency and the public and to further minimize the potential for school-age children living at the Revised Proposed Project, the Applicant has modified the original project to increase the minimum age of project residents. Specifically, the Revised Proposed Project would be age-restricted to those 62 years old and older, which is consistent with the Village’s current definition of “senior living facility.” As such, no school-age children are anticipated to live within the Revised Proposed Project. 2.10.3. OPEN SPACE The Revised Proposed Project would conservatively be anticipated to add a population of 406 people to the Project Site. According to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) standards described in the DEIS, the new population would create a need for approximately 1.32 acres of open space (see Table 2.10-3 and Appendix F). Table 2.10-3 New York State Recommended Available Open Space Facility Type Approx. Size in Acres Acres per 1,000 Population Acres Needed for Incoming Population Pocket Park 0.25–0.5 0.25 0.10 Play Lot 1–2 2 0.81 Neighborhood Park 4–7 1 0.41 Total 1.32 Source: OPRHP, See Appendix F. There are two requirements in the Village Code relating to the provision of public parks and open space. The first requirement is specified in Section 209-14 of the Village Code, which states that site plans must, when required by the approval authority, contain “a park or parks suitably located and usable for passive or active recreational purposes.” If such a park or parks cannot be located on-site, Section 209-15 requires that an applicant remit a fee in lieu of providing the required open space. During Site Plan Review, the Board of Trustees will determine whether the on-site open space areas, described in Section 1.4.1.5, “Open Space,” meet the requirements of Section 209-14 for a suitably located and usable park for passive or active recreational purposes, or whether the Applicant will be required to pay a fee in lieu of such parkland. The second requirement is specified in Section 250-7E(2)(f) of the Village Code, which requires that 10 percent of a PUD site be offered and dedicated to the Village for recreational use or a fee in lieu of providing such land be paid to the Village. This Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-42 DRAFT provision of the Village Code applies to a PUD site as a whole at the time that it is mapped a PUD, and not to individual lots within a PUD site, including the Project Site. 2.10.4. SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING The Revised Proposed Project could result in the generation of approximately 240.94 tons of solid waste per year, approximately 29.93 tons less than the original project (270.87 tons/year) and approximately 214.74 tons less than what would be generated with the full re-occupancy of the existing office building (442.85 tons/year) (see Table 2.10-4). Table 2.10-4 Revised Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation Project Component Number of Units/Beds Solid Waste Generation Rate (pounds per week) Pounds per Week Pounds per Year3 Tons per Year Town Home1 20 41 per household 820 42,755 21.38 Assisted Living2 94 17 per individual 1,598 83,320 41.66 Independent Living3 152 41 per household 5,576 290,733 145.37 Employees 96 13 per employee 1,248 65,071 32.54 Total 240.94 Notes: 1 All townhomes and IL dwelling units are considered households for the purposes of a conservative solid waste generation analysis. 2 The AL units are not considered dwelling units according to the Applicant’s understanding of Section 250-2 of the Village Code that defines a dwelling unit as containing complete housekeeping facilities, which the AL units do not. 3 Based on a rate of 52.14 weeks per year. Sources: CEQR Technical Manual; AKRF, Inc. As with the original project, with the Revised Proposed Project, the Applicant would continue to contract with a private carting company for refuse and recycling collection. The private carter may ultimately dispose of the material at the Charles Point Resource Recovery Plant, or another facility that is licensed to receive the waste. Refuse and recycling would be picked up two to three times per week during daytime hours. While not required by Chapter 135 of the Village Code, the private carter hired to service the Revised Proposed Project would not pick up waste earlier than 6:00 AM, the time at which municipal refuse collection may begin, to avoid potential adverse noise impacts. Solid waste would be collected from the solid waste storage area, located within the loading area in the rear of the IL and AL building. This area would not be visible from Arbor Drive, Village Hall, RBPD, RBFD, or The Arbors due to intervening buildings. As shown in Figure 1-16, this area has been designed to accommodate the turning movements of a semi-trailer; therefore, the turning movements of a refuse collection truck would also be accommodated. Solid waste from the townhouses is anticipated to be collected several times a week by the site maintenance/housekeeping staff and delivered to the solid waste storage area behind the IL and AL building. To further mitigate potential impacts associated with solid waste, the Applicant is evaluating the feasibility of establishing a food scrap recycling program on-Site. The Applicant notes that the Village has an existing food scrap recycling program that allows Village residents to drop off food scraps at Village Hall where they are picked up by a licensed carter once a week. It is the Applicant’s intention to evaluate whether the Revised Proposed Project could serve as a second pick-up location for the Village’s existing carter. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-43 7/2/202010/08/2020 Under the Westchester County Source Separation Law, businesses or organizations that own a building or buildings commonly hosting more than 100 employees, patients, or students during a 24-hour period are required to submit a solid waste management plan that details its solid waste and recycling disposal practices and update that plan every three years. While the Revised Proposed Project may not exceed the 100-employee threshold, the Applicant will develop a solid waste management plan during final site plan approval that meets the requirements of the County’s Source Separation Law. This plan will be submitted to the Commissioner of Environmental Facilities of the County of Westchester as well as the Village. 2.10.5. SENIOR SERVICES The Village provides its senior citizens with a variety of services, a majority of which are available at the Rye Brook Senior Center (the “Senior Center”) inside of the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center (the “Community Center”). The Senior Center is open from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM on Mondays through Thursdays, and from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM on Fridays. Membership to the Senior Center is open to Village residents aged 55 years and older for an annual cost of $15. General instructional classes for seniors, including painting, mahjong, and computer basics, are free to attend. Health-related services at the Senior Center include free blood pressure. For a small fee, senior citizens can reserve a hot lunch any weekday at the Senior Center, with the remaining cost of the meal paid for by the Village. Fees for meals are $4 for Senior Center members and $8 for non-members. Exercise classes are open to senior citizens, including general fitness and strength training, yoga, and tai chi. Prices for exercise classes range from free for general fitness and strength training to $75 for a series of 13 yoga classes. The Village also provides a Senior Dial-A-Ride Transportation service for its senior citizens via a 20-passanger bus free for seniors who can no longer drive or who need assistance (i.e., carrying grocery bags). On Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, seniors can reserve a ride on the bus to and from the Senior Center, as well as to local doctor’s appointments. Senior citizens can register to take the bus to two grocery stores in Port Chester on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Most days the bus is reserved for group outings organized by the Senior Center. Fees for group outings vary depending upon the destination. Many days the bus is reserved for special events, including shopping, museums, theater, local eateries, and casinos. Fees for special events range from $2 for a member to attend a trip to Arthur Avenue through ±$200 for a Broadway. Dial-A-Ride service begins at 8:30 AM and ends as late as 2:30 PM. On August 27, 2019, AKRF staff spoke with Elizabeth Rotfeld, the Village of Rye Brook’s Deputy Village Clerk/ Senior Coordinator to discuss the utilization and capacity of the Village’s Senior Center. Ms. Rotfeld stated that over the past decade, attendance at meals (e.g., lunch) has declined, while the number of activities and participants has grown. In the past, lunches were attended by an average of 40 residents, whereas currently, an average of 20 seniors attend lunch. Similarly, fewer residents stay at the center all day than in the past. Special lectures, holiday activities, and special lunches are still well- attended. Based on the capacity of the Senior Center and its current utilization, it is Ms. Rotfeld’s opinion that the Senior Center has the capacity to accommodate additional seniors, such as those that may reside in the Revised Proposed Project. To reduce the potential for the Revised Proposed Project to increase demand for the Village Senior Center’s services, it is noted that the Revised Proposed Project would Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-44 DRAFT provide Project residents many of the same services offered by the Rye Brook Senior Center, including on-Site hot lunch, exercise programs, transportation,and enrichment classes. The Revised Proposed Project would also include a fitness center for use by residents that would be equipped with strength-training machines and a group fitness room. The cost of accessing the fitness center would be included in the cost of living at the senior living community. In addition, trips and programs would be offered to Project residents, such as to local grocery stores, shopping centers, malls, and cultural institutions. In terms of dining, IL residents would be expected to participate in a meal plan that would include some or all of their meals; AL residents would be expected to participate in a meal plan for all of their meals and townhouse residents would have the option to participate in a meal plan at the IL building, and would also have the opportunity to cook for themselves. The Revised Proposed Project would provide transportation services for project residents. These services would include regular trips to local places of interest, such as grocery stores, shopping centers, and cultural institutions. Trips to the Rye Brook Senior Center, if desired by project residents, would also be provided to project residents by the Revised Proposed Project. In addition, the Revised Proposed Project anticipates providing transportation and programming for special events on an ad hoc basis. 2.10.6. COMMUNITY FACILITIES FISCAL IMPACT Based on the analysis presented above, the Revised Proposed Project may, conservatively, result in an additional approximately $85,282 in annual Village expenditures, which would be offset by an increase in annual property tax revenue from the Project Site of between $154,882 and $326,160.approximately $358,288. Specifically, the Revised Proposed Project may increase Village costs as follows:  $5,032 in increased EMS costs, assuming EMS costs rise in direct proportion to the increase in calls from the Revised Proposed Project. In addition, and as discussed above, the Applicant plans to implement several policies to reduce the number of EMS calls, such as having a nurse on-Site 24 hours a day. These policies will significantly reduce the potential increase in EMS call activity as a result of the Revised Proposed Project;  A de minimis increase in Fire Department spending as a result of the few calls expected. For purposes of this analysis, we could assume another $5,000 per year;  $75,250 for increased police services. This is conservatively calculated based on 1/3 of the cost of one police officer ($225,750). As noted by the police department in correspondence to the Applicant that was included in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project, along with other recently approved and proposed projects in the Village, may require the addition of one additional police officer. Further, as noted by the Village, even without the Revised Proposed Project, the Village may have to add a police officer to certain shifts. It is further noted that unlike other projects in the Village, such as Kingfield, the Revised Proposed Project is a redevelopment and repurposing of an already existing site (which has or had an existing police demand) and not a ‘net new’ development. Taken together, it is reasonable to believe that the Revised Proposed Project would not require the full-time services of a new police officer. Rather, based on the current demand of the Village, the increase in demand from net new projects such as Kingfield, and the nature of project as a redevelopment of a previously developed Site, the police department may have to add another officer. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-45 7/2/202010/08/2020 Therefore, this analysis conservatively assumes that the project would be responsible for 1/3 of the cost of a new officer. It is noted that the Village budgeted for an additional police officer in its 2020-2021 budget.  Senior Services. As described above, the Revised Proposed Project would offer a wide array of services to its residents, including many of the services offered by the Village’s senior center. As such, it is not anticipated that the Revised Proposed Project would result in a significant increase in the Village’s cost of providing senior services. Taken together, the costs above total approximately $85,282 in annual Village expenditures related to the project. As described in Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” withbased on the $29.7 million potential assessed value of the project as estimated by the ApplicantTown Tax Assessor’s estimate, the Revised Proposed Project would generate $275,339469,187 in property taxes to the Village each year. This is a $154,882358,288 annual increase from the taxes currently generated by the Site, resulting in an annual surplus to the Village of $69,600273,006 after accounting for potential increased costs. In the event that the Revised Proposed Project is assessed at a higher rate as estimated by the Town of Rye Tax Assessor, this annual surplus to the Village would increase.costs. 2.11. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES 2.11.1. WATER SUPPLY The Project Site is served by Suez Water Westchester, Inc. (SWWC), which purchases approximately 60 percent of the Village’s supply from Aquarion Inc., in Greenwich, Connecticut, and 40 percent from Westchester Joint Water Works (WJWW). The Revised Proposed Project is estimated to generate a water/sanitary demand of 47,670 gallons per day (gpd) (see Table 2.11-1), approximately 27,757 gpd more than if the existing office were fully occupied and approximately 8,030 gpd less than the original project. The domestic water usage was calculated based on the various uses proposed in accordance with NYSDEC Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment Systems, last revised March 5, 2014. The Revised Proposed Project would install an 8-inch water main within the Site’s loop road. This loop main would be privately owned and maintained by the Applicant and/or Project-operator. From that main service, a 4-inch domestic water service and a 6-inch fire service are proposed to serve the main IL and AL building and extensions are proposed to serve the townhouses. The new water main would connect to the existing municipal main within Arbor Drive at two locations. Fire hydrants would be provided throughout the Site in accordance with the applicable Fire Codes and the requirements of RBFD. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-46 DRAFT Table 2.11-1 Estimated Water/Sanitary Generation Units Quantity Gallons per Day per Unit Total Gallons per Day Townhouses (Full kitchen) Bedrooms 40 110 4,400 Assisted Living (No in-unit kitchen) Bedrooms 95 110 10,450 Kitchen/Lounge/ Employees 110 Seats/20 Seats/ 64 Employees 50/20/15 6,860 Independent Living (Full kitchen) Bedrooms 236 110 25,960 Total 47,670 Note: Independent Living units are not part of the Assisted Living Facility and for purposes of this analysis are treated as standard apartments. Source: NYS Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment Systems, NYSDEC, March 5, 2014. SWWC, in conjunction with Aquarion and WJWW, analyzed the potential impacts to the water supply system as a result of the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix G). The analysis looked at both a “typical” flow rate (i.e., anticipated daily flows and peak flows) and a flow rate under a condition where firefighting is occurring in the vicinity. SWWC’s analysis indicated the need for two improvements to the water system. The first improvement is the provision of additional interconnections with WJWW, at Anderson Hill Road) and Aquarion, at King Street. SWWC indicated that it would perform those upgrades at no cost to the Applicant. The second improvement was the installation of a meter on the 16-inch main at Anderson Hill Road, which would bypass the existing 8- inch meter vault that experiences significant head loss at times of peak flow. The cost associated with this new meter and vault would be the responsibility of the Applicant. Upon completion of these improvements, SWWC’s analysis indicates that the water system would operate a residual pressure of 62 pounds per square inch (psi) during typical conditions and 32 psi under fire flow conditions, which are higher than the minimum standards of 35 psi and 20 psi, respectively (see Appendix G). 2.11.2. SANITARY SEWER Sanitary wastewater is conveyed from the Site by an existing privately owned 10-inch main that connects to an existing 8-inch Village-owned main, which travels through The Arbors and connects to the County sewer trunk line at Hillandale Road before being treated at the Blind Brook Wastewater Treatment Plan (WWTP). Monitoring of the existing 8-inch Village-owned main indicates that the line flows at approximately 9 percent of its capacity on average and 21 percent of its capacity during periods of peak flow (see DEIS Appendix EE). As described above, the Revised Proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 47,670 gpd of sanitary sewage, approximately 27,757 gpd more than if the existing office building were fully occupied and approximately 8,030 gpd less than the original project. The Blind Brook WWTP currently has 2 million gallons per day (mgd) excess capacity. Therefore, the WWTP would be able to serve the Revised Proposed Project. A letter received from the Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities (WCDEF), confirmed the ability of the Blind Brook WWTP and the Blind Brook Trunk 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-47 7/2/202010/08/2020 Sewer System to accommodate the increased sewer flows from the Proposed Project (see DEIS Appendix E-3). The Revised Proposed Project would construct an 8-inch sanitary service that would connect the IL and AL building to the existing 10-inch private main. Separate connections for the townhouses would be made to the 8-inch main. Based on the Site topography in relation to the existing sewer system, it is not anticipated that a pump station would be required. JMC Engineering conducted a downstream sanitary sewer main analysis to evaluate the theoretical capacity of the sewer system to accommodate the increase in flows from the original project, which as stated above had a larger estimated wastewater generation than the Revised Proposed Project (see DEIS Appendix EE). This analysis calculated the peak flow for each section of the sewer main between the Project Site and the Westchester County sewer main at the intersection of Hillandale Road. The analysis modeled the calculated and actual flows from the Site, The Arbors, and residences along Hillandale Road. Based on this analysis, the existing downstream sanitary sewer system would have sufficient capacity to serve the original project and accommodate the increased flow. As shown in Table 6 of Appendix EE, the downstream sewer infrastructure has the capacity to handle up to 0.960 cubic feet per second (cfs) of flow, which is well in excess of the 0.645 cfs of flow projected in the post-development condition with the original project. As shown in the analysis, with the original project, the existing 8-inch sewer main would flow at 45 percent of its capacity during periods of peak flow. As the Revised Proposed Project would generate less sanitary wastewater than the original project, the sewer mains would similarly be able to handle the increase flows associated with the Revised Proposed Project. To minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the sanitary wastewater system, trash receptacles would be provided by all toilets in the Revised Proposed Project in order to reduce the potential for non-flushable items to enter the sanitary sewer system. Residents would also receive notices and other literature detailing the items that should and should not be flushed down the toilet. In addition, grease traps would be provided from proposed common kitchen areas in the IL and AL building to prohibit unwanted greases from entering the sewer system. The grease traps would be maintained on a regular basis to maintain their effectiveness in grease removal. The WCDEF recommends, as it has done in other County sewer districts, that the additional flow to the system be offset by reductions in inflow and infiltration. The removal for the Proposed Project is recommended to be on a 3:1 ratio. As described above, the Proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 47,670 gpd of sanitary sewage, which is equal to an increment of 27,757 gpd more than the No Build condition. In accordance with WCDEF recommendations, the Applicant would mitigate the additional 27,757 gpd to the system at a 3:1 ratio, or a reduction in inflow and infiltration in the amount of 83,271 gpd. The Applicant would meet its obligation through a monetary contribution to the Village’s I&I program, project-based mitigation, or a combination of both. 2.11.3. ENERGY USAGE (ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS) The Revised Proposed Project would require electricity and gas to power building systems. Con Edison would continue to provide electric service to the site, which would be fed through an underground 13.2 kilovolt (kV) service originating from Arbor Drive. This 13.2 kV service would be tapped by the various buildings on the Project Site with Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-48 DRAFT pad-mounted utility transformers at each building. As confirmed by Con Edison, the existing transformer on the Project Site is adequate for the electric loads of the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix H). The Revised Proposed Project would be connected to the existing natural gas service along Arbor Drive and a medium-pressure service main would run underground to provide service to all buildings on the Site. Each building would be metered separately. Con Edison has stated that they can provide firm gas to the Revised Proposed Project and that two upgrades to Con Edison’s gas system would be required: replacement of 945 feet of 4- and 6-inch main with 12-inch main on Mohegan Lane and Latonia Road; and installation of a 12-inch tie on King Street from Arbor Drive to N. Ridge Street. The cost of these improvements would be initially funded by the Applicant, and refunded by Con Edison upon completion of the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix H). Based on Con Edison’s commitment letter, it is the Applicant’s understanding that Con Edison will supply the Revised Proposed Project with firm natural gas service if the Applicant demonstrates continued progress in completing the project even if construction is not completed within two years despite Con Edison’s temporary gas moratorium in southern Westchester County. In the event that firm gas is not available for the Revised Proposed Project, the Applicant would propose another energy source and the environmental impacts of using this other energy source would be analyzed in accordance with SEQRA. The Revised Proposed Project would incorporate energy-efficient features, including fixtures and HVAC and mechanical systems. The use of energy-efficient features would reduce the Site’s energy consumption, which would also reduce the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the Proposed Project. 2.12. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION This section updates the analysis presented in Chapter 12 of the DEIS, “Traffic and Transportation,” as a result of changes to the Proposed Project. As part of a preliminary FEIS (pFEIS) submitted to the Village on May 14, 2019, an updated impacts analysis was performed to account for changes in the Proposed Project, including: an increase in the minimum age of Project residents to 62 years old; a reduction in the number of units proposed (eight fewer IL units and four fewer townhouse units); a reduction in the size of the IL units proposed; and a reduction in the number of bedrooms proposed (the “pFEIS Plan”). An updated analysis for this pFEIS Plan is included as Appendix I-1 of this FEIS and is summarized below. Subsequent to the May 14, 2019 pFEIS, the Applicant further reduced the number of IL units proposed to 136, as described in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project.” The anticipated number of peak hour trips generated from the Revised Proposed Project is presented in Section 2.12.1, “Site-Generated Traffic,” which includes a comparison to the DEIS project and the pFEIS project. The traffic capacity analyses summarized below are based on the analysis of the pFEIS plan and were not updated for the Revised Proposed Project. Therefore, the capacity analyses presented in Appendix I-1, and summarized below, are somewhat conservative as they are reflective of a higher density than is included in the Revised Proposed Project. 2.12.1. SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC The Revised Proposed Project would reduce the number of peak hour trips generated from what was estimated for the original project. As shown in Table 2.12.1, the Revised Proposed Project would generate 19 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 21 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-49 7/2/202010/08/2020 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 23 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour than the original project. Table 2.12-1 Anticipated Site-Generated Traffic Original Project (DEIS) pFEIS Project Revised Proposed Project Trip Reduction Entry Exit Total Entry Exit Total Entry Exit Total Entry Exit Total Weekday Peak AM Hour 25 45 70 20 34 54 19 32 51 6 13 19 Weekday Peak Midday Hour1 38 42 80 29 33 62 28 31 59 10 11 21 Weekday Peak PM Hour 50 40 90 39 32 71 36 31 67 14 9 23 Note: 1 Average of weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour trip generation rates. Sources: Maser Consulting P.A.; Townhouse Rates—ITE Land Use 230 – Residential Townhouse Rates with 25% reduction for age-restriction; IL Rates—ITE Land Use 252 – Senior Adult Housing Rates; AL Rates— ITE Land Use 254 – Assisted Living Rates According to the existing conditions traffic counts that were performed in 2017 and 2018, the existing office building is generating 34 existing trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 25 existing trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 21 existing trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. As a result, the Revised Proposed Project would generate an increase from the current condition of only 17 trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 34 trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 46 trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. That is to say, the Revised Proposed Project is only expected to add one additional car to Arbor Drive every 1.3 to 3.5 minutes during the peak hours. 2.12.2. TRAFFIC AND CAPACITY ANALSYSISANALYSIS FOR THE REVISED PROPOSED PROJECT The Village’s traffic consultant (FPCA), as part of their review dated November 2, 2018 of the Traffic Impact Study (August 24, 2018) and DEIS (September 12, 2018), indicated that in addition to the re-occupancy of the existing office building, the Applicant has accounted for five other future developments and has used an appropriate background growth rate for increases in traffic volume not specifically related to a specific no-build project; therefore the 2025 No-Build Traffic Volumes included in the DEIS are reasonably acceptable. The Year 2025 Build analysis was updated to reflect the reduced vehicular trip generation associated with the pFEIS Plan and is compared to the DEIS Year 2025 analysis with the re-occupancy of the existing office building (see Table 2.12-2 and Appendix I-1).12 As shown in Table 2.12-2, and as was the case with the original project, the pFEIS Plan would not have a significant adverse impact on any study area intersection when compared to the No Build condition. In fact, certain study area intersections would see a 12 The traffic capacity analyses summarized in this Chapter are based on the analysis of the pFEIS plan (152 IL units; 20 townhouses; 85 AL units) and were not updated for the Revised Proposed Project (136 IL units; 20 townhouses; 85 AL units). Therefore, the capacity analyses presented in Appendix I-1, and summarized herein, are somewhat conservative as they are reflective of a higher density than is included in the Revised Proposed Project. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-50 DRAFT beneficial change to LOS and/or average delays with the Revised Proposed Project when compared the No Build condition when compared to the re-occupancy of the existing office building. As the Revised Proposed Project includes fewer units than the pFEIS Plan, the analyses presented above are somewhat conservative. 2.12.3. NO-BUILD SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The traffic analysis included in the DEIS (DEIS Appendix F, as summarized in Chapter 12 of the DEIS, “Traffic and Transportation”), was conducted in accordance with the Approved Scoping Document, which specified that the baseline for the analysis should be re-occupancy of the existing approximately 200,000 sf office building. The Village’s traffic consultant noted that including trips associated with the full occupancy of the existing office building provided a “fair assessment” because the building is “there and it could be reoccupied.” Further, the Village’s traffic consultant noted that, “in the past the re-occupancy of vacant buildings was included to account for the net change in site traffic for redevelopment” (emphasis added). While there is case law to support the DEIS analysis, based upon comments received during the DEIS review process from the public and from NYSDOT, this FEIS provides a sensitivity analysis based upon the current utilization of the office building (see Table 2.12-3 and Appendix I-2). 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-51 7/2/202010/08/2020 Table 2.12-2 Level of Service Summary Location Year 2017/2018 Existing Conditions Year 2025 No Build Conditions Year 2025 pFEIS Plan Conditions Weekday AM Weekday Midday Weekday PM Weekday AM Weekday Midday Weekday PM Weekday AM Weekday Midday Weekday PM LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Anderson Hill Road B (15.6) B (13.0) C (21.6) C (20.7) B (16.9) D (38.7) C (20.3) B (16.5) D (36.2) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway SB Off Ramp Minor movement—westbound right C (19.0) B (13.6) B (14.0) D (27.3) C (16.6) C (17.9) D (27.1) C (16.2) C (16.7) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and North Ridge Street Major movements—northbound Minor movements—eastbound left eastbound right B (10.6) F (160.9) C (21.7) A (9.8) F (89.1) C (17.6) A (9.9) F (60.8) D (26.2) B (12.1) F (451.8) F(58.8) B (10.8) F (248.4) C (24.2) B (11.1) F (182.2) E (39.9) B (11.5) F (329.6) D (27.1) B (10.4) F (172.2) C (21.3) B (10.5) F (99.5) E (37.6) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Glen Ridge Road/ Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkways NB On/Off Ramp Major movements—southbound left Minor movements—westbound left/right B (14.6) F (53.1) B (14.5) D (31.4) C (15.8) E (41.8) C (18.2) F (168.7) C (19.9) F (79.0) D (28.7) F (284.6) C (17.9) F (136.3) C (17.5) F (53.0) C (19.7) F (85.7) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkways NB On/Off Ramp Major movements—northbound left Minor movements—eastbound left/right A (0.0) F (82.1) A (8.3) C (22.4) A (8.8) F (53.9) A (0.0) F (365.4) A (8.5) E (42.0) A (9.0) F (166.1) A (0.0) F (146.3) A (8.4) D (29.9) A (9.0) F (106.3) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Arbor Drive B (10.3) A (6.4) A (7.0) B (13.9) B (13.5) B (17.9) B (13.7) A (8.1) A (8.5) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Blind Brook MS/HS Right Turn Entry A A A A A A A A A King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Blind Brook MS/HS – Glenville Street C (24.5) C (26.9) B (17.7) C (31.4) C (30.6) B (18.6) C (27.7) C (30.3) B (18.8) Arbor Drive and Site Driveway Major movements—westbound left Minor movements—southbound left/right A (0.0) A (9.6) A (0.0) B (10.1) A (0.0) A (9.5) A (0.0) B (11.3) A (0.0) B (12.2) A (0.0) B (12.6) A (0.0) A (9.9) A (0.0) B (10.4) A (0.0) A (9.8) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Comly Avenue Major movements—southbound left Minor movements—westbound left/right A (8.8) C (20.9) A (8.4) B (14.9) A (8.6) C (18.7) A (9.3) D (30.2) A (8.6) C (17.2) A (8.9) C (23.8) A (9.1) D (27.1) A (8.6) C (16.9) A (8.9) C (23.3) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Betsey Brown Road Major movements—northbound left Minor movements—eastbound left/right A (9.8) F (172.2) A (9.3) E (40.1) A (8.7) D (25.0) B (10.3) F (432.9) A (9.7) F (72.3) A (9.1) E (36.5) B (10.3) F (362.3) A (9.6) F (66.8) A (8.9) D (34.3) N. Ridge Street and Hutchinson River Parkway SB On/Off Ramps Major movements—northbound left Minor movements—eastbound left/right A (8.9) B (11.9) A (8.0) B (10.2) A (7.9) B (10.7) A (9.3) B (13.4) A (8.2) B (10.7) A (8.2) B (11.7) A (9.3) B (12.6) A (8.2) B (10.4) A (8.0) B (11.2) Notes: See Appendix I-1 for the full analysis and associated volume/capacity ratios, and storage/queuing analysis. SB = southbound; NB = northbound. Sources: Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (2019), Maser Consulting P.A. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-52 DRAFT Table 2.12-3 Sensitivity Analysis—Level of Service Summary Location Year 2017/2018 Existing Conditions Year 2025 No Build Conditions without the Existing Office Building Year 2025 pFEIS Plan Conditions Weekday AM Weekday Midday Weekday PM Weekday AM Weekday Midday Weekday PM Weekday AM Weekday Midday Weekday PM LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) LOS (Delay- seconds) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Anderson Hill Road B (15.6) B (13.0) C (21.6) C (20.2) B (16.4) D (35.2) C (20.3) B (16.5) D (36.2) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway SB Off Ramp Minor movement—westbound right C (19.0) B (13.6) B (14.0) D (26.7) C (16.1) C (16.6) D (27.1) C (16.2) C (16.7) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and North Ridge Street Major movements—northbound Minor movements—eastbound left eastbound right B (10.6) F (160.9) C (21.7) A (9.8) F (89.1) C (17.6) A (9.9) F (60.8) D (26.2) B (11.5) F (329.6) D (28.2) B (10.3) F (162.2) C (20.7) B (10.4) F (95.1) E (35.5) B (11.5) F (329.6) D (27.1) B (10.4) F (172.2) C (21.3) B (10.5) F (99.5) E (37.6) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Glen Ridge Road/ Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkways NB On/Off Ramp Major movements—southbound left Minor movements—westbound left/right B (14.6) F (53.1) B (14.5) D (31.4) C (15.8) E (41.8) C (17.5) F (123.6) C (17.4) F (50.3) C (19.4) F (85.7) C (17.9) F (136.3) C (17.5) F (53.0) C (19.7) F (85.7) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkways NB On/Off Ramp Major movements—northbound left Minor movements—eastbound left/right A (0.0) F (82.1) A (8.3) C (22.4) A (8.8) F (53.9) A (0.0) F (151.3) A (8.4) D (28.5) A (8.9) F (94.2) A (0.0) F (146.3) A (8.4) D (29.9) A (9.0) F (106.3) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Arbor Drive B (10.3) A (6.4) A (7.0) B (12.6) A (7.1) A (7.9) B (13.7) A (8.1) A (8.5) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Blind Brook MS/HS Right Turn Entry A A A A A A A A A King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Blind Brook MS/HS – Glenville Street C (24.5) C (26.9) B (17.7) C (27.5) C (29.9) B (18.7) C (27.7) C (30.3) B (18.8) Arbor Drive and Site Driveway Major movements—westbound left Minor movements—southbound left/right A (0.0) A (9.6) A (0.0) B (10.1) A (0.0) A (9.5) A (0.0) A (9.7) A (0.0) B (10.2) A (0.0) A (9.6) A (0.0) A (9.9) A (0.0) B (10.4) A (0.0) A (9.8) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Comly Avenue Major movements—southbound left Minor movements—westbound left/right A (8.8) C (20.9) A (8.4) B (14.9) A (8.6) C (18.7) A (9.1) D (26.2) A (8.6) C (16.5) A (8.8) C (22.3) A (9.1) D (27.1) A (8.6) C (16.9) A (8.9) C (23.3) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Betsey Brown Road Major movements—northbound left Minor movements—eastbound left/right A (9.8) F (172.2) A (9.3) E (40.1) A (8.7) D (25.0) B (10.2) F (346.2) A (9.5) F (61.9) A (8.9) D (32.0) B (10.3) F (362.3) A (9.6) F (66.8) A (8.9) D (34.3) N. Ridge Street and Hutchinson River Parkway SB On/Off Ramps Major movements—northbound left Minor movements—eastbound left/right A (8.9) B (11.9) A (8.0) B (10.2) A (7.9) B (10.7) A (9.2) B (12.6) A (8.1) B (10.4) A (8.0) B (11.1) A (9.3) B (12.6) A (8.2) B (10.4) A (8.0) B (11.2) Notes: See Appendix I-2 for the full sensitivity analysis and associated volume/capacity ratios and storage/queuing analysis. SB = southbound; NB = northbound. Sources: 900 King Sensitivity Analysis (2019), Maser Consulting P.A. As shown in this analysis, the pFEIS Plan would not have a significant adverse impact on any study area intersections with the re-occupancy of the existing office building included in the analysis. Without the re-occupancy of the existing office building, there would be the following impacts: the Glen Ridge Road westbound lane to King Street will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 12.7 seconds; the Hutchinson River Parkway northbound on-off ramp eastbound lane to King Street will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday afternoon peak hour, with an increase in delay of 12.1 seconds; and the Betsy Brown Road eastbound land will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 16.1 seconds. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-53 7/2/202010/08/2020 Consequently, redevelopment of the Project Site to an age-restricted residential community would not significantly affect the area roadways. 13 2.12.4. SIGNAL RETIMINGS As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on area roadways. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. However, signal retiming could be implemented at two King Street intersections (i.e., Arbor Drive and the Blind Brook Middle School and High School) to improve existing and future operating conditions, including queuing along King Street as well as at the Middle and High School Driveway, if required by NYSDOT. In addition, these two traffic signals could be expanded to include adaptive traffic signal control technology to provide real time traffic data to improve traffic flow and minimize delays at these two intersections. 2.12.5. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION A shuttle service is not currently planned as part of the Revised Proposed Project. As stated in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project “would offer transportation services for residents to off-site locations…Furthermore, depending on the demand, the Proposed Project’s operator may provide shuttle service to and from a local train station (e.g., Port Chester or White Plains).” If, in the future, the operator of the Revised Proposed Project decided to operate a shuttle between the Project Site and a local train station, it is likely that only one or two shuttles per ‘shift change’ would be utilized. The anticipated impact of this service at a particular train station would be de minimis, owing to the infrequent service. As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project is not anticipated to require the expansion of Westchester County’s bus system. 2.12.6. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not result in a significant increase in pedestrian activity along Arbor Drive and, the additional traffic would not result in a decrease in pedestrian safety along Arbor Drive. In fact, the Revised Proposed Project would represent a significant decrease in the number of vehicular trips entering and exiting the Site as compared to the former office use. This would decrease the potential for conflict between Site-generated traffic and pedestrians. When compared to the number of trips generated by the Site in 2017, the Revised Proposed Project would only add 17 trips in the AM, 34 trips in the midday, and 46 trips in the PM. This minimal increase in the number of Site-generated trips from the existing condition would not significantly impact pedestrian safety on Arbor Drive. To further avoid and mitigate potential adverse impacts, the Applicant has committed to staggering the shifts of the Site’s employees so that shift changes do not occur during school arrival or dismissal times, further reducing the potential for conflict between Site-generated traffic and pedestrians. 13 The traffic capacity analyses summarized in this Chapter are based on the analysis of the pFEIS plan (152 IL units; 20 townhouses; 85 AL units) and were not updated for the Revised Proposed Project (136 IL units; 20 townhouses; 85 AL units). Therefore, the capacity analyses presented in Appendix I-1, and summarized herein, are somewhat conservative as they are reflective of a higher density than is included in the Revised Proposed Project. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-54 DRAFT The Revised Proposed Project, though not required based on its impacts, would also install a crosswalk leading from Harkness Park to the existing Site pedestrian path and easement area., the details of which would be reviewed during Site Plan approval. Additional pedestrian paths would be provided on-Site with the Revised Proposed Project, as described in Section 1.4.3, “Parking and Circulation” and illustrated in Figure 1-17. 2.12.7. ACCIDENT PATTERNS As outlined in the DEIS Traffic Impact Study (see DEIS Appendix F), “Based on the anticipated traffic generation for the Proposed Project, it is expected that the Proposed Project will not have a significant impact on the accident rates on the area roadways.” As the Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to generate fewer trips than the original project, it is similarly anticipated that the Revised Proposed Project would not have a significant impact on accident rates on the area roadways. 2.12.8. PARKING As described in Section 1.4.3.2, “Parking,” the Revised Proposed Project would provide 238 parking spaces, which is 64 fewer spaces than the original project and slightly in excess of the amount required by the Revised Proposed Zoning and the current PUD zoning. The amount of parking included in the Revised Proposed Project is slightly more than required by the Revised Proposed Zoning and more than the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) generic guidelines of the ITE (see Table 2.12-4). Table 2.12-4 Comparison of Parking Spaces for the Revised Proposed Project Use Revised Proposed Zoning ITE Guideline Revised Proposed Project Independent Living (136 units) 1 per unit (136) 0.67 per unit (91) 136 Assisted Living (85 units/94 beds) 0.5 per unit (43) 0.58 per bed (55) 52 Townhouse (20 units) 2.5 per unit (50) 1.52 per unit (31) 50 Total 229 177 238 Source: Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition, January 2019. Values are for 85th percentile. ITE Land Use 252 – Senior Attached Housing, ITE Land Use 254 – Assisted Living, ITE Land Use 220 – Low Rise Multifamily 2.12.9. MITIGATION As described above, the Revised Proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on area roadways. Therefore, no mitigation is required. However, signal retiming could be implemented at two King Street intersections (i.e., Arbor Drive and the Blind Brook Middle School and High School) to improve existing and future operating conditions, if required by NYSDOT. To further avoid and mitigate potential adverse impacts, the Applicant has committed to staggering the shifts of the Site’s employees so that shift changes do not occur during school arrival or dismissal times, further reducing the potential for conflict between Site- generated traffic and pedestrians and reducing trip generation during times of peak congestion on area roadways. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-55 7/2/202010/08/2020 2.13. AIR QUALITY This section analyzes the potential for the Revised Proposed Project to impact ambient air quality from stationary sources (e.g., fossil fuel-fired equipment) and from mobile sources (i.e., traffic generated by the Revised Proposed Action). 2.13.1. EXISTING CONDITIONS The most recent concentrations of all criteria pollutants at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) air quality monitoring stations nearest to the Project Site are presented in Table 2.13-1. As shown, the recently monitored levels for all pollutants other than ozone did not exceed the NAAQS. For most pollutants, the concentrations presented in Table 2.13-1 are based on recent measurements obtained in 2018, the most recent year for which data are available. Table 2.13-1 Representative Monitored Ambient Air Quality Data Pollutant Location Units Averaging Period Concentration NAAQS CO Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx ppm 8-hour 1.5 9 1-hour 2.3 35 SO2 Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx µg/m3 3-hour 23 1,300 1-hour 16(1) 196 PM10 IS 52, Bronx µg/m3 24-hour 41 150 PM2.5 White Plains, Westchester µg/m3 Annual 6.0(2) 12 24-hour 15.7(2) 35 NO2 Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx µg/m3 Annual 27 100 1-hour 104(3) 188 Lead IS 52, Bronx µg/m3 3-month 0.0033(4) 0.15 Ozone White Plains, Westchester ppm 8-hour 0.075+(5) 0.070 Notes: + Indicated values exceeding the NAAQS. (1) The 1-hour value is based on a 3-year average (2016–2018) of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. EPA replaced the 24-hour and the annual standards with the 1-hour standard. (2) Annual value is based on a 3-year average (2016–2018) of annual concentrations. The 24-hour value is based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour average concentrations. (3) The 1-hour value is based on a 3-year average (2016–2018) of the 98th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. (4) Based on the highest quarterly average concentration measured in 2018. (5) Based on the 3-year average (2016–2018) of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations. Source: New York State Air Quality Report Ambient Air Monitoring System, NYSDEC 2.13.2. STATIONARY SOURCES The Revised Proposed Project would include the construction of multiple buildings on the Site: a single three- and four-story IL and AL building as well as 20 two-bedroom residential townhouses with a site-wide total of 355,902 gsf. Previous designs of the project included: 1) a design with expanded IL and AL buildings with a total development size of 376,182 gsf analyzed for a preliminary FEIS (the “pFEIS Plan”); and, 2) a design with expanded IL and AL buildings as well as 4 additional residential townhouses with a total development size of 445,000 gsf analyzed for the DEIS (the original project). The Revised Proposed Project would result in a reduction of 89,908 gsf (a 20 percent reduction) and 20,280 gsf (a 5.4 percent reduction) from the original project and pFEIS Plan, respectively. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-56 DRAFT The potential for adverse air quality impacts from the combustion sources associated with the original project was originally assessed in Chapter 13 of the DEIS, “Air Quality.” As discussed therein, an analysis was conducted that assumed a single, combined, stack for the IL and AL building, to account for the potential cumulative effect of emissions associated with the building. As there are no nearby sensitive receptors at building heights similar to or greater than the proposed new buildings, it is not anticipated that emissions sources of the size included in the original project would not cause any exceedance of NO2 standards at elevated sensitive receptor locations nearest to the Site. Given the 20 percent decrease in gross floor area from the original project, it is anticipated that the Revised Proposed Project would similarly not cause any exceedance of NO2 standards at elevated sensitive receptor locations. The Revised Proposed Project as well as the original 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. Therefore, these constituents were not analyzed in the DEIS or FEIS. As part of a pFEIS submitted to the Village on May 14, 2019, potential impacts to sensitive receptors at ground levels and lower elevations were evaluated using screening procedures outlined in the 2014 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual14 to assess the potential impacts to 8-hour and 1-hour average CO concentrations, as well as 24-hour average PM10 concentrations. Based on this screening, no further assessment is required for CO or PM10. Potential impacts to the 1-hour average NO2 concentrations, as well as annual and 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations, were evaluated using EPA’s AERSCREEN model (version 16216 EPA, 2016) as more stringent NAAQS were promulgated subsequent to the development of the CEQR guidance used to evaluate CO and PM10 . These analyses were based on the pFEIS Plan—a reduction of eight IL units and four townhouse units from the original DEIS project. The analysis assumed that all emissions from the pFEIS Plan would exhaust from a single stack from the tallest portion of the four-story IL building— combining emissions from the various proposed buildings into a single stack. While the worst-case impacts at lower elevations and ground level would occur with downwash, the analysis was performed both with and without downwash as discussed in more detail in the DEIS. For the pFEIS Plan, an additional AERSCREEN analysis was performed to assess the potential impact from lower elevation exhaust stacks associated with the two-story townhouses. The FEIS analyzed the combined emissions associated with the HVAC systems associated with the two-story townhouses (not including the HVAC systems associated with the AL and IL buildings) within the pFEIS Plan from a single stack at a height of 28 feet. 14 New York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 17, section 322.1, March 2014. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-57 7/2/202010/08/2020 Maximum projected concentrations from the original project analyzed in the DEIS as a result of the combined HVAC systems for the entire development (including the townhouses, IL, and AL) are presented in Table 2.13-2. The maximum projected NO2 and PM2.5 concentrations would not result in an exceedance of the NAAQS. Given that the Revised Proposed Project would contain 20 percent less floor area than the original project, it is anticipated that full development of the Revised Proposed Project would still pass the screening procedures outlined in the CEQR Technical Manual and would result in lower concentrations than those predicted in the AERSCREEN analysis of the original project. Therefore, the Revised Proposed Project would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts from stationary sources, such as the proposed HVAC systems. Table 2.13-2 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations HVAC Systems: Original (DEIS) Project Pollutant Averaging Period Maximum Modeled Impact Background Concentration(1) Total Concentration NAAQS NO2 1-hour 43 104 147 188 Annual 1 27 28 100 PM2.5 24-hour 2 15.7 17.7 35 Annual 0.1 6.0 6.1 12 Note: 1 See Table 2.13-1 Furthermore, the maximum projected concentrations associated with the combined development of the two-story townhouses within the pFEIS Plan are presented in Table 2.13-3. Similar to the full development of the original project analyzed in the DEIS, the maximum projected NO2 and PM2.5 concentrations would be well below the NAAQS. Table 2.13-3 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations HVAC Systems: Townhouses (pFEIS Plan) Pollutant Averaging Period Maximum Modeled Impact Background Concentration(1) Total Concentration NAAQS NO2 1-hour 21 104 125 188 Annual 6 27 33 100 PM2.5 24-hour 1.2 15.7 16.9 35 Annual 0.5 6.0 6.5 12 Note: 1 See Table 2.13-1 Subsequent to the May 14, 2019 pFEIS, the Applicant further reduced the number of IL units proposed to 136 and further reduced the total gross square footage of the project, as described in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project.” As such, both the DEIS and the pFEIS analyses can be considered conservative as they are reflective of a higher density than is included in the Revised Proposed Project. Therefore, the Revised Proposed Project would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts from stationary sources, such as the proposed HVAC systems. As noted in the DEIS, the IL and AL building may have one or more standby emergency generators. The exact location(s) of the generator(s) has not yet been determined. However, the Applicant has committed to locating the generator(s) on the west side of the Project Site, facing the Parkway, to avoid the potential for disturbance to uses to the east Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-58 DRAFT of the Site. The generators would only be used in emergencies or during testing, which would only occur during daytime hours during the week. 2.13.3. MOBILE SOURCES An assessment of the potential air quality effects of CO emissions that would result from vehicles coming to and departing from the Site was performed following the procedures outlined in the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) The Environmental Manual (TEM). The study area includes 12 locations. The screening procedure used the traffic analysis results for the 2025 analysis year as included in the DEIS for the original project. As described in detail in Chapter 13 of the DEIS, “Air Quality,” the results of the screening analysis show that none of the 12 study area locations would require a detailed microscale air quality analysis; therefore, traffic generated from the original project would not result in a significant air quality impact. Since the Revised Proposed Project would generate fewer trips than the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would similarly not be expected to result in a significant air quality impact. 2.13.4. PARKING ANALYSIS In response to a comment from the Village’s special engineering consultant, an analysis of the potential air quality impacts associated with the underground parking garage was performed. Emissions from vehicles using the parking facility could potentially affect ambient levels of CO and PM at adjacent receptors. An analysis of the emissions from the outlet vents and their dispersion in the environment was performed, calculating pollutant levels in the surrounding area, using the methodology set forth in the CEQR Technical Manual. Emissions from vehicles entering, parking, and exiting the garages were estimated using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) mobile source emission model, as referenced in the CEQR Technical Manual. For all arriving and departing vehicles, an average speed of five miles per hour (mph) was conservatively assumed for travel within the parking garages. In addition, all departing vehicles were assumed to idle for one minute before proceeding to the exit. Although design plans for the project have not yet been defined, the garage was specified to be designed for a minimum airflow of 0.75 cubic foot per minute of fresh air per gsf of garage area. (It is noted that this specified airflow is less than the CEQR typical minimum airflow of 1.0 cubic foot of air per gross square foot per minute. As such, the analysis of potential air quality impacts in this FEIS is conservative.) To determine compliance with the NAAQS, CO concentrations were determined for the maximum 8-hour average period. A persistence factor of 0.70 was used to convert the calculated 1-hour average maximum concentrations to 8-hour averages, accounting for meteorological variability over the average 8-hour period, as referenced in the CEQR Technical Manual. To determine pollutant concentrations, the outlet vents were analyzed as a “virtual point source” using the methodology in EPA’s Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, AP-26. This methodology estimates CO and PM concentrations at various distances from an outlet vent by assuming that the concentration in the garage is equal to the concentration leaving the vent, and determining the appropriate initial horizontal and 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-59 7/2/202010/08/2020 vertical dispersion coefficients at the vent faces. It was assumed for the purpose of this analysis that all levels of the parking garage would be mechanically ventilated. The CO concentrations were determined for the time periods when overall garage usage would be the greatest, considering the hours when the greatest number of vehicles would enter and exit the facility (PM concentrations were determined on a 24-hour and annual average basis). Traffic data for the parking garage analysis were derived from the trip generation analysis.15 Background street concentrations were added to the modeling results to obtain the total ambient levels for CO and PM2.5. Exhaust air from the analyzed parking garage was conservatively assumed to be vented through a single outlet at a height of approximately three feet above grade. Since there is no specific garage design at this time, the vent face was assumed to discharge towards the nearest receptors, to be conservative. “Near” and “far” receptors were placed along the sidewalks at a pedestrian height of six feet, and at the minimum exhaust stack height of three feet. A receptor also was modeled at and above the assumed vent release height, directly at the location of the exhaust vent, to conservatively assess the air quality impacts from the proposed garage on the adjacent buildings, representing windows or air intake locations. Based on this methodology, the maximum predicted CO and PM concentrations from the underground parking area were analyzed, assuming a nearby ground level receptor (7 feet), and a far side sidewalk receptor across Arbor Drive (54 feet), as well as a receptor on the façade of the original project. All values are the highest predicted concentrations for any time period analyzed. The maximum predicted 1-hour and 8-hour average CO concentrations modeled are 2.40 pm and 1.57 ppm, respectively. These values include predicted concentrations of 0.10 ppm and 0.07 ppm from emissions within the parking facility and background levels of 2.30 ppm and 1.50 ppm. The maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations from the vehicles using the garage are of 22.4 µg/m3 and 7.1 µg/m3, respectively. These values include predicted concentrations of 6.7 µg/m3 and 1.1 µg/m3, respectively, from emissions within the parking facility and background levels of 15.7 µg/m3 and 6.0 µg/m3, respectively. The location of maximum air quality impacts from the various on-site sources are unlikely to impact the same location simultaneously. However, the maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations from the vehicles using the garage when conservatively combined with the maximum stationary source concentrations are of 24.4 µg/m3 and 7.2 µg/m3, respectively. The 24-hour value includes predicted concentrations of 6.7 µg/m3 and 2 µg/m3, from emissions within the parking facility and all stationary sources, respectively, and a background level of 15.7 µg/m3. Similarly, the annual value includes predicted concentrations of 1.1 µg/m3 and 0.1 µg/m3, from emissions within the parking facility and all stationary sources, respectively, and a background level of 6.0 µg/m3. 15 The analysis of the potential impacts of the underground parking operation on air quality was based on the number of trips generated in the pFEIS Plan (see Section 2.12.1, “Site Generated Traffic”). The Revised Proposed Project would generate fewer trips than the pFEIS Plan. Therefore, this analysis can be considered conservative as it is reflective of a greater trip generation than would occur with the Revised Proposed Project. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-60 DRAFT These values are below the respective NAAQS; therefore, no significant adverse impacts are predicted for CO or PM2.5 from the Build condition as a result of emissions from the garage. 2.14. NOISE This section analyzes the noise levels that would be produced by the operation of the Revised Proposed Project and their potential to result in significant adverse noise impacts on the surrounding area. The noise impact assessment examines noise generated by traffic traveling to and from the Site (i.e., mobile sources), and the operation of mechanical equipment associated with the Revised Proposed Project (i.e., stationary sources). Potential impacts associated with construction of the Revised Proposed Project are discussed in Section 2.16, “Construction.” In this analysis, all measured noise levels are reported in dBA or A-weighted decibels, as described in DEIS Appendix G. In addition, the maximum 1-hour equivalent sound level (Leq(1)) has been selected as the noise descriptor to be used in the noise impact evaluation. The Leq(1) is the noise descriptor recommended by the NYSDEC for noise impact evaluation, and is used to provide an indication of highest expected sound levels (see DEIS Appendix G). For purposes of this impact assessment, consistent with NYSDEC guidance, operations that would result in an increase of more than 6.0 dBA in ambient Leq(1) noise levels at receptor sites and produce ambient noise levels of more than 65 dBA at residences or 79 dBA at an industrial or commercial area would be considered to be a significant adverse noise impact resulting from the Proposed Project. These criteria are consistent with the NYSDEC guidance document (see DEIS Appendix G). 2.14.1. MOBILE SOURCES As described in Chapter 14 of the DEIS, “Noise,” noise levels in the Future with the Proposed Project (the “Build” condition) would be less than in the Future without the Proposed Project (the “No Build” condition), with the exception of Noise Receptor Sites 5 and 6 (e.g., Project Site boundary with the Hutchinson River Parkway and boundary with the Arbors townhouses). At these two receptor sites, noise levels in the Future Without the Proposed Project would be expected to be the same as current conditions as the dominant source of noise at these receptors is the Hutchinson River Parkway on which traffic volumes would not be significantly affected by the Project. The adopted scoping outline for the DEIS required that the No Build condition include the condition where the existing on-Site office building was fully occupied. As the existing office building was not fully occupied at the time of the existing condition traffic counts, the No Build condition results in higher traffic increments than the Build condition, particularly along Arbor Drive. The increased traffic in the No Build condition is the source of increased noise levels. Comparing noise levels with the original project to existing conditions, the maximum increase in Leq(1) noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors would be 1.6 dBA, which would be experienced at the intersection of Arbor Drive and the Site driveway in the afternoon. Increases of this magnitude would be imperceptible and would be below NYSDEC’s threshold for a significant noise level increase of 6.0 dBA. Future noise levels at the Site driveway would remain below the NYSDEC’s recommended level for residential uses of 65 dBA. At all other receptor locations and peak hours, including the Arbors townhouses 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-61 7/2/202010/08/2020 and the intersection of King Street and Arbor Drive,16 the incremental increase in noise associated with Project-generated traffic would be less than one dBA. As described in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the Revised Proposed Project would generate less traffic than the original project. Therefore, the maximum increase in mobile source noise generated by the Revised Proposed Project would be expected to be less than 1.6 dBA, which would be imperceptible. As discussed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS, “Project Description,” and Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” three to four deliveries are anticipated each day during the week, with one to two deliveries possible during the weekend. Deliveries would not be expected to occur during overnight hours. Therefore, less than one delivery truck would be expected in a single hour, which would not result in a significant increase in mobile source noise levels above ambient conditions at existing receptors (e.g., Arbor Townhouses, Town and Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD) and at the proposed AL and IL building. 2.14.2. STATIONARY SOURCES The Revised Proposed Project’s mechanical systems would be designed to avoid producing a combined 6.0 dBA or more increase at nearby receptors. At receptors where the existing noise level is less than 65 dBA during the daytime hours, the Revised Proposed Project’s mechanical systems would be designed to avoid causing future noise levels to exceed 65 dBA. Consequently, the mechanical systems would not result in a significant adverse impact. The IL and AL building may utilize an emergency backup generator or generators. While the Village Administrative Code Chapter 158, “Noise,” does not specify a maximum allowable sound level for emergency generators, emergency power systems installed exterior to the building would be designed to avoid producing a combined 6.0 dBA or more increase at nearby receptors using a combination of generator enclosures, noise barriers, and generator site selection. Consequently, these systems would not result in a significant adverse impact. To further mitigate the potential for adverse impacts from emergency generators, the Applicant has agreed to place generators on the west side of the Project Site facing the Parkway, which would avoid direct line of sight from the generators to the surrounding sensitive receptors, including the Arbors Condominiums, Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD. 2.15. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS To identify historic and current uses on-Site and other potential sources of hazardous materials, reports from prior investigations were reviewed to assess the potential presence of contamination on the Project Site. The reports reviewed included Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) (see DEIS Appendix H). The Phase I ESA was conducted to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) and other environmental concerns associated with the Site resulting from past or current Site usage and usage of neighboring properties. RECs are defined in ASTM International (ASTM) Standard Practice E 1527-13 as the presence or likely 16 Noise level increases from Project-generated mobile sources within Harkness Park would be less than the increment predicted for the intersection of King Street and Arbor Drive. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-62 DRAFT presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The Phase I ESA identified the following RECs:  Regulatory databases indicate the Project Site was a historic generator of ignitable waste, corrosive waste, and spent halogenic solvents. Storage and handling of these wastes have the potential to have affected the subsurface.  Building department records indicated an abandoned steam boiler vault was removed in 2003. The likely fuel source for the steam boiler was fuel oil situated in either an aboveground storage tank (AST) or underground storage tank (UST), which may have been removed when the former buildings were demolished. Potential buried debris from former on-Site structures could contain historic fill of unknown origin and/or abandoned USTs. Based on the age of the previous structures on the property, fuel oil may have historically been used for heating purposes.  Based on historic dry cleaner listings in the regulatory database, Putnam Services Unlimited, located at 941 King Street in Greenwich, Connecticut, approximately 350 feet north-northeast of the property, was listed as a carpet and upholstery cleaner in 1994 and 1995. Although no releases from Putnam Services Unlimited were reported, based on the proximity to the property, if a release occurred, residual contaminants could be migrating through groundwater onto the subject property. In addition to the above RECs, the Phase I ESA noted de minimis conditions and other on-Site environmental concerns: existing diesel generators, arsenic, and insecticide associated with the historic arboretum on the Project Site, suspect asbestos-containing material (ACM), potential lead- based paint (LBP), and electrical and hydraulic equipment (including existing elevators and in- ground lift) that may include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or mercury-containing components. To further assess the RECs and other environmental concerns identified in the Phase I ESA, a Phase II ESA was prepared by AKRF, Inc. in November 2017 (see DEIS Appendix H-2). The Phase II ESA included the advancement of nine soil borings, installation of one groundwater monitoring well, installation of three temporary soil vapor points, and the collection of soil, groundwater, soil vapor, and ambient air samples for field-screening and laboratory analysis. The Phase II ESA concluded the following:  The analytical data from the soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling indicated that there was no evidence of a release of contamination associated with the RECs or de minimis condition observations identified during AKRF’s October 2017 Phase I ESA. No evidence of hazardous, non-hazardous, and/or petroleum-like releases (e.g., odors, staining, or elevated PID readings) were identified through the soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling.  No concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), PCBs, or pesticides were detected above their respective Part 375 Unrestricted Use Soil Cleanup Objectives (UUSCO), Restricted Residential Use Soil Cleanup Objectives (RRSCO), or Protection of Groundwater Soil Cleanup Objectives (PGWSCO) in the soil samples from this investigation.  Based on the Phase II field observations, the metals detected in soil at levels above their respective Part 375 UUSCOs are likely attributable to contaminants in the shallow fill layer observed at the Site and/or background conditions, and not related to an on-Site release or other source area. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-63 7/2/202010/08/2020  No concentrations of VOCs or SVOCs were detected above their respective New York State Ambient Water Quality Guidance Values in the groundwater samples from this investigation.  No concentrations of VOCs were detected above their respective New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Air Guideline Values in the soil vapor/ambient air samples from this investigation.  Evidence of an ongoing hydraulic oil condition was noted on the concrete slab floor in the elevator machine room on the ground floor of the building. Hydraulic oil and sorbent pads were noted on the slab floor adjacent to elevator motors denoted “Car #1” and “Car #2”. The findings from the soil sampling in the elevator machine room suggest the condition has not affected subsurface soils. To avoid and mitigate the potential for adverse impacts, the Revised Proposed Project would include the following mitigation measures, as described in the DEIS:  Any soil or fill excavated as part of future Site redevelopment activities should be managed in accordance with applicable regulations. All material intended for off-Site disposal should be tested in accordance with the requirements of the intended receiving facility. Transportation of all soil leaving for off-Site disposal should be in accordance with requirements covering licensing of haulers and trucks, placarding, truck routes, manifesting, etc. Excavation may reveal different or more significant soil contamination in areas not tested as part of this investigation. If discovered, such contamination could require further investigation and/or remediation in accordance with applicable regulations.  While no evidence of USTs or other buried tanks was identified during the geophysical survey or the sampling program, if any storage tanks or contaminated soil are encountered during redevelopment, such tanks should be registered with NYSDEC and/or the Westchester County Department of Health (WCDOH), if required, and closed and removed along with any contaminated soil in accordance with applicable regulations.  If any USTs and/or petroleum contaminated soil are encountered during the development activities, consideration should be given to installing a vapor barrier below the proposed building foundation. A membrane-type waterproofing product, if used as part of the foundation construction, could also function as a vapor barrier.  The hydraulic oil condition noted in the elevator machine room should be addressed, including cleaning the residual hydraulic oil from the slab floor and properly draining the hydraulic oil reservoirs from the faulty elevator motors until they are properly repaired and/or removed. All oil soaked materials and residual hydraulic oil should be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.  Prior to demolition, ACM surveys would be conducted throughout the existing structure. ACM would be removed prior to demolition by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.  Demolition activities with the potential to disturb LBP would be performed in accordance with the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulation (OSHA 29 CFR 1926.62—Lead Exposure in Construction).  If dewatering is required, treatment and discharge of dewatering fluids would be conducted in accordance with all applicable regulations and guidance, including obtaining appropriate permits.  Appropriate erosion and sediment controls would be implemented in accordance with NYSDEC SWPPP requirements. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-64 DRAFT In response to comments from the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, and to further mitigate the potential for adverse impacts, the Revised Proposed Project would include two additional measures:  The Applicant would provide the Village with a copy of the pre-demolition ACM/LBP surveys as well as provide progress reports on any required pre-demolition abatement; and,  A Materials Management Plan (MMP) would be prepared by the Applicant prior to the start of excavation or ground disturbing activities. The MMP would establish a protocol for the handling of site soil and other subsurface materials encountered during the proposed excavation work. The MPP would include measures for appropriate soil handling, soil stockpile management, site controls to mitigate sediment and dust, and would include contingency measures to address potential unknown conditions (unknown tanks or contamination) in accordance with all prevailing regulations. Specifically, the MMP will include a plan for the contractor to monitor soil during all earthwork activities for evidence of contamination (i.e., staining, odors, etc.). In the event that areas of contamination are encountered, the MMP will include an action response where soil disturbance will cease in the affected area of the excavation, and an environmental consultant will respond to the Site to properly address the contamination. Any unknown contamination areas will be addressed in accordance with all prevailing local, state, and federal regulations, including Spill notification (if necessary), excavation, removal, stockpiling, and off-site disposal of the contaminated soil, and performance documentation (i.e., soil endpoint sampling) to confirm that the contamination area has been properly removed. With the implementation of the measures noted above, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would be expected to occur as a result of the Revised Proposed Project. As the Revised Proposed Project would not include hospital care or skilled nursing care, it would not be expected to generate significant quantities of medical waste. Any medical or biological waste generated would be handled, stored, and disposed in accordance with all applicable regulations, including those of the NYSDOH. 2.16. CONSTRUCTION 2.16.1. CONSTRUCTION PHASING Construction of the Revised Proposed Project would occur in a substantially similar manner to the process outlined in Chapter 16 of the DEIS, “Construction,” for the original project. Construction of the Revised Proposed Project would be completed in approximately 30 months and is expected to occur in approximately seven phases, which are summarized in this paragraph and described in more detail in the sections below. As shown in DEIS Figure 16-1, construction would begin with the installation of silt fencing, disconnection of utilities, demolition of the existing Site building, asphalt and tree removal, and expansion of the detention pond. There will be no removal of asphalt outside of the existing building footprint until the entire building has been demolished and the footprint of the demolished building has been stabilized. This phase is anticipated to take approximately 3 months. Once the building is demolished, road and Site utilities work would start, the garage foundation would be constructed, and the northern wings of the IL building would begin construction. Construction of the proposed buildings would be separated into four phases 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-65 7/2/202010/08/2020 with overlapping construction times: AL facility (construction would last approximately 14 months), IL center core (construction would last approximately 23 months), IL south wings (construction would last approximately 14 months), and townhouses (construction would last approximately 14 months). The final phase is the Site restoration phase, which would take place at the end of the building construction and is expected to last approximately two months. Since multiple phases would be implemented simultaneously, it is anticipated that the maximum number of workers on-Site is expected to be 180 workers per day during construction months 20 and 21, and that the maximum number of truck trips would be 140 weekly trips during construction month 21 (see DEIS Figure 16-1). As described in Section 2.4, “Geology, Soils, and Topography,” the Site grading design is anticipated to generate approximately 38,158 cubic yards of earthen cut material, and approximately 36,686 cubic yards of earthen fill material would be required, resulting in approximately 1,472 cubic yards of material exported from the Site by truck. Conservatively assuming 14-yard capacity trucks, a total of approximately 105 truck trips would be required to export this material. These trucks are accounted for in the estimated number of weekly truck trips described in more detail below. During construction, the Site would be fenced off to ensure safety from construction activities. The pedestrian path leading from the Village buildings to Harkness Park and the Blind Brook High School would be temporarily closed. Students and pedestrians would instead be directed to the existing sidewalk along King Street, where they would cross Arbor Drive at the existing signalized crosswalk, continue through the park or along King Street. At the end of the construction period, the pedestrian path on the Project Site would be restored and enhanced and would be re-opened to the public. 2.16.2. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD IMPACTS AND MITIGATION As with the original project, adverse impacts from the construction of the Revised Proposed Project would be avoided and minimized through the implementation of a detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP). The CMP would be prepared by the Applicant, in close coordination with Village staff and consultants, and would be approved as part of the final Site Plan approval and be made a condition thereof. The Village would, therefore, be able to enforce the provisions of the CMP throughout the construction process. The CMP would provide for implementation of the SWPPP and ESCP, as well as the measures to avoid impacts to traffic, air quality, and noise, described below. 2.16.2.1. Erosion and Sediment Control Potential impacts associated with construction activities include sediment deposition, rilling, and erosion, and the potential for causing turbidity within receiving waterbodies. To avoid an adverse impact from soil erosion, the Proposed Project would conform to the requirements of NYSDEC State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity Permit No. GP-0-15-002, the “New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control,” dated July 2016, and Chapter 118 “Erosion and Sediment Control” of the Village Code. The permit requires that proposed projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land must develop a SWPPP, containing both temporary erosion control measures during construction and Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-66 DRAFT post-construction stormwater management practices to avoid flooding and water quality impacts in the long term. An ESCP is included with the full size set of drawings (see Volume 4). The ESCP depicts the measures to be utilized to control erosion and sediment leaving the Site. These measures, described in more detail below, include two Stabilized Construction Entrances (SCEs), the LOD beyond which no soil disturbance is to occur, the installation of silt fencing, inlet protection and other measures as described below, which would be used throughout the construction period to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts from construction of the Revised Proposed Project.  SCE—The SCEs would have a stabilized aggregate pad underlain with filter cloth to prevent construction vehicles from tracking sediment off- Site. SCEs would be located at specific transition areas between concrete/asphalt to exposed earth.  Silt Fence—Silt fence would be installed on the down gradient edge of disturbed areas parallel to existing or proposed contours or along the property line as perimeter control. Silt fence would be used where stakes can be properly driven into the ground as per the Silt Fence detail in the NYSDEC Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control and as shown on the full sized drawings. Silt fence controls sediment runoff where the soil has been disturbed by slowing the flow of water and encouraging the deposition of sediment before the water passes through the silt fence. Built-up sediment would be removed from silt fences when it has reached one-third the height of the bale/fence and would be properly disposed.  Storm Drain Inlet Protection (Silt Sacks)—Inlet protection would be installed at all inlets where the surrounding area has been disturbed. The inlet protection would be constructed in accordance with NYSDEC Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Typically, they would be constructed to pass stormwater through, but prevent silt and sediment from entering the drainage system.  Stockpile Detail—Stockpiled soil would be protected, stabilized, and sited in accordance with the Soil Stockpile Detail, as shown on the detail sheets. Soil stockpiles and exposed soil would be stabilized by seed, mulch, or other appropriate measures when activities temporarily cease during construction for 7 days or more in accordance with NYSDEC requirements.  Dust Control—During the demolition and construction process, debris and any disturbed earth would be wet down with water, if necessary, to control dust. Dust suppression activities would not be expected to generate standing or flowing water. After demolition and construction activities, all disturbed areas would be covered and/or vegetated to provide for dust control on the Site. Asphalt parking areas, driveways, and Arbor Drive would be cleaned using a ‘street sweeper’ as needed to reduce fugitive dust. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-67 7/2/202010/08/2020  Temporary Seeding and Stabilization—In areas where demolition and construction activities, clearing, and grubbing have ceased, temporary seeding or permanent landscaping would be performed to control sediment laden runoff and provide stabilization to control erosion during storm events. This temporary seeding/stabilization or permanent landscaping would be in place no later than 14 days after demolition and construction activity has ceased.  Sump Pit—Depending on the results of the geotechnical investigations, a temporary pit may be necessary to trap and filter water for pumping to a suitable discharge area. The purpose would be to remove excessive water from excavations. Sump pits would be constructed when water collects during the excavation phase of construction.  Dewatering—Depending on the results of the geotechnical investigations, there may be areas of construction where the groundwater table would be intercepted and dewatering activities would take place. Site-specific practices and appropriate filtering devices would be employed by the contractor so as to avoid discharging turbid water to the surface waters of the State of New York.  Temporary Sediment Basin—The purpose of a sediment basin is to intercept sediment-laden runoff and filter the sediment laden stormwater runoff leaving the disturbed area in order to protect drainage ways, properties, and rights-of-way below the sediment basin. The basin would be installed down gradient of construction operations that expose critical areas to soil erosion. The trap would be maintained until the disturbed area is protected against erosion by permanent stabilization.  Materials Handling—The contractor would store construction and waste materials as far as practical from any environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands). Where possible, materials would be stored in a covered area to minimize runoff. The contractor would incorporate storage practices to minimize exposure of the materials to stormwater, and spill prevention and response where necessary. Prior to commencing any construction activities, the contractor would obtain all necessary permits or verify that all permits have been obtained.  A continuing maintenance program would be implemented for the control of sediment transport and erosion control after construction and throughout the useful life of the project. With the implementation and continuing maintenance of the ESCP that would be approved by the Village and the NYSDEC, construction of the Revised Proposed Project would not be expected to result in a significant adverse impact from sedimentation or erosion. 2.16.2.2. Traffic and Transportation Construction of the Revised Proposed Project would create daily construction-related traffic to and from the Project Site, including construction workers and the delivery of materials and equipment. The numbers and types of vehicles would vary depending on the phase of Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-68 DRAFT construction, as described above. All construction equipment, materials, deliveries, and worker parking would be accommodated on-Site. There would be no construction equipment, truck, material, or worker parking, queuing, or staging permitted on Arbor Drive at any time. This requirement, as well as a detailed plan that delineates areas of construction worker parking, truck queuing and unloading, and material and equipment staging, would be included in the CMP. Manpower for typical construction projects fluctuates over the duration of the project in a bell-shaped curve. Beginning and ending months have relatively low manpower and, during the middle of the schedule, manpower peaks. Approximately 20–50 workers would be expected on-Site during the first 10 months of construction. Months 11–16 would have 100–120 workers on-Site. Months 17–27 would have approximately 150 workers on-Site, with months 20 and 21 peaking at approximately 180 workers on-Site. The Construction Manager for the Proposed Project, A.P. Construction, Inc., estimates that at least 20 percent of the Site’s construction workers would arrive by van, with two or three occupants per van. This would be especially true for many of the specialized trades, including plumbing, electrical, and interior finishers. These specialty trades are most active during the latter portion of construction when the number of on-Site workers peaks. Construction Traffic Analysis A quantitative analysis was conducted to identify the potential for construction related trips to impact the area’s roadways (see DEIS Appendix F). To provide the most conservative analysis, the study analyzed the construction time period during which the most number of on-Site workers would be present—months 20 and 21. The study did not take any credits for potential carpooling, and assumed that all 180 workers would arrive and depart in separate vehicles during the peak hour. The peak hours of 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM and 3:30 PM to 4:30 PM were chosen for this analysis. While the Village’s Noise Code (Chapter 154) limits construction that makes audible noise beyond the Project Site boundary to after 8:00 AM, during this time of peak construction, a substantial number of the workers on-Site would be working interior to the buildings and thus would not be limited to an 8:00 AM start time. Rather, a more typical 7:00 AM start time is assumed for this analysis.17 The results of the analysis indicate that the construction traffic impacts would be less than the typical peak hours during the operation of the original project. Construction Truck Traffic Construction truck movements would be spread throughout the day and would generally occur between the hours of 7:30 AM and 3:30 PM, 17 At other times during construction, such as the beginning stages of construction, work would be primarily exterior to the buildings and, according to the existing Village Noise Code, would not be allowed to begin until 8:00 AM. However, during these times, significantly fewer workers would be working on-Site. Therefore, the construction-period traffic study presents the worst-case scenario. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-69 7/2/202010/08/2020 depending on the period of construction. Heavy construction equipment is typically brought to the Site at the beginning of the project and kept on-Site for the duration of the project, thereby minimizing trips. During most of the construction period, it is estimated that only approximately 15–30 trucks per week would access the Site. This translates to an average of 2–5 trucks per day. There would be three peak times of truck activity, where the number of trucks accessing the Site would rise to between 65 and 140 trucks per week, or approximately 11–23 trucks per day. To mitigate potential adverse cumulative impacts with school operations, to the extent possible, truck trips would be encouraged not to coincide with the school’s entry and exit hours. Construction trucks would be expected to use one of the following routes to access the Project Site:  I-684 Southbound to Manhattanville Road to Purchase Street to Anderson Hill Road to King Street;  I-287 eastbound to Westchester Avenue and Anderson Hill Road to King Street;  I-95 northbound to Boston Post Road (US Route 1) to King Street or I- 287 to Boston Post Road (US Route 1) to King Street; or,  I-95 southbound to Exit 2 to Delavan Avenue to North Main Street (US Route 1) to King Street via Willet Avenue or Adee Street. The use of these major area roadways for construction trucks would not be expected to create a significant adverse impact to the roadway network, as these roads typically carry heavy vehicles. To mitigate potential adverse impacts to Arbor Drive from construction truck traffic, the Applicant would monitor the condition of Arbor Drive throughout the construction period and make repairs to Arbor Drive during the construction period as warranted and as appropriate. At the Village’s request, the Applicant evaluated the potential for an alternative construction entrance to the Project Site that would not use the Site’s Arbor Drive (e.g., southern) frontage. Access from the north (e.g., the Parkway) or west (e.g., The Arbors) of the Site is not feasible. Therefore, access from the east is the only other potential option. The Site’s King Street frontage is currently unimproved, vegetated, and is at a significantly higher elevation than the Project Site or King Street. Constructing a new entrance at this point would require extensive Site disturbance and, with the location of the current traffic signal at Arbor Drive, would not be practical. The only other potential option for construction access would therefore be through the Village’s property. Specifically, it may theoretically be feasible to construct an entrance into the Project Site that used the driveway in between the RBFD and Village Hall for access to King Street. Such an access point would, however, interfere with Village operations, including RBFD. Finally, as discussed above, construction of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-70 DRAFT have a significant adverse impact on Arbor Drive, which would warrant the use of the Village property for construction site access. Potential Traffic Impacts on Blind Brook Middle School and High School The Blind Brook Middle School and High School have a start time of 7:45 AM and a dismissal time of 2:40 PM. Dismissal occurs prior to the typical end of the construction day. As such, the afternoon peak construction hour would occur after the peak school dismissal traffic hour. With respect to the morning, the peak school arrival time is assumed to be between 7:00 AM and 7:45 AM. As stated above, the Village’s Noise Code (Chapter 154) restricts construction noise audible beyond the property line until after 8:00 AM. The Applicant notes that 8:00 AM is not typical of construction start times in the region and is out of sync with the larger construction industry’s typical schedule. In general, construction workers arrive on-Site prior to the beginning of the regional commuter rush, which typically begins in earnest around 7:00 AM. In typical scenarios, therefore, construction worker trips generally peak between 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM and therefore occur outside of the morning peak hour and do not coincide with school start times. Strict adherence to the Village’s existing noise code could create the situation where, during times of predominantly exterior construction that is not allowed to start prior to 8:00 AM, construction workers would be arriving at the Project Site at the same time as the peak school arrival time. As a potential mitigation measure, and to reduce potential conflicts between construction worker trips and school arrival trips, the Applicant proposes that the Village allow for a waiver of the 8:00 AM start time by no more than 1 hour (i.e., allow a start time of 7:00 AM) in cases where the Village Board finds that such a waiver could reduce potential traffic impacts at sensitive locations within the Village, such as the Project Site (see Appendix L). As noted by the Village’s Traffic Consultant, permitting such a waiver “makes sense” from a traffic perspective “because the volumes [on the area roadways] are substantially lower before 7:00 AM.” In 2017, BBRUFSD approved a bond for renovations to the Bruno M. Ponterio Ridge Street School and the Blind Brook Middle School and High School. Construction of these improvements is anticipated to begin at the end of the 2018/2019 school year and conclude immediately prior to the beginning of the 2020/2021 school year.18 While most construction is planned for the elementary school, several improvements are planned for the middle and high schools, including the construction of a new laboratory space, enclosing the corridors between the middle and high schools, replacing the fire alarm systems, replacing the windows and installing weatherization improvements in the high school, and renovating the high school custodial room for classroom space. There is the potential for the construction of the Revised Proposed Project and the middle school and high school 18 BBRUFSD. https://www.blindbrook.org/cms/lib/NY01913277/Centricity/Domain/4/Bond%20Project%20Schedule.pdf 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-71 7/2/202010/08/2020 improvements to occur simultaneously. It is anticipated that the construction access for the middle and high schools will be from their signalized intersection with King Street and the Project Site would have construction access from the Arbor Drive signalized intersection. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applicable provisions of the CMP would be discussed with BBRUFSD officials prior to the commencement of construction to minimize the potential impacts to students and teachers. It is expected that there would be continuous communication between the Applicant’s contractor and BBRUFSD’s contractor and officials regarding potential traffic along King Street and other impacts. 2.16.2.3. Air Quality Construction of the Revised Proposed Project, as with the original project, requires the use of both non-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles. Non-road construction equipment includes equipment operating on- Site such as cranes, loaders, and excavators. On-road vehicles include construction delivery trucks, dump trucks, and construction worker vehicles arriving to and departing from the Project Site as well as operating on-site. Emissions from non-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles have the potential to affect air quality. In addition, emissions from dust-generating construction activities (i.e., truck loading and unloading operations) also have the potential to affect air quality. Emission Control Measures Air quality impacts associated with construction activities are typically the result of fugitive dust or emissions from vehicles or equipment. Fugitive dust can result from earth moving, including grading and excavation, and from driving construction vehicles over dry, unpaved surfaces. While a large proportion of fugitive dust would be of relatively large particle size and would be expected to settle within a short distance of being generated and thus not affect off-Site receptors, measures to minimize and avoid this potential impact to the maximum extent practicable would be incorporated into the Proposed Project and would be included in the CMP, which would be reviewed and approved by the Village during Site Plan approval. The erosion and dust control procedures that would be implemented would include:  Minimizing the area of soil that is disturbed at any one time;  Minimizing the amount of time during which soils are exposed;  Installing truck mats or anti-tracking pads at egress points to clean the trucks’ tires prior to leaving the Project Site;  Watering of exposed areas during dry periods. Dust suppression activities would not be expected to generate standing or flowing water.;  Using drainage diversion methods (e.g., silt fences) to minimize soil erosion during Site grading;  Covering stored materials with a tarp to reduce windborne dust;  Limiting on-Site construction vehicle speed to 5 mph; and Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-72 DRAFT  Using truck covers/tarp rollers that cover fully loaded trucks and keep debris and dust from being expelled from the truck along its haul route. With the implementation of these measures, the Revised Proposed Project would avoid and minimize potential air quality impacts from fugitive dust to the maximum extent practicable. The CMP would include provisions for robust and regular communication with the BBRUFSD and the Village. In the unlikely event that airborne dust from the Project Site creates an adverse impact to the BBRUFSD, procedures would be in place to immediately alert the on-Site construction manager and the Village so that appropriate measures could be taken to ameliorate the potential temporary impact and, if determined necessary by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, initiate a CAMP. Vehicle emissions from construction vehicles and equipment have the potential to result in elevated levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and CO. The greatest potential for impact is typically associated with heavy duty equipment that is used for short durations. The following measures would be incorporated into the CMP, which would be reviewed and approved by the Village during Site Plan approval, to minimize emissions from construction vehicles and equipment to the maximum extent practicable:  Ultra-low sulfur diesel would be utilized for all construction equipment and vehicles;  All equipment would be properly maintained; and  Idling of construction or delivery vehicles or other equipment would not be allowed when the equipment is not in active use. To further reduce the potential for adverse air quality impacts, the Revised Proposed Project includes the following mitigation measures that was not included in the original project:  Use of Best Available Tailpipe Reduction Technologies. The Revised Proposed Project includes this mitigation measure that was not included in the original project. Construction of the Revised Proposed Project would mandate that non-road diesel engines with a power rating of 50 hp or greater and controlled truck fleets (i.e., truck fleets under long-term contract with the project) including but not limited to concrete mixing and pumping trucks would utilize BAT technology for reducing DPM emissions. Diesel particulate filters (DPFs) have been identified as being the tailpipe technology currently proven to have the highest reduction capability. Construction contracts would specify that all diesel non-road engines rated at 50 hp or greater would utilize DPFs, either installed by the original equipment manufacturer or retrofitted. Retrofitted DPFs must be verified by EPA or the California Air Resources Board. Active DPFs or other technologies proven to achieve an equivalent reduction may also be used. Implementation of the measures listed above would avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts to air quality during construction of the Revised Proposed Project. In addition, should visual inspection of actual emission and 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-73 7/2/202010/08/2020 dust conditions during construction warrant, a Community Air Monitoring Program (CAMP) would be implemented. On-Road Sources Construction of the Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to result in a maximum of 24 trucks per day during the worst-case overlap of construction activities for the IL building and the residential townhouses would occur. Over the worst-case annual period, construction activities to result in an average of 11 trucks per day. Construction worker commuting trips and construction truck deliveries would generally occur during off-peak hours. Furthermore, construction-generated truck trips would be distributed over the entire work day and would not arrive at the Project Site within a single hour. When distributed over the transportation network, the construction trip increments would not concentrate at any single location outside of the Project Site. In addition, construction-generated traffic impacts would be less than the typical peak hours during operation of the Revised Proposed Project—which did not result in an exceedance of NYSDOT’s screening criteria for mobile source air quality impacts. Therefore, it is not anticipated that on-road sources of emissions as a result of construction of the Revised Proposed Project would generate a significant adverse air quality impact. 2.16.2.4. Noise Construction Noise Analysis As with the original project, potential temporary impacts on community noise levels during construction of the Revised Proposed Project could result from noise due to construction equipment operation and from noise due to construction vehicles and delivery vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. Noise levels at a given location are dependent on the type and amount of construction equipment being operated, the distance from the construction site, and any shielding effects (from structures such as buildings, walls, or barriers). Noise levels caused by construction activities would vary widely, depending on the stage of construction and the location of the construction relative to receptor locations as described below. Construction noise levels would fluctuate during the construction period at each receptor, with the greatest levels of construction noise occurring for limited periods during construction. Excavators, loaders, dozers, and chippers during Site clearing and excavation activities would likely be the most substantial construction noise sources. To analyze the potential impacts of the construction of the Revised Proposed Project, a revised construction noise analysis was conducted. The revised analysis included additional receptors as requested by the Village’s special engineering consultant and a more detailed analysis of the distance between the closest receptors to the Project Site and the work areas of the Revised Proposed Project based on specific sites plans and construction logistics diagrams. All measured noise levels are reported in dBA or A-weighted decibels, as described in DEIS Appendix G. In addition, the maximum 1-hour Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-74 DRAFT equivalent sound level (Leq(1)) has been selected as the noise descriptor to be used in the noise impact evaluation. The Leq(1) is the noise descriptor recommended by NYSDEC for noise impact evaluation, and is used to provide an indication of highest expected sound levels (see DEIS Appendix G for more detail). The analysis includes noise generated from both mobile sources and from the operation of construction equipment at the Project Site over the course of construction. To determine the potential significance of an impact, both the intensity and duration of noise levels must be assessed. The receptor locations listed in Table 2.16-1 below were evaluated as part of the construction analysis. Table 2.16-1 Construction Noise Receptor Areas Receptor(s) Land Use(s) Relationship to Proposed Construction Work Areas Arbors Condos (North Side of Ivy Hill Crescent) Residential 255 feet south of Townhouse Work Area Arbors Condos (South Side of Ivy Hill Crescent) Residential 410 feet south of Townhouse Work Area Arbors Condos (South Side of Ivy Hill Lane) Residential 420 feet south of Townhouse Work Area Arbors Condos (North Side of Brush Hollow Crescent) Residential 505 feet south of Townhouse Work Area Blind Brook Middle/High School West façade (facing Arbor Drive) Education 170 feet east of Townhouse Work Area Blind Brook Middle/High School South façade (facing baseball field) * Education 295 feet southeast of Townhouse Work Area Blind Brook School Baseball Field* Active Recreation 340 feet east of Townhouse Work Area Blind Brook School Football Field/Track* Active Recreation 750 feet east of Townhouse Work Area Blind Brook Middle School Education 335 feet east of Townhouse Work Area Harkness Tennis Court* Active Recreation 345 feet east of Independent Living south Wings Work Area Village Hall, Police Department and Fire Department* Community Facility 95 feet North of Assisted Living Work Area 942 King Street (Residences west of King Street) Residential 250 feet north of Assisted Living Work Area 947 King Street (Residences east of King Street) Residential 540 Feet north of Assisted Living Work Area The Ridge Street Country School Residential 370 feet west of Independent Living Core Work Area 446 North Ridge Street (Residences North of Hutchinson River Parkway) Residential 490 feet west of Independent Living Core Work Area 14 Walker Court (Residences East of King Street south of Arbor Drive) Residential 665 feet east of Independent Living south Wings Work Area 109 Glenville Street Residential 855 feet east of Independent Living south Wings Work Area Note: * Indicates new receptor location in FEIS Construction Noise Mitigation Measures To mitigate the impact of construction noise on nearby receptors, the Applicant has included the following measures as part of the Revised Proposed Project: 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-75 7/2/202010/08/2020  Erection of a noise barrier that is 12 feet tall along the perimeter of the Project Site on Arbor Drive between the Main Site entrance and the southern site boundary. The barrier would be constructed from plywood, or a material of similar noise abatement properties, and would be installed prior to the start of significant construction activities during the time that the Blind Brook Middle School and High School is in session during the normal school year;  Noisy construction equipment, such as cranes, concrete pumps, concrete trucks, and delivery trucks, would be located away from, and shielded from, sensitive receptors, such as the school, to the extent practicable;  Construction equipment, including the mufflers on the equipment, would be required to be properly maintained;  Electrification of construction equipment to the extent feasible and practicable would be undertaken as soon in the construction process as logistics allow;  The construction site would be configured to minimize back-up alarm noise to the extent feasible and practicable;  Construction trucks would not be allowed to idle for longer than 3 minutes. The efficacy and practicality of additional mitigation measures, including a barrier greater than 12 feet in height or noise absorption material on the noise barrier, were considered as part of the construction noise analysis. However, they would not result in significant reductions in construction noise levels. Noise barriers are most effective for reducing noise at receptors within approximately 50 feet of the barrier if the noise source, e.g., trucks, excavators, etc., are within a comparably small distance to the noise barrier. The benefit of the barrier reduces as the distances between source and barrier or receptor and barrier increases. Taller barriers require horizontal structural support to safeguard against wind loads and properly support the structure. Consequently, a taller barrier would result in increased cost, logistical and safety concerns with minimal increase in noise mitigation. Likewise, the benefit of sound absorption material on the noise barrier would be minimal, as most equipment would operate too far from the barrier for a majority of the construction period for the material to be effective. Sound absorption material would add material cost for minimal noise reduction benefit, given the relatively long distances between the construction work areas and the receptors and the minimal number of reflective surfaces in the project area. Construction Noise Impacts The projected maximum noise levels during construction that are included in this revised analysis are summarized in Table 2.16-2. The construction noise estimates for the full construction period are shown in Appendix J. The maximum noise level estimates presented below are for noise levels exterior to the receptor during the worst-case scenario. Noise levels interior to a structure would be significantly lower than the levels presented below due to the attenuation provided by building walls and windows (approximately 25 Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-76 DRAFT dBA lower for typical façade construction with a closed-window condition). Typical façade construction, including insulated glass windows and some kind of alternate means of ventilation (i.e., air conditioning) would be expected to provide approximately 25 dBA reduction in interior noise levels compared to exterior levels for a closed-window condition. Table 2.16-2 Estimated Maximum Construction Noise Summary (in dBA) Receptor Area Existing Maximum Construction Noise Levels Leq Leq Increase Arbors Condos (North Side of Ivy Hill Crescent) 58.1 70.1 12.0 Arbors Condos (South Side of Ivy Hill Crescent) 58.1 60.3 2.2 Arbors Condos (South Side of Ivy Hill Lane) 58.1 65.7 7.6 Arbors Condos (North Side of Brush Hollow Crescent) 58.1 59.9 1.8 Blind Brook Middle/High School West façade (facing Arbor Drive) 59.0 70.6 11.6 Blind Brook Middle/High School South façade (facing baseball field) * 59.0 59.6 0.6 Blind Brook School Baseball Field* 59.0 60.6 1.6 Blind Brook School Football Field/Track* 59.0 60.9 1.9 Blind Brook Middle School 59.0 59.6 0.6 Harkness Tennis Court* 70.0 73.1 3.1 Village Hall, Police Department and Fire Department* 70.0 81.8 11.8 942 King Street (Residences west of King Street) 68.7 74.4 5.7 947 King Street (Residences east of King Street) 68.7 68.9 0.2 The Ridge Street Country School 61.8 63.6 1.8 446 North Ridge Street (Residences North of Hutchinson River Parkway) 61.8 63.7 1.9 14 Walker Court (Residences East of King Street south of Arbor Drive) 70.0 70.2 0.2 109 Glenville Street 70.3 70.4 0.1 Note: * Indicates new receptor location in FEIS The maximum predicted noise levels shown in Table 2.16-2 would occur at times during the most noise-intensive activities of construction, which would not occur every day during the construction period, and would not occur during every hour on days when those activities are underway. During hours when the loudest pieces of construction equipment are not in use, receptors would experience lower construction noise levels than those shown above. As described below, construction noise levels would fluctuate during the construction period at each receptor, with the greatest levels of construction noise occurring for limited periods during construction. The Arbors Condos (North Side of Ivy Hill Crescent) As shown in Table 2.16-2, residents in The Arbors community along the north side of Ivy Hill Crescent immediately adjacent to the Project Site would experience high levels of construction noise and increases in noise level that would be considered highly objectionable at times during the most noise- intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-77 7/2/202010/08/2020 resulting from construction would be in approximately the low 70s dBA, resulting in noise level increases of up to approximately 12 dBA. The maximum exterior construction noise level increases, up to 12 dBA, would occur during portions of the approximately 6 months of the site demolition and ground clearing. Construction noise levels in the mid to high 60s dBA, resulting in noise level increases up to approximately 9 dBA, would occur intermittently over the course of another 11 months during the construction period. During the remainder of the construction period, construction noise levels would remain below the 65 dBA NYSDEC recommended exterior noise levels and the 6 dBA noise increment threshold. Consequently, while construction noise levels would not persist at their maximum level throughout all construction activities, construction noise levels are predicted to exceed the NYSDEC noise thresholds during portions of approximately 17 months during construction of the Proposed Project. As stated above, the noise level estimates presented above are for noise levels exterior to the townhouses. Noise levels interior to the townhouses would be significantly lower than the maximum levels presented above due to the attenuation provided by building walls and windows (approximately 25 dBA lower for typical façade construction with a closed-window condition). As noted in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, the nature and magnitude of this temporary impact would be similar in all studied alternatives to the Revised Proposed Project, save the No Action alternative. The Arbors Condos (South Side of Ivy Hill Lane) As shown in Table 2.16-2, residents of The Arbors community along the south side of Ivy Hill Lane would experience high levels of construction noise and increases in noise levels that would constitute a perceived doubling of noise levels at times during the most noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the mid 60s dBA, resulting in noise level increases of up to approximately 8 dBA. Consequently, the maximum noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction activities at this receptor would be expected to result in exceedances of the NYSDEC noise level thresholds at times during the construction period. The maximum construction noise levels would occur during portions of the approximately 6 months of site demolition and ground clearing. During the remainder of construction, noise levels may be noticeable at times, but construction noise levels would remain below the 65 dBA NYSDEC recommended exterior noise levels and the 6 dBA noise increment threshold. Noise levels interior to the townhouses would be significantly lower than the maximum levels presented above due to the attenuation provided by building walls and windows (approximately 25 dBA lower for typical façade construction with a closed-window condition). Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-78 DRAFT Blind Brook Middle/High School West Façade (Facing Arbor Drive) As shown in Table 2.16-2, the west façade of the Blind Brook Middle School and High School building across Arbor Drive from the Project Site would experience high levels of construction noise and increases in exterior noise levels that would be considered highly objectionable at times during the most noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the low 70s dBA, resulting in exterior noise level increases of up to approximately 12 dBA. Consequently, the maximum exterior noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction activities at this receptor would be expected to exceed the NYSDEC noise level threshold at times during the construction period. The maximum construction noise levels would occur during portions of the approximately 3 months of road and utilities installation and parking garage foundation construction as well as during the approximately 2 months during the overlap of interior and exterior finishing at the AL facility and IL center core and framing and roofing construction at the IL south wings and townhouses. Construction noise levels in the mid-60s dBA, resulting in noise level increases up to approximately 8 dBA, would occur intermittently over portions of another 6 months during the construction period. During the remainder of construction, noise levels would remain below the 65 dBA NYSDEC recommended exterior noise levels and the 6.0 dBA noise increment threshold identified by NYSDEC. Consequently, while construction noise levels would not persist at their maximum level throughout all construction activities, construction noise levels are predicted to exceed the NYSDEC noise threshold for approximately 11 months during construction of the Revised Proposed Project. It is important to note that the spaces along this west façade, generally include areas that would not be considered noise-sensitive, including the cafeteria, gymnasium, custodial, and loading spaces. The only classrooms along this façade are those on the second floor towards the north end of the building, and these classrooms have very limited window area, with the façade facing the Arbor Drive consisting mostly of brick. As stated above, standard façade construction (e.g., with regular size windows in a closed window condition), provides at least 25 dBA attenuation from exterior noise levels. Given that there are no façade penetrations for ventilation and there is a relatively small amount of glazing in an otherwise brick façade, noise levels interior to these classrooms would, in a closed window condition, benefit from façade attenuation in excess of 25 dBA. Therefore, given maximum exterior noise levels from construction of approximately 70.6 dBA at this location, noise levels in these classrooms would be expected to be approximately 45 dBA or lower during construction, which would be considered acceptable for classroom use. 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-79 7/2/202010/08/2020 South Façade (facing the baseball field) As shown in Table 2.16-2, the south façade of the Blind Brook Middle School and High School building, facing the baseball field, would experience minimal levels of construction noise. Maximum exterior Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the high 50s dBA. Consequently, the maximum exterior noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction activities at this receptor would not be expected to exceed the NYSDEC noise level threshold during the construction period. North and East Façades (facing Harkness Park and the School Parking Lot) The south and west façades of the school, analyzed above, represent the locations with the maximum potential for adverse noise impacts within the school during construction. Receptors along the north and east façades of the school would experience lower noise levels than those for the south façade due to additional distance and shielding from the construction work areas at these façades. Blind Brook Middle School and High School Additional Mitigation Measures Because of the predicted high levels of construction noise at a limited area along the west façade of the school, the Applicant has agreed to the following additional mitigation measures as part of the Revised Proposed Project. These measures, in addition to the ones listed above, would be expected to further reduce the potential for adverse impacts to the operation of the school during construction of the Revised Proposed Project. The additional mitigation measures include:  Coordinating with the BBRUFSD to avoid the most noise-intensive activities during critical testing days/times (e.g., Advanced Placement, and other tests).  Coordinating with the BBRUFSD during the construction process and providing a 2-week look-ahead construction schedule that would identify potentially noise-intensive activities. Blind Brook School Baseball Field, Track, and Football Field As shown in Table 2.16-2, the Blind Brook School baseball field, track, and football field across Arbor Drive from the Project Site would experience low levels of construction noise. Increases in noise levels at the track and football field would be considered imperceptible to barely perceptible during the most noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the mid-50s dBA, resulting in noise level increases of up to approximately 1 dBA. Consequently, the maximum noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction activities at these receptors would not be expected to result in exceedances of the NYSDEC noise level thresholds. Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD As shown in Table 2.16-2, Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD buildings north of the Project Site would experience moderate levels of construction noise Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-80 DRAFT and increases in noise levels that would be considered noticeable at times during the most noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum exterior Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the low 80s dBA, resulting in exterior noise level increases of up to approximately 12 dBA. Consequently, the maximum noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction activities at this receptor would be expected to result in exceedances of the NYSDEC noise level thresholds at times during the construction period. The maximum construction exterior noise levels would occur during portions of the approximately 5 months of framing construction for the AL building. Construction noise would result in increases up to approximately 9 dBA during the 6 months of site demolition and ground clearing. Construction noise levels during the remainder of the construction period would not exceed the NYSDEC 6.0 dBA noise increment threshold. Consequently, while construction noise levels would not persist at their maximum level throughout all construction activities, exterior construction noise levels are predicted to exceed the NYSDEC noise thresholds for approximately 11 months during construction of the Revised Proposed Project. As stated above, the noise level estimates are for noise levels exterior to the buildings. Noise levels interior to the buildings would be significantly lower than the maximum levels presented above due to the attenuation provided by building walls and windows (approximately 25 dBA lower for typical façade construction with a closed-window condition). This would result in interior noise levels at these receptors of up to approximately 57 dBA during the most noise-intensive periods of construction. Harkness Park Tennis Court As shown in Table 2.16-2, the Harkness Park Tennis Court across Arbor Drive from the Project Site would experience moderate levels of construction noise and increases in noise levels that would be considered noticeable at times during the most noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the low 70s dBA, resulting in noise level increases of up to approximately 3 dBA. Consequently, the maximum noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction activities at this receptor would not be expected to result in exceedances of the NYSDEC noise level thresholds. 942 King Street (Residences west of King Street) As shown in Table 2.16-2, residences and sensitive uses on the west side of King Street between the Parkway and Arbor Drive—represented by 942 King Street—would experience high levels of construction noise and increases in noise level that would be considered highly objectionable at times during the most noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the mid 70s dBA, resulting in noise level increases of up to approximately 6 dBA. Consequently, the maximum noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction activities at this receptor would be expected to result in 900 King Street Redevelopment DRAFT 2-81 7/2/202010/08/2020 exceedances of the NYSDEC noise level thresholds at times during the construction period. The maximum exterior construction noise levels would occur during portions of the approximately 5 months of framing and roofing of the AL facility. During the remainder of construction, construction noise levels would remain below the NYSDEC 6 dBA noise increment threshold. Consequently, construction noise levels would not persist at their maximum level throughout all construction activities and are not predicted to exceed the NYSDEC noise thresholds during construction of the Revised Proposed Project. As noted in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, the nature and magnitude of this temporary impact would be similar in all studied alternatives to the Revised Proposed Project, save the No Action alternative. Other Receptors: The Arbors Condos (North Side of Brush Hollow Crescent) As shown in Table 2.16-2, the receptors at the locations listed below would experience minimal levels of construction noise and negligible increases in noise levels at times during the most noise-intensive construction activities. These receptors include:  The Arbors Condos (South Side of Ivy Hill Crescent and North Side of Brush Hollow Crescent);  Blind Brook Middle School;  947 King Street (Residences East of King Street);  The Ridge Country School;  446 North Ridge Street (Residences North of the Parkway);  14 Walker Court (Residences East of King Street south of Arbor Drive); and  109 Glenville Street (Residences South of Glenville Street). 2.16.2.5. Vibration Construction activities with the highest source strength and potential to result in perceptible or potentially damaging vibrations include excavation and rock disturbance operations such as blasting, pile driving, and rock drilling. Construction of the Revised Proposed Project is not anticipated to include excavation or rock disturbance activities. Aside from excavation and rock disturbance, demolition would have the most potential to result in perceptible or damaging vibrations at nearby sensitive uses. Vibrations from building erection and finishing activities would be less than demolition activities and would not have the potential to produce damaging or perceptible levels of vibration at surrounding receptors. Demolition of the existing structure will occur at least approximately 250 feet from the nearest residences within The Arbors community. At this distance, vibrations from building demolition would be expected to be imperceptible and would not have the potential to result in architectural or structural damage to even a structure extremely susceptible to damage from vibration. Therefore, vibrations from construction of the Revised Proposed Project would not have the potential to result in a significant adverse impact at The Arbors townhouses. Chapter 2: Environmental Analysis 7/2/202010/08/2020 2-82 DRAFT Demolition of the existing structure will occur at least approximately 1,000 feet from the Tennessee Gas Pipeline. At this distance, vibration from building demolition would be expected to be well below the threshold of damage to even a structure extremely susceptible to damage from vibration. Therefore, vibrations from construction of the Revised Proposed Project would not have the potential to result in a significant adverse impact at the Tennessee Gas Pipeline. Nevertheless, as part of the Revised Proposed Project, the Applicant proposes to a vibration monitoring program at the Arbors community and at the Tennessee Gas Pipeline during demolition of the existing office building to ensure that vibration levels do not exceed the thresholds that could potentially result in damage during construction.  DRAFT 3-1 7/2/202010/08/2020 Chapter 3: Response to Comments 3.1. INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses comments that were made on the Draft EIS (DEIS), either verbally at the Public Hearings held on October 22, 2018, November 11, 2018, December 11, 2018, and January 8, 2019, or provided in writing through January 23, 2019. This includes all comments made by the public or their representatives, the Village of Rye Brook (the “Village”) Board of Trustees (the “Lead Agency”), and Interested and Involved Agencies. This chapter provides responses to the substantive verbal and written comments submitted on the DEIS. Full transcripts of the public testimony and complete correspondence from which these comments are drawn can be found in Volume 3. Comments were assigned numbers, as shown in Volume 3. Similar comments, in terms of subject or technical points, multiple or by the same commenter, were grouped together. Each comment is presented in this chapter. For ease of reading, a comment summarizing each group of similar comments was provided, with careful attention to ensure that the substance of the comments was preserved. Comments were received that generally expressed support or opposition to the Proposed Project, but that did not substantively comment on the DEIS. These comments are not included in this chapter. Comments were received regarding the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process, such as the time of the public hearings. These comments are similarly not included in this FEIS. Finally, duplicative comments from the same commenter were received. These duplicate pieces of correspondence are noted and responded to in their first instance. 3.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AGE RESTRICTION Comment 1: Comments were received recommending that the age restriction for the Proposed Project should be set at 62 years old and older, not 55 years old and older as proposed by the Applicant. Commenters cited community character concerns associated with a 55 years old and older project and the potential for a 62 years old and older project to have decreased traffic impacts and a reduced potential for school-age children. A comment was also received from the Westchester County (the “County”) Planning Board encouraging consideration of making the townhouses non-age-restricted. (Straubinger 003, Zhao 006, Planning Board 018, Rosenberg 021, Levine 029, Drummond 037) Straubinger 003 (#12): Look at alternatives that: set the age restriction at 62 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-2 DRAFT Zhao 006 (#25): I don’t see any reason for seeking a code change to lower the age limit to 55 years. Planning Board 018 (#236): Age restriction should be 62+ to alleviate traffic and school impacts. Rosenberg 021 (#247): We are very serious about this being a 62 and older project. Levine 029 (#263): What is the reason for the 55 and over being a nonstarter? Rosenberg 021 (#264): The 55+ community has different impacts than the 62+ community: traffic and school children. Drummond 037 (#286): We encourage the Applicant to consider making a portion of the development non-age restricted and open to families...[such as the townhouses] given the Site’s proximity to the school. This may also be a fair exchange for the residential density increase the Applicant is seeking. Rosenberg 063 (#525): The residents MUST be limited to 62 and over. Response 1: In response to comments from the Lead Agency and members of the public, the Revised Proposed Project would be a residential community constructed and operated for those 62 years old and older, not 55 years old and older. Consistent with this change, the Revised Proposed Zoning, included in Appendix A, no longer includes a proposed change to the definition of “senior living facility” within the Village. Comment 2: Comments were received questioning whether age-restricted housing is legal given the experience of Heritage Hills in Somers and, if so, how the age restriction would be enforced. (Mignogna 001, Planning Board 018) Mignogna 001 (#5): Age restrictions may not be valid. Look at the Heritage Hills in Somers which lost its age restriction through legal proceedings. Planning Board 018 (#237): Explain how the age restriction will be enforced. Response 2: The proposed age restriction, and its enforcement, are governed by the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). Under the FHA, the general rule is that it is illegal to discriminate in housing based, among other things, upon family status, i.e., discrimination against families with children. However, as an exception to the general rule, the FHA has carved out two “safe harbor” provisions. If the requirements of either of those safe harbor provisions are met, a property owner or landlord is not liable for discrimination. In the case of the Revised Proposed Project, the Applicant proposes to follow the safe harbor requirements for an age 62 years old or older project. Under those requirements, occupancy in any unit will be restricted to persons over the age of 62 years old, thereby precluding children from residing at the project. Enforcement is regulated by the requirement that the property owner provide annual reports to the Federal government demonstrating compliance with the safe harbor provisions. Failure to comply can result in liability on the part of the property owner for improper discrimination in violation of the FHA. With respect to the Heritage Hills project in Somers, little information is available. We have located an article that appeared in the New York Times on June 2, 1985 that sheds some light on the Heritage Hills project. Based upon that Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-3 7/2/202010/08/2020 article, it appears that the project opened in 1975 and permitted only people over the age of 40 years old, or their spouses, to live there. When the law changed to prohibit age discrimination, except in the case of the safe harbor provisions, the management was required to either allow anyone to live there or to restrict ownership to those 55 years old or older. Again, based upon the newspaper article, it appears that the owners of Heritage Hills chose to allow anyone to live there, rather than restrict the potential market. With respect to Revised Proposed Project, the age requirement will be 62 years old or older from the commencement of occupancy and will, as noted above, be regulated pursuant to the provisions of the FHA. SITE PLAN DETAILS Comment 3: Comments were received requesting more detail on the height of the Independent Living (IL) and Assisted Living (AL) building, the square footage of each Project component, and the number of proposed parking spaces, and how that compares to the existing condition. (Planning Board 018, Chakar 025, Boccini 035, Heiser 051) Planning Board 018 (#233): Clarify and explain the height of the units and building height. Chakar 025 (#252): What is the square footage of each of the [components] of the projects, the 24, the 160 units, that total the 445,000? Heiser 051 (#347): How much is it going up in height? Boccini 035 (#282): On that first screen that they put up, there was parking shown as one number and 300. Then on the second screen he did a comparison and they only used the 300 parking lot. I’m confused as to percentages. I think that should be looked at very carefully. Response 3: Table 3.2-1 lists the components of the Revised Proposed Project, including their size (i.e., gross square feet) and number of units and beds. Table 3.2-1 Proposed Building Sizes Project Component Gross Floor Area (sf)1 Number of Units (Beds/Bedrooms) Original Project (DEIS) Revised Proposed Project (FEIS) Original Project (DEIS) Revised Proposed Project (FEIS) Town Homes 50,000 41,443 24 (48) 20 (40) Assisted Living 90,000 80,381 85 (94) 85 (94) Independent Living 305,000 234,078 160 (301) 136 (236) Total 445,000 355,902 269 (444) 241 (370) Note: 1 Gross Floor Area calculated pursuant to Section 250-2 of the Village Code. The roof of the existing office building has a height of 39 feet above current grade (el. 246.5 feet) and features a fascia that extends approximately 7 feet 6 inches above the roof, such that the building appears approximately 46.67 feet tall (el. 293.17 feet) The proposed IL and AL building would have an average height of 41.81 feet above the proposed grade, which grade would be approximately 6 feet 6 inches higher than the current grade. As such, the elevation of the IL and AL building’s 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-4 DRAFT average height would be approximately el. 294.81 feet, or about 1.6 feet higher than the existing office building. The proposed IL and AL building would feature various architectural features, which would create multiple “peaks” along the roof line to add visual interest to the building. These various “peaks” would have differing heights, as shown on sheets A-104 and A-301, included in Volume 4. As stated in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” in response to public comments and to decrease the potential for visual impacts, the IL and AL building have been set back further from Arbor Drive and The Arbors. In addition, the ‘peak’ of roof on the four-story section of the proposed IL building has been reduced in elevation 10.5 feet from the original project. With this change, the peak of the roof of the four-story IL building closest to The Arbors, which extends only for the rear half of the building, would be approximately 7.5 feet higher in absolute elevation than the height of the existing three-story office building, which extends for the length of the entire building. However, this proposed peak would be approximately 550 feet from the nearest townhouse in The Arbors, which is approximately 273 feet further away than the existing office building. With respect to parking, the existing office building has approximately 595 parking spaces. As stated in Section 1.4.3.2, “Parking,” the Revised Proposed Project would have 238 parking spaces. Comment 4: Comments were received requesting additional information on the Applicant’s plan for emergency or secondary access and suggesting that it was not the Village’s responsibility to provide land for that purpose. (Snyder 007, Orris 032, Snyder 022) Snyder 007 (#50): Applicant’s proposal to have an emergency access driveway using Village owned land does not appear to be a true secondary access. The Village has no obligation to burden its public land (especially right next to the firehouse and police station) for the applicant. Orris 032 (#270): My question is, if anything goes through, of getting in and out of The Arbors on a different access road. Right now we have an access road you can’t use behind The Arbors for emergencies, but there’s no way for us to get in and out otherwise. If there’s an accident, a tree down, we’re already captive, but you add all these people, what is the plan for that, if there is one? Snyder 022 (#279): Second is that we would like to discuss if secondary access is not feasible, we’re wasting a lot of time and resources on a proposal which really wouldn’t have much feasibility. Response 4: As described in Section 1.4.3, “Parking and Circulation,” the Applicant proposes to construct a secondary, emergency-only access to the Project Site from Village- owned property. This access was included at the specific request of Village staff and consultants. The specific location and alignment of the access was discussed with Village staff and consultants and determined to best meet the needs of the Revised Proposed Project and the Village. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-5 7/2/202010/08/2020 Comment 5: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that an easement would be required for the proposed realignment of the curb at the existing Rye Brook Fire Department (RBFD) firehouse. (Oliveri 011) Oliveri 011 (#109): Proposed realignment of the curb at the existing firehouse crosses the property line, an easement would be required to do this. Response 5: No curb improvements are necessary to accommodate this new fire truck movement and the existing curb alignment would remain. This truck movement is depicted on drawing C-320, “Fire Truck, Emergency Vehicle & Truck Turning Plan” (see Volume 4). Comment 6: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several comments requesting additional information be provided on the proposed site plan. (Oliveri 011) Oliveri 011 (#110): The Fire Department should verify noted fire truck dimensions on the proposed turning plan. Oliveri 011 (#111): Road profiles will be required for review & approval; road slopes on the west loop road seem to approach 10% in some areas. Oliveri 011 (#117): Indicate locations for concrete and Belgium block curbs on the layout plan, stone curbing should be 18” in depth within the village R.O.W. Oliveri 011 (#118): Handicap parking dimensions should be indicated on the details. Response 6: A template of the largest Village fire truck was emailed by the Village’s Fire Inspector, Michael Izzo, to the Applicant’s engineer, JMC, on September 20, 2017. These dimensions wereThe dimensions used in the truck turning simulation, shown on drawing C-320 and included in the JMC site plan set (see Volume 4).), are based on the Village of Port Chester’s largest fire truck. Drawing C-310 has been added to the site plans showing all road profiles (see Volume 4). The slopes on all roads are less than or equal to 10 percent. Labels have been added to drawing C-300 to clarify where stone curb shall be installed. The stone curb detail #37 on drawing C-905 has been updated to show a depth of 18 inches for all stone curbs, within the Village right of way (see Volume 4). Dimensions have been added to both accessible parking details (details #42 & #47) on drawing C-906 (see Volume 4). Comment 7: A comment was received requesting more information on the layout of, and access and egress to, the underground parking proposed as well as a discussion of the impacts of that access to on-Site circulation. (Snyder 007) Snyder 007 (#44): There is no clear depiction of the underground parking, and the access way out of the parking areas and how traffic will be distributed in connection therewith. Response 7: Figure 1-1516 depicts the access and egress to the proposed underground parking. The full size underground parking plan is included on sheet A-100 in Volume 4. As shown, access and egress to the underground parking area will be from a single 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-6 DRAFT location along the Site’s main access road in the rear of the Site. Egress from the parking area to the internal Site drive will be controlled with a stop sign. Comment 8: The Chairman of the Village’s Architectural Review Board stated that, “the layout [of the Proposed Project] appears to work well for the three different groups.” (Levy 004) Levy 004 (#17): The layout appears to work well for the three different groups. Response 8: Comment noted. As stated in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” the layout of the Proposed Project was designed to promote operational efficiencies as well as to create an aesthetically pleasing, landscaped residential community. PROPOSED PROGRAM Comment 9: A comment was received asking if an operator for the Proposed Project was selected and suggesting that without an operator the Proposed Project was speculative. (Schlank 040) Schlank 040 (#321): Without some evidence of commitments from a future manager and/or occupants, the project appears to amount to “building on speculation.” This strategy is particularly risky. Response 9: The final selection of an operator for the Revised Proposed Project has not yet been made. As indicated in Section 1.5, “Purpose and Need,” there is a current market demand for an age-restricted residential community in the Village. In addition, and as was the case with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to be owned by a single entity and there is no plan to subdivide the Site. A managing agent and/or operator may be retained to manage and operate the Revised Proposed Project, and that party may be an affiliate of the owner. Comment 10: Comments were received requesting more information on the ancillary and accessory uses included in the Proposed Project, including food service, fitness, and other amenity spaces, and questioning whether the impacts of those uses were considered in the DEIS. (Snyder 007, Greenbaum 031) Snyder 007 (#41): Second, the independent living component is massive, consisting of 305,000 square feet with 301 bedrooms. The component is also likely to have additional uses such as “an indoor fitness center, small clinical space for visiting medical professionals, hair salon, manicure/pedicure and massage therapy.” The DEIS fails to specify the size of these uses and whether they can be utilized by non-residents and the impact of same. Snyder 007 (#47): The "residential amenity spaces" are not defined and need to be analyzed…“wandering garden” needs to be clearly depicted and its security analyzed, especially in light of the site’s proximity to a main road, King Street and the middle school/high school campus. Greenbaum 031 (#269): Does this mean that along with independent living, meals will be provided to the residents? So the dining room will be staffed, with enough staff to provide Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-7 7/2/202010/08/2020 three meals a day. 365 days a year…like a restaurant that seats 300 people, 400 people…that should be considered as well. Response 10: The Revised Proposed Project includes the following uses that are considered accessory or ancillary to the primary residential use of the Site, as defined in the Village’s Zoning Code: indoor and outdoor recreation facilities, libraries, food preparation facilities, dining facilities, laundry facilities, examination and treatment rooms, housekeeping services, administrative offices, staff facilities, storage and maintenance facilities, beauty parlors, and a facility for the sale of sundries for residents. The impacts of the Revised Proposed Project, as described in this FEIS and the DEIS, are inclusive of the various accessory and ancillary uses described above and in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project.” For example, the estimates of traffic generation are inclusive of the staff associated with the Revised Proposed Project and the water and sewer demand that was estimated included both an estimate for each household in the IL and townhouse units, as well as the an estimate for the commercial kitchen. Comment 11: A comment was received suggesting that The Arbors would suffer adverse financial impacts as a result of the Proposed Project’s residential program. Specifically, the commenter stated that the residential nature of the Proposed Project would increase acts of trespassing within The Arbors (including walking on private property and dog walking), increase the necessity of road maintenance, and increase acts of illegal parking within The Arbors—all of which would place an additional financial burden on The Arbors as it is the responsibility of the individual owners or the Home Owners Association (HOA) to “self-police.” (Schlank 060, Schlank 068) Schlank 060 (#425): Questions related to ‘self-policing’ services that must be established and funded by private property owners under the laws governing VRB PUDs with private roads. Schlank 068 (#538): If a residential option is approved, the challenges for The Arbors will be more difficult to meet in a cost effective manner because The Arbors was not designed to be a fully secured gated community. Significant adverse financial impacts could be felt on property values, as well as costs of self-policing services, road maintenance, and safety/security. Schlank 068 (#546): Trespassing is a common area of self-policing, and incidents of trespassing would likely increase if additional individuals start taking walks along The Arbors roadways. Response 11: The Revised Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in increased trespassing on The Arbors’ property. With respect to parking, the Revised Proposed Project would contain sufficient on-Site parking for residents, guests, and staff, obviating the need for Project residents to park within The Arbors (see Section 2.12.8, “Parking,”). With respect to making use of The Arbors’ property for recreation, as described in Section 2.10.3, “Open Space,” the Revised Proposed Project would provide more than sufficient space to meet the outdoor recreation needs of Project residents. In addition, Harkness Park and the Village ballfields are also 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-8 DRAFT within walking distance of the Project Site. For these reasons, it is not anticipated that residents of the Project Site would choose to trespass on The Arbors’ property for recreational purposes. With respect to road maintenance, it is noted that the Project Site is the beneficiary of an easement that provides for access to an improved Arbor Drive for access and egress and that the provision of that drive is the responsibility of The Arbors. The Revised Proposed Project would not in and of itself, change that obligation. As noted in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the Revised Proposed Project would, however, substantially reduce the amount of traffic that would utilize Arbor Drive to access the Project Site from the Site’s currently permitted office use. PURPOSE AND NEED Comment 12: Comments were received questioning whether the Proposed Project and Proposed Zoning were in the best interests of the Village or only in the best interests of the Applicant. (Mignogna 001, Snyder 007, Feinstein 049) Mignogna 001 (#6): Paragraph 23 which states the density of 102 units is now allowed by current law is “simply economically unfeasible.” Does the Village of Rye Brook Board want to allow a change in the law [density and height] which affects our quality of life solely for the profit motive of a developer? Snyder 007 (#30): The proposed text amendment is only to the advantage of the applicant and not to the Village. There is absolutely no reason that the applicant cannot comply with the zoning text in its current form. Feinstein 049 (#379): Status quo of this parcel cannot be maintained indefinitely. Question is, something’s going to happen at some point in time to this particular parcel. So what’s in the best interests of Rye Brook? Response 12: As discussed in this FEIS and the DEIS, there is a current market demand for age- restricted housing within the Village. The Revised Proposed Project would help meet this existing community need. In addition, the Project Site as currently improved is not economically viable. Despite the efforts of the Applicant, and previous owners, it has not been possible to lease the current office building in a sustained and profitable manner. As a result, the assessment of the Project Site, and the property tax revenue generated by the Site, has declined over the past 5 years and is expected to decline further in the future. The Revised Proposed Project offers the Applicant and the Village the opportunity to meet a current market demand while also increasing the tax revenue generated by the Project Site without overtaxing the existing community services. Comment 13: Comments were received questioning the overall economic viability of age- restricted housing in the Village given current vacancies at The Atria, Rye Brook and the construction of an age-restricted facility in Purchase. (Levy 004, Snyder 007, Planning Board 018, Feinstein 049, Schlank 068) Levy 004 (#16): It [The Project] does answer many needs for the community and our baby boomer population in Westchester Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-9 7/2/202010/08/2020 Snyder 007 (#57): Also the Atria has vacancies, thereby questioning as to the need for another independent living facility. Planning Board 018 (#220): Is there a market demand for assisted living in this geographic area? Is there a market demand for senior living in this geographic area? Are the rentals competitively priced with other facilities with similar amenities? Will the new senior housing at SUNY Purchase result in a need for fewer units at 900 King? How will the Village be protected against a scenario whereby the senior housing at 900 King is built but not occupied thereby resulting in another empty or near empty structure, or conversion to more traditional rental apartments? Please explain. Feinstein 049 (#380): The concept, I applaud in the sense that we are community. And what we’re missing in this community is housing stock for seniors. Yes we have Atria, but what happened is that it was built as independent living, and over the years the average age of the Atria has crept up. The people we know, they want to stay in Rye Brook. But they have nowhere to go. We don’t want to be a transient community. So I applaud the fact that there’s going to be senior housing. I think it’s important to have different housing stock - that’s the sense of a community. And things can’t stay stagnant. Things are going to have to change. Feinstein 049 (#385): No one has really spoken in favor of the project per se. But I think the concept of senior housing, 62 and above, and to have also independent living and rental apartments, is something that would be very unique to Rye Brook. Schlank 040 (#322): Statistics show the inventory of senior housing has soared in recent years while occupancy rates have fallen dramatically since 2014. Occupancy rates for assisted living facilities are at their lowest levels since 2006 (October 30, 2018 Wall Street Journal Article). How do the current trends affect the assumptions made by the applicant and the management firm about future occupancy rates and affordable low income housing tax credits? What evidence does the applicant have that the proposal will in fact provide a stable economic base for the Village and/or meet a real need for senior housing options, especially in view of competing facilities such as at Purchase College? Schlank 068 (#539): King Street and other nearby areas in Rye Brook and bordering municipalities already have significant senior housing capacity. To date, there has been no known attempt to measure the extent to which the current citizens of Rye Brook want and need additional age-restricted housing. In the absence of a grass-roots study of this nature, there are open questions about whether a senior housing facility will truly serve the citizens of Rye Brook well and whether it can survive and prosper in future years. Response 13: As described in Section 1.5, “Purpose and Need,” the Revised Proposed Project responds to an existing market need within the Village. This need is documented by both demographic trends as well as a recent economic market study by JLL, a leading real estate valuation and advisory firm (see Appendix C). The JLL study concludes, in pertinent part, that within the market area “the assisted living (including memory care) and independent living segments [are] under-supplied at this time. This is supported by the higher occupancies reported throughout each segment (95 percent for assisted living (including memory care), 92 percent specific to memory care, and 93 percent for independent living).”1 The report goes on to note that though there are 399 IL units and 346 AL units forecast to come online within the next three years, including the Revised Proposed Project, there is forecast to be excess demand of 720 AL beds, 319 memory care beds, and 1,417 IL units. 1 Page 4 of: Market Study: Rye Brook Senior Living, 900 King Street. JLL. October 2017. Included as Appendix C. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-10 DRAFT This data suggests that the local market can support both the new senior housing at SUNY Purchase as well as the Revised Proposed Project at 900 King Street. Comment 14: Comments were received questioning whether the Applicant is purposefully not leasing the existing on-Site office building so that it can propose to redevelop the Project Site and claim that the office building is not economically viable. Commenters cited the Applicant’s recent purchase and efforts to re-tenant 1100 King Street in the Village as a potential example of the strength of the local office market as well as the regional demand for “flex space.” (Mignogna 001, Snyder 007, Schlank 040, Gorek 050, Schlank 060, Schlank 068) Mignogna 001 (#3): Is the reason for a relatively modern building used as an office building being vacant a result of the owners wishing to make a larger profit by offering this proposal? Or has the market changed and rents have gone down forcing office space to rent at a lower price? Snyder 007 (#31): As detailed herein and the attached article ("Applicant’s Article"), the applicant’s principal, Mr. Duncan has stated in a public forum in October 2018 that there is a vibrant office market in Rye Brook. Therefore, contrary to the DEIS, there is no reason that 900 King Street cannot be updated to Class A office space and utilized for office use, just like the developer is doing with 1100 King Street. Schlank 040 (#320): Applicant complains of vacancies in office facilities and it projects that the vacancies will continue in the future. Does the applicant recognize that the actions it has taken during the past year might be construed as constituting a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeat? A repurposing of the office building [part-office, part-research laboratories – this would appear to be more consistent with the intent of the zoning laws and comprehensive plan. Gorek 050 (#387): I can’t see why the 900 building cannot be recycled. I was told that there were parts of the buildings that had no windows, why can’t those particular spots be used for storage? You build nice condos and you put in storage. It would solve every senior’s problem, of what you do with all your stuff. Schlank 060 (#427): Questions about the implications of evolving business events and trends that affect the proposed and alternative uses of the property at 900 King Street, including the announcement of Amazon’s nearby NYC HQ, the continued growth of e- commerce, and the accompanying high level of demand for conversion of commercial office buildings to the increasingly popular concept of “flex space” – a less radical form of redevelopment that results in lower occupancy levels by office workers and less traffic to and from the office buildings during rush hours. Schlank 068 (#543): Include an alternative that would convert the existing office space into “flex space.” Response 14: The Applicant, as well as predecessors in interest, unsuccessfully attempted to lease the existing office building for a variety of uses to a variety of tenants. These efforts were not successful in producing sufficient building occupancy or long- term tenancy to make operating the building profitable. One reason contributing to the inability to lease the existing Site is the building’s relatively large floorplate broken up by twin atriums. The large, rectangular, floorplate makes it inefficient to subdivide the space while providing for the necessary means of egress for each tenant. As a result, buildings with more efficient floorplates, such as the buildings at 1100 King Street, which utilize a single core are more easily adapted for multiple tenants and have had more success in re-tenanting existing space. For the same reasons, reusing the existing building for residential uses would not be Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-11 7/2/202010/08/2020 feasible—the circulation and unit configurations would not be conducive to creating a marketable product. Comment 15: Comments were received questioning why three-bedroom IL units were needed in an age-restricted project and why the three-bedroom units were so large. (Snyder 007, Drummond 037, Rosenberg 064, Tazbin 071) Snyder 007 (#42): If {the IL} units are truly for seniors, then it would seem that the three bedroom units should be eliminated. Drummond 037 (#284): Such a wide mix of unit types is atypical for housing developments restricted solely to seniors. For example, the draft EIS offers no explanation for why so many three-bedroom units are proposed. Rosenberg 064 (#530): The question is, why for 62 and older, why a three-bedroom units? Tazbin 071 (#560): Three bedrooms seem a little bit much, a little bit large [for a 62+ community] and only one parking spot. Response 15: In response to public comments, the Applicant has both reduced the number of three-bedroom units included in the IL building as well as reduced the size of the three-bedroom units that are included in the Revised Proposed Project (see Section 1.4.1.1, “Independent Living”). As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project proposes a relatively up-market product. As indicated in the market study (see Appendix C), there is a market demand for larger, three-bedroom units. These units tend to appeal to those residents that are accustomed to a larger residential setting (e.g., house) where separate rooms for sitting, reading, watching TV, and engaging in activities are available. Therefore, while the Applicant has reduced the number and size of the three-bedroom units proposed, these units have not been eliminated from the Revised Proposed Project. Comment 16: Comments were received questioning why age-restricted townhouses are included in the Proposed Project, especially if elevators are not included. Some commenters requested that this use be eliminated or further setback from The Arbors to provide more open space or to reduce potential adverse impacts. (Snyder 007, Planning Board 018, Drummond 037, Snyder 038, Feinstein 049, Rosenberg 064, Heiser 065) Snyder 007 (#48): The town homes appear to be an unnecessary feature of the project, just resulting in more congestion of the site. Alternative designs without the town homes should be considered. Planning Board 018 (#223): Consider eliminating the townhouses to preserve more open space. Drummond 037 (#285): It is not clear if the two-story townhouse units are intended to be part of an arrangement where tenants live in the townhouses first and are then given the option to move to the independent living facility as they age. Snyder 038 (#294): The Applicant has not provided any meaningful mitigation measures that would aid in reducing the significant traffic impacts associated with the project. Given that the DEIS has disclosed potential for adverse impacts associated with the project, the project should be modified...reduction in the overall size and density of the project. At a minimum, the Applicant should eliminate the townhomes. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-12 DRAFT Feinstein 049 (#382): I think that this project is necessary and good for the community in a scaled-back version of it. I personally am opposed to all the townhouses for lots of reasons; it’s closer to the Arbors and the like. Rosenberg 064 (#526): I shared that concern as well [townhouses would interfere with the nice buffer between the assisted living facility and the border of the Arbors’ property], because I think that we do want to create the greatest – a buffer to the greatest extent possible. Heiser 065 (#531): Are there going to be elevators in the townhouses? Response 16: As described in Section 1.4.1.3, “Townhouses,” the townhouses proposed to be included in the Revised Proposed Project have been redesigned from the original project. The townhouses are being provided in a “master-down” format that has the master bedroom located on the first floor. As such, elevators are not included in the townhouses. Other architectural features have been included that make the townhouses both more suitable to a senior population as well as more distinguishable from other Village townhouse communities, including double- height living rooms, evoking a “grand” space, and kitchens and bathrooms of a more generous size that are also designed for adaptability and accessibility for aging-in-place. Finally, residents of the townhouse units would have access to the amenities within the IL building, including the dining room and meal service, fitness center and pool, and on- and off-Site activities. While it is anticipated that some residents of the townhouses may decide to move to the IL or AL building due to changes in circumstances, it is also likely that some residents would choose to, and have the physical ability to, continue living in the townhouses for an extended period of time. As noted in Figure 1-10, the two-story townhouse units in the Revised Proposed Project are set back a minimum of ±270 feet from the closest unit in The Arbors. In between The Arbors and the proposed townhouses is a wooded stream corridor with a topographic rise in the middle. As such, visibility from The Arbors into the Project Site, including visibility of the proposed townhouses, is extremely limited. This is demonstrated in the visual simulations included as Figures 8-9, 8-17, 8-18, and 8-19 in the DEIS. Therefore, and as explained in Section 2.8, “Visual Resources and Community Character,” the proposed townhouses would not create an adverse visual impact for The Arbors residents. As such, eliminating the townhouses would not avoid or mitigate an adverse visual impact to the Arbors. In addition, as described in Section 2.10.3, “Open Space,” the Revised Proposed Project would not only increase the amount of open space on the Project Site from the current condition, it would provide a sufficient amount of open space to meet the outdoor recreational needs of the Site’s future residents. 3.3. LAND USE, PUBLIC POLICY, AND ZONING LAND USE Comment 17: The Planning Board requested that the FEIS include an explanation of, “the impacts, if any, of changing the existing use of the property such that the overall Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-13 7/2/202010/08/2020 [Planned Unit Development] PUD which includes The Arbors would be altered from a mix of uses (residential/office) to solely residential.” (Planning Board 018) Planning Board 018 (#215): Explain the impacts, if any, of changing the existing use of the property such that the overall PUD which includes the Arbors would be altered from a mix of uses (residential/office) to solely residential. Response 17: As with the original zoning, the Revised Proposed Zoning does not add any allowable uses to the PUD zoning district. Rather, the Revised Proposed Zoning would limit the allowable uses on the Project Site to only senior living facilities in recognition that that is the only use included in the Revised Proposed Project. The impacts of changing the overall PUD of which the Project Site is apart from a residential/office/park use to a residential/age-restricted residential/park use are examined throughout the DEIS and this FEIS. As demonstrated in the environmental analyses, the change in use from office use to age-restricted residential use would dramatically decrease the number of traffic trips to and from the Site, increase the assessed value and property tax revenue of the Project Site while placing no additional burden on the Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School District (BBRUFSD), and improve the aesthetic character of the Project Site, which is currently dominated by a 5.3-acre surface parking lot and single rectangular building with an uninterrupted footprint of 94,600 square feet (sf), through the development of a landscaped residential campus with buildings of varying height and sizes interspersed with open space throughout. Comment 18: A comment was received suggesting that the Proposed Project is inconsistent with the other uses in the existing PUD, including The Arbors and Harkness Park, as a result of the introduction of noise and light pollution and additional traffic generation. (Snyder 007) Snyder 007 (#55): Project would be consistent with other existing uses of the PUD which include The Arbors and Harkness Park, alleging that the buildings would not introduce negative noise or light pollution to the adjoining properties and would similarly have very low levels of traffic generation. These statements cannot fairly be supported by the facts. Response 18: No evidence has been presented to indicate that an age-restricted residential use is incompatible with other residential uses, a school, a park, or municipal uses. Further, given the relative traffic generation and the intensity with which Project residents and staff are anticipated to use the Project Site, an age-restricted residential use is not only inherently compatible with the surrounding uses, but that it is, in many ways, less disruptive to the surrounding area than many other uses, including commercial uses. As demonstrated in the analysis included in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the Revised Proposed Project would represent a significant decrease in the number of vehicular trips entering and exiting the Site as compared to the former office use. In addition, the Revised Proposed Project would add only 17 trips in the AM, and 46 trips in the PM to the amount of trips counted entering 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-14 DRAFT and exiting the Project Site in 2017. Compared to the existing volume of traffic on King Street, this increase is minimal and would not adversely affect Harkness Park. With respect to the potential for light pollution, as stated in Section 3.3.1.1, “General Recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan,” of the DEIS, “The Proposed Project would utilize energy-efficient building design and fixtures. All outdoor lighting would utilize LED fixtures with full cut-offs.” With the implementation of full cut-off fixtures, there is not be anticipated to be off-site light spillage to the ground level of Harkness Park as a result of the Revised Proposed Project. With respect to the potential for noise pollution, the incremental increase in noise associated with Project-generated traffic would be less than one dBA at the intersection of King Street and Arbor Drive. Noise level increases from Project-generated mobile sources within Harkness Park would be less than the increment predicted for the intersection of King Street and Arbor Drive owing to the distance between the source and receptor. The Revised Proposed Project, as was the case with the original project, will include building mechanical systems and emergency generators that are designed to avoid producing a 6.0 A-weighted decibel (dBA) or more increase at nearby receptors, including Harkness Park. As a result, the Revised Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact on noise conditions at the Harkness Park. Comment 19: Comments were received questioning the appropriateness of comparing the Proposed Project to The Atria, Rye Brook in the DEIS. (Snyder 007, Planning Board 018) Snyder 007 (#56): The DEIS compares itself to the Atria in Rye Brook but that facility is only for independent living. Planning Board 018 (#224): How does the proposed project compare with the Atria? Response 19: The Atria, Rye Brook is an IL facility in the Village that has approximately 168 units. Unlike the Revised Proposed Project, The Atria, Rye Brook does not have townhouses or AL units, nor does it have landscaped open space on-Site. The Atria, Rye Brook is the closest IL facility to the Project Site and was therefore used within the DEIS and this FEIS for purposes of providing specific, limited, comparisons. The reasons for each comparison, and the limitations of each comparison, are presented within this FEIS. In general, The Atria, Rye Brook was used for purposes of benchmarking the number of emergency services calls that may result from the Revised Proposed Project (e.g., emergency medical services [EMS] and fire), the potential for the Revised Proposed Project to have school- age children as residents, and the potential assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project. For all of these comparisons, the DEIS and FEIS note the limitation of the comparison and the usefulness of the comparison in understanding a potential impact of the Revised Proposed Project. Comment 20: Comments were received suggesting that density, in and of itself, is an impact to the community and that the Proposed Project, for that reason, should be modified. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-15 7/2/202010/08/2020 (Planning Board 018, Chakar 025, Schlank 040, Snyder 045, Zimmerman 046, Feinstein 049, Snyder 053, Snyder 061) Planning Board 018 (#219): Putting aside potential appreciable impacts of a high density development, high density in and of itself should be considered an impact to the character of the Village which is predominantly low density. Chakar 025 (#253): That’s [Proposed Project] two and a half times the size of the Arbors (based on number of units and gsf per acre). Chakar 025 (#254): This is 257,000 square feet more than what should go there. You have a density problem there [at the Project Site with the Proposed Project]. Schlank 040 (#315): The "condition precedent" [existing office building] was established as a way to ensure a balanced and complementary mix of commercial and residential land uses…a way to mitigate the population shift that would otherwise result from a density of 7 dwellings per acre. This 7-per-acre density was unusual for the Town of Rye. How can the effects of the increased density be effectively mitigated? Snyder 045 (#348): This project is way too dense. They are proposing 15.2 units per acre when your zone now only allows six units per acre. This is a huge discrepancy. Zimmerman 046 (#354): We are very concerned about the density of the project. Feinstein 049 (#386): As a person who worked very hard on the Comprehensive Plan, the density has to be addressed. Snyder 053 (#409): As recommended by the Planning Board in the Planning Board resolution, there shall be, and I quote, "a reduction in the overall size and density of the project. At a minimum, the applicant should eliminate the townhomes and more considerably reduce the assisted living and independent living components to make the project have less of an impact." Snyder 061 (#502): Again, we support the recommendation of the Planning Board that there should be a "reduction in the overall size and density of the project." At a minimum, the Applicant should eliminate the townhomes and considerably reduce the assisted living and independent living components to make the project have less of an impact. Response 20: As detailed in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” in response to public and Lead Agency comments, and to reduce the potential for adverse impacts, the Applicant has reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project from what was originally included in the DEIS. Specifically, the Applicant has reduced the size of the project by 89,908 gsf through reductions in the number of IL and townhouse units, reduction in the IL unit sizes and number of bedrooms, and reductions in the common and amenity spaces in the IL and AL building. As detailed in Section 2.3.2, “Proposed Density,” and shown in Table 3.3-1, when considered on its own (e.g., not part of the entire PUD of which it is a part), the density of the Revised Proposed Project is less than The Atria, Rye Brook (both in terms of sf per acre and number of units per acre). The Revised Proposed Project is less dense than the Doral Greens PUD in terms of sf per acre. While the number of units or dwelling units per acre for the Revised Proposed Project exceeds that of other PUDs, it is still within the range of “low- to medium- density” housing as defined by the Comprehensive Plan (see Section 2.3.4.1, “Comprehensive Plan” and the Response to Comment 36). Further, the units included in the Revised Proposed Project are considerably smaller than the units included in other PUDs and, most importantly, they are age-restricted housing units, including AL units, which have different impacts per unit than market-rate housing. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-16 DRAFT Table 3.3-1 Comparative Project Density Development Dwelling Units per 5,000 sf Dwelling Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Square feet per Acre Average Unit Size (sf) The Arbors 0.8 6.9 0.37 15,900 2,304 The Atria, Rye Brook 3.9 34.1 1.11 48,352 ukn Revised Proposed Project 1.01 (1.55)* 8.8 (13.51)* 0.46 20,032 1,119 (IL) 2,072 (TH) 647 (AL) PUD with Revised Proposed Project 0.77 (0.93)* 6.7 (8.1)* 0.35 15,407 1,895 (1,685)* Doral Green 0.9 7.9 0.54 23,369 2,943 Sun Homes 0.4 3.6 0.28 12,109 3,364 Notes: * Includes Dwelling Units and Assisted Living Units Considering the entire PUD District of which the Project Site is a part, with the Revised Proposed Project the PUD would have 6.7 dwelling units per acre, of which 38 percent would be age restricted (see Table 3.3-1). Including the AL units in the Revised Proposed Project, which are not dwelling units, the PUD would have 8.1 total units per acre, 49 percent of which would be age restricted and 17 percent of which would be AL units. With the Revised Proposed Project, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the PUD District as a whole would increase by 0.05 FAR to 0.35 FAR. Therefore, the Revised Proposed Project would not result in a PUD that was significantly denser than other PUDs. Further, the PUD of which the Revised Proposed Project would be a part would consist of fewer units per acre and less sf per acre than Doral Greens, which contains no age-restricted housing. As analyzed in the DEIS and this FEIS, uses proposed by the Applicant (e.g., age- restricted housing and assisted living) have different impacts on a per unit basis than market-rate residential uses. For example, when compared to market-rate housing, on a per unit basis, age-restricted housing generates fewer traffic trips, places less (or no) burden on the school district, and places less burden on the community’s parks and open space and most other community facilities. The two uses have similar impacts on a per unit basis with respect to water and sewer usage. Age-restricted housing tends to place a larger burden on EMS services than market-rate housing. As such, regulating age-restricted housing at the same per unit density as market-rate housing does not appropriately take into account the differences in impacts (i.e., beneficial and adverse) of the various uses. Impacts related to site development, including impervious coverage, and site disturbance and the necessary stormwater management, natural resource protection, and construction staging as well as site-specific environmental factors, are more meaningful than density when evaluating the physical impacts of a given project. As shown in Table 17-1 of the DEIS and Table 3.17-1 in Section 3.17, “Alternatives,” the Revised Proposed Project has 6.76 acres of impervious Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-17 7/2/202010/08/2020 coverage compared to the as-of-right residential building coverage of 4.92 acres or, if the Project was built using the same size units as The Arbors, 7.06 acres. As such, the impacts to natural resources and the impacts of constructing the Revised Proposed Project are anticipated to be similar to the impacts of construction of the as-of-right alternatives (see Response to Comment 152). As discussed in the DEIS and this FEIS, the Project Site has been heavily impacted by human development that has altered the topography and natural features of the vast majority of the Site. The Revised Proposed Project will protect the natural feature with the most beneficial ecological function, the stream and wetland corridor on the western portion of the Site. As analyzed in Sections 2.8 and 3.8, “Visual Resources and Community Character,” the Revised Proposed Project would break down the scale of the built environment through building massing and articulation and the introduction of landscaped spaces throughout the Site. The increase in height proposed, from three stories to four stories, would be visually mitigated through the setbacks to the four-story portion of the building. Comment 21: Comments were received questioning why age-restricted housing is the only use proposed to be allowed by the Proposed Zoning and questioning why construction of that use should be allowed at greater densities than other uses. (Schlank 040) Schlank 040 (#319): Why is the Applicant requesting that senior living be the only permitted use? Schlank 040 (#323): A residential project of similar density was proposed and rejected in the early 1970s. There is no evidence that the proposed restrictions on the ages of occupants should alter the basic determination, and the issue of inconsistency with community character continues to be an apparent “showstopper” for the proposal. Response 21: The Applicant is proposing an integrated age-restricted residential community in response to market demand. See Response to Comment 13. Age-restricted housing and assisted living have vastly different impacts on a per unit basis than market-rate residential uses. See Response to Comment 20. ZONING GENERAL Comment 22: A comment was received suggesting there was no evidence, such as an appraisal, to support the statement in the DEIS that the “Proposed Zoning would not adversely impact the existing zoning districts in the study area.” (Snyder 007) Snyder 007 (#54): “Proposed zoning would not adversely impact the existing zoning districts in the study area.” There are no appraisals or any other evidence to support that statement. Response 22: The Revised Proposed Zoning would not change the allowable uses on the Project Site. Rather, the Revised Proposed Zoning includes changes to the allowable height and density of senior living facilities on the Project Site as well as establishes additional, site-specific setback and area requirements (see Section 2.3.3, “Zoning”). The DEIS and FEIS analyze the potential impact of the Revised 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-18 DRAFT Proposed Action on the uses and users within the surrounding zoning districts, including potential impacts to visual and community character, air quality, noise, and traffic. As stated in Section 2.8.3 of this FEIS, “Consistency of the Revised Proposed Project with the Existing Visual and Community Character,” “in terms of height, the Revised Proposed Project is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.” In the same section, the FEIS states that “the setbacks of the proposed IL building from neighboring residences and Arbor Drive are consistent with, or greater than, the setbacks of other four-story, and taller, buildings to their neighboring residential properties.” Finally, as stated in Section 2.3.2 of this FEIS, “Proposed Density,” “With the Revised Proposed Project, the FAR of the PUD District as a whole would increase by 0.05 FAR to 0.35 FAR. The PUD of which the Revised Proposed Project would be a part would consist of fewer dwelling units per acre (6.7 compared to 7.9) and less sf per acre (15,407 sf/acre compare to 23,369/acre sf) than Doral Green, which contains no age- restricted housing. When compared to Sun Homes, the PUD of which the Revised Proposed Project would be a part would consist of more dwelling units per acre (6.7 compared to 3.6) and slightly more sf per acre (15,407 sf/acre compared to 12,109 sf/acre). The Revised Proposed Project, and the PUD of which it would be a part, both have smaller average unit sizes than both Doral Green and Sun Homes.” Comment 23: A comment was received questioning why the Proposed Zoning was different in nature than the section of the Village’s PUD ordinance that applies to The Arbors and to other PUDs. (Schlank 040) Schlank 040 (#309): Nature of the applicant’s proposed zoning amendments appears to differ markedly from the nature of the matters addressed in the site-specific Arbors Code. For each of the proposed zoning amendments, which ones does the applicant believe are similar in nature to the ones in the Arbors site-specific section? Which ones are fundamentally different in that the changes would create a significant variance from the laws that apply to other PUDs in the Village? Response 23: The Revised Proposed Zoning was prepared to establish appropriate densities for senior living facilities, as opposed to standard market-rate housing, as well as to add site-specific setback requirements that were not included in the PUD zoning district. §250-7E(5) of the Village Code, which applies only to the Arbors Residential Development, provides administrative regulations with respect to certain applications for building and site plan permits that specify the process by which those applications are processed. In contrast, the Revised Proposed Zoning proposes regulations for the height and density of senior living facilities on the Project Site. The two zoning sections are not comparable. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-19 7/2/202010/08/2020 Comment 24: Comments were received questioning why the Village would allow another non- conforming PUD when The Arbors is already a non-conforming PUD. (Mignogna 001, Schlank 041) Mignogna 001 (#7): The Arbors is a non-conforming PUD does the Village Board wish to have another non-conforming PUD if so is the Board opening up a new can of worms with regard to conforming issues? Schlank 041 (#325): The office building was approved under the original Town of Rye resolution dated June 19, 1973. Please clarify that it does not need to be rebuilt to meet the current VRB requirements regarding the maximum height and floor area. Response 24: The Revised Proposed Zoning, if approved, would guide the development of a conforming PUD on the Project Site and the Revised Proposed Project would include the demolition of the existing office building. Comment 25: A commenter questioned whether other amendments to the Village’s PUD should be considered, including changing the requirement for new PUDs to be north of the Hutchinson River Parkway (the “Parkway”). The commenter also questioned whether periodic reviews of any new zoning were appropriate. (Schlank 040, Schlank 041) Schlank 040 (#310): Does the applicant agree that the purpose of its proposed amendments is to streamline the review process? If not, what is the objective? Would the applicant object to periodic after-the-fact reviews of its proposed site-specific zoning amendments? If so, which ones and why? In the applicant’s view, what would be a suitable time period for such reviews? Schlank 041 (#324): Type 1 revisions would include statements, where appropriate, that clarify the Village will honor the terms of the original 1973 Town of Rye resolution for the Arbors/900 King Street PUD. The Arbors/900 King Street PUD is located south of the Hutchinson River Parkway in accordance with the terms of the 1973 Town of Rye resolution which permitted PUDs to be located adjacent to or north of the Hutch. Please clarify that it does not need to be relocated to meet the VRB requirement that all PUDs must be located north of the Hutch. Response 25: The Project Site is mapped within the Village’s PUD zoning district. As such, it is not necessary to change the language of the PUD section of the zoning ordinance with respect to the siting of new PUDs. If the Village determines that other, unrelated, amendments are necessary to the Village’s zoning ordinance, it has the authority to adopt those amendments. Comment 26: Comments were received questioning the precedential nature of the Proposed Zoning. (Barnett 047) Barnett 047 (#361): They are dissolving our PUD and asking for zoning regulations to make a brand-new PUD, one that really only benefits themselves, with a zoning text that they say can’t be used by any future development. Barnett 047 (#362): Why can’t another development in the future or some other property, if something goes out of business, do this? What can’t on King Street if the old age home that’s there falls into disrepair in 15, 20 years and you have a large property there, why can’t you say, well, there’s a four-story building right up the road and it’s right in this neighborhood, let’s build one, as well, because we have to compete with them because we’re going to be competing against that project. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-20 DRAFT Response 26: With respect to the precedential nature of the Revised Proposed Zoning, it is important to note that zoning is a legislative act within the jurisdiction of the Village Board. As such, the Village Board has almost unfettered discretion. In addition, every proposed zoning amendment must be considered on its own merits. Accordingly, any approval of the proposed zoning in no way obligates the Village Board to use it as a basis for rezoning another property. Of course, should the Village Board believe that it is in the best interest of the Village to utilize the proposed zoning elsewhere, it has the authority to do so. PRIOR APPROVALS AND RESOLUTIONS Comment 27: The Village Administrator stated that, “The 1998 Village Board Resolution regarding the zoning status of the Project Site does not necessarily determine the project’s ‘legal status’ or that it is ‘zoning compliant’ so those statements should be deleted.” Other commenters, including the Planning Board, asked for clarification on the relationship between the 1998 Resolution and the Proposed Zoning. (Bradbury 017, Planning Board 018, Schlank 040) Bradbury 017 (#203): The May 26, 1988 Resolution does not necessarily determine the project’s “legal status” or that it is “zoning compliant” so those statements should be deleted. Planning Board 018 (#216): Explain the relationship between, or impact of, the 1998 Resolution of the Board of Trustees (DEIS, Appendix B-2) and the proposed Zoning Amendments and Concept Plan. Schlank 040 (#313): The 1998 Village of Rye Brook Resolution states that, "any modifications should continue to be governed by the PUD regulations in effect under the Town Code as of the date of the original Site Plan Approval, rather than the provisions currently governing a PUD under the Rye Brook Code." Response 27: Comment noted. The 1998 Resolution, included as Appendix B-2 of the DEIS, stated that, “The Site and all existing conditions, improvements, and information as shown on the current site plan are hereby deemed to have been developed and in accordance with the original site plan approval and the applicable regulations of the Town Code (the “Approved Site Plan”) and, accordingly, are legally conforming.” At the time of the approval of the PUD, of which 900 King Street is a part, all of the property was within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Rye and, accordingly, subject to the provisions of the Town of Rye Zoning Code. Subsequently, on July 7, 1982, the Village was incorporated. The land comprising the subject PUD, including 900 King Street, The Arbors, Harkness Park, and the Blind Brook schools were all within the municipal boundaries of the new Village. On July 24, 1984, the Board of Trustees adopted a Zoning Code for the Village. With respect to amendments to a PUD, the Town of Rye Zoning Code requires the consent of all of the owners within the PUD. The Village Zoning Code contains no such requirement. There are state statutes as well as case law that dictate what zoning code applies to 900 King Street. The first relevant state statute is Town Law § 132, which reads in full as follows: Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-21 7/2/202010/08/2020 “A rule, regulation, or ordinance of a town shall be effective and operative only in that portion of such town outside of any incorporated village or city therein, except as otherwise specifically provided by statute.” In other words, as soon as the Village was incorporated, the Village became a separate municipal entity and the Town’s Zoning Ordinance no longer governed the subject property, except temporarily as set forth below. In order to provide an opportunity for a newly incorporated Village to establish its own codes, including zoning, § 2-250 of the Village Law provides in relevant part as follows: “For a period of two years after the date of incorporation, all local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations, which otherwise would apply to and affect only such part of a town as is outside the limits of any incorporated village…including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, shall remain in effect in such village…as if same had been duly adopted by the board of trustees…” This statute further provides that the Board of Trustees may adopt legislation to take effect before the two years have expired. In other words, once a village is incorporated within a town, the town’s codes and ordinances remain in effect until superseded by Village legislation, or for a period of two years, whichever occurs first. Based upon the date of incorporation of the Village (July 7, 1982), and absent intervening legislation, the Zoning Code of the Town of Rye would have remained in effect until July 7, 1984, the expiration of the two year “grace period” established by Village Law § 2-250. The Village Zoning Code would thereafter have taken effect on July 24, 1984 when it was adopted by the Board of Trustees. Notwithstanding the 1998 Village Board Resolution, pursuant to the clear and unambiguous language of the foregoing state statutes, the Town of Rye Zoning Code has been of no force and effect whatsoever within the boundaries of the incorporated Village of Rye Brook since July 24, 1984. The consent provision of the Town of Rye Code is, therefore, not applicable to the current zoning petition. While the unambiguous language set forth in the Town of Rye Law and the Village Law described above makes it clear that the Town of Rye Zoning Code has no applicability within the Village, case law demonstrates that, even if it were to be applicable (which the Applicant does not in any way concede), the consent provision is violative of the Federal constitution and, therefore, invalid. In practical terms, if the Town of Rye Zoning Code provision regarding consent of the owners were applicable and enforceable, any single unit owner within The Arbors could prevent any proposed amendment whatsoever with respect to 900 King Street. Numerous cases provide that such a consent provision cannot stand because it is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power in violation of the 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-22 DRAFT 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Those cases include Eubank v. Richmond, 226 U.S. 137 (1912); Washington ex. rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116 (1928); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; Concordia Collegiate Institute v. Miller, 301 NY 189 (1950); Crossroads Realty, Inc. v. Gilbert, 109 NYS2d 59 (Supreme Court, Westchester County, 1951); In re N.Y., New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co., 198 NYS2d 353 (Supreme Court, Westchester County, 1960); and General Elec. Co. v. New York State Dep’t of Labor, 936 F. 2d 1448 (2d Circuit, 1991). The provisions of Town Law § 132 and Village Law § 2-250 are clear and unambiguous. When the Village was incorporated, all Town Ordinances, including the Zoning Ordinance, were rendered ineffective in the Village, except for the two-year grace period established by Village Law § 2-250. Accordingly, since July 24, 1984, when the Board of Trustees adopted a Zoning Code for the Village, the only relevant and effective zoning provisions governing any property within the Village were those contained in the Rye Brook Zoning Code. Even if the Town of Rye Zoning Code were somehow deemed to be applicable to 900 King Street, the cases listed above demonstrate that the unanimous consent provision is unconstitutional and unenforceable as an improper delegation of legislative powers. Comment 28: Several comments were received questioning the relationship between the original approval for the Project Site (e.g., the existing office building and parking lot) by the Town of Rye and the Proposed Zoning amendments and Concept Plan. (Planning Board 018, Schlank 040, Schlank 068) Planning Board 018 (#214): Explain the relationship, if any, between the property’s original PUD approval by the Town of Rye and the proposed Zoning amendments and Concept Plan. Schlank 040 (#308): The Applicant should not be permitted to avoid its obligations under the Town of Rye regulations by submitting proposed zoning amendments to the Village without the consent of the other owners in the PUD...Demolition of the office building would trigger a requirement to comply with the specifications of the Village zoning code. This does not mean the applicant can completely ignore the provisions of the original Town of Rye resolution. Schlank 040 (#311): Please include in the FEIS all known and relevant terms, conditions, provisions, benchmarks and precedents reflected in the Town’s PUD regulations and site- specific approvals. Schlank 040 (#312): All of the permitted 250 dwellings have already been built in the Arbors section of the PUD. So, under the Town’s ruling, the number of additional dwelling units that can be built now is zero. Why does the applicant think the addition of any dwelling units at all is consistent with the intent of the original PUD regulations? Schlank 040 (#316): Why does the Applicant believe that any expansion beyond the original footprint of the office building is consistent with the intent of the PUD regulations and precedents? Schlank 068 (#540): All but one of the alternatives presented in the DEIS involves construction of new housing facilities, and this is not permitted by the site-specific regulations that apply to 900 King Street. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-23 7/2/202010/08/2020 Schlank 068 (#541): It would be helpful for the applicant to get an independent opinion from an outside realtor about how other businesses might use the existing building. Schlank 068 (#544): The Town Code also established a process by which any modifications to the approved site plan for the 60-acre PUD must be signed by all the owners of property within this PUD zone. In effect, this resolution provides assurances to the property owners that no major changes will be made without our [Arbors’ property owners] consent. Schlank 041 (#571): Type 2 revisions would include assurances that the Village will also honor other rights and conditions specified in the original resolution for the Arbors/900 King Street PUD. Specifically, the revisions should clarify that the Village will enforce the following: (1) Please clarify that the Village will not approve any changes in land use from those originally approved by the Town of Rye without the consent of all the property owners in the PUD. For the Arbors/ 900 King Street PUD, this means the application must be filed jointly by the individual owners of the 250 private properties as well as the owner of the streets and common areas (the Arbors HOA). (2) Please clarify that the Village will not approve any changes in land use from those originally approved by the Town of Rye if the proposed changes would violate the 1973 restrictions with regard to the maximum number of residences within a PUD. For the Arbors/900 King Street PUD, the maximum has already been met (250 dwelling units and/or 450 bedrooms or sleeping quarters as defined therein). Response 28: See Response to Comment 27. Comment 29: A comment was received suggesting that open space required by the original approval by the Town of Rye to be permanently preserved should be preserved in the Proposed Project. (Schlank 041) Schlank 041 (#326): Please clarify that the Village will not approve any changes in land use that infringe on areas that are designated as “permanent” open space in the Town of Rye resolution. Response 29: The Village Administration is not aware of any easement or other covenant that restricts the use of any land on the Project Site for open space, other than the easement benefitting the BBRUFSD for the purpose of the pedestrian path on the Site’s eastern boundary, which will be improved with the Revised Proposed Project. (See Appendix B-3 in the DEIS for the Site’s current deed, covenants, and restrictions.) PROPOSED ZONING Comment 30: Comments were received questioning whether the Proposed Project, or a modification thereof, could be constructed without modifications to the existing zoning. (Planning Board 018, Snyder 045, Schlank 068) Planning Board 018 (#217): Consider whether the Project, or a modified version thereof, can be developed without amending the Zoning Code and instead relying on waivers by the Board of Trustees or variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Snyder 045 (#351): It is so out of scale, and the developer should be able to follow your text. There’s no absolute reason for them to have all these different uses. Schlank 068 (#542): The discussion of alternatives should be updated to take into account the provisions of those documents and to include additional realistic and practical alternatives that will not require zoning waivers or amendments. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-24 DRAFT Response 30: The PUD zoning district grants wide latitude to the Lead Agency to establish the project-specific densities and setbacks appropriate for development within the PUD district. Section 250-7(E)(3) of the Village Code states that, “The Village Board shall retain the jurisdiction to waive, in whole or in part, dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for flexibility of design in the site plan.” The section goes on to specifically indicate that the density requirements for residential uses, and by extension, senior living facilities, “may be waived, in whole or in part, to permit additional floor area…if the development provides affordable housing equivalent to 10 percent in number of the market-rate dwelling units in such development.” As such, the Lead Agency has the authority to approve the number of units proposed, as well as the GFA proposed, for the Revised Proposed Project without modifying the PUD as the Revised Proposed Project included a 10 percent affordable housing component. Similarly, the Lead Agency has the explicit authority to “reduce the buffer in specific areas.” (Section 250-7(E)(2)(e)[1][d]) Therefore, the Lead Agency can also approve, without modification to the existing zoning ordinance, the building and parking setbacks included in the Revised Proposed Project. Comment 31: The Village’s Planning Consultant request a comparison of the propose zoning with the current site zoning. (FP Clark 012) FP Clark 012 (#132): The current PUD regulations should be considered the starting point for the Applicant’s proposed zoning amendments and PUD Concept Plan. The proposed 26,000 square feet per acre gross floor area and the combined 10.4 dwelling units plus 4.8 assisted living units (total of 15.2 residential units per acre) should be reviewed against the current requirements of 9,000 square feet per acre and 6 residential units per acre, and other PUDs in Rye Brook, such as the Arbors (15,900 square feet per acre and 7 units per acre), Sun Homes at Reckson (12,000 square feet per acre and 3.5 units per acre), BelleFair (1.9 units per acre), Doral Green (7.9 units per acre). The proposed 45-foot building height and 4 story building should be compared to the current 35-foot building height for senior living facilities, and the proposed setbacks/buffers of 16 feet, 22 feet, and 70 feet should be compared to the current required buffers of 150 feet, 100 feet, and 50 feet. These comparisons should be clear when considering the new zoning and waivers requested for the Proposed Action. Response 31: As detailed in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” in response to public and Lead Agency comments, and to reduce the potential for adverse impacts, the Applicant has reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project from what was originally included in the DEIS. Specifically, the Applicant has reduced the size of the project by 89,098 gsf through reductions in the number of IL and townhouse units, reductions in the IL unit sizes and number of bedrooms, and reduction in the common and amenity spaces in the IL and AL building. The comparative density of the Revised Proposed Project and the PUD of which it is a part is described in detail in Response to Comment 20. The compliance of the Revised Proposed Project with the Revised Proposed Zoning is detailed in Section 2.3.3, “Zoning,” specifically Table 2.3-2. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-25 7/2/202010/08/2020 The proposed three- and four-story IL and AL building is setback further from Arbor Drive than the existing office building. The southernmost two-story townhouse is setback approximately 92 feet from the nearest PUD zoning boundary, while the Village’s current zoning requires a 100 foot setback (i.e., buffer) from a PUD zoning boundary. The proposed townhouse would be located behind existing vegetation to remain, as well as new vegetation that would be planted. Similarly, the proposed AL building would be approximately 84 feet from the Site’s eastern PUD boundary, across from which is located Village Hall. Finally, the northernmost townhouse and the northernmost wing of the IL building would be 30 and 83 feet from the Site’s northern PUD boundary. The Revised Proposed Project purposefully locates these buildings to the north to minimize visual impacts from Arbor Drive as the Site shares a northern boundary with the Hutchinson River Parkway. The Revised Proposed Zoning would allow these deviations from the standard PUD buffers by utilizing the Board of Trustee’s current power under the existing PUD zoning to set site-specific PUD buffer requirements. Comment 32: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested a comparison of proposed PUD standards with existing PUD standards. (FP Clark 012) FP Clark 012 (#133): Revision of the PUD regulations is recommended in the Rye Brook 2014 Comprehensive Plan, provided any changes made maintain “…Rye Brook’s low density character,” which consists of the number of dwelling units, the size and gross floor area of the units, and the type of buildings housing the units on a lot. Any revised PUD standards should not stand out from, but should maintain the low density character and complement the existing zoning and land uses in the neighborhoods surrounding the Site, which are predominately attached townhomes, local civic buildings (middle/high school, firehouse and village hall), and detached single family homes...Consideration of the buffer/setback requirements should be based, as a starting point, on the current PUD regulations because the Proposed Action is a completely new use and concept plan for the Site. The consideration by the Village Board of revisions to the current requirements should include a determination of the appropriate setbacks/buffers for the size and location of the proposed building allowable under the new zoning and its PUD Concept Plan regarding loading areas, roads, and parking areas, and the environmental constraints of the site, such as the presence of steep slopes and wetlands and wetland buffer areas. Response 32: As discussed in Section 2.3.4, “Public Policy,” and Section 2.8.3, “Consistency of the Revised Proposed Project with the Existing Visual and Community Character,” the Revised Proposed Project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendation to allow increased residential density at the Project Site in a manner that maintains the predominantly low-density character of the Village. As stated in Section 2.3.3, “Zoning,” specific buffers and setbacks proposed as part of the Revised Proposed Project are appropriate for the buildings and uses. Further, such buffers and setbacks support the ecological benefit of on- Site environmental resources when balanced with the need to avoid and minimize other potential adverse impacts (e.g., visual impacts). See Response to Comment 20. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-26 DRAFT Comment 33: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The setbacks of the proposed PUD Concept Plan do not conform with the proposed zoning, which would require the Board to waive certain of the proposed zoning setbacks. The Applicant should explain these differences.” (FP Clark 012, Timpone-Mohamed 043) FP Clark 012 (#134): The setbacks of the proposed PUD Concept Plan are less restrictive than the proposed zoning, which would require the Village Board to waive certain of the setbacks in the zoning proposed by the Applicant. The Applicant should explain the need for the differences. Timpone-Mohamed 043 (#335): We had a question about the difference between the zoning petitions requirements for setbacks in particular, and the setbacks that are part of the PUD concept plan. Since this is a zoning that is directly related to the concept plan, it is unclear why they don’t match. Right now, the PUD plan that’s in the DEIS actually doesn’t comply with the zoning that they’re asking for. It wouldn’t comply; it would need a waiver. Response 33: The Proposed Action has been modified such that the Revised Proposed Project complies with the setbacks in the Revised Proposed Zoning. See also Section 2.3.3, “Zoning.” Comment 34: The Village’s Planning Board questioned how the 40 percent gross land coverage included in the Proposed Zoning compares with gross land coverage in other existing PUDs and why 40 percent was chosen for the Proposed Zoning? (Planning Board 018) Planning Board 018 (#222): How does 40% gross land coverage compare with gross land coverage in other existing PUDs? How was the 40% figure arrived at? Response 34: The current PUD zoning regulations do not contain a maximum gross land coverage (e.g., maximum impervious cover). As with the original zoning, the Revised Proposed Zoning includes a 40 percent maximum land coverage, which is less than the existing condition on-Site (42 percent) and only slightly more than is proposed with the Revised Proposed Project. As noted in the DEIS, the building coverage of the original project as a percent of the total lot size would be less than Doral Greens, similar to that of The Arbors and the Hilton Westchester, and slightly higher than 800 Westchester Avenue and the Doral Arrowwood Conference Center. With the Revised Proposed Project, the Site’s building coverage as a percentage of lot area would continue to be less than the Doral Greens and would be slightly higher than The Arbors. The Site’s total land coverage as a percent of lot area with the Revised Proposed Project would be similar to The Arbors and continue to be less than Doral Greens. In addition, both the original project and the Revised Proposed Project, would reduce the Site’s gross land coverage from the existing Site condition. Table 3.3-2 provides a comparison of parcel size, building coverage, and gross land coverage for other properties within the Village. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-27 7/2/202010/08/2020 Table 3.3-2 Parcel Coverage Comparison Site Parcel Size (ac) Building Coverage (ac) Roads, Drives, Parking (ac) Total Site Coverag e (ac) Percent Building Coverage Percent Other Coverage Percent Total Coverage Existing Condition 17.77 2.17 5.29 7.46 12.22% 29.77% 41.99% Original Project 17.77 3.14 3.91 7.05 17.67% 22.00% 39.67% Revised Proposed Project 17.77 2.93 3.83 6.76 16.49% 21.55% 38.04% The Arbors 35.29 5.58 6.26 11.83 15.80% 17.73% 33.53% The Arbors (w/o Arbor Drive) 33.49 5.58 5.26 10.83 16.65% 15.70% 32.34% 800 Westchester Ave 44.94 5.46 6.30 11.76 12.15% 14.02% 26.17% Hilton Westchester 35.52 3.80 7.10 10.89 10.69% 19.97% 30.67% Doral Arrowwood Conference Center 105.93 10.67 13.51 24.18 10.07% 12.76% 22.83% Doral Green 23.13 5.63 4.73 10.36 24.37% 20.47% 44.84% Notes: *includes area of pervious pavers Sources: Westchester County GIS & 900 King Site Survey and Proposed Project (originally included as Table 8-2 in the DEIS) Comment 35: The Planning Board stated that, “The AL units should be considered ‘dwelling units’ for the purposes of calculating the number of units of affordable housing that are required for the Project. The Applicant should consider providing additional affordable housing units beyond what is currently proposed.” (Planning Board 018, Tazbin 071) Planning Board 018 (#230): The assisted living units should be considered “dwelling units” for the purposes of calculating the number of units of affordable housing that are required for the project. The Applicant should consider providing additional affordable housing units beyond what is currently proposed. Tazbin 071 (#565): What about affordable housing units? I know there a lot of units going up like this around the county and I’ve heard that other units have affordable housing units. Would this have any? Response 35: The requirement for providing affordable housing (AFFH) units is set forth in Section 209-3F of the Village Code. That section states in part that affordable units “…shall be provided as set forth in the table below when the new construction of a minimum of 11 dwelling units is proposed in a site development plan application.” (emphasis added) The table referred to above bases the number of required AFFH units on the “Number of Proposed Dwelling Units” (emphasis added). According to the chart, a project comprising 41 to 50 dwelling units requires four AFFH units. For projects over 50 dwelling units, the chart provides “1 additional AFFH Unit shall be required for each additional increment of 10 dwelling units or part thereof.” (emphasis added) The Zoning Code defines a “dwelling unit” as follows: “A building, or portion thereof, providing complete housekeeping facilities for one family.” 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-28 DRAFT Inasmuch as the assisted living units do not contain kitchens, they do not provide “complete housekeeping facilities” and, therefore, they are not dwelling units as defined in the Village Code. Accordingly, they cannot be considered in the calculation of the number of required AFFH units. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Comment 36: Comments were received requesting clarity on the Proposed Project’s consistency with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. (FP Clark 012, Marrow 024, Timpone- Mohamed 043, Rosenberg 063, Heiser 065, Klein 070) FP Clark 012 (#136): The proposed amendments in the Applicant’s zoning petition and the accompanying proposed PUD Concept Plan would develop a high density, largescale multi-family building on a relatively small site that is not consistent with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan in our opinion. The Applicant should re- consider the zoning petition to reduce the allowable building bulk, the number of units per acre and the gross floor area per acre to be more compatible with existing zoning adjacent to and surrounding the Site. Marrow 024 (#251): The Comprehensive Plan is a roadmap for the future...it gives the Village options. The Comprehensive Plan talks about the Site at 900 King Street and preserving the low density character of the Site. Timpone-Mohamed 043 (#334): I think one of the biggest issues is the requirement in the Comprehensive Plan that any changes made would maintain Rye Brook’s low density character. It is clear that the number of units and the GFA that’s being proposed isn’t in that category of low density. Rosenberg 063 (#524): The building is too big, too bulky. The scale and massing of the proposed building needs to be further reduced in what is presented in the FEIS. Heiser 065 (#527): I think the buildings are too big and I think you are talking about too many people. Klein 070 (#558): I really would like to see a reduction in size and density Response 36: Based on comments from the Lead Agency and the public regarding the impacts of the original project on community character, the Applicant has reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project by 89,098 gsf—a 20 percent reduction in gross floor area. As described in Section 2.3.2, “Proposed Density,” the Comprehensive Plan encourages increased density for new residential development within PUDs and suggests such density should not alter the Village’s overall low-density character. With regard to allowable density for new residential developments within PUD districts, the Comprehensive Plan prioritizes preservation of the Village’s low- density residential character. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically opine or ascribe a density limit or cap for new PUD district residential development, which would be antithetical to the explicit recommendation to allow increased density in the PUD zones. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan, the Village is developed with a wide variety of residential densities. In general, the Comprehensive Plan recognized the Village’s single-family zoning districts (e.g., R-5 to R-25) as “low density,” allowing up to one unit per 5,000 sf of lot area. Low- to medium-density is recognized as generally occurring within the Village’s two-family zoning districts (e.g., R-2F), which allow two units per 5,000 sf of lot Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-29 7/2/202010/08/2020 area. Finally, the medium- to high-density residential areas are defined as attached housing, regardless of the number of units per lot area. Explicitly included in this definition of high-density housing are Doral Greens, The Arbors, and Talcott Woods. The Revised Proposed Project proposes 156 dwelling units, a density of 8.8 dwelling units per acre, or 1.01 dwelling units per 5,000 sf. If AL units, which are not dwelling units, are included in calculation, total units per acre would be 13.51, or 1.55 units per 5,000 sf. Using the Comprehensive Plan’s measure of density, the Revised Proposed Project would be classified as “low- to medium-density.” Using the Comprehensive Plan’s consideration of housing type, regardless of the number of units, though the Revised Proposed Project would be considered medium- to high-density housing, similar to The Arbors and Doral Greens. It is important to note that, as described in the Response to Comment 20, age- restricted housing and assisted living uses have different impacts on a per unit basis than market-rate residential uses. For example, when compared to market- rate housing, on a per unit basis, age-restricted housing generates fewer traffic trips, places less (or no) burden on the school district, and places less burden on the community’s parks and open space and most other community facilities. The two uses have similar impacts on a per unit basis with respect to water and sewer usage. Age-restricted housing tends to place a larger burden on EMS services than market-rate housing. As such, regulating age-restricted housing at the same per unit density as market-rate housing does not appropriately take into account the differences in impacts (i.e., beneficial and adverse) of the various uses. Comment 37: A comment was received suggesting that the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendation for allowing four-story AL facilities was likely targeted to the proposal at the Hilton Rye Brook Site and that it was not aimed at the Project Site. (Schlank 040) Schlank 040 (#318): At the time the Plan was written, the Hilton Westchester had proposed developing a 100-unit assisted-living buildings and a memory-care facility with 25 units. This is likely the site the Plan had in mind when it suggested that the Village might consider allowing assisted-living or senior care facilities to be four stories or 45 feet in height. The 2014 plan offers suggestions that relate to keeping the office buildings and making it more marketable. The Plan does not mandate (or even suggest) the kind of radical redevelopment of the portion of the PUD that is discussed in the DEIS…the plan suggests that, “the Village clearly desires to carefully control the type of largescale development that is contemplated by the PUD zone.” Response 37: The Rye Brook Comprehensive Plan recommends allowing AL and senior congregate housing to be four stories or 45 feet in height in the PUD District to address nonconformity issues (pg. 196 of Comprehensive Plan). 3.4. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY Comment 38: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested an analysis demonstrating site changes necessary to support the proposed development and amendments to the 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-30 DRAFT site plan to reduce tree removal and grading impacts. (Straubinger 003, Levy 004, Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Snyder 045) Straubinger 003 (#13): Increased analysis of alternatives to the Project that will incorporate less – bulk, density, and scale: impact on ground disturbance and wetlands and impact on vegetation. Levy 004 (#21): There appears to be a lot of impervious surface Snyder 007 (#26): The applicant’s proposal will impact 74% of the property, thereby effectively changing substantially all of the property. Snyder 007 (#39): Applicant should state exactly how many acres are being disturbed (regardless of whether the area was previously disturbed or not); which existing vegetated areas and the size of those areas are being disturbed with a plan showing same. Snyder 007 (#40): A Chart should be provided to show the difference between the {the physical impacts of the} proposed zoning, existing zoning, and existing conditions, so that they can more easily be compared. Snyder 007 (#61): The DEIS should analyze reducing the project’s scope to i) avoid erosion, ii) avoid blasting, iii) avoid cut/fill, iv) keep all buffers intact, and v) eliminate steep slope disturbance. Snyder 007 (#63): The reduction in impervious surfaces is a mere 0.41 acres…the project is affecting the wooded areas by twice that. Alternatives should be considered which do not affect the wooded areas and do not require impacting 74% of the Property. FP Clark 012 (#138): However, the cut and fill and grading required to achieve the proposal results in 13.17 acres of disturbance, the creation of 0.72 additional acres of steep slopes and the removal of 213 trees on the Site. The Applicant should explain the specific aspects of the existing site that prevent it from properly functioning as an age-restricted community. The PUD Concept Plan should be reconsidered by the Applicant to reduce disturbance to the Site. Snyder 045 (#349): They are affecting over 13.17 acres of the 17-acre property. They like to say that they are reducing impervious surfaces, but it’s by like 0.4 of an acre, and they are affecting 13 of their acres, and affecting, really, the entire site in multiple ways. Snyder 045 (#350): Project will have significant adverse environmental impact, which includes significant adverse impacts to wetlands, steep slopes, existing vegetation, aesthetics, community character, as well as affecting the community in real ways, such as having adverse noise, contaminants in the air, for a significant period of time. Response 38: In response to comments received, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the gross floor area of the original project by 89,908 gsf and reduces the area of the Site proposed to be disturbed by construction from 13.17 acres with the original project to 12.54 acres with the Revised Proposed Project. The area proposed to be disturbed is shown on Figure 2-1 and within the full size engineering plans, sheets C-110, “Demolition,” C-200, “Erosion & Sediment Control Plan,” and C- 400, “Grading” (see Volume 4). The Applicant also notes that with construction of the Revised Proposed Project, the amount of impervious area on the Project Site would be reduced from its current condition by 0.7 acres. As described in Section 2.4.1, “Soils,” the Revised Proposed Project was designed to create a relatively level Site. Age-restricted residential communities seek to provide pedestrian paths and sidewalks with minimal slope so residents can easily walk throughout the Site. However, reducing the number of townhouse units and reconfiguring the layout of that portion of the Site allowed for the townhouses to be located at a slightly higher elevation than the original project, reducing the amount of “lowering” or “cut” required. As with the original project, the Revised Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-31 7/2/202010/08/2020 Proposed Project includes “raising” the elevation of the eastern side of the Site to level the terrain. The proposed grading also allows for underground parking, which in addition to reducing the adverse visual impact of expansive surface parking lot, reduces the amount of impervious cover on the Site concomitant potential for adverse stormwater impacts. As stated in Section 2.4.2, “Topography,” the Revised Proposed Project would create new areas of steep slope on the Project Site, most notably in areas around the access ramp to the underground parking area (see Figure 2-2 and Table 2.4-4). These areas of steep slope are necessary to allow for a grading plan that accommodates the underground parking, the need for a relatively flat pedestrian experience outside of the buildings, and the need to meet the existing grades on Arbor Drive at the driveway connections. Another small area of moderately steep slope would be created within the landscaped area between the two driveways on Arbor Drive. This area would provide visual screening of the buildings and Site from Arbor Drive. With respect to the proposed removal of trees, as stated in Section 2.7.4, “Trees,” the number of trees proposed to be removed has been reduced from 213 with the original project to 134 with the Revised Proposed Project. As was the case with the original project, the majority of the trees proposed to be removed with the Revised Proposed Project are less than 25 inches diameter breast height (dbh). Only 8 trees proposed for removal have a dbh of 25 inches or greater. As shown on sheet C-130 of the full size plans in Volume 4, most of the trees proposed for removal are in two areas: (1) the emergency access drive, and (2) north and east of the existing stormwater basin. With respect to the trees proposed to be removed in the northeast of the Site, the removal is required to allow for a secondary means of accessing the Project Site. The tree removal proposed around the existing stormwater basin is required to accommodate the expansion of the stormwater basin as a result of the modern stormwater system that is being installed as part of the Revised Proposed Project. The overwhelming majority of the area within the proposed Limit of Disturbance (LOD) for the Revised Proposed Project is within areas disturbed by the immediately preceding Site development (e.g., construction of the existing office building and parking lot). Any disturbance outside the existing building and parking lot footprint was likely disturbed by the prior development on the Site (e.g., the residential use). By concentrating development activities in areas previously disturbed by construction, the Revised Proposed Project avoids and minimizes impacts to mature vegetation, native soils, and native topography to the maximum extent practicable. For example, the soils proposed to be disturbed are classified as “Urban Fill.” This classification is the consequence of prior disturbance through mass grading and building construction. The majority of proposed steep slopes disturbance occurs on human-made steep slopes, including those around the existing stormwater basin on the Site’s eastern edge and the 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-32 DRAFT vegetated slope towards the Site’s western edge. (See Appendix B for site plans depicting the condition of the Site prior to development of the current office building as well as the changes in topography proposed by construction of the office building.) Table 17-1 in the DEIS provides a direct comparison between the area proposed to be disturbed for each of the alternatives studied and the original project. The potential impacts of the Revised Proposed Project on natural resources are described in Section 2.7, “Vegetation and Wildlife.” As described in Sections 2.6, “Stormwater,” and Section 2.16, “Construction,” the Revised Proposed Project would implement a Village- and State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) to avoid and mitigate the potential for significant adverse impacts from erosion during construction. Comment 39: Comments were received opining that the cut-and-fill required for the Proposed Project is “enormous” and that alternatives to the underground parking or elimination of the IL building should be considered in order that the impacts from the cut-and-fill be reduced. (Snyder 007) Snyder 007 (#52): The cut and fill is an enormous volume of material. The Applicant should be sure that no blasting will be required, rather than just claim it is not anticipated. Additionally the impacts {of the cut/fill/grading} on the neighborhood in terms of noise, dust, vermin, vibration, and other adverse impacts should be more adequately analyzed. Snyder 007 (#60): The DEIS should provide alternatives to the underground parking and as a proper mitigation measure, eliminate the independent living component from the project. Response 39: As noted in Section 2.4.1, “Soils,” the Revised Proposed Project reduces the excavation, or cut, required as well as the fill required within the Site. As shown in Table 3.4-1, the Revised Proposed Project also reduces the net cut-and-fill compared to the original project, which further mitigates potential adverse impacts related to on-Site construction activities and off-Site trucking of earthen material. Table 3.4-1 Cut-and-Fill Analysis Total Cut (cubic yards) Total Fill (cubic yards) Net Cut-and-Fill (cubic yards) Original Project ±42,600 ±51,600 ±9,000 net import Revised Proposed Project ±38,158 ±36,686 ±1,472 net export Source: JMC Engineering. The potential impacts associated with the cut-and-fill proposed are evaluated in the DEIS and this FEIS, specifically in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management,” Section 2.7, “Vegetation and Wildlife,” and Section 2.16, “Construction.” Comment 40: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The DEIS states that areas of steep slopes along the northern, western, and southeastern portion of the Project Site have been avoided. However, based on Figure 4-5, the slopes along the Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-33 7/2/202010/08/2020 northern and western portions of the Site have been disturbed and in some cases result in additional steep slopes. The Applicant should explain specifically how the areas have been avoided. Based on review of the PUD Concept Plan the areas have not been avoided. The only way to completely avoid these areas would be for the PUD Concept Plan to be reconsidered by the Applicant to reduce disturbance to the Site.” (FP Clark 012) FP Clark 012 (#139): The [DEIS] states that areas of steep slopes along the northern, western, and southeastern portion of the Project Site have been avoided. However, based on Figure 4-5 “Proposed Steep Slope Condition,” the slopes along the northern and western portions of the site have been disturbed and in some cases result in additional steep slopes. The Applicant should explain specifically how the areas have been avoided. Based on review of the PUD Concept Plan the areas have not been avoided. The only way to completely avoid these areas would be for the PUD Concept Plan to be reconsidered by the Applicant to reduce disturbance to the Site. Response 40: As shown in Table 2.4-3, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the impact to the existing steep slopes on the Project Site from the original project. Specifically, and as shown in Figure 2-2, the Revised Proposed Project avoids the existing area of steep slopes in the northern portion of the Site adjacent to the Hutchinson River Parkway right-of-way. Similarly, the Revised Proposed Project does not disturb the areas of steep slopes in the western portion of the Site, between the existing office building and the Arbors, which are primarily located within the wetland buffer for Wetland A. Finally, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the area of the Site proposed to be impacted by construction from 13.21 with the original project acres to 12.54 acres with the Revised Proposed Project. Comment 41: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The DEIS then concludes that there is a possibility of a perched water flowing beneath the asphalt into OW-2, one of the temporary observation wells installed during the preliminary geotechnical investigation. The Applicant should explain how this conclusion was made. If there is perched water beneath the Site, why were extra monitoring wells not installed to explore the extent of the perched water. The Applicant should explain why the two locations for the groundwater observation wells were chosen and why other locations on the Site were excluded from groundwater observation.” (FP Clark 012) FP Clark 012 (#137): The DEIS then concludes that there is a possibility of a perched water flowing beneath the asphalt into OW-2. The Applicant should explain how this conclusion was made. If there is perched water beneath the site, why were extra monitoring wells not installed to explore the extent of the perched water? The Applicant should explain why the two locations for the groundwater observation wells were chosen and why other locations on the site were excluded from groundwater observation. Response 41: AKRF’s preliminary geotechnical engineering report for the Project Site was prepared in 2017 (see DEIS Appendix I). As part of this exploration, two wells (OW-1 and OW-2) were installed near the eastern and northwestern areas of the Site where proposed buildings were to be sited. The locations of the wells were intended for geotechnical engineering purposes in developing design and 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-34 DRAFT construction recommendations for the proposed foundations. Section 6.7.3 of the DEIS indicated that due to the difference in groundwater levels (6 feet in OW-1 and 2 feet in OW-2), localized areas of perched water may be present at the Project Site. No definitive conclusion was stated that the water was perched. The section also indicated that additional efforts were to be taken to confirm the depth to groundwater. Additional testing was performed by AKRF in January of 2018 to further investigate the possibility of perched groundwater. An additional observation well was drilled and installed approximately 10 feet southwest of OW-2 and the depth to groundwater in wells OW-1, OW-2 and OW-2X were measured at 3.73 feet below grade, 1.14 feet below grade, and 0.98 feet below grade. These results indicate the presence of high groundwater, not perched groundwater. The observed groundwater condition is very consistent with the area where low permeability, heterogeneous dense glacial till overlying a shallow bedrock results in a variable shallow groundwater condition. 3.5. WATERS AND WETLANDS Comment 42: The Village’s Planning Consultant recommends that the Applicant re-consider the zoning proposed and the PUD Concept Plan to reduce or eliminate disturbance of wetlands buffers on the property so the PUD Concept Plan complies with the requirements of Chapter 245 of the Village Code, which recommends avoidance of impacts. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Timpone-Mohamed 043) Snyder 007 (#62): The project has significant grading requirements and would reduce the drainage area to at least one of the wetlands by at least 1 acre, and impact 2.79 acres of wetlands through regrading, new construction, and new plantings. Project alternatives should be considered whereby these impacts [waters and wetlands] are eliminated since wetlands have important function in the environment. FP Clark 012 (#141): Before mitigation is considered by the wetland regulations, Chapter 245 encourages the conservation of wetland buffers and recommends re-design of impactful projects to eliminate or reduce impacts. We recommend that the Applicant re- consider the zoning proposed and the PUD Concept Plan to reduce or eliminate disturbance of wetlands buffers on the property so the PUD Concept Plan complies with the requirements of Chapter 245. Timpone-Mohamed 043 (#336): Right now the application -- the PUD concept plan that is being provided actually does not comply with the requirements of the wetlands law. That will have to be resolved in the FEIS. Response 42: In response to public comments and to reduce potential impacts to wetland buffers as well as to mitigate the overall impact of the Revised Proposed Project, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the total amount of construction required within 100 feet of on-Site wetlands to 2.25 acres—a reduction of 0.33 acres (13 percent) from the original project (see Section 2.5.2, “Direct Impacts to Wetland and Waterbody Buffer Areas”). Further, the Revised Proposed Project reduces the total amount of additional impervious area proposed to be created within 100 feet of on-Site wetlands to 0.163 acres—a reduction of 0.013 acres (7.4 percent) from the original project (see Table 3.5-1). The increase in impervious area within 100 feet of on-Site wetlands would be approximately 7,100 square feet with the Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-35 7/2/202010/08/2020 Revised Proposed Project. As discussed in Section 2.6, “Stormwater,” the amount of impervious area within the Project Site would be reduced by 0.7 acres from the current condition with the Revised Proposed Project. Table 3.5-1 Cumulative Changes to Wetland Buffers by Wetland Area Existing Buffer Area (acres) Existing On-Site Impervious Coverage in Buffer (acres)1 Proposed Impervious in Buffer (acres) Net Increase/Decrease in Impervious in Buffer (acres) Original Project Revised Proposed Project Original Project Revised Proposed Project Wetland A/ Stream A 2.363 0.025 0.005 0.000 -0.020 -0.025 Wetland B/C 0.893 0.098 0.370 0.366 0.272 0.268 Wetland D/ Stream S 1.444 0.630 0.473 0.469 -0.157 -0.161 Wetland E2 0.248 0.000 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 Total 4.948 0.753 0.929 0.916 0.176 0.163 Note: 1 There is additional impervious area within the 100-foot buffer that is located on-Site but outside of the proposed Limit of Disturbance as well as additional impervious area on adjacent parcels. 2 The FEIS considers the grasscrete emergency access drive to be impervious, while the DEIS considered this area to be permeable. Source: JMC Engineering As noted above, approximately 0.753 acres of land within 100 feet of the on-Site wetlands and the proposed limit of disturbance is currently impervious (e.g., building or parking area). These areas currently provide no beneficial wetland buffer function. As shown in Figure 2-3, with the Revised Proposed Project, approximately 0.56 acres of vegetated functional wetland buffer would be converted to impervious surface (adjacent to Wetlands B/C, E, and Stream S); however, approximately 0.40 acres of currently impervious wetland buffer (adjacent to Wetlands A and D) would be restored to a vegetated condition. Approximately 0.35 acres of wetland buffer that is currently impervious will remain impervious. The remaining 0.94 acres of wetland buffer that would be affected by construction of the Revised Proposed Project would consist of regrading and revegetating areas that are currently maintained lawn or wooded areas, most of which have been previously disturbed by previous on-Site development (see Figure 2-3). By locating development within the central, previously disturbed and developed portion of the Project Site, the total amount of impervious area within the Site’s wetland buffers would increase by approximately 7,100 sf with the Revised Proposed Project from its current condition. Also as noted in Section 2.5.2, “Direct Impacts to Wetland and Waterbody Buffer Areas,” the Revised Proposed Project would not adversely impact the ecological functions of the Site’s wetland buffers. Both Wetlands A and D would realize a net decrease in the amount of impervious surface within their 100-foot Village- regulated wetland buffers as compared to the current condition. Wetland A would 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-36 DRAFT have a 0.025-acre reduction of impervious surface within its wetland buffer as a result of removing the existing building and Wetland D would have a 0.163 acre reduction of impervious surface within its buffer as a result of removing the existing parking lot. These actions will allow for additional infiltration of runoff in the buffers. Buffers surrounding Wetlands B, C, and E would have slight increases in impervious areas with the Revised Proposed Project as compared with the existing condition. It is important to note, however, that Wetlands B, C, and E are of low ecological value, deriving their hydrology from the discharge of drainage from the Parkway or other off-Site practices and that the wetland buffers are dominated by invasive species or manicured lawn and are heavily disturbed by development. As such, in their current condition, they provide little in the way of functional benefit to their associated wetlands. Section 245-8(A) of the Village Code states that the following factors, highlighted below should be considered, to determine “the impact of the proposed activity upon public health, safety and welfare, flora and fauna, rare and endangered species, water quality, and additional wetland functions.”  Wetland hydrology: The Revised Proposed Project would avoid interference with existing wetland hydrology and wetland water circulation. The Site’s five wetlands occur around the periphery of the Project Site; therefore, and as described in more detail above, redevelopment of the interior of the Project Site would not substantially change wetland water circulation or hydrologic inputs to the Site’s wetlands.  Wetland flora and fauna: By avoiding direct disturbance to all wetlands, impacts to wetland flora and fauna are avoided. The Revised Proposed Project would limit disturbance to natural vegetation by keeping development within the previously developed portions of the Site with the exception of minimal tree clearing for the loop road and emergency access drive. All landscape plantings will be native species and will include revegetation (i.e., enhancement) of portions of the existing lawn within the wetland buffers, thereby improving the habitat functions of the existing wetland buffers.  Endangered species: There are no New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)-listed or federally listed threatened, endangered, rare, or special concern plant or animal species on the Project Site, as discussed in Section 2.7, “Vegetation and Wildlife.”  Public health, safety, and welfare: Wetland functions would be retained on the Project Site for the benefit of public health, safety, and welfare. This would be achieved principally by reducing overall impervious surface coverage on-Site by 0.7 acres and increasing the treatment of stormwater runoff.  Sedimentation and turbidity: The Revised Proposed Project would prevent the influx of sediments and other pollutants to the Site’s wetlands and waters by treating runoff from the Revised Proposed Project in a new stormwater management system that would improve treatment and result in reduced post- Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-37 7/2/202010/08/2020 construction runoff rates, in accordance with NYSDEC GP-0-15-002, as discussed in Section 2.6, “Stormwater Management.”  Influx of toxic chemicals or thermal changes: The Revised Proposed Project would avoid the release of toxic or heavy metals through the construction of the proposed stormwater management system. The stormwater management system would remove such pollutants through sediment settling and absorption/adsorption. Thermal changes to wetland water supply would be avoided by reducing the amount of impervious surface on the overall Site by 0.7 acres, which would increase stormwater infiltration and minimize the potential for thermal impacts. In addition, the stormwater management plan will utilize sub-surface runoff storage that would similarly avoid the thermal impacts associated with surface detention ponds.  Cumulative effects: The cumulative effects of the Revised Proposed Project would not affect or jeopardize off-Site/downstream wetlands because the Revised Proposed Project’s stormwater management plan and landscaping plan would prevent degradation of stormwater runoff and would use native plants to improve vegetation diversity on the Project Site. As noted by the Village’s Planning Consultant, Chapter 245 of the Village Code recommends that projects be located and designed to minimize impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers. The consistency of the Revised Proposed Project with that standard is discussed below.  Wetland Buffer A—The area proposed to be disturbed within Wetland Buffer A consists of manicured lawn, which provides relatively low levels of wetland buffer functionality, as well as impervious surface in the form of a portion of the existing building, which provides no beneficial wetland buffer function. The Revised Proposed Project would remove the existing portion of the building within the wetland buffer and replace it with porous surface (e.g., lawn), which would improve the buffer function from its current condition. The remainder of the disturbance proposed within this wetland buffer area would consist of regrading existing areas of manicured lawn, which would be returned to the same condition. As such, there would be no change to the existing wetland buffer function in this area. Importantly, the Revised Proposed Project avoids disturbing the wooded area of the wetland buffer, which currently provides the highest level of ecological value to the wetlands within the Project Site.  Wetland Buffers B and C—Wetlands B and C are located primarily off-Site, within the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)-owned right-of-way for the Parkway. The on-Site area within 100-feet of the wetlands is characterized primarily by manicured lawn, which provides relatively low levels of wetland buffer functionality, an asphalt parking lot, which provides no beneficial wetland buffer function, and, in the northeastern most corner of the buffer, an area of shrubs and trees. The Revised Proposed Project would limit disturbance primarily to the area of the buffer that is manicured lawn or existing parking lot. Approximately ten trees within the wetland buffer would be removed. Overall, the amount of impervious area within 100 feet of Wetlands B and C after construction of the Revised 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-38 DRAFT Proposed Project would increase by approximately 0.268 acres, or 11,674 sf from the current condition. The Applicant and the Lead Agency considered an alternate placement of the proposed IL and AL building that would “slide” the building and access drive to the south, toward Arbor Drive. With this alternative configuration, the amount of new construction and grading within the buffer to Wetlands B and C would be less than the Revised Proposed Project. Given the comparatively low ecological value of Wetlands B and C (see the Wetland Functional Analysis included as DEIS Appendix D-5), as well as the relatively low functionality of their wetland buffers, and the relative importance of reducing the visual impacts of the Revised Proposed Project from Arbor Drive, the layout of the Revised Proposed Project (with the buildings further north) balances the need to reduce visual impacts and reduce adverse impacts to wetland buffers.  Wetland Buffer E—As with the original project, the disturbance to Wetland Buffer E with the Revised Proposed Project is solely attributable to the construction of the secondary, emergency Site access. As described in the DEIS, the Applicant evaluated the potential for the emergency access drive to be located in a different location that would have fewer impacts to Wetland Buffer E (see DEIS Figure 10-2). This alternative location, however, would have required a steeper driveway connection and the turning movements into and out of the Site from this driveway would be more constrained than in the proposed location. For these reasons, and after conversations with Village staff, the Lead Agency decided, and the Applicant agreed, to advance the proposed emergency access location.  Wetland/Stream Buffer D/S—Wetland D is a human-made settling basin that was created to serve as the stormwater detention basin for the existing 900 King Street improvements, as well as several off-Site locations (e.g., Village Hall and RBFD firehouse). Off-site areas within 100-feet of the stormwater basin include a portion of Village Hall and the Rye Brook Police Department (RBPD) station, the parking lot for the police station, and a portion of the building associated with the cell tower on Village property. On-Site, approximately 0.630 acres of the buffer around Wetland D and Stream S— the stream that drains the stormwater basin—is improved with the existing parking lot for 900 King Street. This area provides no beneficial wetland buffer function. Other portions of the wetland/stream buffer include areas of maintained lawn and areas of woody vegetation. In order to comply with current stormwater regulations, redevelopment of the Project Site requires the expansion of the existing stormwater basin. (This is true even though the Revised Proposed Project is reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on the Project Site from the current condition.) As such, impacts to the wetland buffer associated with this expansion are not avoidable. In addition, the stormwater basin and its surrounding area is in relatively poor ecological health; it is dominated with invasive species. Therefore, it is necessary to impact the area around the stormwater basin to improve the current functionality of both the basin and the buffer. In addition, the area of the Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-39 7/2/202010/08/2020 wetland buffer currently improved with a parking lot will be removed with the Revised Proposed Project. Replacing this area would be various permeable surfaces (e.g., lawn) and a small portion of the access road as well as a small portion of the IL building. In total, the Revised Proposed Project will modify 1.29 acres within 100 feet of Wetland D/Stream S. The overall amount of impervious area within this wetland buffer will be reduced by 0.163 acres compared to the existing condition. Finally, as described in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” the Revised Proposed Project was reduced by 89,098 gsf from the original project, thereby reducing the overall width of the IL building. This reduction in width allowed the IL and AL building to either be set back further from The Arbors or set back further from the existing stormwater basin. Given the relative importance of reducing the visual impacts of the Revised Proposed Project from The Arbors, and the fact that the Revised Proposed Project is already reducing the amount of impervious area adjacent to the stormwater basin, the layout of the Revised Proposed Project (with the buildings further east) appropriately balances the need to reduce visual impacts and reduce adverse impacts to wetland buffers. Comment 43: The Village’s Planning Consultant and Planning Board, along with members of the public, opined that any change to the existing condition of the site within 100 feet of a delineated wetland should be considered “disturbance” and would require mitigation at at least a 2:1 ratio pursuant to Chapter 245 of the Village Code. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Timpone-Mohamed 043) Snyder 007 (#51): The DEIS must provide specific measures to appropriately mitigate that impact {to wetland buffers}. A plan [alternative] should also be prepared that has no wetland or steep slope disturbances. FP Clark 012 (#140): Based on the currently proposed PUD Concept Plan, the Proposed Action would require 5.58 acres of buffer and/or wetland mitigation for the 2.79-acre disturbance. The DEIS indicates that the current plan would provide only 1 acre of mitigation, which is inconsistent with the requirements of Chapter 245. The Applicant should provide the required area of mitigation. Planning Board 018 (#240): The Planning Board recommends requiring compliance with the current requirements of Chapter 245 of the Village Code and upholding its historic interpretation and application of Chapter 245 to require all activities in the regulated wetland buffer to be mitigated, regardless of whether the surface of the land is currently pervious or impervious. Response 43: As described in Section 2.5.4, “Wetland Buffer Mitigation,” the Applicant has identified on- and off-Site wetland buffer mitigation areas that would satisfy the Planning Board’s historical interpretation of the mitigation required pursuant to the Village’s Wetland Ordinance. On-Site, wetland buffer mitigation would be incorporated into the overall Landscape Plan for the Revised Proposed Project. The specific wetland buffer planting plan would be finalized during the site plan approval process. The plan would include a mixture of the following: replanting select areas within wetland buffers that would be re-graded with a diverse mix of woody and herbaceous hydrophytic (i.e., wetland) vegetation; selectively planting areas within the wetland buffer that would not be disturbed by the Revised 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-40 DRAFT Proposed Project with native plants to increase floristic diversity and wetland functions; and, removal of invasive species within select areas of the on-Site wetland buffers. Areas of conceptual wetland buffer mitigation on-Site totaling approximately 2.4 acres are identified in Figure 2-4. If wetland buffer mitigation in excess of the amount that can be accommodated on-Site is required by the Planning Board, the Applicant would improve off-Site wetland buffer areas as identified and approved by the Superintendent of Public Works such that the total amount of on- and off-Site wetland buffer areas improved totaled 4.50 acres. The off-Site improvements could include the removal of invasive species and debris, as well as select plantings of appropriate vegetation. 3.6. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STORMWATER Comment 44: A comment was received expressing concern about the Proposed Project’s potential impact on downstream flooding conditions. (Zimmerman 046) Zimmerman 046 (#357): Concerned about flooding, which has been a major concern in the Village of Rye Brook. We are very concerned about both of these things in this development, which is in Rye Brook proper. Response 44: The Revised Proposed Project would reduce post-construction peak runoff rates in all analyzed storm events from pre-construction conditions. This is a result of the stormwater improvements included in the Revised Proposed Project, including underground infiltration systems, a reduction in impervious surfaces, and the expansion of the existing stormwater detention basin. Stormwater runoff is conveyed from the 900 King Street Site, through a stream that empties into the aforementioned pipe, and then conveyed into the drainage system running along King Street. A downstream stormwater analysis was performed by the Applicant’s engineer, JMC, to determine the potential for flooding on the existing 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe running underneath Arbor Drive. This pipe was chosen for analysis because all drainage that will be affected by the Revised Proposed Project is upstream of this pipe. This analysis is summarized in the report Existing Downstream Storm Sewer Analysis (see DEIS Appendix C-2) and demonstrates that the existing pipe under Arbor Drive has the capacity to accommodate the projected stormwater flow from the Project Site. Comment 45: The Village’s Consulting Engineer noted that, “The Boring Locations Plan prepared by AKRF does not show the locations of PB-1 and PB-2. The locations of these borings must be provided.” (Oliveri 011) Oliveri 011 (#124): The Boring Locations Plan prepared by AKRF does not show the locations of PB-1 and PB-2. The locations of these borings must be provided. Response 45: The locations of PB-1 and PB-2 are depicted on Sheet C-100 (see Volume 4). Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-41 7/2/202010/08/2020 Comment 46: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that, “Based on the existing drainage piping that is shown on the watershed maps, the area tributary to the drain inlet at the entrance to the Hutchinson River Parkway South (from North Ridge Street) should be included in the “Bypass Area.” Where does the drainage go from the drain inlet that is located on the exit ramp (to King Street) of Hutchinson River Parkway North?” (Oliveri 011) Oliveri 011 (#122): Based on the existing drainage piping that is shown on the watershed maps, the area tributary to the drain inlet at the entrance to the Hutchinson River Parkway South (from North Ridge Street) should be included in the “Bypass Area”. Where does the drainage go from the drain inlet that is located on the exit ramp (to King Street) of Hutchinson River Parkway North? Response 46: A set of drawings titled Drainage Structures Rehabilitation on Hutchinson River Parkway, dated March 19, 1986, was acquired from the NYSDOT and used to supplement the information from the JMC survey. Structures, pipes, and flow arrows, from the 1986 drawings have been added to the site plan depicting the direction of flow of stormwater runoff through the pipes. Stormwater runoff collected by the drain inlet located at the exit ramp of the Northbound Hutchinson River Parkway to King Street is conveyed northeast to the Parkway’s drainage system running along the centerline of the Parkway. The bypass area drainage divide has been updated on JMC’s drawing DA-2A titled “Proposed Drainage Area Map” (see Appendix D) to include the catch basin, and its associated drainage area, located in the southbound lane of the Parkway. Comment 47: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that conservative infiltration rates should be used for areas where infiltration testing cannot occur due to the presence of the existing building. The Village’s Consulting Engineer also requested more information on test pits and percolation tests and stated that a future site plan application may require test pits and percolation tests witnessed by the Village. (Oliveri 011) Oliveri 011 (#119): It is required that percolation tests and test pits must be conducted in the vicinity of all infiltration practices including Detention Pond 1B and infiltration systems 1A-2 and 1A-3 to determine feasibility of infiltrating stormwater and the presence of rock or groundwater. The applicant did perform a percolation test near system 1A-2, however tests were not performed near Pond 1B or for system 1A-3 (due to the presence of the building); we recommend use of conservative infiltration rates in these areas until actual infiltration rates can be field verified. Oliveri 011 (#120): The locations of all test pits and percolation tests must be superimposed on the watershed maps contained in the SWPPP. The percolation test method and the methodology of how the percolation rate was translated into an infiltration rate for the stormwater model must be provided. Oliveri 011 (#121): Any future site plan approval for this project may require test pits and percolation tests to be conducted at the time of the application. All tests must be witnessed by the Village. Response 47: A conservative percolation rate of 1 inch per hour was used in the area of infiltration system 1A-2 until percolation tests can be performed. These percolation test will be performed after the existing building has been demolished. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-42 DRAFT The NYSDEC requires a minimum percolation rate of 0.5 inches per hour to install an infiltration system. All test pit and percolation test locations are depicted on both the existing and proposed drainage area maps included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (Drawings 1, 1A, 2 &2A). Any additional test pits and percolation tests that may be required will be coordinated and witnessed by the Village. This will be addressed as the site plan approval process progresses. Comment 48: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that, “The SWPPP cites the New York State Stormwater Design Manual in that if the hydrology and hydraulic study shows that the post-construction 1-year 24-hour discharge rate and velocity are less than or equal to the preconstruction discharge rate, providing 24-hour detention of the 1-year storm to meet the channel protection criteria is not required. Pre- and post-construction discharge velocities must be provided.” (Oliveri 011) Oliveri 011 (#123): The SWPPP cites the New York State Stormwater Design Manual in that if the hydrology and hydraulic study shows that the post-construction 1-year 24 hour discharge rate and velocity are less than or equal to the preconstruction discharge rate, providing 24 hour detention of the 1-year storm to meet the channel protection criteria is not required. Pre- and post-construction discharge velocities must be provided. Response 48: Pre- and post-construction discharge velocities for the 1-year storm event have been provided in Appendix C of the SWPPP, which is included as Appendix D.2 Comment 49: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several technical comments on the design of the stormwater system and requested certain technical modifications to the system’s design. (Oliveri 011) Oliveri 011 (#112): Additional catch basins should be considered within the town house areas and front/side entry drive to avoid excessive runoff travel down the loop roads and possibly into Arbor Drive. Oliveri 011 (#116): Hoods should be added to all drainage structure outlets. Oliveri 011 (#125): Sizing calculations must be provided for all proposed drainage piping. Oliveri 011 (#126): More specific storm-tech chamber details and layouts drawn to scale should be included as opposed to generic details. Oliveri 011 (#127): The “Schedule of Inverts” tables for the two infiltration systems on Sheet C-903 appear to include the incorrect designations and overflow weir elevations. 2 The SWPPP in Appendix D was prepared based on an interim site plan (the “pFEIS Plan”) that had the same basic layout, including the location of the driveways, townhouses, stormwater practices, and buildings; but that had slightly more impervious surfaces interior to the loop driveway. The Revised Proposed Project has less impervious surface than the plan in the SWPPP, and those differences are limited to the interior of the ring road around the IL and AL building. The stormwater practices, both the design and location, would remain unchanged from the interim plan to the Revised Proposed Project. Therefore, the SWPPP accurately reflects the intended stormwater system for the Revised Proposed Project and may be slightly conservative as it accounted for more impervious surface than is currently proposed. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-43 7/2/202010/08/2020 Oliveri 011 (#128): The invert elevations on each Stormtech chamber section (Sheet C- 903) appear to have been provided for the incorrect chamber models. All invert elevations, section dimensions, and detail titles must be corrected. Oliveri 011 (#129): Overflow weir elevations must be reconciled among the “Schedule of Inverts” tables on Sheets C-903 and C-904, and with the invert elevations provided on C-500. Oliveri 011 (#130): Greater detail must be provided for how the “Initial Water Quality Volume”, “Adjusted Water Quality Volume”, and “Minimum Runoff Reduction Volume” values were calculated (Appendix C of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan). Calculations must also be provided for how runoff reduction volumes are provided in the infiltration systems. Oliveri 011 (#131): Water levels must be shown on each Stormtech chamber section (Sheet C-903) and each outlet control structure section (Sheet C-904) for all design storms, including the 90th percentile rainfall event. Response 49: An additional catch basin has been added to the end of each driveway to the townhouses, as depicted on drawing C-500 (see Volume 4). A detail for a Hooded Outlet (#19) has been added to drawing C-902 and a note has been added to the Notes and Legends Drawing (Drawing C-010) calling for hoods to be installed on all drainage structure outlets (see Volume 4). Appendix K has been added to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan which includes sizing calculations for all proposed drainage piping (see Appendix D). A plan view, that is to scale, has been added to the Stormtech Chamber details on Drawing and C-904 (see Volume 4). These details have been updated to include all pertinent Stormtech Chamber information. The “Schedule of Inverts” has been updated and coordinated between all plans and reports. Additional calculation sheets have been added to Appendix C of the SWPPP to clarify the “Initial Water Quality Volume,” “Adjusted Water Quality Volume,” “Minimum Runoff Reduction Volume,” and how runoff reduction volumes are provided in each of the infiltration systems (see Appendix D). Water levels for each analyzed storm have been added to each Stormtech Chamber detail on drawing and C-904 (see Volume 4). EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Comment 50: The Village’s Consulting Engineer stated that the “Site disturbance proposed is greater than the maximum 5 acres allowed under the NYSDEC Design Manual. The proposed disturbance appears to be greater than 13 acres at one time. This presents great concerns with regard to sediment and erosion control during construction. This will require a NYSDEC waiver with adequate use of Best Management Practices before a final site plan can be approved.” (Oliveri 011) Oliveri 011 (#103): Site disturbance proposed is greater than the maximum 5 acres allowed under the NYSDEC Design Manual. The proposed disturbance appears to be greater than 13 acres at one time, this presents great concerns with regard to sediment and 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-44 DRAFT erosion control during construction. This will require a NYSDEC waiver with adequate use of Best Management Practices before a final site plan can be approved. Response 50: Comment noted. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (ESCPs) (Drawings C-200 through C-205) that are included in the site plan submission set have been updated to further clarify the disturbances throughout each particular phase and how the stormwater runoff will be treated and mitigated during each of these phases (see Volume 4). Square footages and acreages have been added to these plans and also to the notes included on each plan. Section VI of the SWPPP, titled Soil Erosion & Sediment Control, and has also been updated to include more detail of the phasing process (see Appendix D). Comment 51: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several technical comments on the design of the ESCP and requested certain technical modifications to the plan’s design. (Oliveri 011) Oliveri 011 (#104): Square footage of disturbance should be noted for each construction phase on the sediment and erosion control plans. Oliveri 011 (#106): No details have been provided for the proposed temporary sediment basin. An analysis to size the temporary basin and outlet pipe/structure should be included to demonstrate adequate capacity for the large disturbance proposed and extended construction time anticipated. Oliveri 011 (#107): The plan notes call for “hay bale filters” on drain inlets, these should be noted as “silt sacks.” Response 51: Square footages and acreages have been added to the ESCPs and also to the notes included on each of these plans. The sizing analysis for the temporary sediment basin, along with all appurtenances, has been included in Appendix C of the SWPPP (see Appendix D). A detail of this basin is included on drawing C-903 (see Volume 4). The Construction Phase 2 Sequence on drawing C-201 has been updated to show “silt sacks” instead of “hay bale filters” (see Volume 4). Comment 52: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several comments with respect to the proposed construction phasing as it relates to the avoidance of erosion during construction. (Oliveri 011) Oliveri 011 (#105): Construction phase 1 should denote when asphalt is removed from the existing parking lot, asphalt should be maintained during building demo. Oliveri 011 (#108): It may be necessary to further stage disturbance in the town house areas & south wings of the A.L. facility since the temporary sediment basin is removed by phase 5 of construction and no further temporary sediment basins or traps seem to be proposed. Individual sediment traps or basins should be added during these phases of construction as needed. Response 52: The Construction Phase 1 Sequence on drawing C-200 has been updated to ensure all existing asphalt shall remain during the existing building demolition (see Volume 4). Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-45 7/2/202010/08/2020 Silt fence has been added to drawing C-204 downgradient of all areas to be disturbed during construction of the townhouses (see Volume 4). It has been determined by JMC that the silt fence, accompanied by the already installed silt sacks, will adequately treat runoff coming from the disturbed soils during this phase of construction, and individual sediment traps or basins will not be necessary. Square footages and acreages of disturbance have been added to drawing C-204 for the townhouses (see Volume 4). 3.7. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Comment 53: Comments were received regarding the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on the wildlife on, and proximate to, the Project Site. (Carravone 002, Levy 067, Levy 072) Carravone 002 (#11): there is so much beautiful wildlife, (deer, rabbits, turtles) in my/our back yards, where are they supposed to go? Levy 067 (#537): We have seen deer and red-tail hawks inhabiting the land behind 900 King Street. We are concerned with the habitat disturbance and loss for those and other animals. Having wildlife around us is also a part of our quality of life. Levy 072 (#567): I just wanted to make sure this was noted. I observed over the past couple of months that more than just squirrels but there are also deer and Canadian geese actually rest and actually I believe breed, I have baby deer every spring born on the grass at 900 King Street and I just would, if possible, just how that will affect their life. Response 53: As indicated in Section 7.2.2 “Wildlife,” of the DEIS, “the Project Site does not provide high-quality habitat for wildlife due to the existing development on and adjacent to the Site and the lack of any sizeable areas of undeveloped wooded land. As such, wildlife expected to occur on-Site would include urban tolerant species.” Section 7.3.2, “Wildlife,” of the DEIS adds that, “the Project would not have an adverse impact on rare, threatened, or endangered species, nor would it have an adverse impact on significant natural communities,” as neither are known to be present on-Site. During the construction period, there would be a temporary disruption of habitat, however, immediately adjacent to the Project Site is a similar habitat that would be available to wildlife. After the construction period, the Revised Proposed Project would result in an increase of 0.7 acres of permeable coverage (lawn habitats), resulting in an increase in the amount of habitat currently found on-Site. Comment 54: Comments were received regarding the impact of the tree removals that will be necessary for the Proposed Project. In addition, commenters requested more information on the magnitude and type of impacts that would occur from the tree removal (e.g., shade trees, mature trees) and clarity with respect to the amount of vegetation along the Site’s northern boundary and southern boundary that is proposed to be removed. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012) Snyder 007 (#53): A true representation of the disturbance should be provided…landscaping can be adequately reviewed…evaluate its impact on The Arbors. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-46 DRAFT The “majority” of the existing vegetation along the Site’s northern boundary and between Arbor Drive and the southernmost townhouse cluster would be preserved. The meaning of “majority” should be clarified. Snyder 007 (#64): The project requires 686 significant trees to be removed, resulting in reduced shade and tree habitat that even temporarily could be a significant adverse impact. The new trees planted will not provide shade cover as much as the old ones being removed. FP Clark 012 (#142): The Applicant has not identified the impact of the loss of 213 mature trees on the existing site due to the excessive disturbance to site to achieve the PUD Concept Plan. The FEIS should address the impacts of the loss of mature vegetation and the Applicant should reconsider the PUD Concept Plan to reduce disturbance to the Site. Response 54: As stated in Section 2.7.4, “Trees,”, the Revised Proposed Project would require the removal of approximately 134 trees with 6 inches dbh or greater, of which 77 trees have a diameter of 10 inches dbh or greater, and 4 of which are considered “significant” under the Village Code. This is a decrease from the tree removal contemplated with the original project, as shown in Table 3.7-1. In addition, as further discussed in Section 2.7.5, “Mitigation Measures,” the Revised Proposed Project includes the planting of 438 new trees and 309 new shrubs, which would fully mitigate the loss of the 134 trees to be removed as required by the Village Code. Table 3.7-1 Tree Removal DBH of Tree Removed Trees Removed Original Project Revised Project Less than 10 dbh 79 57 10 to 24 dbh 120 69 25 to 36 dbh 12 6 37 to 48 dbh 2 2 49 dbh or more 0 0 Total 213 134 Sources: Village Zoning Code Section 235-18; AKRF, Inc. As stated in Section 2.7.4, “Trees,” “there would be temporary impacts of reduced on-Site shade and tree habitat associated with tree loss during the construction period.” Sheet C-100 in Volume 4 includes an Existing Conditions plan, which depicts the locations of the inventoried trees. Sheets C-130 and C-131 in Volume 4, include an updated tree removal plan. As noted in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” the Revised Proposed Project would preserve more existing vegetation along the southern property line with Arbor Drive than was the case with the original project as a result of a shift in the location of the western-most driveway. Comment 55: Comments were received regarding the Applicant’s plan to mitigate the removal of Village-regulated trees. The Village’s Planning Consultant inquired as to why not all of the trees the Applicant proposes to plant would count as “mitigation.” The attorney for The Arbors HOA stated that the Applicant cannot plant trees within the Arbor Drive ROW as it is not owned by the Applicant. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012) Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-47 7/2/202010/08/2020 Snyder 007 (#65): The tree plan envisions adding trees along Arbor Drive. Alternatives need to be considered since the applicant has no right to plant trees on Arbor Drive since it is owned by The Arbors. FP Clark 012 (#143): The DEIS states that 212 of the 438 trees proposed to be planted would meet the requirements of Section 235-18 of the Tree Ordinance. The Applicant should explain how the other 226 do not meet this criteria of the Code Section and why the Applicant is proposing non-complying trees. Response 55: Table 2.7-3 details the required tree mitigation per Section 235-18 of the Village Code. The Revised Proposed Project would be required to plant at least 87 trees that have a caliper of 2 to 2.5 inches dbh. The Revised Proposed Project proposes to plant 438 trees and 309 shrubs, as shown on sheet L-300 in Volume 4. All 408 trees would be at least 2-inch caliper. All trees would be installed in accordance with the Village’s planting guidelines. 3.8. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER VISUAL CHARACTER OF PROJECT SITE Comment 56: Comments were received questioning the methodology for and locations of the photosimulations presented in the DEIS. Specific comments included requests for additional photosimulations from vantage points within The Arbors, balloon test(s), and removal of computer-generated trees in Figures 8-20 and 8-21. (Snyder 007, Snyder 045, Klein 062) Snyder 007 (#43): Not only is the size of the independent living building nearly more than 100,000 square feet larger than the existing office building, the height of the building is more than 6 feet taller. The applicant should be required to prepare a visual analysis comparing the existing structure to that proposed. The visual breaks that the applicant alludes to in the DEIS are not forthcoming and should be presented so that the public can truly see the magnitude of the project. Snyder 007 (#66): The Visual Study is insufficient. It was not performed using any proven methodology and the preparer has indicated it utilized a standard smartphone camera, rather than a 55 mm lens, typically utilized as the industry standard. Moreover, no balloon test was provided so that The Arbor residents and all Village residents could determine its visibility, particularly due to the project’s proposed increased height and massiveness, with its extensive use of the property. Snyder 007 (#68): photographs must be taken throughout The Arbors during leaf-off conditions and computer simulated to render the proposed buildings, including lighting and mechanical equipment at full build-out. At least 25 locations should be selected within The Arbors, including locations from second story windows inside of residences. Snyder 045 (#377): Unless they are showing someone on the ground, they are not showing someone from their second floor window. Snyder 045 (#378): If you look at their visuals they are totally deficient. They are not really formed and done with proper methodology. So we would hope that once the project is scaled down, that a proper visual analysis will be prepared. Klein 062 (#506): No balloon tests have been done. These should be conducted and pictures added to Volume 2, Chapter 8 to show from different locations Klein 062 (#507): As suggested by public comment, permission should be sought to take pictures from 2nd floor windows of selected Arbors residences Klein 062 (#508): 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. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-48 DRAFT Response 56: The visual analyses included in the DEIS, including the photosimulations, were performed in accordance with NYSDEC-approved guidelines, and using industry-standard, state-of-the-art methodology. The locations were selected by the Village Board and its consultants as documented in the adopted DEIS Scoping Outline. The general methodology consisted of the following:  Taking photographs that are reflective of what could be seen by a person standing at the vantage points specified in the approved DEIS scoping outline;  Creating an electronic three-dimensional (3-D) model of the existing terrain on and around the Project Site based on Site-specific survey information and 2-foot contour data provided by Westchester County Geographic Information System (GIS);  Aligning the existing conditions photos with the 3-D model using computer software that allows for various adjustment of the model view to account for the unique perspective of each individual photograph;  Creating an electronic 3-D model of the Proposed Project, inclusive of the proposed grading and the proposed building locations and size;  Producing a snapshot of the computer-generated 3D model from each vantage point location that is aligned with the existing condition photograph; and,  Using photo-editing software to “remove” the existing buildings from the existing condition photograph, “add” the location and size of the proposed new buildings and new topography/roads, and then add façade and ground materials to the location of the new site buildings and infrastructure. This methodology produces a photosimulation that appropriately locates and scales the proposed new buildings and topography from each existing condition location. The result is a “before” and “after” picture demonstrating the first person point of view of the project from various vantage points. For photosimulations in Figures 8-20 and 8-21 of the DEIS, existing on-Site natural trees were simulated with computer-generated trees. This was necessary to accurately depict the visibility of the proposed buildings with “new” trees added in the foreground. The computer-generated trees and tree cover depict the potential for the proposed IL and AL building to be visible from the Parkway through the existing tree cover. Balloon testing is not considered state-of-the-art for visual impact assessment. If properly executed, balloon tests allows the public to see the height of a proposed structure at a single point. Balloon tests do not provide an observer with context, including the size, shape, color, or articulation of proposed new structures, which are important to understand the visual impacts of a building, or buildings. In addition, balloon tests can be unreliable. Weather conditions can affect the accuracy of the balloon’s placement. For those reasons, the Lead Agency required the Applicant to prepare photosimulations of the original project using actual photographs and 3-D computer modeling. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-49 7/2/202010/08/2020 The Village Board and its consultants selected the locations for the photosimluations, as stipulated in the approved scoping document. The selected vantage points represent the maximum potential for the original project to be visible from The Arbors. Vantage points further west or south within the Arbors would likely not have a view of the Project Site given intervening topography and buildings. Finally, changes in views from private property as a result of a project, including second-story windows, are generally not considered to be an environmental impact under SEQRA. Rather, SEQRA encourages the evaluation of publicly accessible views to determine whether there is a “detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of,” or that causes a “diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of…[or]…impairs the character or quality of” a public resource. The visual impact analyses included in the DEIS and this FEIS demonstrate that the IL and AL building would be visible from certain vantage points. See Section 2.8, “Visual Resources and Community Character,” for a more complete discussion of the impacts of the Revised Proposed Project. Comment 57: A comment was received opining that the proposed removal of trees would create a significant adverse visual impact. (Snyder 045) Snyder 045 (#376): One thing that should be noted is in connection with the visual impact. So there’s over 686 trees that are being removed. When they show those little line of sight and they show someone standing in the trees, there’s a huge magnitude of all these mature trees being removed. Response 57: As stated in Section 2.7.4, “Trees,” the number of trees proposed to be removed has been reduced from 213 with the original project to 134 with the Revised Proposed Project. As was the case with the original project, the overwhelming majority of the trees proposed to be removed with the Revised Proposed Project are less than 25 inches dbh. Only 8 trees proposed for removal have a dbh of 25 inches or greater. As shown on sheet C-130 of the full size plans in Volume 4, a large portion of the trees proposed for removal are in two areas of the Site: (1) the proposed emergency access drive, and (2) north and east of the existing stormwater basin. With respect to the trees proposed to be removed in the northeast of the Site, removal of trees from this area will not significantly change the view into the Site from publicly accessible vantage points. There will still be significant tree coverage between the Project Site and both King Street and the Parkway with the Revised Proposed Project. With respect to the tree removal to the north and east of the existing stormwater basin, these removals are necessary to facilitate the slight expansion of the stormwater basin, as well as to regrade the area surrounding the basin. Most of the trees proposed for removal in this area are directly between Village Hall and the Project Site. As such, their removal would not change the view of the Project Site from King Street because Village Hall would screen views of this change. The trees proposed to be removed further south of Village Hall, in the area closer to the cell phone tower on Village property, would similarly not change the view into the Project Site from King 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-50 DRAFT Street as Village Hall’s property sits on a “hill” in this location, blocking views of the interior of the Project Site from King Street. While some trees will be removed along the Site’s southern boundary with Arbor Drive, the Revised Proposed Project includes a landscaping program, as described in Section 1.4.4, “Landscaping.” In addition to meeting the minimum requirements for tree plantings (i.e., 87 trees) to mitigate the removal of Village- regulated trees (i.e., 1134), the proposed landscaping program will significantly enhance the aesthetics of the Project Site (i.e, 438 trees and 309 shrubs), which is currently dominated by a 5.3-acre surface parking lot and an approximately 94,600-sf footprint monolithic office building. Comment 58: Comments were received suggesting that the proposed height and “size” of the IL and AL building would be a substantial increase from the current condition and create an adverse impact owing to its visibility from public and private rights of way as well as Harnkess Park. (Snyder 007, Schlank 040, Barnett 047) Snyder 007 (#70): the DEIS does not adequately evaluate the visual impacts created by the project, nor does it provide mitigation measures utilized to address adverse visual impacts, namely a reduction in the scale of the massive project. Schlank 040 (#307): DEIS indicates the applicant feels the proposed facility is consistent with the character of the community. What factual support does the applicant have for this conclusion in terms of: (a) zoning laws of either the Village of Rye Brook or the Town of Rye, (b) past precedents involving either the Village or the Town, or (c) court decisions in which similar shifts in population and architectural style were not seen as inconsistent with community character? Barnett 047 (#360): It would be extremely visible and a part of Rye Brook that really does not look like this proposed development. Barnett 047 (#364): Also doesn’t change the fact that we still can all see it, a large percent of us daily, and honestly, way more than that as you pull up. Barnett 047 (#365): You are, by your numbers, saying 14 feet, maybe 20. That’s a story above what the current building is. So when we’re talking about numbers that equate to a story, which by definition is about 14 feet, that’s a substantial increase. You’re talking about a building now at 14 feet higher. So this would be substantial. Barnett 047 (#366): To say that one road of The Arbors would be able to see this property and so it’s not such a big deal, ask an Arbor’s resident, you know, has to. Response 58: The Revised Proposed Zoning would permit the construction of four-story senior living facilities, as specifically recommended by the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. This is a one-story increase over the height that is currently permitted within the PUD district. To mitigate the potential for this increase in height to have an adverse visual impact, the Applicant has done the following:  Increased the setback of the four-story portion of the IL building to 494 feet from nearest unit in The Arbors with the Revised Proposed Project, an increase of 30 feet from the original project.  Decreased the peak of the roof closest to The Arbors by 10.5 feet from the original project. With this change, the peak of the roof of the four-story IL building closest to The Arbors, which extends only for the rear half of the building, would be approximately 7.5 feet higher in absolute elevation than Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-51 7/2/202010/08/2020 the height of the fascia of the existing 3-story office building, which extends for the length of the entire building. However, this proposed peak would be approximately 550 feet from the nearest townhouse in The Arbors, approximately 243 feet further away than the existing office building. The setbacks of the proposed IL building from neighboring residences and Arbor Drive are consistent with, or greater than, the setbacks of other four-story, and taller, buildings to their neighboring residential properties (see Figures 2-6 to 2-10 and Table 2.8-1). See also Response to Comment 59. CONSISTENCY OF PROPOSED PROJECT WITH COMMUNITY CHARACTER Comment 59: The Village’s Planning Consultant questioned the visual and community character impacts of the Proposed Project, which contains a much larger building (in terms of square footage) than the existing office building. (FP Clark 012) FP Clark 012 (#145): the DEIS presents large commercial buildings in Rye Brook in this section to point out that there is a precedent of large buildings in Rye Brook, it is the visual impacts and changed community character of adjacent residential properties and the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the Proposed Action that is of concern, especially as the proposed GFA would be significantly higher than the current PUD zoning allows. In our opinion, the locations and siting of the commercial buildings mentioned are very different from the situation of the Proposed Action. These buildings are not impactful to the character of the residential neighborhoods they are adjacent to or within by virtue of a number of factors. The Atria at BelleFair is separated by significant topography from the BelleFair residential neighborhoods and by distance from the closest residences in Greenwich, C.T. The Doral/Arrowwood Conference Center is located on a very large site separating it by great distances from the Doral Green homes, area roads and the Blind Brook Golf Club. The Hilton at Rye Brook is located on a large parcel that is enclosed by significant topography and separated from adjacent homes and area roadways by substantial grade changes. And, 800 Westchester Avenue is located on an insular large site surrounded by roadways, and it is not located near any residences. Response 59: The Revised Proposed Project would develop an integrated age-restricted residential community with approximately 355,905 gsf. The three- and four-story IL and AL building would be approximately 314,459 sf (234,078 sf of IL and 80,381 sf of AL) and would be 41.81 feet tall. The two-story townhouses would total approximately 41,443 sf. It is noted that this is a reduction of approximately 20 percent, or 89,098 sf from the original project. The existing office building on the Project Site is approximately 215,000 sf and is 39 feet tall. The Revised Proposed Project incorporates several measures to avoid and mitigate potential adverse visual and community character impacts that could result from the size of the Revised Proposed Project (i.e., the increase in floor area from the existing condition). As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project locates the largest and tallest building away from the residential uses in The Arbors and toward the center and northeast portion of the Project Site. The buildings closer to The Arbors are the proposed two-story townhouses, which are 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-52 DRAFT further setback from The Arbors with the Revised Proposed Project than the original project. As with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project decreases both the overall amount and continuous nature of impervious coverage on the Site from the current condition. The vegetative buffer that currently exists around the Site’s perimeter would also be maintained. As a result, the interior of the Project Site would continue to be visible from locations off-Site only through screening provided by existing tree cover, with the exception of a short area along Arbor Drive. Compared to the original project, the Revised Proposed Project increases the setback of the three-story portion of the IL building an additional 86 feet from the property line with The Arbors, for a total setback of 550 feet. Similarly, the Revised Proposed Project increases the setback of the 4-story portion of the IL building an additional 30 feet from the property line with The Arbors compared to the original project, for a total setback of 494 feet. The Revised Proposed Project also reduces the height of the IL roof closest to the Arbors from the original project to further reduce the potential for adverse visual impacts to The Arbors and as ‘narrowed’ the southernmost wings of the IL building closest to Arbor Drive. See also Section 2.8, “Visual Resources and Community Character.” Comment 60: A comment was received stating that the architectural style of the Proposed Project was inconsistent with the suburban character of the Village. (Schlank 040) Schlank 040 (#306): The architectural style would give the area a more populous, citified effect than the comfortable suburban surroundings in the rest of the Village. Schlank 040 (#317): The two-story office building with its gently sloping lawn area blends in with the surroundings. But the height and architectural style of the proposed senior-housing building appear to be out of sync with the surroundings. A spokesperson for the applicant has tried to justify the appearance of the building in public hearings by discussing the extent to which the building would be visible to others while standing or walking in certain locations. But that is not the issue. The issue is with the architectural style of the building and whether it is consistent with the character of the community. Response 60: Section 2.8.3, “Consistency of the Revised Proposed Project with the Existing Visual and Community Character,” analyzes the potential change to the visual character of the Project Site with the Revised Proposed Project. As stated therein, the proposed buildings have been designed to be architecturally compatible with the predominant residential characteristics within the Village, including the use of clapboard and stone siding, as well as incorporating dormers and gabled roofs, commonly seen on single-family homes within the Village. The nature and amount of impervious coverage on the Site also affects the character of the Site. In addition to reducing the overall amount of impervious coverage on the Site, the Revised Proposed Project would redistribute the pervious and impervious area within the Site, which would have a dramatic Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-53 7/2/202010/08/2020 impact on the Site’s visual character (e.g., new parking and building areas would be interspersed with green space, creating a landscaped residential campus). The view into the Site from Arbor Drive with the Revised Proposed Project would feature residential buildings of similar scale, style, and character as found on similar Village properties, as opposed to the existing view of the office building and surface parking lot. In terms of height, the Revised Proposed Project is consistent with the recommendations of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, and with many buildings within the Village that are at least four stories in height, specifically The Atria, Rye Brook (a three- and four-story IL building with 168 units on 4.92 acres) and the Hilton Westchester. The setbacks of the proposed IL building from neighboring residences and Arbor Drive are consistent with, or greater than, the setbacks of other four-story, and taller, buildings to their neighboring residential properties (see Figures 2-6 to 2- 10 and Table 2.8-1). While the context of each building and residential neighborhood is different (e.g., surrounding topography, level of activity on adjacent Site, intervening features), the comparison of the setbacks of Revised Proposed Project to other Village properties illustrates the nature of the setbacks proposed. Comment 61: Comments were received opining that the character of the community would be adversely affected by the density of the Proposed Project. The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The proposed amendments in the Applicant’s zoning petition and the accompanying proposed PUD Concept Plan would develop a high-density, large-scale multifamily building on a relatively small, environmentally constrained site, and would be significantly less restrictive than the current PUD regulations, impacting the character of the neighborhoods adjacent to the Site. We recommend the Applicant re-consider the zoning petition and the PUD Concept Plan to reduce the allowable building bulk, the number of units and the gross floor area per acre to be more compatible with existing development adjacent to and surrounding the Site.” (Carravone 002, Levy 004, Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Planning Board 018, Schlank 040, Barnett 047) Carravone 002 (#8): If they build that tremendous development at 900 King Street it would be a major disaster in every which way for the tranquil surroundings everyone is so accustomed to in The Arbors community. Levy 004 (#19): The project massing, SF and height seems too large for the Site Snyder 007 (#27): the scale of the project is not in keeping with the character of the community. Snyder 007 (#67): The project contains buildings which would represent a substantial departure from conventional suburban development patterns. FP Clark 012 (#146): Rye Brook’s low-density character is created by the size, scale and building types of existing residential and PUD neighborhoods and the relationship of built areas to the open space areas on lots. Any revised PUD regulations for 900 King Street should not create development that alters the character of neighborhoods surrounding the Site, which are predominantly attached townhomes, local civil buildings (middle/high school, firehouse and village hall), and detached single-family homes. The proposed 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-54 DRAFT amendments in the Applicant’s zoning petition and the accompanying proposed PUD Concept Plan would develop a high density, large-scale multi-family building on a relatively small, environmentally constrained site, and would be significantly less restrictive than the current PUD regulations, impacting the character of the neighborhoods adjacent to the Site. We recommend the Applicant re-consider the zoning petition and the PUD Concept Plan to reduce the allowable building bulk, the number of units and the gross floor area per acre to be more compatible with existing development adjacent to and surrounding the Site. Planning Board 018 (#235): The mass of the buildings appear too large for the property. Schlank 040 (#305): An inconsistency with community character…the proposed senior housing facility would not fit in with its surroundings: (1) the facility would concentrate too many people in one area. Barnett 047 (#363): When we talk about the density of the village, I really think it’s important to understand that whether or not you can see it, because some trees block it from King Street, doesn’t change the fact that it’s there. Response 61: As detailed in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” in response to public and Lead Agency, the Applicant has reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project from what was originally included in the DEIS. Specifically, the Applicant has reduced the size of the project by 89,908 gsf through reductions in the number of IL and townhouse units, reduction in the IL unit sizes and number of bedrooms, and reductions in the common and amenity spaces in the IL and AL building. As discussed in Section 2.3.2, “Proposed Density,” as well as the Response to Comment 20, the Revised Proposed Project would not result in a PUD that is significantly denser than other PUDs. Further, the PUD of which the Revised Proposed Project would be a part, would consist of fewer units per acre and less sf per acre than Doral Greens, which contains no age-restricted housing. With respect to building and site coverage, as with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would increase building coverage on the Site by 0.76 acres from the current condition, but would decrease the amount of surface parking and interior roadways by an even larger amount (1.46 acres) from the current condition. As a result, the Revised Proposed Project would result in a decrease in gross land coverage on the Project Site from the existing condition. The relative amount of building and Site coverage proposed is consistent with other properties in the Village, especially when considering the Project Site’s location, its visibility from areas outside of the Site, and the reduction in total coverage from the Site’s current condition (see Table 2.8-2). Specifically, the Revised Proposed Project’s building coverage, relative to its parcel size, would be similar to The Arbors and the Hilton Westchester and slightly higher than 800 Westchester Avenue, and the Doral Arrowwood Conference Center. See also Section 2.8.3, “Consistency of the Revised Proposed Project with the Existing Visual and Community Character.” Comment 62: A comment was received suggesting that the Proposed Project’s rental units would adversely affect the existing community character and quality of life. (Stella-Turner 014) Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-55 7/2/202010/08/2020 Stella-Turner 014 (#194): The building plans, rental units...will threaten our quality of life. Response 62: The Revised Proposed Project would develop an age-restricted residential community with units that would be rented by their occupants. Similar communities exist throughout the region, including The Atria, Rye Brook and The Osborn in Rye. No evidence has been presented that those communities, or others similar in nature, adversely affect the property values or community character of their community. It should be noted that both The Atria, Rye Brook and The Osborn in Rye are situated in proximity to stable and desirable residential neighborhoods. 3.9. SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS DEMOGRAPHICS Comment 63: Comments were received suggesting that the Proposed Project might have a larger population than estimated in the DEIS as a result of the proposed age restriction (55 years old and older) and the number of bedrooms proposed. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012) Snyder 007 (#28): The project will generate 462 people but that number is not realistic. You must consider the scope of the project since it calls for 301 bedrooms of Independent Living alone, together with 94 bedrooms of Assisted Living, and 48 bedrooms in the townhomes for independent living. Therefore, just in terms of bedrooms, there are a total of 443 bedrooms. Easily, the project could generate at least 600 more residents. FP Clark 012 (#148): The DEIS states that the Proposed Project is anticipated to add a population of 462 people to the Village. This was calculated by estimating 1 person per Assisted Living facility bed, 2 people per Independent Living unit and 2 people per townhouse. With the proposed age-restriction of 55 and the number of 2- and 3-bedroom units, in addition to “empty-nesters” and elderly people, the proposed project would also attract families with children. The projected population should be recalculated to take into consideration the above. Response 63: Chapter 1, “Revised Project Description,” describes the following relevant changes to the original project: (1) maintaining the age restriction for the Site at 62 years old and older, consistent with the existing Site zoning; (2) reducing the number of bedrooms proposed for the IL building by 22 percent and reducing the size of the IL units; and (3) reconfiguring the layout of the proposed age-restricted townhouses to more clearly target an older population and to differentiate the product from other Village townhouses. Within the IL building specifically, the Applicant has reduced the size of the units proposed, reduced the number of two- and three-bedroom units, and increased the percentage of one-bedroom units (see Table 3.9-1). As stated in Section 2.9.1, “Demographics,” the Revised Proposed Project anticipates having a population of approximately 406, which assumes 1 person per AL bed, and 2 people per townhouse and IL unit. While the data presented in Section 10.3.4, “Potential Impact of the Proposed Project,” of the DEIS indicates that 55 years old and older communities rarely have school-age children as residents, the proposed change to a 62 years old and older community further decreases the likelihood that families with school-age children would live at the Revised Proposed Project. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-56 DRAFT Table 3.9-1 Independent Living Building Size Reduction DEIS Plan FEIS Plan Average Unit Size 1,219 sf 1,119 sf Number of Bedrooms 301 236 Largest Unit Size 1,800 sf (36 units >1,500 sf) 1,440 sf (2 units @ 1,440 sf) 3-Bedroom Units Number of Units 18 13 Percent of Total 11% 10% Average Size (sf) 1,700 sf 1,368 sf 2-Bedroom Units Number of Units 99 74 Percent of Total 62% 54% Average Size (sf) 1,270 sf 1,200 sf 1-Bedroom Units Number of Units 43 49 Percent of Total 27% 36% Average Size (sf) 900 sf 985 sf Sources: PerkinsEastman Comment 64: A comment was received opining that the Proposed Project would increase the average age and decrease the average income of Village residents, which would make the Village less attractive to prospective residents. (Schlank 068) Schlank 068 (#552): Does the applicant agree that the effect of constructing additional senior housing in Rye Brook would be to raise the average age of a Rye Brook resident and lower the average income of a Rye Brook resident? …less desirable place to live. Schlank 068 (#552): Does the applicant agree that the effect of constructing additional senior housing in Rye Brook would be to raise the average age of a Rye Brook resident and lower the average income of a Rye Brook resident? …less desirable place to live. Response 64: As shown in Section 9.4.1, “Demographics,” of the DEIS, the population of the Village has increased 10.8 percent since 1990 and the median age of Village residents has also increased. In addition, the median household income has decreased 14.9 percent since 2000. The Revised Proposed Project may absorb a portion of this increase in senior citizen residents within the Village. FISCAL GENERAL Comment 65: Comments were received requesting additional information on the potential fiscal impacts of the Proposed Project and suggesting that the Proposed Project would have an adverse fiscal impact on the community. (Snyder 007, Schlank 068) Snyder 007 (#74): A more detailed analysis of the fiscal impacts proposed by the project should be provided since it would appear that the project, as proposed, could have an adverse financial impact. A more realistic analysis should be provided, and project alternatives to reduce the size, scope and components of the project should be considered in connection therewith. Schlank 068 (#538): If a residential option is approved, the challenges for The Arbors will be more difficult to meet in a cost effective manner because The Arbors was not designed to be a fully secured gated community. Significant adverse financial impacts could be felt Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-57 7/2/202010/08/2020 on property values, as well as costs of self-policing services, road maintenance, and safety/security. Schlank 068 (#575 or #538B): The DEIS notes that a change to senior housing could result in additional tax revenue to the Village of $281 thousand per year, and that would be sufficient to fund any additional police personnel and associated equipment that might be required as a result of the change. Who will compensate the Arbors property owners for any increase in the cost of our self-policing services as a result of changes at 900 King Street? Schlank 068 (#576 or #538C): For each alternative discussed in the FEIS, describe the potential impacts on the costs borne by the PUD property owners for road maintenance, traffic control, procedured, and safety and security. Schlank 068 (#577 or #538D): Is the applicant willing to work out an intra-PUD agreement that would cover the costs of road maintenance, traffic control and safety and security, as well as any related systems, processes, and controls? Response 65: Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” and Section 2.10, “Community Facilities,” analyze the potential fiscal benefits (e.g., tax revenue) and the potential fiscal impacts (e.g., increase municipal costs) of the Revised Proposed Project. As stated in those sections, based upon the Applicant’sTown of Rye Tax Assessor’s estimate of the Revised Proposed Project’s assessed value, it is estimated that the Revised Proposed Project, upon project stabilization, the project would annually generate approximately $802,6701.78 million more in tax revenue than the Project Site currently generates, including a $578,3551.24 million annual increase in revenue to the BBRUFSD and $154,882358,288 to the Village. With respect to the BBRUFSD, there would be no additional costs to the BBRUFSD from the Revised Proposed Project. With respect to the Village, there is the potential for the Revised Proposed Project to result in additional municipal expenses, specifically those related to police and EMS service. As detailed in Section 2.10.6, “Community Facilities Fiscal Impact,” the conservative estimate of potential additional municipal costs associated with the Revised Proposed Project of $85,282, is anticipated to be less than the estimate of the additional property tax revenue generated for the Village of $154,882, as estimated by the Applicant. It is also noted that the Town of Rye Tax Assessor has estimated that the Revised Proposed Project would have an assessed value of $48,200,000, which would generate $1.690 million more in property taxes. Of this, $446,616 would go to the Village, which is an increase of $326,160 from the revenue currently generated, and $1,667,741 would go to the BBRUFSD, representing an increase of $1,217,935 from the current revenue generated by the Project Site.358,288. PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY TAXES Comment 66: Comments were received questioning the validity of the DEIS’ statement that in the Future without the Proposed Project (the “No Build” condition) the assessed value of the Project Site would continue to decline. The commenter notes that the Applicant has stated, when commenting on another office building in the Village, that it has a strong office market. (Snyder 007, Schlank 060) 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-58 DRAFT Snyder 007 (#71): The DEIS states that in the future without the project (the "No Build" condition), the assessed value would be expected to decline. In light of the applicant’s own statement in the attached Applicant’s Article, that does not have to be the case. The applicant has noted in the Applicant’s Article that Rye Brook has a strong office market and that with marketing, re-occupancy of the existing office building has potential. It may be that the applicant will have to perform upgrades to its building, like was done with The Atrium building at Westchester Avenue. Again, it is respectfully submitted that this Board should halt further review of the proposal in its current form and encourage the applicant to pursue the No Action alternative. Schlank 060 (#424): Questions related to tax effects of any change in zoning from commercial to residential. Response 66: The Project Site has experienced declining assessed values over the last 5 years as a result of the inability to successfully re-tenant the Site. As noted in the Response to Comment 14, the Applicant, as well as its predecessors in interest, unsuccessfully attempted to lease the existing office building for a variety of uses to a variety of tenants. These efforts were not successful in producing sufficient building occupancy or tenancy to make operating the building profitable. One of the reasons for this lack of success is the relatively large floorplate of the building that is broken up by two atriums. The large, rectangular, floorplate makes it inefficient to subdivide the space while providing for the necessary means of egress for each tenant. As a result, buildings with more efficient floorplates, such as the buildings at 1100 King Street, are more easily adapted for multiple tenants. Given the consistent lack of success in re-tenanting the existing office building, it is unlikely that one or more substantial and long-term tenants could be identified to re-occupy the existing building, which is the only way for the assessed value of the Site to increase. Comment 67: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested that, “The FEIS…provide the estimated assessment from the Town Tax Assessor and the projected taxes for all jurisdictions used in Table 9-9 of the DEIS.” (FP Clark 012, Rosenberg 021) FP Clark 012 (#149): The FEIS should provide the estimated assessment from the Town Tax Assessor and the projected taxes for all jurisdictions used in Table 9-9 of the DEIS. Rosenberg 021 (#248): Peter Feroe stated, “…if you look at tax revenue for the project site, as Tony mentioned, you’d have about a 350 percent increase. Mayor Rosenberg responded, “Have you checked – where are you coming up with those numbers?” Response 67: As discussed in Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” the Applicant has sought an estimated assessed value from the Town Tax Assessor for the Revised Proposed Project. However, the Tax Assessor has not developed a project-specific estimated assessed value for the Revised Proposed Project. Instead, the Tax Assessor has stated in correspondence that she believes it is most appropriate to estimate the assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project using the approximately $200,000 per unit assessed value of the Atria, which was derived using an income capitalization approach. Therefore, the Tax Assessor estimates that the assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project would be approximately $48,200,000, or approximately 62 percent greater than the Applicant’s estimate of $29,715,260. Finally,Town of Rye Tax Assessor has estimated that the Revised Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-59 7/2/202010/08/2020 Proposed Project would have an assessed value of $55,000,000. The Tax Assessor notes that the final assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project would be based on what is actually constructed, occupied, and operated. Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” provides the projected property tax revenue for various taxing jurisdictions using boththis estimated assessed valuesvalue. Comment 68: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The loss per year of tax revenue was incorrectly calculated. The loss of $65,000 in revenue took place over 5 years, not 1 year. The FEIS should provide the correct calculations.” (FP Clark 012) FP Clark 012 (#147): The loss per year of tax revenue was incorrectly calculated. The loss of $65,000 in revenue took place over 5 years, not 1 year. The FEIS should provide the correct calculations. Response 68: This comment refers to the decrease in annual property tax revenue generated by the Project Site since 2013. As stated in Section 9.2.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” of the DEIS, “the property tax revenue generated by the Project Site has decreased by more than $65,000, or 11 percent, in the past 5 years.” The DEIS goes on to say in Section 9.3.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” that “since 2013 the assessed value of the Site has decreased nearly $2 million, resulting in a loss of approximately $65,000 per year in tax revenue.” In other words, the amount of property tax revenue generated by the Project Site in a given year declined 4 out of 5 years between 2013 and 2017. As a result, by 2017, the Project Site was generating $65,000 less per year than it was 5 years earlier. In total, the declining assessed value of the Project Site resulted in the loss of an amount equal to $153,060 in property tax revenue between 2013 and 2017 using 2017 tax rates. Comment 69: The Village’s Planning Consultant stated that, “The FEIS should identify any tax exemptions or subsidies that the [Proposed] Project would be eligible to receive, other than the tax exemptions and reductions that maybe available through the Westchester County Industrial Development Agency [IDA].” Another commenter requested additional information on the IDA inducement process and whether the Village had the capacity to successfully participate in that process. (FP Clark 012, Schlank 068) FP Clark 012 (#150): The DEIS states that the Applicant will not be seeking “standalone tax-exempt status” from the Internal Revenue Code. The FEIS should identify any tax exemptions or subsidies that the Project would be eligible to receive, other than the tax exemptions and reductions that maybe available through the Westchester County Industrial Development Agency. Schlank 068 (#548): Does the Village of Rye Brook have sufficient authority to approve a PILOT agreement? Or do other governments, including the Town of Rye and/or the school district, need to approve the agreement as well? Schlank 068 (#549): How long do these PILOT agreements typically take to negotiate? Are PILOT agreements relatively easy to negotiate? Or are they complicated enough for municipalities the size of Rye Brook and Town of Rye to require the use of outside help? How does the sales tax exemption work? Would the owners be exempt from collecting taxes from others or from paying taxes on their own purchases? On what types of items would the applicant collect or pay sales taxes for each alternative, if it were not exempt? 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-60 DRAFT Do the Village, Town, or School District get a share of any sales taxes? Could the applicant estimate how much the sales taxes would be for each alternative discussed in the FEIS? Schlank 068 (#550): From the applicant’s perspective, what are the pros and cons of these kinds of IDA/PILOT agreements? Schlank 068 (#551): If a senior housing facility is approved and constructed at 900 King Street and it subsequently goes out of business, how will this affect tax payments under the PILOT agreement? (assuming one is negotiated and agreed-upon). Response 69: As stated in Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” “The Applicant and owner of the property is a for-profit entity and will remain so. Similarly, the Applicant will not be seeking standalone tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code. However, certain tax exemptions or reductions may be available through the Westchester County [IDA].” The Applicant does not foresee applying for or availing itself of tax exemption, reductions, or subsidies other than those available through the IDA. The IDA process is summarized in Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” and detailed in Section 9.4.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” of the DEIS. The Applicant needs financial benefits from the IDA to make the project financially feasible and, as such, the Applicant plans on making an application to the IDA for sales tax exemption, mortgage tax exemption as well as real property tax abatements (i.e., a PILOT). With respect to the PILOT, the IDA’s general policy is to have the Applicant agree upon a PILOT with the local municipality and then submit that PILOT to the IDA for final approval. IDA benefits are typically awarded to incentivize the creation of new jobs as well as to assist in developing or redeveloping strategic sites within a municipality by lowering construction costs and allowing for the phase in of full property taxes during the period when a project is stabilizing, or in this case becoming fully leased. OFF-SITE IMPACTS Comment 70: Comments were received suggesting that the Proposed Project would adversely affect the property values of off-Site properties in the Village. (Mignogna 001, Maniscalco 005, Schlank 068, Gudaski 075) Mignogna 001 (#4): this [Project] will adversely affect our values which is something we do not need to see again. Maniscalco 005 (#22): If we are to allow any type of rental properties [in the School District], particularly those in such volume as in the proposal, we will be creating undue taxation on our school system, and the children in our schools (and our property values) will suffer Schlank 068 (#545): Estimate the resulting adverse financial impact on the property values in the Arbors. Please include both short-term construction impacts and longer-term impacts, and please indicate how the applicant plans to proceed to negotiate a settlement or agreement with the Arbors property owners to mitigate the adverse financial impacts on our property values. Gudaski 075 (#570): So, if they are rentals they always, you know, affect the value of the houses, they seem to decrease the value of the houses. Response 70: See Response to Comment 62. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-61 7/2/202010/08/2020 3.10. COMMUNITY FACILITIES GENERAL Comment 71: A comment was received stating that the Proposed Project would “drain valuable resources from the community.” (Mandell 010) Mandell 010 (#99): [The project will] drain valuable resources from the community. Response 71: See Response to Comment 65. The Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to generate property tax revenue to the Village in excess of the increased cost required to provide additional community services. EMS Comment 72: The Village Administrator provided additional information with respect to the current condition of the EMS service, including its service area, procedures for positioning ambulances, staffing levels, and the financial contributions of its three member municipalities. The Administrator also noted that, “in order to meet current demand, EMS has hired an additional supervisor. They are also considering adding an additional ambulance at certain times of the day. For FY2019, they have requested a 5-percent increase in their municipal contributions for the first time since 2010 in order to address the need for additional coverage. The EMS is discussing the need to add an ambulance on certain shifts to meet the call demand.” (Bradbury 017) Bradbury 017 (#204): The Emergency Services section does not fully address the service area or the revenue sources. The DEIS should more fully explain that the EMS covers three (3) municipalities. Rye Brook, Rye City, and Port Chester (this relationship is briefly discussed in DEIS Section 10.2.1.1). Bradbury 017 (#207): The EMS’s headquarters is at 417 Ellendale Avenue in Port Chester. Based on staffing and call volume, the EMS positions an ambulance in other locations, including at the Rye Brook firehouse. As calls come in, they will reposition these ambulances as needed based on those calls and ambulances available. When patients need transport, they usually go to Greenwich Hospital or White Plains Hospital pulling those ambulances out of the response area. If mutual aid is needed in their service area, they will typically call Harrison EMS or Greenwich EMS. Similarly, they will also go to mutual aid calls in Harrison or elsewhere if needed and staffing is available. Bradbury 017 (#208): In order to meet current demand, EMS has hired an additional supervisor. They are also considering adding an additional ambulance at certain times of the day. For FY2019, they have requested a 5% increase in their municipal contributions for the first time since 2010 in order to address the need for additional coverage. Response 72: Comment noted. Additional detail with respect to the existing operational and budgetary conditions of the EMS service is provided in Section 2.10.1, “Emergency Services.” Comment 73: Comments were received regarding the magnitude of the potential impacts to the EMS service from the Proposed Project. These comments included questions regarding the number of calls estimated for the Proposed Project (e.g., “why the 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-62 DRAFT large variation in potential calls?”); the percentage increase in call volume that would be attributable to the Proposed Project; the cost to the Village and the two other municipalities in the EMS district from the increase in calls attributable to the Proposed Project as well as the increase in population attributed to the Proposed Project; and, the impact of the Proposed Project, and the senior living facility proposed at Purchase, on mutual aid operations. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Bradbury 017, Planning Board 018) Snyder 007 (#72): The DEIS asserts that the increase in EMS calls and expenditures would be offset by an increase in revenue but it fails to provide evidence to support that conclusion. The DEIS simply states with no evidence that the financial impact of an increase in calls would be primarily mitigated through future insurance recovery. It does not take into the account that the EMS service would have to be expanded since it is operating near or at capacity. FP Clark 012 (#152): The Port Chester-Rye-Rye Brook EMS received 1257 calls in 2017. By the Applicant’s estimate, the potential projected calls per year by the Proposed Project would be 465. This would be a 37% increase in the numbers of calls to the EMS that is currently operating near or at capacity, not a 7.8% increase as incorrectly identified by the Applicant in the DEIS. The FEIS should analyze the cost of the 37% increase in call versus the increase in funding from tax revenue and the 70% insurance recovery rate. Bradbury 017 (#205): The DEIS states that since most of the EMS revenue comes from insurance recovery, the costs for any increase in calls will be recovered through insurance recovery and additional property tax revenue. This conclusion is not reflective of the impacts of the additional calls on the three municipalities in the EMS service area. Approximately 70% of the EMS revenues come from insurance recovery, while 25% of the remaining revenues come from municipal contributions…75% of the municipal contributions are divided equally among the 3 municipalities while the remaining 25% is based on population. As populations change in the census figures, the 25% share of the municipal contributions change as well. The potential impact of an increase in Rye Brook’s population from this development is not discussed in the DEIS. In terms of property tax revenue offsets, both Port Chester and Rye City would not receive additional property tax revenues from this project to offset any potential increase in their municipal contributions. Bradbury 017 (#206): The DEIS should break down the calls by municipality to more clearly reflect t6he number of EMS calls to Rye Brook. The DEIS indicates that there could be as much as a 7.8% increase in call volume from this site but this is in the entire service area, not just Rye Brook. Bradbury 017 (#212): There is a significant difference between 66 and 465 EMS calls per year and the DEIS indicates that this difference in response rate “could be attributable to a number of factors, including the relative age and health of the on-Site population.” And that to “minimize the number of additional calls for EMS services, the Proposed Project would seek to incorporate physical and operational measures to minimize unnecessary EMS calls, such as instituting physical improvements and operational policies to reduce fall hazards throughout the facility.” The differences in the number of calls, and how this impact could be mitigated, should be more specifically identified. Planning Board 018 (#239): How will the proposed senior housing in nearby Purchase impact mutual aid for emergency services. Response 73: Section 2.10.1, “Emergency Services,” provides an expanded discussion of the potential impacts of the Revised Proposed Project on the EMS service as well as on the municipal contributions to that service. In summary, Village population increases by 406 people as a result of the Revised Proposed Project, and the Village of Port Chester and City of Rye do not also experience similarly proportioned increases in their municipal population, the Village may be required to contribute an additional $1,784.50 per year to the EMS service. Increases in Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-63 7/2/202010/08/2020 the population of the Village of Port Chester and/or City of Rye would have the potential to reduce, or eliminate, this increase. In order to reduce the number of EMS calls from the Revised Proposed Project, though not required by New York State regulation, the Applicant intends to have a nurse on-Site 24 hours a day available to both IL and AL residents. The nurse, and other staff as discussed in Section 2.10.1, “Emergency Services,” would assist with the evaluation of residents that fall. If a resident has hit their head, is unsure of how they fell, or seems unsteady, the staff will call 911. If, however, the resident does not have pain, trained staff will evaluate the resident and will help the resident up if it is safe to do so without calling 911. With this, and other operational policies previously described in Section 2.10.1.2, the Revised Proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 141 EMS calls per year—approximately one additional call every other day. This would represent an increase of approximately 2.3 percent in calls system-wide and an increase of approximately 11.2 percent in calls within the Village. If the EMS service determined that the increase in EMS calls attributable to the Revised Proposed Project would substantially increase the non-reimbursed expenses of the service, an increase in the municipal contribution to the EMS service may be required. As noted in Section 2.10.1.2, “EMS: Increase in Call Volume,” it is unlikely that the Revised Proposed Project will require an increase in EMS expenses equal to the percentage increase in calls attributable to the Revised Proposed Project. More likely, a smaller increase in expenses, and required revenue, would likely be needed. The Applicant bases this assumption on two findings. First, and as noted earlier, the EMS service did not raise the municipal contribution to the service for nearly a decade, during which the number of calls to the service increased. This indicates that the number of calls is not directly proportional to the municipal contribution. Second, the EMS service has indicated that they are currently considering adding another ambulance to certain shifts to meet the current demand of the service. This increased fixed cost of service would be required with or without the Revised Proposed Project. Further, it is likely that the recent increase in municipal contributions to the EMS service was required, in part, to fund this anticipated current, fixed-cost need. Therefore, the Revised Proposed Project, while increasing the number of calls to the service, may not, in and of, itself require the addition of new staff or equipment; rather, it may lead to a higher utilization of the staff and equipment that are currently budgeted for the EMS service. Finally, even in the most conservative, worst case, the Village could experience an increase of approximately $5,032 per year to support the EMS service and the Village of Port Chester and City of Rye would also experience increased costs. The costs to the Village would be offset by the increase in property taxes attributable to the Revised Proposed Project, which the costs to the City of Rye 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-64 DRAFT and Village of Port Chester would not be offset by increases in property tax revenue to those municipalities. The Village has not been made aware of potential adverse impacts to mutual aid as a result of the Revised Proposed Project and the proposed senior living project at SUNY Purchase. Comment 74: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested additional information on the measures proposed to reduce the number of EMS calls for “lift assist,” such as providing an on-Site emergency medical technician (EMT). (FP Clark 012) FP Clark 012 (#151): The Applicant should advise whether there will be an EMT required to be on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in the assisted living and independent living facility to help in cases that would require “lift assist.” If there is an EMT on-Site, this would limit the number of calls to the Port Chester-Rye-Rye Brook EMS.s Response 74: Consistent with industry practices, the Applicant does not anticipate hiring an EMT to staff the Revised Proposed Project. Instead, as state in the DEIS, the Applicant would institute physical improvements and operational policies to minimize unnecessary EMS calls, including physical improvements and operational policies to reduce fall hazards throughout the facility. POLICE Comment 75: A comment was received questioning whether the Proposed Project would generate sufficient additional property tax revenue to offset the cost of increased police services attributable to the Proposed Project. (Snyder 007) Snyder 007 (#73): with respect to police services, the DEIS states that an additional police officer would be required due to the scale of the project at a cost of approximately $225,750 per year. However, the project will generate only $281,359 in tax revenue, providing a small spread of the differential between the tax revenue and cost for police. This differential does not take into account other community services such as additional fire and EMS services which would be needed. Unlike other projects in the Village, the very nature of the project here relies on having sufficient emergency services and an adverse fiscal impact appears likely. Response 75: As stated in Section 10.2.3.2, “Police Services,” of the DEIS, RBPD noted that the Proposed Project “together with other previously approved residential developments in the Village, would require additional police personnel and associated equipment” (emphasis added). As such, the Revised Proposed Project would only be responsible for a fraction of the total annual cost of an additional police officer—$225,750. Taken together, the conservative estimate of the additional annual municipal costs attributable to the Revised Proposed Project is approximately $85,282. As described in Section 2.9.2, “Fiscal Conditions,” withbased on the $29.7 million potential Town of Rye Tax Assessor’s estimated assessed value of the project as estimated by the Applicant, the Revised Proposed Project, the project would generate $275,339469,187 in property taxes to the Village each year. This is a $154,882358,288 annual increase from the taxes Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-65 7/2/202010/08/2020 currently generated by the Site, resulting in an annual surplus to the Village of $69,600273,006 after accounting for potential increased costs. In the event that the Revised Proposed Project is assessed at a higher rate as estimated by the Town of Rye Tax Assessor, this annual surplus to the Village would increase. It is noted that the Village budgeted for an additional police officer in its 2020-2021 budget See also Response to Comment 73. FIRE SERVICES Comment 76: The Village Administrator requested that the current conditions of the RBFD be updated in light of the new fire services agreement with the Village of Port Chester and the Village of Port Chester requested additional discussion of the impacts that the Proposed Project may have on the fire services agreement. In addition, the Administrator clarified that the RBFD and Port Chester Fire Department (PCFD) both respond to calls within the Village together and that the RBFD is under the operational control of the PCFD. Finally, a comment was received questioning whether the RBFD had the capacity to provide service to the Proposed Project. (Bradbury 017, Bradbury 017, Port Chester 019, Tazbin 071) Bradbury 017 (#209): The opening paragraph [of Section 10.2 of the DEIS] indicates that the PCFD responds “with assistance from the RBFD”. This should be modified that both the PCFD and RBFD both respond to calls together and that the RBFD is under the operational control of the PCFD. Bradbury 017 (#210): The number of RBFD personnel (and their working hours) and the contract with Port Chester is currently very different in FY2019 compared to FY2015 and should be updated. Port Chester 019 (#245): Additional discussion should occur regarding the potential impact of the project on fire services and the April 3, 2018 agreement between the Village of Port Chester and Village of Rye Brook. Tazbin 071 (#563): The police and fire department, they are wonderful, but do they feel with the current staffing that they could support. Response 76: The Village and the Village of Port Chester executed a fire services agreement in March 2018 (see Appendix E-2). This agreement details the roles and responsibilities of the villages with respect to fire protection services within the Village. As noted therein, the RBFD will respond to calls within the Village together with the PCFD. The RBFD will be under the operational control of the PCFD. The RBFD hashad a budget of $2,035,018 for the 2019 Fiscal Year.3 As noted in Section 2.10.1.4, “Fire Services,” the Revised Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in significant increases in calls to RBFD. The Revised Proposed Project’s height and construction would be of a similar height and construction type to buildings already present within the Village. Finally, in RBFD’s correspondence to the Applicant, the RBFD did not discuss whether 3 https://www.cleargov.com/new-york/westchester/village/rye-brook/2019/expenditures/public-safety/fire department-&-ems/fire 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-66 DRAFT additional personnel or equipment to serve the Revised Proposed Project would be needed. Comment 77: The Village Administrator requested confirmation of the RBFD’s actual historical response time to the Project Site with data from the County’s dispatcher. (Bradbury 017) Bradbury 017 (#211): While the location [Project Site] is admittedly very close to the Rye Brook Firehouse, it is unlikely that it would take “less than 1 minute” to get to the site from the time of dispatch. This information should be verified with factual information available from 60 Control. Response 77: The Applicant requested and received documentation with respect to the elapsed time from dispatch of the Fire Department to the time of the equipment’s arrival at 900 King Street (see Appendix E-3). According to this documentation, the historical overall response time (2016, 2017, 2018) to the Project Site from the time of dispatch is 3 to 7 minutes, with an average of 4 minutes 30 seconds. It noted that the Project Site is adjacent to the Rye Brook Fire Department’s building and that buildings within the Revised Proposed Project would contain modern life safety systems (e.g., sprinklers). Comment 78: The Planning Board requested that the Proposed Project demonstrate compliance with the New York State Fire Code. (Planning Board 018) Planning Board 018 (#225): Demonstrate compliance with the NYS Fire Code, including means of egress from the building for the staff and residents. Response 78: The building will be designed to fully comply with the applicable provisions of the New York State Building and Fire Codes, including Chapter 10, “Means of Egress.” Compliance with these provisions would be determined by the Village’s Building Inspector during the building permit review process. SCHOOLS Comment 79: Comments were received expressing concern that an age-restricted population might not vote in favor of school budgets. Another commenter noted that in her experience, age-restricted populations do not necessarily vote against school budgets. Finally, other commenters noted that age-restricted developments may be appropriate to balance the potential of a project adding more school-age children in the district with the potential for a project to add a voting bloc that may be less supportive of the school budget. (Ghosh 008, Parvani 009, Samuels 016, Levine 029, Neumann 030, Barnett 034, Feinstein 049) (AKRF) Ghosh 008 (#90): A 55+ community would impact our school budget proposals. More residents in our small community that do not have a stake in passing our school budgets…negatively impact property values for all residents. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-67 7/2/202010/08/2020 Parvani 009 (#94): A 55+ community would impact our school budget proposals. More residents in our small community that do not have a stake in passing our school budgets…negatively impact property values for all residents. Samuels 016 (#199): The 55+ community would adversely impact financial support for our school budget proposals. More residents in our small community who do not have a stake in passing the budgets would be detrimental to future school funding…decrease the stature of our schools in district rankings…negatively impact property values. Levine 029 (#265): So why would they [the residents of the proposed project] ever vote to pass the school budget if they have no school-age children? Neumann 030 (#267): You really can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want to impact the school, in terms of number of children, then we are taking the risk that we’re going to have a large community that doesn’t really care about the extremely high taxes and school taxes in this district. Barnett 034 (#276): what’s the impact on the schools and what about the voters? There’s a surefire way to make sure that the impact is mitigated to the schools, and that’s to make sure that the number of residents that goes to this project, whether 62, that the number of units is as little as possible so that it’s economically viable. Feinstein 049 (#383): I’ve taken offense – I’ve read some of the letters online. I don’t want people to feel that if you have seniors in a development that they are going to be against the school budget. Some of your best supporters of budgets are your seniors who have had children go through the schools and the like. Feinstein 049 (#384): I personally think that this development will add tax revenue, which is needed, because we want our schools to be maintained to the quality they are right now. Response 79: No evidence was presented that an age-restricted population might be more included to vote in favor of, or be less supportive of, school budgets. Comment 80: Several commenters suggested that a 55 years old and older community (or 62 years old and older community) would be more likely to have school-age children than estimated in the DEIS. (Maniscalco 005, Mandell 010, Samuels 016, Rosenberg 021, Levy 067) Maniscalco 005 (#23): We lack the capacity to handle potentially hundreds more families in the schools...the 55+ community does not preclude older parents, grandparents, or subsequent occupants from occupying the units at this, or some future time. Mandell 010 (#97): This development will overcrowd our schools (I know it is 55+, but so was Belle Fair when proposed). Samuels 016 (#200): A larger number of young families with children (will) soon find their way into the community, despite the 55-and-over goal, this would further crowd our schools with finite resources. Rosenberg 021 (#278): There wasn’t a concern in terms of the increase of school-age children. They felt that they – if it was 55 and above, they felt that they could accommodate them. Levy 067 (#535): One of the primary reasons people move to Rye Brook is the wonderful schools. Even with an age limit of 62, there will be residents with children; these days, people having school-age children at the age of 62 is not uncommon. Response 80: In response to comments from the Lead Agency and the public, and to further minimize the potential for school-age children to live within the Revised Proposed Project, the Applicant has modified the original project to increase the minimum age of project residents to 62 years old and older, which is consistent with the Village’s current definition of “senior living facility.” 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-68 DRAFT In order to estimate the number of school-age children that could have been expected to live in the original project, which was proposed to be age restricted to those 55 years old and older, the Applicant collected information on the number of school-age children living at eight residential developments in the region that was age restricted to 55 years old and older. Within the eight developments, there was a total of 1,173 dwelling units across seven different school districts. Based on information collected directly from the school districts, there was a total of three school-age children enrolled from those developments. The Applicant also requested information from the Superintendent of the BBRUFSD regarding the number of school-age children residing at The Atria, Rye Brook and the King Street Rehab facility, two age-restricted senior living communities located on King Street. To the best of the Superintendent’s knowledge, there were no children living at either facility. Based on this data, as well as the revision to the project’s age restriction, it is unlikely that school-aged children would reside within the Revised Proposed Project. Comment 81: A commenter questioned the impact of the Proposed Project on the BBRUFSD would be if current residents of the Village who do not have school-age children move into the Proposed Project and sell their houses to a family that does have school-age children. (Barnett 034) Barnett 034 (#277): If this community, this new community, is designed to get people to move out of their homes, what isn’t addressed…is especially in that first year or two or three, how many people who live in this area…decide to move to this structure…and decide to get out of their house, and those people are replaced with people who have school-age children and the impact on the schools. Response 81: As noted in Section 2.9.1, “Demographics,” the Village’s population has grown 10.8 percent since 1990 and the median age of Village residents has increased from 40.7 to 44.2 years old. This is consistent with the trend in the nation and the County. As such, it can be expected that with or without the construction of the Revised Proposed Project, an increasing number of Village residents that may seek to sell their houses due to time and cost associated with home maintenance and the desire to live closer to friends and live in a setting where car usage is not required. Nevertheless, in the event that the Revised Proposed Project did incentivizeincentivizes a small number of Village senior citizens that might not otherwise have wanted to move to sell their houses to families with children, it would not be expected to adversely affect the BBRUFSD. As discussed in Section 10.3.1, “Schools: Existing Conditions,” of the DEIS, enrollment within BBRUFSD declined by 90 students—or 6 percent—between the 2014–2015 school year and the 2017–2018 school year. According to the BBRUFSD, enrollment is anticipated to continue to decline slightly during the next few years. Therefore, even with the anticipated increase in school-age children within the district as a result of the Kingfield development, there would still be sufficient capacity to serve new students to the district. With respect to the financial costs Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-69 7/2/202010/08/2020 associated with potential new school children, it is noted that the Revised Proposed Project would generate approximately $578,3551.24 million more per year in property tax revenue to the BBRUFSD than the Site does currently using the Applicant’s estimated assessed value, and $1,217,935 more using the Town of Rye Tax Assessor’s estimate.. This would be enough to cover the costs of at least 20 to 4344 school children based on the 2017–2018 average annual expenditure per pupil of $28,061. OPEN SPACE Comment 82: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested that the source of the guidelines used to estimate the appropriate amount of open space for the Proposed Project’s residents be provided. In addition, the Village Administrator requested more detail on how the open space provided on the Project Site fulfills the requirements of Section 209-14 of the Village Code with respect to the siting of “a park or parks.” (FP Clark 012, Bradbury 017, Klein 062) FP Clark 012 (#153): The tables provide the amount of open space that should be provided per 1,000 people based on guidelines provided by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). The attached appendices and figures do not contain the original information from the OPRHP and we have been unable to verify the information. The FEIS should include the original report from the OPRHP to verify that the information on recommended open space is correct. Bradbury 017 (#213): The DEIS indicates that the Project would include 2.7 acres of space for active and passive recreation, which exceeds the Section 209-14 code requirement (for) that purpose. However, the DEIS ignores the first part of the code requirement for “a park or parks suitably located and usable for passive or active recreational purposes”. The Village Board should decide if providing the identified open space on the project meets this code requirement. Klein 062 (#510): Agree with Bradbury comments that Village Board determines what is appropriate. Response 82: The source of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) guidelines is the New York State Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Specifically, Appendix I, Recreation Facility Design Guidelines,4 which is included as Appendix F. The Applicant notes that these guidelines were published to help municipalities develop open space and recreation plans for their entire community. As such, they reflect a blended average of the open space needs of those members of the community that require more opportunities for open space and recreation and those that require less. The Applicant also notes that neither New York State, nor the National Recreation and Park Association, the organization that published data on which some of the New York State data is based, currently publish a “target” for the amount of park space per capita. 4 The 2014–2019 Plan no longer publishes these guidelines and the 2009–2013 Plan edited the guidelines to remove the targeted amount of open space per capita, focusing instead on guidelines and park development. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-70 DRAFT As stated in Section 2.10.31.4.1.5, “Open Space,” the Revised Proposed Project would preserve approximately 11.01 acres of the Project Site, or 62 percent, as open space—an increase of 0.7 acres from the current condition. Of that space, at least 1.89 acres could be considered parks and recreational space, as shown on Figure 2-111-15 and summarized in Table 3.10-1. Table 3.10-1 On-Site Recreation Areas Open Space Area Approximate Area Description East Garden (Memory Garden) 5,155 sf For AL and memory care residents West Sun Deck Garden 3,539 sf Primarily for IL residents North Courtyard Garden 12,254 sf Primarily for IL residents Walking Path 31,950 sf For all Project residents and staff Backyard 29,830 sf For all Project residents and staff Total 82,728 sf (~1.89 acres) The five main areas of open and recreation space are described in more detail below:  A Memory Garden (the East Garden, approximately 5,115 sf) would be located east of the AL facility for use by the facility’s residents. This secure, outdoor area would be landscaped and programmed to allow AL residents to safely enjoy the outdoors.  Various landscaped gardens and terraces would be provided adjacent to the IL building. These spaces would be programmed for a various uses, including passive activities, such as reading or having a conversation, as well as for slightly more active activities.  The existing Walking Path would be extended to the north within the Site and would terminate at a landscaped loop in the Site’s northeast corner. This path, and the landscaped area to its east, would give Project residents the opportunity to enjoy longer walks on the Project Site. In addition, this Linear Walking Path would connect to the existing sidewalk that connects the Project Site to Harkness Park, as well as to the Backyard walking path.  The Backyard walking path would connect to pedestrian paths located at the northern and southern portions of the Site. This path would meander through a slightly wooded area and provide residents and staff with a more serene setting to recreate or simply sit and relax. In the event that the Lead Agency determines during the Site Plan Review process that the Revised Proposed Project does not meet the requirements of Section 209- 14, then the Applicant would be required to remit a fee in lieu of the amount of deficient parkland. SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING Comment 83: A comment was received requesting that the FEIS more fully “discuss the potential for food waste composting to reduce the waste stream from food services at the Project.” (Drummond 037) Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-71 7/2/202010/08/2020 Drummond 037 (#290): The final scoping outline for the EIS required the applicant to address the potential for food waste composting. However, the draft EIS did not contain a discussion on this topic beyond a statement that “the Applicant would welcome the opportunity to partner with a community organization that may want to make use of the Proposed Project’s organic waste by composting it.” The draft EIS cites the lack of a finalized solid waste management plan as the reason why no further discussion of food composting could be made. The final EIS should fulfill the scoping requirement to (more) fully ‘discuss the potential for food waste composting to reduce the waste stream from food services at the Project." Response 83: The Applicant understands that food waste can be a sizeable portion of the solid waste generated by residential uses. At this time, the Revised Proposed Project has not yet finalized its solid waste management plan. The Applicant will develop a solid waste management plan during final site plan approval that meets the requirements of the County’s Source Separation Law. This plan will be submitted to the Commissioner of Environmental Facilities of the County as well as the Village. The Applicant notes that the Village operates a Food Scrap Recycling Program, where residents can collect their food scraps and bring them to a designated drop- off in the parking lot at Village Hall (938 King Street). The food scraps are then carted to a licensed compost facility in Ulster County, where they are converted into nutrient rich top soil. The Village currently pays $400/month to maintain 10 large 64-gallon compost bins, which are emptied every Wednesday. To date, the program has composted 3 tons of food waste from residents individually dropping off food scraps at the Village Hall parking lot. On any given week, the Village fills the equivalent of three 64-gallon bins. To further mitigate potential impacts associated with solid waste, the Applicant is evaluating the feasibility of establishing a food scrap recycling program on- Site. The Applicant notes that the Village has an existing food scrap recycling program that allows Village residents to drop off food scraps at Village Hall where they are picked up by a licensed carter once a week. It is the Applicant’s intention to evaluate whether the Revised Proposed Project could serve as a second pick-up location. SENIOR SERVICES Comment 84: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested that, “The Applicant…explain why [it] believes that residents of the proposed development will not use the existing Rye Brook Senior Center inside the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center.” (FP Clark 012, Timpone-Mohamed 043) FP Clark 012 (#154): The Applicant should explain why the Applicant believes that residents of the proposed development will not use the existing Rye Brook Senior Center inside the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center. Timpone-Mohamed 043 (#337): What (is) the impact on the senior center that is run by the Village, the Posillipo Center, what impacts would there be on them from this influx of seniors who will be -- you know, those who the Village property would be available to them. I don’t think that’s touched in the DEIS. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-72 DRAFT Response 84: The Revised Proposed Project would provide Project residents many of the same services offered by the Rye Brook Senior Center, including hot lunch, exercise programs, transportation, enrichment classes. The Revised Proposed Project would include a fitness center for use by residents that would be equipped with strength-training machines and a group fitness room. The cost of accessing the fitness center would be included in the cost of living at the senior living community. In addition, trips and programs would be offered to Project residents, such as to local grocery stores, shopping centers, malls, and cultural institutions. In terms of dining, IL residents would be expected to participate in a meal plan that would include some or all of their meals; AL residents would be expected to participate in a meal plan for all of their meals and townhouse residents would have the option to participate in a meal plan at the IL building, and would also have the opportunity to cook for themselves. On August 27, 2019, AKRF staff spoke with Elizabeth Rotfeld, the Village of Rye Brook’s Deputy Village Clerk/ Senior Coordinator to discuss the utilization and capacity of the Village’s Senior Center. Ms. Rotfeld stated that over the past decade, attendance at meals (e.g., lunch) has declined, while the number of activities and participants has grown. In the past, lunches were attended by an average of 40 residents, whereas currently, an average of 20 seniors attend lunch. Similarly, fewer residents stay at the center all day than in the past. Special lectures, holiday activities, and special lunches are still well-attended. Based on the capacity of the Senior Center and its current utilization, it is Ms. Rotfeld’s opinion that the Senior Center has the capacity to accommodate additional senior seniors, such as those that may reside in the Revised Proposed Project. 3.11. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES WATER SUPPLY Comment 85: Comments were received questioning the capacity of Suez to provide adequate water to the Proposed Project without adversely affecting other areas within the Village. (Carravone 002, Planning Board 018, Zimmerman 046) Carravone 002 (#10): poor air quality, water pressure and sewer system will be a big problem for our neighborhood Planning Board 018 (#227): Notwithstanding the “will serve” letter, does Suez have capacity to meet the projected water supply demand? The concern is that a majority of water supply in this area of the Village comes from Greenwich and when we are in drought alert residents are advised to restrict water use. Zimmerman 046 (#356): As far as environmental analysis on water supply, your Village Board said you were concerned about insufficient pressure of volume of water for firefighting and domestic use. Response 85: A thorough analysis was performed by Suez Water Westchester Inc. (SWWC), in conjunction with Westchester Joint Water Works (WJWW) located in Mamaroneck, New York and Aquarion Water Company (Aquarion CT) in Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-73 7/2/202010/08/2020 Bridgeport, Connecticut, regarding the capacity of the existing water infrastructure to serve the Proposed Project (see Appendix G). The report concluded that SWWC’s supply pressure will have to be upgraded by providing an interconnection to WJWW on Anderson Hill Road via the Blind Brook pressure reducing valve and an interconnection made with Aquarion CT via the King Street pressure reducing valve. SWWC will be financially responsible for making these interconnections. Based on this analysis, SWWC reissued a Will Serve Letter, dated February 1, 2019 that takes into account the maximum fire flow demand of the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix G). In addition to upgrades to the existing infrastructure, a new meter needs to be installed on the 16-inch main at Anderson Hill Road, bypassing the existing 8- inch meter vault, due to the significant head losses that are currently occurring in the vault during peak flow conditions. The design criteria of the meter vault are being finalized by WJWW. The cost associated with the meter upgrade and new vault would be the responsibility of the Applicant. The report prepared by SWWC, dated February 1, 2019, summarizes the findings of the analysis performed to ensure these upgrades are sufficient to provide adequate water flows and pressures during both normal and extreme scenarios (i.e. during fire demand) (see Appendix G). SWWC service standards establish a minimum pressure of 35 psi at the service tap location and a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi during fire-flow conditions. The analysis shows pressures of 62 psi under post-development conditions and 32 psi under fire flow conditions, which are both more than the required 35 psi and 20 psi, respectively. Therefore, sufficient flows and pressures during both normal and extreme conditions will be provided. Comment 86: The Village’s Consulting Engineer requested additional information on the ability of the water system to provide adequate capacity and pressure to serve the Proposed Project in the event of an on-Site fire during a condition where an off- Site fire occurs within the same area. Specifically, the Village’s Consulting Engineer requested a discussion of the potential impacts to the booster system on Anderson Hill Road along with mitigation measures that may be required, including on-Site pumps or tanks. (Snyder 007, Oliveri 011) Snyder 007 (#77): Details on storage tanks and pumps in connection with fire requirement (needs to be provided). Oliveri 011 (#100): Section 11.2.3 of the Scoping Outline required an analysis of the capacity available while firefighting is occurring in the vicinity. While fire flow hydrant tests have been performed, and SUEZ has provided a "willingness to serve" letter, this analysis has not yet been performed. The DEIS states that "confirmation of this analysis has been requested from SUEZ". SUEZ has acknowledged problems with the system in this area, not necessarily restricted to drought conditions. Oliveri 011 (#101): The DEIS does not discuss the status of increasing capacity and reliability of the system. The DEIS states that SUEZ noted that there is infrastructure in place “to secure water from different locations”, however this is not discussed in any detail. Additional information is also needed on potential problems within the area supplied by the booster system on Anderson Hill Road that would affect this development. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-74 DRAFT Particularly if an off-site fire occurs within the area served by the booster system. If fire pumps and/or water storage are required, the applicant should provide information now. As discussed previously, this issue should be resolved by the time of FEIS submission. Response 86: The latest analysis performed by SWWC on the existing infrastructure has shown that on-Site storage tanks and pumps to accommodate fire flows in connection with the Revised Proposed Project are not needed (see Appendix G). See also the Response to Comment 85. SANITARY SEWER Comment 87: Comments were received requesting confirmation that the sanitary sewer system, specifically the section of the system between the Project Site and the County’s trunk main, had sufficient capacity to accommodate the Proposed Project. (Carravone 002, Snyder 007, Saboia 052) Carravone 002 (#10): poor air quality, water pressure and sewer system will be a big problem for our neighborhood Snyder 007 (#76): The sufficiency of the sanitary sewer needs to be more properly documented. Saboia 052 (#388): My biggest concern is effluent...waste discharge from toilets, showers, dish washers, washing machines. The scope of this project...one of the biggest complaints was the worry of what was going to happen to all the waste water, the effluent. Saboia 052 (#389): There were years back where we had horrible floods down towards the lower end of Bayberry. My concern is that with the scope of this [proposed project] and the size, we would have to be facing major issues with our water and the fluid. Response 87: As described in Section 2.11.2, “Sanitary Sewer,” an analysis of the capacity of the sanitary sewer network connecting the Project Site to the County’s sewer trunk line was performed (see DEIS Appendix EE). As shown in Table 6 of DEIS Appendix EE, this sewer infrastructure has the capacity to handle up to 0.960 cubic feet per second (cfs) of flow, which is well in excess of the 0.645 cfs of flow projected in the post-development condition with the original project. As shown in the analysis, with the original project, the existing 8-inch sewer main would flow at 45 percent of its capacity during periods of peak flow. As the Revised Proposed Project would generate less sanitary wastewater than the original project, the sewer mains would similarly be able to handle the increase flows associated with the Revised Proposed Project. Comment 88: The Village’s Consulting Engineer noted that, “The DEIS states that the Applicant agrees to mitigate increases to sewage flow (net 35,787 [gallons per day] gpd increase) at a 3:1 ratio (107,361 gpd). This is in accordance with the County Departments of Planning and Environmental Facilities recommendations and should be made a condition of any future site plan approval. The Applicant agrees to either complete further investigation to identify I&I sources in the downstream sewer system and conduct repairs or to contribute sufficient funds to the Village’s current I&I program as mitigation.” (Oliveri 011) Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-75 7/2/202010/08/2020 Oliveri 011 (#102): The DEIS states that the applicant agrees to mitigate increases to sewage flow (net 35,787 gpd increase) at a three for one ratio (107,361 gpd). This is in accordance with the Westchester County Departments of Planning and Environmental Facilities recommendations and should be made a condition of any future site plan approval. The applicant agrees to either complete further investigation to identify I&I sources in the downstream sewer system and conduct repairs or to contribute sufficient funds to the Village’s current I&I program as mitigation. Response 88: As described in Section 2.11.2, “Sanitary Sewer,” the Proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 47,670 gpd of sanitary sewage, which is equal to an increment of 27,757 gpd more than the No Build condition. In accordance with WCDEF recommendations, the Applicant would mitigate the additional 27,757 gpd to the system at a 3:1 ratio, or a reduction in inflow and infiltration in the amount of 83,271 gpd. The Applicant would meet its obligation through a monetary contribution to the Village’s I&I program, project-based mitigation, or a combination of both. The Applicant is open to restricting the use of these funds to a specific project, including the relining of the sewer main from 900 King Street to the existing main. Comment 89: The Village’s Consulting Engineer made several comments with respect to specific design elements of the on-Site sanitary sewer system. (Oliveri 011) Oliveri 011 (#113): Connection of sanitary sewer services from the proposed town houses directly into manholes should be avoided. Oliveri 011 (#114): Sewer main alignment between SMH-3-1 and SMH-3 is at an extremely acute angle, this should be avoided. Oliveri 011 (#115): Sewer and drainage profiles are required for review and approval. Response 89: The sanitary sewer service connections are designed to connect directly into sewer mains instead of manholes. This is illustrated on drawing C-500 (see Volume 4). The proposed sanitary sewer main alignments have been designed to avoid any connections at acute angles. This is illustrated on drawing C-500 (see Volume 4). Drawings C-510, C-511, and C-520 have been added to the site plans showing the sanitary sewer and storm sewer profiles (see Volume 4). ENERGY USAGE (ELECTRICITY AND GAS) Comment 90: Comments were received requesting that Con Ed confirm that sufficient electric and gas service for the Proposed Project is available. (Snyder 007, Planning Board 018, Tazbin 071) Snyder 007 (#75): Existing electric service and existing gas service will accommodate the proposed project. It is imperative that these statements be confirmed. Planning Board 018 (#234): Consolidated Edison should confirm (and such confirmation should be independently analyzed) that its existing infrastructure can handle the increased electricity demand. The Arbors experiences blackouts that also affect properties on Country Ridge Drive. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-76 DRAFT Tazbin 071 (#562): Con Edison. Do they honestly feel that they would support a couple hundred extra units if they can’t even support what they have now with all the outages that we have? Response 90: The Revised Proposed Project would require electricity and gas to power building systems. Con Edison would continue to provide electric service to the site, which would be fed through an underground 13.2 kilovolt (kV) service originating from Arbor Drive. This 13.2 kV service would be tapped by the various buildings on the Project Site with pad-mounted utility transformers at each building. As confirmed by Con Edison, the existing transformer on the Project Site is adequate for the electric loads of the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix H). Con Edison has stated that they can provide firm gas to the Revised Proposed Project and that two upgrades to Con Edison’s gas system would be required: replacement of 945 feet of 4- and 6-inch main with 12-inch main on Mohegan Lane and Latonia Road; and, installation of a 12-inch tie on King Street from Arbor Drive to N. Ridge Street. The cost of these improvements would be initially funded by the Applicant, and refunded by Con Edison upon completion of the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix H). It is the Applicant’s understanding that Con Edison will supply the Revised Proposed Project with firm natural gas service if the Applicant demonstrates continued progress in completing the project even if construction is not completed within two years despite Con Edison’s temporary gas moratorium in southern Westchester County. 3.12. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION METHODOLOGY Comment 91: Comment 91: The Village of Port Chester’s Board of Trustees requested that the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and DEIS examine the following additional intersections:  King Street (Route 120A) and Indian Road/Quintard Drive  King Street (Route 120A) and Putnam Terrace/Putnam Avenue. (Port Chester 019) Port Chester 019 (#241): The Traffic Impact Study and DEIS should examine the following additional intersections: a. King Street (Route 120A) and Indian Road/Quintard Drive b. King Street (Route 120A) and Putnam Terrace/Putnam Avenue Response 91: As per the Adopted Scoping Document (see DEIS Appendix A-1), the DEIS Traffic Impact Study evaluated twelve (12) intersections, including the unsignalized King Street/Comly Avenue and the unsignalized King Street/Betsy Brown Road intersections to the south. Based on the anticipated arrival/distributions shown in the Traffic Impact Study and the reduction in vehicular trip generation as described in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” it is anticipated that the Revised Proposed Project would add an additional 16 trips during the Weekday Peak AM Highway Hour, 19 trips during Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-77 7/2/202010/08/2020 the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 22 trips during the Weekday Peak PM Highway Hour to the unsignalized King Street/Indian Hill Road/Quintard Drive and the signalized King Street/Putnam Avenue/N. Regent Street/Putnam Terrace intersections. This would be an increase in traffic of approximately 2 percent, which is expected to have minimal impact at the above two intersections. It should also be noted that, as with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would generate significantly less traffic than the re-occupancy of the existing office building. Comment 92: Questions were received questioning the validity of the existing condition traffic counts used in the TIS. (Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Galante 020, Galante 044) Snyder 007 (#86): the applicant’s Traffic Impact Study appears to have been done when the private schools in Greenwich (nearby Greenwich Academy, Sacred Hart, Brunswick, and Eagle Hill to name a few) may have been out of session, thereby not reflecting real traffic patterns, and does not evaluate more than peak periods. FP Clark 012 (#155): The traffic volumes from June [for the North ridge Street at Hutchinson River Parkway Southbound Ramps], which were used in the Traffic Study, are reasonably acceptable for the purposes of this Study [based on recounts done in September and October]. FP Clark 012 (#156): Clark Associates has conducted their own traffic counts at the King Street/Arbor Drive intersection on Tuesday, October 2, 2018. The intersection total volume comparison indicated that the traffic volumes used in the Traffic Study are reasonably acceptable. Galante 020 (#246): In comparison of the data obtained by the Applicant (traffic counts included in the DEIS) and traffic counts obtained by our office (traffic counts performed by FP Clark on King Street), it is our opinion that the baseline traffic volumes used by the Applicant for the purposes of completing their Traffic Study are appropriate and represent typical traffic conditions on King Street and at each of the intersections included in the analyses. Galante 044 (#339): The count was redone this past fall on two different days, and generally speaking the volumes were almost identical. We’re comfortable with those volumes. Galante 044 (#340): We went out and did separate traffic counts. We counted actually King Street at The Arbors driveway, turn moving counts, following the turn movements at different peaks, morning with schools, commuters, after school dismissal, and at the end of the day commuter traffic. We did that with video cameras, and we recorded the volumes, and they matched very closely to the volumes that were included in the document -- in the DEIS. Galante 044 (#341): We did another method of collecting traffic data, which were the hoses across the road. We did that along King Street, basically between Arbors and the Village Hall driveway. It took us three different tries on three different weeks to obtain that data. Three different times because the hoses were tampered with: Either removed, cut, damaged, whatever. But in the end we have the data. Using that volume, which is hourly directional volumes for a period of days, we matched that to the volumes used in the traffic study for the different time periods by direction, and those volumes were very similar, almost identical to what’s in the report. Galante 044 (#342): Volumes that were identified as the baseline, volumes were existing condition, volumes in the traffic report, we would agree with. We think it’s good data as far as the traffic volumes out there. Response 92: The Existing Traffic Volumes were conducted when the area schools were in session and, as outlined in the comment above, Village’s the Traffic Consultant (FPCA) indicated that “the baseline traffic volumes used by the Applicant for the 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-78 DRAFT purposes of completing their traffic study are appropriate and represent typical traffic conditions on King Street and at each of the intersections included in the analysis.” Comment 93: The Village’s Traffic Consultant noted that, “The capacity analysis provided [in the TIS] is reasonably acceptable and is properly calibrated to illustrate existing conditions with capacity deficiencies on the minor street approaches at the Hutchinson River Parkway interchange as well as queue along King Street at key signalized intersections.” (FP Clark 012) FP Clark 012 (#158): The capacity analysis provided is reasonably acceptable and is properly calibrated to illustrate existing conditions with capacity deficiencies on the minor street approaches at the Hutchinson River Parkway interchange as well as queue along King Street at key signalized intersections. FP Clark 012 (#164): The capacity analysis provided (for Build Conditions) is reasonably acceptable. Response 93: Comment noted. Comment 94: The Village’s Traffic Consultant noted that the 2025 No Build traffic volumes in the TIS are reasonably acceptable and that it is the opinion of the Village’s Traffic Consultant that inclusion of trips associated with the full occupancy of the existing office building provided a “fair assessment” because the building is “there and it could be reoccupied.” (FP Clark 012, Galante 044) FP Clark 012 (#159): The 2025 no-build traffic volumes are reasonably acceptable. Galante 044 (#344): There was a comparison with the office building. I know there’s some concern in here why are we comparing it to the office building. It’s there. It could be reoccupied. And I think that’s a fair assessment that should be -- for the Village to see and understand. Response 94: The Village’s traffic consultant (FPCA), as part of their review dated November 2, 2018 of the Traffic Impact Study (August 24, 2018) and DEIS (September 12, 2018) indicated that in addition to the re-occupancy of the existing office building, the Applicant has accounted for five other future developments and has used an appropriate background growth rate for increases in traffic volume not specifically related to a specific no-build project; therefore the 2025 No-Build Traffic Volumes are reasonably acceptable. The Year 2025 Build analysis was updated to reflect the reduced vehicular trip generation associated with the Revised Proposed Project and is compared to the DEIS Year 2025 no-build analysis with the re-occupancy of the existing office building (see Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and Appendix I-1). Subsequently, based on a comment by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and at the request of FPCA, the Applicant has provided a sensitivity analysis of a No-Build Condition without any traffic associated with re-occupancy of the existing office building. The Year 2025 Build analysis for the Revised Proposed Project is compared to the Year 2025 No-Build analysis without Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-79 7/2/202010/08/2020 the re-occupancy of the existing office building (see Section 2.12, “Traffic and Capacity Analysis for the Revised Proposed Project” and Appendix I-2). It should be noted that FPCA in their January 4, 2019 memorandum addressing NYSDOT commented that, “It is important to note that in the past the re- occupancy of vacant buildings was included to account for the net change in site traffic for redevelopment.” See also the Response to Comment 98. Comment 95: Comments were received questioning the number of trips estimated for the Proposed Project during the peak hours, including whether the trip generation estimates took into account the proposed staffing of the facility. The Village’s Traffic Consultant stated that the trip generation estimates are acceptable and that “the proposed uses generate significantly less traffic than the current office building, if fully occupied.” (Mignogna 001, FP Clark 012, Levine 029, Galante 044, Klein 062) Mignogna 001 (#1): Total 269 “units”…”fewer than 100 vehicle trips”…The numbers are hard to believe. FP Clark 012 (#160): The proposed uses generate significantly less traffic than the current office building, if fully occupied. FP Clark 012 (#162): The Applicant has increased the trip rates for the 160-units of senior adult housing by 25 percent (x 1.25) to account for larger units and is acceptable. Site traffic estimates for the 24 residential townhouses and 94-Bed assisted living are acceptable. Site traffic distribution is reasonably acceptable for the proposed residential development. FP Clark 012 (#163): The 2025 build traffic volumes are reasonably acceptable. Levine 029 (#260): There’s no basis for it at all to say there’s a reduction in traffic during peak hours. We have no idea what hours people are going to be leaving for work out of those units, or people coming in and visiting them. But with an assisted living, there’s going to be emergency vehicles coming in, there’s going to be physical therapists coming in. They are going to be coming in during peak hours. Any kind of employees for those buildings will be coming in during peak hours. And there’s no way to say when people will be leaving. Galante 044 (#343): As far as site traffic generation, we agree with that. The site traffic volumes are actually increased by 25% to look at a worst case. There was some concern that the units were bigger than what you might find in the ITE trip handbook, so the volumes were increased by 25%, and the analysis reflects that increase in site traffic. Klein 062 (#511): It is unclear in the traffic study if staff trips are incorporated in the [trip generation] numbers. Table 2-4...shows expected staffing levels, however Appendix F in the Proposed Project Section does not seem to incorporate staff trips during the commuting hours. Response 95: The anticipated trip estimates for the original project, as included in the DEIS, were based on industry standards contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. These standards include trips generated both by residents and staff of similar facilities. Based on these standards, the original project would have been anticipated to generate a total of 70 trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 80 trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 90 trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. As noted by the Village’s traffic consultants, these estimates were “reasonably acceptable” 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-80 DRAFT and reflective of the expectation that the “proposed uses generate significantly less traffic than the current office building if fully occupied.” As stated in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the Revised Proposed Project would generate a total of 51 trips (reduction of 19 trips) during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 59 trips (reduction of 21 trips) during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 67 trips (reduction of 23 trips) in during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. Comment 96: The Village’s Traffic Consultant stated that the TIS “that was eventually accepted by the Village was pretty much what we were looking for from a traffic perspective.” (Galante 044) Galante 044 (#338): The document that was eventually accepted by the Village was pretty much what we were looking for from a traffic perspective. Galante 044 (#345): We’re in agreement in what’s in the document as far as how it was put together, how it was analyzed, and we do agree with the results. Response 96: Comment noted. The DEIS Traffic Impact Study followed the Adopted Scoping Document and standard Traffic Impact Study methodology. Comment 97: A commenter suggested that the traffic associated with the office building when it was fully occupied was generally moving in the opposite direction from the peak flow on Arbor Drive and therefore had a less adverse impact than the Proposed Project may have. (Fiedler 027) Fiedler 027 (#257): The office building only had incoming traffic in the morning; nobody was ever leaving. The Arbors is leaving. The high school, the middle school, their lining up of cars. So I don’t know how it’s 79% less (than traffic generated by the office building). Response 97: The re-occupancy of the existing office building would generate a total of 333 trips (293 entering trips and 40 exiting trips) during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 227 trips (102 entering trips and 125 exiting trips) during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 302 trips (51 entering trips and 251 exiting trips) during the Weekday Peak PM Hour (see DEIS Appendix F). As such, it would be expected that a percentage of the total office-related trips would be moving toward King Street in the morning and toward the Arbors in the afternoon. The Revised Proposed Project would generate a total of 51 trips (reduction of 19 trips) during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 59 trips (reduction of 21 trips) during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 67 trips (reduction of 23 trips) in during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. As shown above, the existing office development would generate significantly more traffic the Revised Proposed Project. Based on the existing conditions traffic counts that were performed in 2017 and 2018, the existing office building is generating 34 existing trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 25 existing trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 21 existing trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. As a result, the Revised Proposed Project would generate an increase from the current condition Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-81 7/2/202010/08/2020 of only 17 trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 34 existing trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 46 existing trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. That is to say, the Revised Proposed Project is only expected to add one additional car to Arbor Drive every 1.3 to 3.5 minutes during the peak hours. Comment 98: Comments were received suggesting that considering the existing office building on the Project Site to be fully occupied in the No Build condition in the TIS was inappropriate either because it did not demonstrate the “real feel” of the Project’s traffic impacts or because it was contrary to SEQRA policy. (Snyder 007, Planning Board 018, Levine 029, Drummond 037, Snyder 038, Adler 039, Snyder 053, Darelius 056, Galante 057, Galante 058, Klein 062) Snyder 007 (#32): comparing the Proposed Redevelopment to a fully occupied office building for the purpose of analyzing impacts is not consistent with law. As the Court held in Kirk Astor Drive Neighborhood Association v. Town Board of Town of Pittsford. 106 AD 2d 868 (1984), the board action under SEQRA must encompass the impacts associated with the actual change from its current use (a partially occupied office building) to the Proposed Development. Therefore, the DEIS is fatally flawed in all respects and proper comparisons to its current use must be reviewed by the Village Board. Snyder 007 (#87): The applicant’s position that the project will have a reduced traffic impact on the community when compared to a full re-occupancy of the existing office use is not supported by the law or facts. Planning Board 018 (#221): In the Traffic Study, the vehicle trips generated by the existing occupancy level of the building should be compared with the proposed condition to help demonstrate the “real feel” of the project’s traffic impacts. Levine 029 (#262): A half occupied office building right now is not providing the same amount of traffic that will be happening with all the additional employees and residents. Drummond 037 (#287): The (traffic) analysis should take into account the fact that there is currently very minimal traffic to and from the Site and that the proposed development would change this. Snyder 038 (#292): The Applicant has misrepresented the overall size and intensity of the Proposed Redevelopment by comparing its impact to that of a nonexistent full occupancy of the existing office building at 900 King Street...This comparison is completely inappropriate since it does not adequately reflect the impact of the project and seeks to deprive the Village Board and the Rye Brook community of their opportunity to truly understand the devastating magnitude of this project. Adler 039 (#295): Using the No-Build to mean a full re-occupancy of the existing office building is not appropriate in the instant case…current office buildings on the 900 King Street Site have been minimally used for many years. A comparison between a full re- occupancy of the existing office building to the proposed development does not adequately reflect the traffic impact that the proposed 900 King Street redevelopment would have on the surrounding roadway network. A more appropriate gauge would have been to compare the Build operating conditions with the existing conditions. Snyder 053 (#394): As set forth in the Adler Report, the applicant’s comparison of the no-build, which they connote to mean full re-occupancy of existing office buildings to the proposed project is inappropriate. Snyder 053 (#395): Indeed the applicant should be directed to redo the traffic impact study in a manner that demonstrates the true impact of the proposed project against the existing conditions. Darelius 056 (#420): The TIS may have overestimated the no-build traffic in the study due to wording of the scoping document. The office building located at this location has been operating at a very low occupancy for several years, and the submitted analysis provides a no-build model with the current land use fully occupied. Please have the 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-82 DRAFT developer to [sic] resubmit a TIS that accurately depicts the current no-build situation. A no-build analysis that includes growth rate, surrounding development and existing traffic conditions at the site is requested to properly adhere to SEQR policy 617-2-L regarding existing neighborhood character and existing patterns of population concentration. Galante 057 (#421): We are recommending that the Applicant provide in the FEIS a separate analysis of a 2025 no-build condition, which includes other development and a growth rate, to a build condition which only includes the site traffic to be generated by the proposed residential use of the Subject Property. This analysis would not take any credit for the previous office use of the Subject Property since it has been mostly vacant for many years. This analysis will provide the Village with additional information to determine potential impact on area roadways and the need for mitigation to address traffic related to this specific proposed residential development. Galante 058 (#422): Based on these comments from NYSDOT we are recommending that the Applicant include the analysis of a no-build and build condition, without any office building estimated traffic under full occupancy, be included in the FEIS. Klein 062 (#513): 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 Clarkletter also dated 1/4/19 Response 98: The TIS submitted as part of the DEIS utilized as a baseline the existing 200,000- sf office building as if it were fully occupied, pursuant to the adopted DEIS Scoping Outline. While there is case law to support the DEIS analysis, based upon comments received during the DEIS review process, this FEIS provides an analysis based upon the current utilization of the office building. In addition, as noted in Comment 94, a sensitivity analysis was conducted without the re-occupancy of the existing office building, as summarized in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and contained in its entirety in Appendix I-2. Comment 99: The Village’s Traffic Consultant noted that, “The Applicant has provided accident data from 2014 to 2016 and [it] is acceptable.” (FP Clark 012) FP Clark 012 (#165): The Applicant has provided accident data from 2014 to 2016 and is acceptable. Response 99: Comment noted. TRAFFIC IMPACTS Comment 100: Comments were received regarding the overall traffic impacts of the Proposed Project. Several commenters expressed their opinion that the Proposed Project would create a “traffic nightmare,” especially along King Street, which is already a heavily trafficked corridor. (Mandell 010, FP Clark 012, Adler 039, Ross 042, Levine 048, Snyder 061, Heiser 065) Mandell 010 (#98): (The proposed project will) create a traffic nightmare. FP Clark 012 (#157): During the morning peak period, as it relates to both commuter traffic and School-related traffic, significant delays were observed along King Street generally from and including the Parkway ramp intersections, along King Street in the vicinity of the Arbors signalized intersection and including the Blind Brook School’s driveways. This congestion and delays were clearly related to School activity and included School buses, staff, parents and students. Combined with this traffic was the typical commuter traffic found Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-83 7/2/202010/08/2020 along King Street. During the afternoon School dismissal, traffic conditions were found to be better with reduced delays; however, there were observed traffic delays related to the School dismissal, mostly in the vicinity of the Blind Brook School’s signalized intersection, which continued to the Arbors signalized intersection. However, during both the morning and midday time periods the Arbors Drive intersection driveway had minimal traffic delays. The dismissal time delays were found to dissipate within 15 minutes and is typical for any School activity on adjacent roads. During the typical weekday afternoon commuter time period, which essentially excludes any or most School-related traffic the delays were found to be less and traffic flowed reasonably well, although there were short-terms delays at the signalized intersections near Glenville Street. The field observations mostly match the results of the computer modeling for these intersections, as completed by the Applicant’s Traffic Consultant. Adler 039 (#296): Proposed redevelopment project will have a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions…which are already at or near capacity. Several intersections in the immediate area around the project will operate at capacity Levels of Service (LOS) “E” or LOS “F”. Adler 039 (#300): The Proposed Project’s senior population could be at risk since emergency service vehicles would be unable to quickly enter and exit the property due to the failing LOS conditions. Adler 039 (#301): (The site would) result in individual movements operating at capacity LOS “E” conditions or failure conditions (LOS “F”) during the peak hours at the six (6) intersections studied: King Street (Route 120A) & Anderson Hill Road, King Street (Route 120A) & North Ridge Street, King Street (Route 120A) & Glen Ridge Road/Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB on/off-ramp, King Street (Route 120A) & Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB on/off-ramp, and King Street (Route 120A) & Betsy Brown Road. Ross 042 (#327): we (Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School District) are very concerned with traffic on King Street in Rye Brook as it is currently extremely heavy during rush hour periods each weekday morning and afternoon. Traffic will only worsen…the situation may get so poor that the safety of pedestrians and motorists will be jeopardized. Very concerned about the potential for congestion especially on King Street southbound between the Belle Fair Boulevard and Magnolia Drive and northbound on King Street from Magnolia Drive to Belle Fair Boulevard. Levine 048 (#372): You have no control over when people will be visiting the residents, when people will be going in and out in the care facility, when the hospitality people will be coming in and out. Levine 048 (#373): Emergency vehicles, I’m concerned about the fire trucks being able to get to where they need to go. And any other police that are going to be needing to go down King Street. Levine 048 (#374): You cannot control the flow of traffic. 600 other residents and an elderly care facility in there, and the traffic is going to explode. There’s one road in, one road out. King Street is used by many and it’s going to be used by even more. Access to it from the Hutch is going to be affected as well. There’s no control over what’s going to be going on during construction. Heiser 065 (#528): I’m concerned about the traffic. Maniscalco 076 (#574): It seems to me that the biggest challenge with replacing an office building with any type of residential development, particularly one so dense will greatly add to the problem. This is true because, unlike an office building, drivers coming to and from the new development will be traveling the same direction as current residents. In other words, office workers are coming to the building in the morning and night, as opposed to residents which do the opposite. This will multiply our issue. Snyder 061 (#500): Adler Consulting prepared the attached chart, using numbers from the Applicant’s TIS and comparing the proposed project to existing conditions. The chart highlights the “F” conditions resulting from the project and demonstrates the true significant adverse traffic impact of the project. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-84 DRAFT Table 3.12-1 Level-of-Service Comparison1 Intersection App1 Weekday Peak AM Weekday Peak Midday Weekday Peak PM Existing Build Existing Build Existing Build King Street (Route 120A) and Anderson Hill Road NB l A (4.3) A (6.2) A (3.3) A (4.6) B (12.0) C (20.9) NB t B (17.9) C (27.7) B (10.9) B (14.5) B (13.9) B (18.1) SB t B (12.9) B (17.9) B (13.3) B (18.6) C (30.6) E (63.8) SB r A (0.7) A (0.8) A (0.5) A (0.7) A (1.1) A (1.3) EB l D (35.6) D (40.1) C (33.9) D (36.2) C (32.4) C (34.3) EB r B (19.1) B (18.6) B (18.3) B (18.6) C (21.2) C (21.4) Overall B (16.6) C (20.3) B (13.0) B (16.5) C (21.6) D (36.5) King Street (Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Pkwy/Merritt Pkwy SB off-ramp WB r c (19.0) d (27.3) b (13.6) c (16.2) b (14.0) c (16.7) King Street (Route 120A) and N. Ridge Street NB l b (10.6) b (11.6) a (9.8) b (10.4) a (9.9) b (10.5) EB l f (160.9) f (346.3) f (89.1) f (177.6) f (60.8) f (99.5) EB r c (21.7) d (27.4) c (17.6) c (21.5) d (26.2) e (38.6) King Street (Route 120A) and Glen Ridge Road/Hutchinson River Pkwy/Merritt Pkwy NB on/off ramp SB l b (14.6) c (18.0) b (14.5) c (17.6) c (15.8) c (19.8) WB l/r f (53.1) f (138.3) d (31.4) f (53.6) e (41.8) f (97.7) King Street (Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Pkwy/Merritt Pkwy NB on/off ramp NB l a (0.0) a (0.0) a (8.3) a 98.4) a (8.8) a (9.0) EB l/r f (82.1) f (151.1) c (22.4) d (30.7) f (53.9) f (110.7) King Street (Route 120A) and Arbor Drive NB l A (3.0) A (3.8) A (2.1) A (2.5) A (2.5) A (2.9) NB t A (8.2) B (13.2) A (5.3) A (7.8) A (4.3) A (5.6) SB t B (10.1) B (15.6) A (6.4) A (7.8) A (7.9) B (10.2) SB r A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.1) A (0.1) A (0.1) EB l D (45.1) D (46.6) D (40.8) D (42.8) D (51.0) D (52.0) EB r B (14.2) B (12.6) B (17.2) B (15.8) B (18.2) B (16.8) Overall B (10.3) B 915.5) A (6.4) A (8.4) A (7.0) A 98.7) King Street (Route 120A) and Blind Brook MS/HS right turn entry SB r a a a a a a King Street (Route 120A) and Blind Brook MS/HS Glenville Street NB l A (9.7) B (10.4) B (12.0) B 913.2) A (8.0) A (8.4) NB t/r C (31.5) D (38.3) C (29.7) D (36.6) B (19.7) C (22.7) SB l B (12.5) B (17.5) B (13.1) B (15.5) A (5.2) A (5.8) SB t/r C (20.3) C (22.8) C (22.7) C (25.5) B (10.1) B (10.9) EB l D (46.0) D (46.4) D (47.5) D (49.0) D (50.6) D (50.8) EB t/r B (15.5) B(15.2) B (12.8) B (12.7) C (21.8) C (21.3) WB l/t D (46.4) D (47.0) D (50.5) D (D (48.9) E (60.5) E (60.8) WB r B (18.9) B (18.8) C (22.2) C (25.0) B 916.0) B 915.7) Overall C (24.5) C (27.8) C (26.9) C (30.4) B (17.7) B (18.8) Arbor Drive and Site Driveway WB l a (0.0) a (0.0) a (0.0) a (0.0) a (0.0) a (0.0) SB l/r a (9.6) b (10.0) b (10.1) b (10.6) a (9.5) a (9.9) King Street (Route 120A) and Comely Avenue SB l a (8.8) a (9.1) a (8.4) a (8.6) a (8.6) a (8.9) WB l/r c (20.9) d (27.4) b (14.9) c (16.9) c (18.7) c (23.6) King Street (Route 120A) and Betsey Brown Road NB l a (9.8) b (10.3) a (9.3) a (9.6) a (8.7) a (8.9) EB l/r f (172.2) f (374. 9) e (40.1) f (69.6) d (25.0) d (34.8) N. Ridge Street and Hutchinson River Pkwy SB on/off ramps SB l a (8.9) a (9.3) a (8.0) a (8.2) a (7.9) a (8.0) WB l/r b (11.9) b (12.7) b (10.2) b (10.4) b (10.7) b (11.2) Notes: 1. Letters indicate levels of service, delays (in parentheses) are in seconds per vehicle. 2. EB – eastbound, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound, l = left, t = through, r= = right. Overall = the weighted average delay of all the movements at the intersection and the corresponding LOD. 4. Uppercase letters indicate signalized intersections, lowercase letters indicate unsignalized intersections. Response 100: As described in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and in Response to Comment 95, the Revised Proposed Project would result in 19 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 21 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 23 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour than the original project. The results of the analysis with and without the re-occupancy of the existing office development are summarized in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and detailed in Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2, respectively. As was the case with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on any study area intersection when compared to the No Build condition (i.e., re-occupancy of the existing office building). In fact, certain study area intersections would see a beneficial change to LOS and/or average delays Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-85 7/2/202010/08/2020 with the Revised Proposed Project when compared the No Build condition when compared to the re-occupancy of the existing office building. While there is case law to support the DEIS analysis, based upon comments received during the DEIS review process from the public and from NYSDOT, this FEIS provides a sensitivity analysis based upon the current utilization of the office building (see Table 2.12-3 and Appendix I-2). As shown in this analysis, the Revised Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on any study area intersections with the re-occupancy of the existing office building included in the analysis. Without the re-occupancy of the existing office building, there would be the following impacts: the Glen Ridge Road westbound lane to King Street will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 12.7 seconds; the Hutchinson River Parkway northbound on-off ramp eastbound lane to King Street will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday afternoon peak hour, with an increase in delay of 12.1 seconds; and, the Betsy Brown Road eastbound land will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 16.1 seconds. Consequently, redevelopment of the Project Site to an age- restricted residential community would not significantly affect the area roadways. It should be noted that typically, the Build Condition with the Proposed Project is compared to the No-Build Condition, which includes a background growth factor as well as other pending/approved developments (as included in the DEIS Scoping outline) to determine the future impacts of the Proposed Project. As noted above, the results of this analysis is detailed in Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2. See also the Response to Comment 94. Comment 101: Comments were received regarding the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on Arbor Drive and its intersection with King Street. Some commenters suggested that the Proposed Project would not adversely affect Arbor Drive. Other commenters suggested that the traffic from the Proposed Project would “overwhelm” Arbor Drive and severely inconvenience residents of The Arbors and, eventually, residents of the Proposed Project. (Straubinger 003, Levy 004, Snyder 007, Planning Board 018, Levine 029, Adler 039, Snyder 045, Levine 048, Snyder 061, Tazbin 071) Straubinger 003 (#14): (Increased analysis of alternatives to the Project that will incorporate) the major traffic congestion impacts the project will have on Arbor Drive traffic patterns and the King Street Interchange Levy 004 (#18): I do think they were sensitive to the use of Arbor Drive to limit the concerns of the Arbors. Snyder 007 (#49): in light of the magnitude of the project, a much more careful analysis needs to be made regarding access...there is only one access drive, Arbor Drive, to be used by the 250 townhome owners at the Arbors and the potential 600 residents of the project, is alarming. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-86 DRAFT Planning Board 018 (#238): Capability of emergency services to address the increased demand from the proposed project needs further study. The adequacy of proposed ingress and egress for the property for emergency vehicles should be confirmed. Levine 029 (#261): Without a second access road, this should never have gone any further. Arbor Drive cannot maintain that amount of traffic. Adler 039 (#299): Arbor Drive cannot safely sustain the significant increase in vehicles and trips associated with the proposed project. Snyder 045 (#353): Board must take into account there’s one road in. There’s Arbor Drive, and whatever ends up being with the secondary access, which they don’t even have. Levine 048 (#375): If there is an emergency in The Arbors, how do we all get out? That hasn’t really been answered either. There needs to be another way in an out that’s accessible to all, and I don’t want to figure it out when there is an emergency. Snyder 061 (#503): Mitigation measures need to be designed and implemented by the Applicant...to address the one way access road of Arbor Drive and the anticipated traffic from the project compared to existing conditions. Response 101: The signalized intersection of King Street (Route 120A) and Arbor Drive is anticipated to operate at similar Levels of Service for the No-Build conditions and under the Build condition with the Revised Proposed Project (see Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2). It should be noted that the current office building is generating some 34 existing trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 25 existing trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 21 existing trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. As a result, the Revised Proposed Project would generate an increase from the current condition of only 17 trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 34 existing trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 46 existing trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. In the existing condition, fire trucks are able to access Arbor Drive from King Street and the Arbors is provided with an emergency access road to Meadowlark Avenue. The Revised Proposed Project will not alter these conditions. The driveways into the Project Site that are proposed for the Revised Proposed Project are designed to accommodate the turning movements of emergency response vehicles (see Figure 1-16). In addition, the Revised Proposed Project includes another emergency access drive that connects to the Fire Department property and ultimately to King Street. Comment 102: Comments were received opining that the Proposed Project would have a significant adverse impact on the intersections of the Parkway with King Street. (Ghosh 008, Parvani 009, Maniscalco 015, Samuels 016, Ross 042) Ghosh 008 (#89): The increase in traffic on and off the Hutch and King Street would be seriously impacted. The width of the street is not adequately designed to handle that kind of an increase in traffic. Parvani 009 (#93): The increase in traffic on and off the Hutch and King Street would be seriously impacted. The width of the street is not adequately designed to handle that kind of an increase in traffic. Maniscalco 015 (#197): Concern over the handling of traffic coming off of the Northbound Hutchinson River Parkway onto King Street. Poor signage on the highway and/or poor traffic controls at the exit caused unnecessary and extended backups due to the number of drivers who make left turns off of that exit. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-87 7/2/202010/08/2020 Samuels 016 (#198): The increase in traffic on and off of the Hutch and on King Street, from 600 new housing units, could be devastating to our community and those passing through. The width of the street is not adequately designed to handle that kind of an increase in traffic flow. Ross 042 (#328): Problem with cars backing up on the Hutchinson River Parkway (North), a longstanding issue and hazard. Maniscalco 015 (#573): Now, a proposal exists to allow hundreds of more drivers to use this exit [Northbound Hutchinson River Parkway onto King Street] to get home, which already sometimes takes me 10 or more minutes to clear during peak times. Our sleepy little village exit off of the parkway cannot handle volume at its current state. Adding hundreds more drivers, all of whom likely to want to use this exit will further complicate the matter. What provisions will the Village be requiring to change the current traffic at the King Street exit in the Northbound Hutchinson River Parkway? Will there be better signage on the Parkway? Will there be a traffic light? Will there be a no left turn sign on King Street? Will the exit ramp provide for two lanes, one for left and one for right turns? Response 102: The Revised Proposed Project would result in 19 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 21 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 23 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour than the original project. See also the Response to Comment 95. The results of the analysis with and without the re-occupancy of the existing office development are summarized in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and detailed in Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2, respectively. As was the case with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on any study area intersection when compared to the No Build condition (i.e., re-occupancy of the existing office building). In fact, certain study area intersections would see a beneficial change to LOS and/or average delays with the Revised Proposed Project when compared the No Build condition when compared to the re-occupancy of the existing office building. While there is case law to support the DEIS analysis, based upon comments received during the DEIS review process from the public and from NYSDOT, this FEIS provides a sensitivity analysis based upon the current utilization of the office building (see Table 2.12-3 and Appendix I-2). As shown in this analysis, the Revised Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on any study area intersections with the re-occupancy of the existing office building included in the analysis. Without the re-occupancy of the existing office building, there would be the following impacts: the Glen Ridge Road westbound lane to King Street will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 12.7 seconds; the Hutchinson River Parkway northbound on-off ramp eastbound lane to King Street will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday afternoon peak hour, with an increase in delay of 12.1 seconds; and, the Betsy Brown Road eastbound land will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 16.1 seconds. Consequently, redevelopment of the Project Site to an age- restricted residential community would not significantly affect the area roadways. See also the Response to Comment 94. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-88 DRAFT Comment 103: The Village’s Traffic Consultant noted that, “The northbound through movement at the intersection of King Street (Route 120A) and Betsy Brown Road during the weekday peak PM highway hour should be 542 vehicles, not 452 vehicles. This should be revised and the capacity table updated.” (FP Clark 012) FP Clark 012 (#161): the northbound through movement at the intersection of King Street/Betsy Brown Road during the weekday peak PM highway hour should be 542 vehicles, not 452 vehicles. This should be revised and the capacity table updated. Response 103: Comment noted. The northbound through movement at the intersection of King Street/Betsy Brown Road during Peak PM Highway Hour has been corrected under the Year 2025 No-Build Condition. Comment 104: The Village of Port Chester stated that, “A traffic signal should be provided at the intersection of King Street (Route 120A) and Betsy Brown Road.” (Port Chester 019) Port Chester 019 (#242): A traffic signal should be provided at the intersection of King Street (Route 120A) and Betsy Brown Road. Response 104: The results of the analysis with re-occupancy of the existing office building would not significantly impact this intersection, whereas, the analysis without the re- occupancy of will maintain a Level of Service “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 16.1 seconds (see Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2). The Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to add approximately 19 additional trips during Weekday Peak AM Hour, 22 additional trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 26 additional trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour and would equate to less than 2% of the No-Build traffic projections. As a result, a traffic signal is not proposed at this location. It should be noted that a Traffic Signal Warrant analysis was conducted for the Village of Port Chester at this location by the Village’s traffic consultant, AKRF, Inc., as part of the 1 Betsy Brown Road Proposed Subdivision Traffic Review Update (see Appendix I-3). That analysis indicated that a “traffic signal is warranted” at Betsy Brown Road/King Street. If the Village of Port Chester is successful in getting approval for a traffic signal at this location from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), the Applicant (900 King Street) is willing to contribute a fair share contribution to the cost of the installation of a traffic signal at this location. Comment 105: Comments were received repeating the finding of the DEIS that during the build condition, certain intersection movements would be expected to experience queues that exceed the available storage length during the 95th and 50th percentile traffic conditions. (Adler 039, Snyder 053) Adler 039 (#298): Vehicle queues are expected: King Street (Route 120A) & Anderson Hill Road; King Street (Route 120A) & North Ridge Street; King Street (Route 120A) & Glen Ridge Road/Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB on/off-ramp; King Street (Route 120A) & Arbor Drive; King Street (Route 120A) & Blind Brook MS/HS – Glenville Street. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-89 7/2/202010/08/2020 Snyder 053 (#402): The project will cause a queue spill back which is in excess of what is available for the length of the same, resulting in difficulties to the area. Lines will back up beyond the available length in the queue…particularly by the Hutch. It will be similar to the devastating traffic that occurred during the recent November 15th snow storm, but this will occur in a daily basis. Response 105: As shown in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and Appendix I, the Revised Proposed Project would not significantly increase the queuing on the area roadways. Comment 106: A comment was received stating that level of service (LOS) E and LOS F intersection operations will result in a greater likelihood of more traffic accidents. (Adler 039, Snyder 061) Adler 039 (#297): LOS “E” and “F”, the delay will result in a myriad of consequences…based on an earlier study published in the June 2010 ITE Journal, a greater likelihood of more traffic accidents (will occur). Snyder 061 (#501): [LOS] “F” conditions have been found to cause an increase in traffic accidents, and the proposed project’s senior population could be at risk since emergency service vehicles would be unable to quickly enter and exit the property due to the failing LOS conditions. Response 106: As outlined in the DEIS Traffic Impact Study (see DEIS Appendix F), “Based on the anticipated traffic generation for the Proposed Project, it is expected that the Proposed Project will not have a significant impact on the accident rates on the area roadways.” As the Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to generate fewer trips than the original project, it is similarly anticipated that the Revised Proposed Project would not have a significant impact on accident rates on the area roadways. TRAFFIC MITIGATION Comment 107: Comments were received requesting information on the measures proposed to mitigate potential traffic impacts of the Proposed Project, including the staggering of shift changes to avoid peak hours and school arrival/dismissal times, or reducing the size of the Proposed Project. (Drummond 037, Adler 039, Ross 042, Snyder 053, Klein 062) Drummond 037 (#288): How will the anticipated staffing level of 121 daily employees be handled in terms of traffic...King Street has issues with stopped school buses during the period just before and after school. If possible…avoid these times for shift changes and other staff arrival and departure times. Adler 039 (#304): The Village Board should consider reducing the density and size of the project to alleviate the traffic impacts. At a minimum, the Village Board must require mitigation for the significant adverse traffic impacts that the current proposal of redeveloping the 900 King Street Site would have on the area intersections. Ross 042 (#329): Several hundred cars and buses that already travel on King Street to Blind Brook MS/HS located at 840 King Street during rush hour period. Please do not forget to take into consideration what the proposed complex may do to a traffic situation that is already not good and for the safety of students who walk and bike between their homes and the Middle and High School campus. We request that traffic generated by the construction be limited during school arrival (7:15–8:00 am) and dismissal (2:15–3:00 pm) 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-90 DRAFT Snyder 053 (#407): Applicant has not provided any meaningful mitigation measures that would result in reducing the significant traffic impacts associated with the project. Klein 062 (#512): Mitigating measures in 12.6 should include proposed staff schedules that will mitigate traffic. Response 107: The Revised Proposed Project would result in 19 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak AM Hour, 21 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak Midday Hour, and 23 fewer trips during the Weekday Peak PM Hour. See also the Response to Comment 95. The results of the analysis with and without the re-occupancy of the existing office development are summarized in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and detailed in Appendix I-1 and Appendix I-2, respectively. As was the case with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on any study area intersection when compared to the No Build condition (i.e., re-occupancy of the existing office building). In fact, certain study area intersections would see a beneficial change to LOS and/or average delays with the Revised Proposed Project when compared the No Build condition when compared to the re-occupancy of the existing office building. While there is case law to support the DEIS analysis, based upon comments received during the DEIS review process from the public and from NYSDOT, this FEIS provides a sensitivity analysis based upon the current utilization of the office building (see Table 2.12-3 and Appendix I-2). As shown in this analysis, the Revised Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on any study area intersections with the re-occupancy of the existing office building included in the analysis. Without the re-occupancy of the existing office building, there would be the following impacts: the Glen Ridge Road westbound lane to King Street will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 12.7 seconds; the Hutchinson River Parkway northbound on-off ramp eastbound lane to King Street will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday afternoon peak hour, with an increase in delay of 12.1 seconds; and, the Betsy Brown Road eastbound land will maintain a LOS “F” during the weekday morning peak hour, with an increase in delay of 16.1 seconds. Consequently, redevelopment of the Project Site to an age- restricted residential community would not significantly affect the area roadways. See also the Response to Comment 94. In response to public comments and to further reduce the potential for adverse traffic impacts, the Applicant has committed to staggering the shifts of the Site’s employees so that shift changes do not occur during school arrival or dismissal times. See also the Response to Comment 112. Comment 108: Comments were received supporting the concept of a shuttle to and from the Proposed Project and local downtowns and train stations. The Village of Port Chester’s Board of Trustees requested additional information regarding potential Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-91 7/2/202010/08/2020 impacts at the Port Chester Train Station from the shuttle’s operation. (Port Chester 019, Drummond 037) Port Chester 019 (#244): More information should be provided regarding the potential of a shuttle to and from the project to potentially the Port Chester train station as this could potentially not only impact King Street, but the area in and around the train station and downtown. Drummond 037 (#289): We are supportive of any initiative undertaken by the applicant to provide a shuttle service to building residents to allow them to avoid using personal cars. Response 108: A shuttle service is not currently planned as part of the Revised Proposed Project. As stated in the DEIS, the Revised Proposed Project “would offer transportation services for residents to off-site locations…Furthermore, depending on the demand, the Proposed Project’s operator may provide shuttle service to and from a local train station (e.g., Port Chester or White Plains).” If, in the future, the operator of the Revised Proposed Project decided to operate a shuttle between the Project Site and a local train station, it is likely that only one or two shuttles per ‘shift change’ would be utilized. The anticipated impact of this service at a particular train station would be de minimis, owing to the infrequent service. Comment 109: The Village of Port Chester requested that, “A traffic meeting between the Village of Port Chester and Village, hosted by NYSDOT should be scheduled, similar to a series of meetings that NYSDOT hosted with the two Villages and the City of Rye regarding the redevelopment of the United Hospital site.” (Port Chester 019) Port Chester 019 (#243): A traffic meeting between the Village of Port Chester and Village of Rye Brook, hosted by NYSDOT should be scheduled, similar to a series of meetings that NYSDOT hosted with the two Villages and the City of Rye regarding the redevelopment of the United Hospital site. Response 109: If a meeting with NYSDOT is requested, the Applicant would coordinate with the Village of Rye Brook and the Village of Port Chester. Comment 110: A comment was received requesting that, “Bicycle access, including travel and parking, should be discussed, pursuant to the scope. As the Site is not located along a bus line, but is within biking distance of a train station, bicycle access should be explored to help employees get to the Site from the train station.” (Drummond 037) Drummond 037 (#291): There was no discussion of bicycle travel or parking contained in the draft EIS. Because the site is not located along a bus line, but is within biking distance of a train station, bicycle access should be explored to help employees get to the site from the train station. Response 110: As stated in Section 12.5.4, “Public Transportation,” of the DEIS, “The Proposed Project would have at least 900 fewer employees than the fully occupied office building.” The Applicant notes that the potential expansion of the public transit system to serve the Proposed Project is under the jurisdiction of the system’s governing body, Westchester County. However, as stated in this section of the DEIS, “depending on the demand, the Proposed Project’s operator may provide 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-92 DRAFT shuttle service to and from a local train station (Port Chester or White Plains).” Similarly, if there is a demand from employees regarding bicycle amenities within the Site, the Revised Proposed Project would provide secure areas for on-Site bicycle storage. PEDESTRIANS Comment 111: A comment was received questioning the accuracy of the pedestrian counts and the representative nature of the counts owing to the season in which the counts were collected. (Zhao 006, Levy 072) Zhao 006 (#24): Data presented here are not reliable for the following reasons: (1) Data are collected on two specific dates: Both are Wednesdays…all in the winter season, and are not statistically acceptable as representative data; (2) There is no weather condition reported. The two dates are all in winter, severe weathers like snow or rain could result in significant decrease of pedestrian counts; (3) Manual counting conducted by a single person or the average of multiple people? Considering there are lots of middle school and high school students walking to school in the AM peak hour, it’s hard to believe that such a low number was observed. Levy 072 (#566): There are numerous kids who are walking home and friends who accompany them walking home who might have to deal with noise, and I just want the Board to know that there are a lot of kids. Response 111: In addition to the January 2018 traffic counts, traffic counts were collected in March 2017 and reflected pedestrian activity at the study area intersections, including King Street/Arbor Drive, and the King Street/Blind Brook Middle/High School intersections. It should be noted that a sidewalk is currently provided along the west side of King Street in the vicinity of the Project Site. See also the Response to Comment 112, below. Comment 112: A comment was received expressing concern about the safety of pedestrians on Arbor Drive, including residents of The Arbors and students walking to and from the Blind Brook Middle School and High School owing to the increase in traffic on Arbor Drive and the service people coming to the Proposed Project. (Joy 033, Levy 055, Levy 067) Joy 033 (#272): I worry about their safety when they walk home, because even after the construction’s finished there’s going to be so many service people coming, you don’t even know who they are. Levy 055 (#417): I just want to mention…just quality of life to being in the Arbors. For people who walk down Arbor Drive to go for walks and walk their dogs, when it comes to thinking about traffic. In terms of quality of life, that is our way in and out. It is the children who walk to school, and… it (construction of proposed project) limits how kids walk to and from. Levy 067 (#534): Arbors residents use Arbor Drive for walking and driving. Residents use Arbor Drive for walking, for exercise, walking their dogs, and walking to school. It is our only means in and out of the Arbors. Arbor Drive is also used as party parking as well. I am concerned that the traffic created during the construction and after this project due to the density proposed will greatly impact our quality of life and safety. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-93 7/2/202010/08/2020 Response 112: As described in Section 1.4.3, “Parking and Circulation,” the Revised Proposed Project includes enhancements to the existing pedestrian path along the Project Site’s eastern boundary and will include standard crosswalk markings on Arbor Drive at the location where this path crosses Arbor Drive and enters the Blind Brook Middle School and High School property. This will be an improvement from the current condition where no crosswalk markings are present. As described in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the Revised Proposed Project would represent a significant decrease in the number of vehicular trips entering and exiting the Site as compared to the former office use. This would decrease the potential for conflict between Site-generated traffic and pedestrians. When compared to the number of trips generated by the Site in 2017, the Revised Proposed Project would only add 17 trips in the AM, 34 trips in the midday, and 46 trips in the PM (see also Response 101). This minimal increase in the number of Site-generated trips from the existing condition would not significantly impact pedestrian safety on Arbor Drive. To further avoid and mitigate potential adverse impacts, the Applicant has committed to staggering the shifts of the Site’s employees so that shift changes do not occur during school arrival or dismissal times, further reducing the potential for conflict between Site-generated traffic and pedestrians. Finally, the Applicant notes that the number of employees and residents of the Revised Proposed Project, combined (705 + 406 = 476), would be less than the number employees that could have worked at the existing office building (e.g., 1,0756). Therefore, the Revised Proposed Project would not cause an adverse impact to public safety as a result of the introduction of a large population to the Project Site. PARKING Comment 113: The Village’s Planning Consultant asked why the Applicant is providing more parking spaces than required by its Proposed Zoning and requested a comparison of the parking rates proposed to Institute for Traffic Engineers (ITE) parking guidelines. Other commenters opined that the amount of parking proposed for the Project and its various components was insufficient. (Levy 004, Snyder 007, FP Clark 012, Tazbin 036, Schlank 068, Tazbin 071) Levy 004 (#20): There appears not enough parking for the number of units and required staff FP Clark 012 (#135): The Applicant is providing an additional 37 parking spaces or 14 percent over the [Applicant’s proposed] requirements. The Applicant should provide a comparison using the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) “Parking 5 This is the maximum number of staff anticipated to be on-Site during a single shift. See DEIS Section 2.4.2. 6 The number of parking spaces required under the Village’s zoning ordinance for the existing office building. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-94 DRAFT Generation,” 4th Edition for all proposed land uses to provide additional backup information for the parking required for the proposed development. Tazbin 036 (#283): you’re assuming one person will be living in each one of the units, and based on the number of parking spaces, there will be one car per unit. And I find that hard to imagine, living in The Arbors, and I don’t know how you’re calculating your figures in terms of density, people density, and in terms of car usage. Snyder 007 (#46): Third, the assisted living component with its 90,000 square feet and 85 units/beds, only has 60 parking spots. The 60 spots appear deficient and should be more carefully reviewed. Snyder 007 (#45): A better analysis as to how just 173 spots will accommodate 301 bedrooms of independent living should be provided, especially in light of the staff needed to keep the facility running. Schlank 068 (#547): The risks of parking violations are compounded by the limited availability of spaces for 3-car families. Since the inception of the PUD, the 900 King Street site has had ample parking spaces, and the owners/managers of the site have been willing to provide overflow parking for 3-car families in the Arbors and others who require it. Continuation of this arrangement would likely not be feasible under alternatives that would provide additional residential housing at 900 King Street. For each alternative discussed in the FEIS, please describe the potential parking impacts. To what extent might it raise the risk that the 900 King Street site would need to find (rather than provide) overflow parking? To what extent would it compound the parking problems within the Arbors section of the PUD, add to the costs of self-policing, and increase the risks of losses there? Tazbin 071 (#559): I didn’t really understand that, you are living in the Arbors and its one car per unit. We struggle with that every day and now you are going to have three bedrooms and one car. Response 113: As set forth in more detail in Section 2.12.8, “Parking,” the Revised Proposed Project would provide sufficient on-Site parking resources for the expected demand of Project residents and employees. As such, the Revised Proposed Project would not require ‘overflow’ parking off-Site. The amount of parking included in the Revised Proposed Project is slightly more than required by the Revised Proposed Zoning and more than the ITE generic guidelines of the ITE (see Table 3.12-2). Table 3.12-2 Comparison of Parking Spaces for the Revised Proposed Project Use Revised Proposed Zoning ITE Guideline Revised Proposed Project Independent Living (136 units) 1 per unit (136) 0.67 per unit (91) 136 Assisted Living (85 units/94 beds) 0.5 per unit (43) 0.58 per bed (55) 52 Townhouse (20 units) 2.5 per unit (50) 1.52 per unit (31) 50 Total 229 177 238 Source: Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition, January 2019. Values are for 85th percentile. ITE Land Use 252 – Senior Attached Housing, ITE Land Use 254 – Assisted Living, ITE Land Use 220 – Low Rise Multifamily With respect to the historical use of the Project Site as overflow parking for the Arbors, it is noted that the owner of the Project Site has no obligation to provide parking for Arbors residents. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-95 7/2/202010/08/2020 3.13. AIR QUALITY GENERAL Comment 114: A comment was received suggesting that the Proposed Project would have an adverse impact on the air quality within The Arbors. (Carravone 002) Carravone 002 (#10): poor air quality, water pressure and sewer system will be a big problem for our neighborhood Response 114: The DEIS assess the potential for significant adverse air quality impacts resulting from the on-Site fuel combustion and Project-generated vehicles on the surrounding neighborhood—including the adjacent residential and institutional properties along King Street to the east/northeast; the residential properties to the north/northwest along North Ridge Street, the residential properties and open spaces to the west/southwest along Ivy Hill Lane (The Arbors), and the Blind Brook High School grounds to the south/southwest. Based on the results of the air quality analyses, the DEIS identified that the original project would not result in a potential for significant adverse air quality impacts. The Revised Proposed Project is anticipated to generate slightly fewer air emissions than the original project owing to the reduction in vehicle trips and the reduction in gross floor area to be heated and cooled. Therefore, as with the original project, the Revised Proposed Project would not result in a potential for significant adverse air quality impacts. See also Response to Comment 122. EXISTING CONDITIONS—METHODOLOGY Comment 115: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant requested clarification with respect to the number of intersections screened for air quality impacts. (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#176): Section 13.4.2 states the traffic study area included nine intersections, but then states that screening was performed at 11 intersections. It should be clarified if nine or 11 intersections were screened for air quality. Response 115: Mobile source screening was performed for the following twelve intersections included in the study area, as defined in Section 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” which also lists twelve intersections:  King Street (Route 120A) and Anderson Hill Road  King Street (Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway SB Off Ramp  King Street (Route 120A) and N. Ridge Street  King Street (Route 120A) and Glen Ridge Road (Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB On/Off Ramp)  King Street (Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB On/Off Ramp  King Street and Arbor Drive 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-96 DRAFT  King Street (Route 120A) and Blind Brook Middle/High School Right Turn Entry Driveway  King Street (Route 120A) and Glenville Street / Blind Brook Middle/High School  Arbor Drive and Existing Office / Proposed Site Driveway  King Street (Route 120A) and Comly Avenue  King Street and Betsy Brown Road  N. Ridge Street and Hutchinson River Parkway SB On/Off Ramp Comment 116: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The data in the DEIS was based on the NYSDEC New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2016, which the DEIS states is the most recent year for which data are available. However, the NYSDEC New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2017 is available (https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8536.html).” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#167): The data in the DEIS was based on the NYSDEC New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2016, which the DEIS states is the most recent year for which data are available. However, the NYSDEC New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2017 is available (https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8536.html). Response 116: At the time, 2016 was the most recent year for which data was available. The concentrations of all criteria pollutants including the 2018 report are presented in Table 3.13-1 (see also Appendix K). The 2018 concentrations were used for the analyses in the FEIS. Consistent with the DEIS, the recently monitored levels for all pollutants other than ozone did not exceed the NAAQS. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-97 7/2/202010/08/2020 Table 3.13-1 Representative Monitored Ambient Air Quality Data Pollutant Location Units Averaging Period Concentration NAAQS CO Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx ppm 8-hour 1.5 9 1-hour 2.3 35 SO2 Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx µg/m3 3-hour 23 1,300 1-hour 16(1) 196 PM10 IS 52, Bronx µg/m3 24-hour 41 150 PM2.5 White Plains, Westchester µg/m3 Annual 6.0(2) 12 24-hour 15.7(2) 35 NO2 Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx µg/m3 Annual 27 100 1-hour 104(3) 188 Lead IS 52, Bronx µg/m3 3-month 0.0033(4) 0.15 Ozone White Plains, Westchester ppm 8-hour 0.075+(5) 0.070 Notes: + Indicated values exceeding the NAAQS. (1) The 1-hour value is based on a 3-year average (2016–2018) of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1- hour average concentrations. EPA replaced the 24-hour and the annual standards with the 1-hour standard. (2) Annual value is based on a 3-year average (2016–2018) of annual concentrations. The 24-hour value is based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour average concentrations. (3) The 1-hour value is based on a 3-year average (2016–2018) of the 98th percentile of daily maximum 1- hour average concentrations. (4) Based on the highest quarterly average concentration measured in 2018. (5) Based on the 3-year average (2016–2018) of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations. Source: New York State Air Quality Report Ambient Air Monitoring System, NYSDEC Comment 117: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The assumption of HVAC systems being natural gas fired systems may be a reasonable assumption, but not conservative. This statement should be revised in the DEIS.” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#169): The assumption of HVAC systems being natural gas fired systems may be a reasonable assumption, but not conservative. This statement should be revised in the DEIS. Response 117: The Revised Proposed Project is assumed to use natural gas for all fossil fuel- fired HVAC systems to provide space heating, air conditioning, and domestic hot water. Therefore, the analysis in this FEIS is based on the proposed fuel source (e.g., natural gas) and is not necessarily a ‘conservative’ analysis that includes alternative fuel sources not under consideration for the Revised Proposed Project (e.g., fuel oil). Con Edison has stated that they can provide firm gas to the Revised Proposed Project and that two upgrades to Con Edison’s gas system would be required: replacement of 945 feet of 4- and 6-inch main with 12-inch main on Mohegan Lane and Latonia Road; and, installation of a 12-inch tie on King Street from Arbor Drive to N. Ridge Street. The cost of these improvements would be initially funded by the Applicant, and refunded by Con Edison upon completion of the Revised Proposed Project (see Appendix H). Based on Con Edison’s commitment letter, it is the Applicant’s understanding that Con Edison will supply the Revised Proposed Project with firm natural gas service if the Applicant demonstrates continued progress in completing the project even if construction is 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-98 DRAFT not completed within two years despite Con Edison’s temporary gas moratorium in southern Westchester County. In the event that firm gas is not available for the Revised Proposed Project, the Applicant would propose another energy source and the environmental impacts of using this other energy source would be analyzed in accordance with SEQRA. Comment 118: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant requested clarification as to why additional criteria pollutants were not modeled, such as PM10. (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#170): The DEIS should discuss why additional criteria pollutants were not modeled, such as PM10. Response 118: An initial screening was performed using the screening procedures outlined in the 2014 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual to assess the potential impacts to 8-hour and 1-hour average CO concentrations, annual average NO2 concentrations, as well as 24-hour average PM10 concentrations.7 The screening procedure determines the potential for significant air quality impacts for all criteria pollutants based on the square footage of the development, the distance to the nearest receptor of similar or taller heights, and the type of fuel to be utilized on-site. The screening considers developments between approximately 20,000 and 2,000,000 gross square feet (gsf); therefore the screening procedure would be applicable to development sources of a similar size as the Proposed Project (355,902 gsf). Based on this screening, no further assessment is required for CO or PM10. An additional screening using the USEPA’s AERSCREEN model was performed to assess standards that have been introduced following development of the CEQR screening procedures—the 1- hour average NO2, 24-hour average PM2.5, and annual average PM2.5. See also Section 2.13.2, “Stationary Sources.” Comment 119: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “The DEIS mentions the more stringent criteria to be applied when a State Implementation Plan (SIP) intersection is located within ½-mile of the Project Site. However, this criteria is no longer included in the NYSDOT [The Environmental Manual] TEM.” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#175): It should be noted that the DEIS mentions the more stringent criteria to be applied when a State Implementation Plan (SIP) intersection is located within 0.5 mile of the project. However, this criteria is no longer included in the NYSDOT TEM. Response 119: Comment noted. Comment 120: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “The last sentence in the first paragraph in Section 13.3 of the DEIS incorrectly states that the “….pollutant concentrations in the Future with the Proposed Project (the “Build” 7 Consistent with the DEIS, the revised Proposed Project would not result in significant emissions of SO2, lead, or ozone. Therefore, further analysis for these pollutants is not warranted. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-99 7/2/202010/08/2020 condition) would be similar or less than those predicted for the Proposed Project.” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#168): It should be noted that the last sentence in the first paragraph in Section 13.3 of the DEIS incorrectly states that the “….pollutant concentrations in the Future with the Proposed Project (the “Build” condition) would be similar or less than those predicted for the Proposed Project.” Response 120: Comment noted. The sentence should read, “Therefore, the pollutant concentrations in the No Build condition would be similar or less than those predicted for the Future with the Proposed Project (the “Build” condition). ANALYSIS Comment 121: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “While the emissions from the HVAC systems for the townhouses would be considered negligible, the DEIS does not address emissions from the underground parking area.” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#172): While the emissions from the HVAC systems for the townhomes would be considered negligible, the DEIS does not address emissions from the underground parking area. Response 121: As discussed in Section 2.13, “Air Quality,” the air quality analysis presented in the DEIS was revised to include an assessment of the proposed parking garage. 8 Emissions from vehicles using the parking facility could potentially affect ambient levels of CO and PM at adjacent receptors. An analysis of the emissions from the outlet vents and their dispersion in the environment was performed, calculating pollutant levels in the surrounding area, using the methodology set forth in the CEQR Technical Manual. Emissions from vehicles entering, parking, and exiting the garages were estimated using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) mobile source emission model, as referenced in the CEQR Technical Manual. For all arriving and departing vehicles, an average speed of 5 miles per hour (mph) was conservatively assumed for travel within the parking garages. In addition, all departing vehicles were assumed to idle for 1 minute before proceeding to the exit. Although design plans for the project have not yet been defined, the garage was specified to be designed for a minimum airflow of 0.75 cubic foot per minute of fresh air per gsf of garage area. (It is noted that this specified airflow is less than the CEQR typical minimum airflow of 1.0 cubic foot of air per gross square foot per minute. As such, the analysis of potential air quality impacts in this FEIS is conservative.) 8 The analysis of the potential impacts of the underground parking operation on air quality was based on the number of trips generated in the pFEIS Plan (see Section 2.12.1, “Site Generated Traffic”). The Revised Proposed Project would generate fewer trips than the pFEIS Plan. Therefore, this analysis can be considered conservative as it is reflective of a greater trip generation than would occur with the Revised Proposed Project. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-100 DRAFT To determine compliance with the NAAQS, CO concentrations were determined for the maximum 8-hour average period. A persistence factor of 0.70 was used to convert the calculated 1-hour average maximum concentrations to 8-hour averages, accounting for meteorological variability over the average 8-hour period, as referenced in the CEQR Technical Manual. To determine pollutant concentrations, the outlet vents were analyzed as a “virtual point source” using the methodology in EPA’s Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, AP-26. This methodology estimates CO and PM concentrations at various distances from an outlet vent by assuming that the concentration in the garage is equal to the concentration leaving the vent, and determining the appropriate initial horizontal and vertical dispersion coefficients at the vent faces. It was assumed for the purpose of this analysis that all levels of the parking garage would be mechanically ventilated. The CO concentrations were determined for the time periods when overall garage usage would be the greatest, considering the hours when the greatest number of vehicles would enter and exit the facility (PM concentrations were determined on a 24-hour and annual average basis). Traffic data for the parking garage analysis were derived from the trip generation analysis. Background street concentrations were added to the modeling results to obtain the total ambient levels for CO and PM2.5. Exhaust air from the analyzed parking garage was conservatively assumed to be vented through a single outlet at a height of approximately 3 feet above grade. Since there is no specific garage design at this time, the vent face was assumed to discharge towards the nearest receptors, to be conservative. “Near” and “far” receptors were placed along the sidewalks at a pedestrian height of 6 feet and at the minimum exhaust stack height of 3 feet. A receptor also was modeled at and above the assumed vent release height, directly at the location of the exhaust vent, to conservatively assess the air quality impacts from the proposed garage on the adjacent buildings, representing windows or air intake locations. Based on this methodology, the maximum predicted CO and PM concentrations from the underground parking area were analyzed, assuming a nearby ground level receptor (7 feet), and a far side sidewalk receptor across Arbor Drive (54 feet), as well as a receptor on the façade of the original project. All values are the highest predicted concentrations for any time period analyzed. The maximum predicted 1-hour and 8-hour average CO concentrations modeled are 2.40 pm and 1.57 ppm, respectively. These values include predicted concentrations of 0.10 ppm and 0.07 ppm from emissions within the parking facility and background levels of 2.30 ppm and 1.50 ppm. The maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations from the vehicles using the garage are of 22.4 µg/m3 and 7.1 µg/m3, respectively. These value includes predicted concentrations of 6.7 µg/m3 and 1.1 µg/m3, respectively, Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-101 7/2/202010/08/2020 from emissions within the parking facility and background levels of 15.7 µg/m3 and 6.0 µg/m3, respectively. The location of maximum air quality impacts from the various on-site sources are unlikely to impact the same location simultaneously. However, the FEIS has been updated to reflect that maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations from the vehicles using the garage when conservatively combined with the maximum stationary source concentrations are of 24.4 µg/m3 and 7.2 µg/m3, respectively. The 24-hour value includes predicted concentrations of 6.7 µg/m3 and 2 µg/m3, from emissions within the parking facility and all stationary sources, respectively, and a background level of 15.7 µg/m3. Similarly, the annual value includes predicted concentrations of 1.1 µg/m3 and 0.1 µg/m3, from emissions within the parking facility and all stationary sources, respectively, and a background level of 6.0 µg/m3. These values are below the respective NAAQS; therefore, no significant adverse impacts are predicted for CO or PM2.5 from the Build condition as a result of emissions from the garage. Comment 122: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The stationary source analysis consisted of modeling a single stack from a four-story building. This is identified in the DEIS as being conservative. However, the proposed multifamily residential buildings consists of three and four stories. Since the receptors of concern are ground level, placing a stack on a four-story building is not conservative.” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#173): the stationary source analysis consisted of modeling a single stack from a four-story building. This is identified in the DEIS as being conservative. However, the proposed multifamily residential buildings consist of three- and four-stories. Since the receptors of concern are ground level, placing a stack on a four-story building is not conservative. Response 122: The stationary source analysis9 assumed that the exhaust stacks would be located on the tallest portion of each building. In order to account for the potential cumulative, or conservative, effect, the emissions associated with the HVAC systems for the entire Revised Proposed Project would be exhausted from a single stack. Since the majority of the HVAC needs for the Revised Proposed Project would be associated with the IL and AL building (approximately 88 percent of the total development area), the exhaust stack was analyzed at a height of 48 feet (3 feet above the tallest portions of either building). 9 The stationary source analysis was based pFEIS Plan (see Section 2.13.2, “Stationary Sources”). The Revised Proposed Project has 16 fewer IL units and 20,280 fewer total GSF than the pFEIS Plan. As such, both the DEIS and pFEIS analyses can be considered conservative as they are reflective of a higher density than is included in the Revised Proposed Project. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-102 DRAFT An additional AERSCREEN10 analysis was performed for the combined HVAC systems associated with the full development of two-story townhouses at a height of 28 feet. Maximum projected concentrations that were generated from the AERSCREEN model as a result of the combined HVAC systems are presented in Table 3.13-2. Similar to the DEIS, the maximum projected NO2 and PM2.5 concentrations with the addition of the Revised Proposed Project at any ground- level receptor would be well below the NAAQS. Therefore, the Revised Proposed Project would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts from stationary sources, such as the proposed HVAC systems. Table 3.13-2 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from Townhouses Pollutant Averaging Period Maximum Modeled Impact Background Concentration(1) Total Concentration NAAQS NO2 1-hour 21 104 125 188 Annual 6 27 33 100 PM2.5 24-hour 1.2 15.7 16.9 35 Annual 0.5 6.0 6.5 12 Note: 1 See Table 3.13-1 The location of maximum air quality impacts from the various on-site sources are unlikely to impact the same location simultaneously. However, the FEIS has been updated to reflect that maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations11 from the vehicles using the garage when conservatively combined with the maximum stationary source concentrations are of 24.4 µg/m3 and 7.2 µg/m3, respectively. The 24-hour value includes predicted concentrations of 6.7 µg/m3 and 2 µg/m3, from emissions within the parking facility and all stationary sources, respectively, and a background level of 15.7 µg/m3. Similarly, the annual value includes predicted concentrations of 1.1 µg/m3 and 0.1 µg/m3, from emissions within the parking facility and all stationary sources, respectively, and a background level of 6.0 µg/m3. Comment 123: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “Section 13.4.1 of the DEIS states…‘no significant adverse air quality impacts would be expected from the Proposed Project on lower elevations.’ However, the statement should be based on elevated sensitive receptors. In addition, the DEIS should clarify if receptors along Ivy Hill Crescent, Arbor Drive, and within the [Project Site] along the existing and new pedestrian paths and new sidewalks were considered in the model. If not, why not?” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#171): Section 13.4.1 of the DEIS states “…no significant adverse air quality impacts would be expected from the Proposed Project on lower elevations.” However, the statement should be based on elevated sensitive receptors. In addition, the DEIS should 10 The additional AERSCREEN analysis was based pFEIS Plan. See the note above. 11 The analysis was based pFEIS Plan. See the note above. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-103 7/2/202010/08/2020 clarify if receptors along Ivy Hill Crescent, Arbor Drive, and within the Proposed Project site along the existing and new pedestrian paths and new sidewalks were considered in the model. If not, why not? Response 123: As discussed in the FEIS, concentrations at ground-level receptors and elevated receptors up to 25 feet in elevation were predicted in the AERSCREEN analysis. Maximum concentrations at ground level receptors presented in the FEIS represent the predicted maximum concentration ant any distance from the source regardless of the location. Additionally, sensitive receptors at lower elevation building locations are located approximately 150 feet to the northeast of the Site (along King Street), 350 feet to the northwest of the Site (along North Ridge Street), 470 feet to the south (along Ivory Hill Lane), and 370 feet to the southeast at Blind Brook High School. The minimum distance of 150 feet was used to predict the maximum concentrations at elevated receptors. Therefore, concentrations at receptors along Ivy Hill Crescent, Arbor Drive, and within the Project Site along the existing and proposed new pedestrian paths and new sidewalks would be similar to or less than those predicted for the AERSCREEN analysis. MITIGATION Comment 124: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant “recommended that the Applicant be required as a condition to the permit/approvals for the Proposed Project to not place generators on the east side of the Project Site to avoid disturbance to receptors in that area, including the Village Hall, [RBPD], and [RBFD].” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#174): it is recommended that the applicant be required as a condition to the permit/approvals for the proposed project to not place generators on the east side of the project site to avoid disturbance to receptors in that area, including the Village Hall, Rye Brook Police Department and Rye Brook Fire Department. Response 124: As discussed in Section 2.13, “Air Quality,” the Applicant has committed to locating the generators on the west side of the Project Site, facing the Parkway. 3.14. NOISE EXISTING CONDITIONS—METHODOLOGY Comment 125: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “Based on the NYSDEC Noise Program Policy, appropriate receptor locations may be either at the property line of the parcel on which the facility is located or at the location of use or inhabitance on adjacent property. However, the most conservative approach utilizes the property line. The DEIS did not include a sensitive receptor along the eastern side of the property line near Village Hall, [RBPD] and [RBFD].” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#178): Based on the NYSDEC Noise Program Policy, appropriate receptor locations may be either at the property line of the parcel on which the facility is located 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-104 DRAFT or at the location of use or inhabitance on adjacent property. However, the most conservative approach utilizes the property line. The DEIS did not include a sensitive receptor along the eastern side of the property line near Village Hall, Rye Brook Police Department and Rye Brook Fire Department. Response 125: Noise Measurement Site 2, on the corner of King Street and Arbor Drive, represents existing noise levels at receptors along King Street, including the Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD, for which traffic along King Street is the dominant noise source. The operational analysis presented in Chapter 14, “Noise,” of the DEIS uses noise levels measured at Site 2 as the basis for analysis at these receptors since the dominant noise source at Site 2 was vehicular traffic along King Street, to which these buildings are also exposed. As such, the incremental change in noise at Site 2, which is based on the potential changes in vehicular traffic volume on King Street, reflect the maximum expected mobile source noise increment at these buildings. Existing noise levels further from King Street may experience less noise from traffic on King Street (including both existing traffic and traffic associated with the proposed project), but are closer to the Hutchinson River Parkway and would tend to experience more noise from this roadway. An analysis receptor representing the Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD has been added to the construction analysis. Please see response to Comment 148. Comment 126: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “The DEIS recognizes schools and hospitals as ‘most sensitive receptors’. However, a 3 dBA noise level increase limit was not used for Site #4, representative of the Blind Brook High School.” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#179): the DEIS recognizes schools and hospitals as “most sensitive receptors”. However, a 3 dBA noise level increase limit was not used for Site #4, representative of the Blind Brook High School. Response 126: As shown in Table 14-4 of Chapter 14, “Noise,” of the DEIS, the Build condition maximum noise level increase at Receptor Site 4, which represents the Blind Brook High School, is less than 2 dBA, which is considered imperceptible to barely perceptible. Furthermore, the total Build condition noise level would be approximately 62 dBA, which is considered acceptable for residential uses according to NYSDEC guidance, and is likewise considered an acceptable exterior noise level for comparably sensitive educational uses such as the Blind Brook High School. Further, a hospital or school was noted to be an example of a receptor that could be considered “most sensitive.” However, Blind Brook High School, which does not have outdoor uses facing the Project Site or the roadways on which the Revised Proposed Project would have the potential to add vehicles and also has a building façade consisting primarily of masonry with no ventilation louvers, would not constitute a “most sensitive” receptor in this case because it is not particularly susceptible to outdoor noise from the Revised Proposed Project. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-105 7/2/202010/08/2020 Comment 127: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “Weekend existing noise levels were not measured. A discussion of the weekend vehicular traffic anticipated for the Proposed Project should be added and, if deemed to be necessary, the noise analysis should include a typical Saturday, including obtaining existing noise levels. Similarly, the DEIS is silent on nighttime noise level (10 PM to 7 AM) increases due to the Proposed Project.” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#180): Weekend existing noise levels were not measured. A discussion of the weekend vehicular traffic anticipated for the Proposed Project should be added and, if deemed to be necessary, the noise analysis should include a typical Saturday, including obtaining existing noise levels. Similarly, the DEIS is silent on nighttime noise level (10 PM to 7 AM) increases due to the Proposed Project. Response 127: Weekday peak hours were identified as the periods with the greatest project- generated traffic and consequently the greatest potential to result in project generated noise level increases. Weekend and overnight hours would experience less traffic generation and consequently lower noise levels. As the noise level increments as a result of project-generated traffic would be well below the threshold for a significant adverse impact in peak traffic periods, weekend, and overnight noise level increments would likewise not rise to the level of significant adverse impact. Comment 128: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The noise levels from the on-Site movement of traffic, including trucks, should be assessed to determine the noise level increases for the proposed sensitive receptors, as well as The Arbors townhouses.” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#181): The proposed project consists of adding a sensitive receptor to the area, residences. The noise levels from the on-site movement of traffic, including trucks, should be assessed to determine the noise level increases for the proposed sensitive receptors, as well as the Arbors Townhouses. Response 128: As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the DEIS, and Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project,” three to four deliveries are anticipated each day during the week, with one to two deliveries possible during the weekend. Deliveries would not be expected to occur during overnight hours. Therefore, less than one delivery truck would be expected in a single hour, which would not result in a significant increase in mobile source noise levels above ambient conditions at existing receptors (e.g., Arbor Townhouses, Town and Village Hall, RBPD, RBFD) and at the proposed IL and AL building. As described in Section 2.14.1, “Noise: Mobile Sources,” the maximum noise increment from mobile sources attributed to the original project was 1.6 dBA, which would be imperceptible. The Revised Proposed Project would have fewer trips than the original project, therefore resulting in smaller increments. The majority of passenger vehicles would park in an underground parking facility, which would shield nearby receptors from noise generated during parking operations. Finally, the Revised Proposed Project’s mechanical systems would be 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-106 DRAFT designed to avoid producing a combined 6.0 dBA or more increase at nearby receptors, inclusive of the noise increments generated by on-Site mobile sources. At receptors where the existing noise level is less than 65 dBA during daytime hours, the Revised Proposed Project’s mechanical systems would be designed to avoid causing future noise levels to exceed 65 dBA. IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS Comment 129: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “The Future with the Proposed Project noise levels presented in Table 14-4 are lower than those provided in Table 14-3 for the Future without the Proposed Project. Please explain or correct.” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#182): The Future with the Proposed Project noise levels presented in Table 14-4 are lower than those provided in Table 14-3 for the Future Without the Proposed Project. Please explain or correct. Response 129: As discussed in Chapter 12, “Traffic and Transportation,” of the DEIS, the adopted scoping outline for the DEIS required that the No Build condition include the condition where the existing on-Site office building was fully occupied. As the office building was not fully occupied at the time of the existing condition traffic counts, the No Build condition results in higher traffic increments than the Build condition, particularly along Arbor Drive. The increased traffic in the No Build condition is the source of increased noise levels. Table 14-4 of the DEIS compares the existing noise condition with the expected Build condition. As shown, the maximum increase in mobile source Leq(1) attributable to the Proposed Project would be 1.6 dBA. As discussed in Chapter 2, “Environmental Analysis,” Sections 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and 2.14, “Noise,” the Revised Proposed Project would generate fewer peak hour trips than the original project. Therefore, the maximum increase in mobile source noise generated by the Revised Proposed Project would be expected to be less than 1.6 dBA, which would be imperceptible. Comment 130: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant stated that, “The total noise level from the Proposed Project should not result in an increase of 6 dBA or more at nearby receptors. In addition, the total noise level from the Proposed Project should not cause interior noise levels within the proposed buildings greater than 45 dBA. This includes noise from all sources, including mobile sources as well as the combined noise level from stationary sources, as opposed to on an individual basis.” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#183): The total noise level from the proposed project should not result in an increase of 6 dBA or more at nearby receptors. In addition, the total noise level from the proposed project should not cause interior noise levels within the proposed buildings greater than 45 dBA. This includes noise from all sources, including mobile sources as well as the combined noise level from stationary sources, as opposed to on an individual basis. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-107 7/2/202010/08/2020 Response 130: Chapter 14, “Noise,” Section 14.4.3 “Noise Levels at the 900 King Street Residences,” of the DEIS states that interior noise levels within the original project’s buildings would be less than 45 dBA with standard façade construction. As stated in Table 14-4 of the DEIS, the maximum increase in mobile source Leq(1) attributable to the original project would be 1.6 dBA, which would be imperceptible. Further, as discussed in Sections 2.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and 2.14, “Noise,” the Revised Proposed Project would generate fewer peak hour trips than the original project. Therefore, the maximum increase in mobile source noise generated by the Revised Proposed Project would be expected to be less than 1.6 dBA, which would be imperceptible. As stated in Chapter 14, “Noise,” Section 14.4.4, “Stationary Source Analysis” of the DEIS, mechanical equipment would be designed to avoid a combined 6.0 dBA increase at nearby receptors. At receptors where the existing noise level is less than 65 dBA during the daytime hours, the project-generated stationary sources should not cause the future noise levels to exceed 65 dBA. With respect to application of a 3 dBA incremental increase threshold at Blind Brook High School, please see Response to Comment 128. MITIGATION Comment 131: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant “recommended that the Applicant be required as a condition to the permit/approvals for the Proposed Project to not place generators on the east side of the Project Site to avoid disturbance to receptors in that area, including the Village Hall, [RBPD], and [RBFD].” (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#184): it is recommended that the applicant be required as a condition to the permit/approvals for the proposed project to not place generators on the east side of the project site to avoid disturbance to receptors in that area, including the Village Hall, Rye Brook Police Department and Rye Brook Fire Department. Response 131: The Applicant has agreed to place generators on the west side of the Project Site facing the Parkway, which would avoid direct line of sight from the generators to the surrounding sensitive receptors, including The Arbors, Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD. 3.15. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Comment 132: Comments were received questioning the potential for hazardous materials to be present in the subsurface and the potential for the community, including The Arbors and the Blind Brook Middle School and High School, to be exposed to those materials during construction. Other comments questioned the sufficiency of the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs). The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant commented that the Phase I and Phase II ESAs were completed in accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) and industry standards and that the DEIS conclusion that there is no evidence of a release 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-108 DRAFT appears reasonable. The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant went on to state that the controls proposed in the DEIS to address the Phase II recommendations are reasonable standards of practice. The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant recommended that the asbestos-containing material (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) surveys proposed in the DEIS be required and that the information be shared with the Village’s Building Department. Finally, the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant recommended the preparation of a Materials Management Plan (MMP) prior to the start of construction that would include a plan for soil, groundwater, and dust management as well as contingency plans in the event that unforeseen contaminants are encountered during construction. (Snyder 007, Musso 013, Barnett 034, Ross 042, Levine 048, Tazbin 071) Snyder 007 (#78): The DEIS indicates that the project site was a “historic generator of ignitable waste, corrosive waste, and spent halogenic solvents. Storage and handling of these wastes have the potential to have affected the subsurface.” Although a Phase II was conducted, the Phase II testing only involved 9 soil borings on the 17.7 acre site. The DEIS states that “excavation may reveal different or more significant soil contamination in areas not tested as part of this investigation.” It also indicates that “the greatest potential for exposure to contaminated materials would occur during subsurface disturbance associated with construction of new buildings as part of the Proposed Project.” The DEIS concedes the “Proposed Project could potentially result in an increase in exposure for the community and construction workers.” The Village Board has a duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. The middle school and high school filled with the children of this community is proximate to the project. With this danger lurking in connection with the substantial excavation of the site (requiring 42,600 cubic yards of fill to be excavated), project alternatives must be considered. Certainly, the project must be modified to avoid the excavation and the disturbance of more than 74% of the project site. Musso 013 (#189): It appears that the Phase I has been completed in conformity with the applicable ASTM standard. The RECs identified were investigated as part of the Phase II in accordance with industry practice. Based on the RECs identified the scope of the sampling and laboratory analysis appears reasonable and appropriate. The conclusion that there is no evidence of a release appears reasonable. Musso 013 (#190): due to the RECs identified the majority of the samples were collected in the shallow soils. The Village should note that, due to the significant earthwork proposed as part of the development, deeper excavation may reveal differing soils conditions and/or contamination in areas not tested as part of this investigation. Musso 013 (#191): ACM and lead-based paint surveys and abatement as recommended in the DEIS by AKRF will reduce the risk to hazardous materials during building demolition. Should the project and demolition / development move forward, it is recommended that the Village Building Department track progress on ACM and lead- based paint surveys and abatement. Surveys and abatement, as required, should be completed prior to disturbing existing building materials. Musso 013 (#192): The controls proposed in the Hazardous Materials section of the DEIS address the Phase II Recommendations and are reasonable standards of practice. Musso 013 (#193): HDR is providing the following recommendation[s] for consideration in order to further reduce risk of exposure and document that there are appropriate plans in place that are in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations and that aim to prevent a release to the surrounding environment or community. The proposed project plans indicate that a significant amount of earth work will be a part of development. The DEIS reports that the western portion of the site will be lowered by 42,600 cubic yards of excavation and 51,600 cubic yards of fill will be used to raise the central portion of the site. The preparation of a Materials Management Plan(s) prior to the start of construction would allow the contractor to provide plans for soil, groundwater and dust management prior to disturbance. The plans should also provide procedures to follow Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-109 7/2/202010/08/2020 if unforeseen contaminants or hazardous materials are encountered during construction, such as odors, sheen, petroleum and/or USTs. Due to the volume of soils that will be exposed at the site, dust management and suppression should also be included in the plans. To ensure there is no dust release to the surrounding community Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be identified. Additionally, plans for monitoring (visual or instrumentation) are typically included with action levels and the appropriate responses outlined. Barnett 034 (#274): There is no time when construction can occur, if we’re not very careful, especially without knowing with all the boring samples what’s going to be under there…it could be too late, if there’s going to be any sort of adverse impact, because you have a site that has been…it was constructed in the ‘70s, and regulation wasn’t the same for the structure as it was today. Ross 042 (#331): We (BBSD) are concerned about the amount of dust and dirt that may be released from the site during construction and encourage the Village of Rye Brook to establish and enforce restrictions to address this matter. Especially the case with hazardous materials such as those containing asbestos or any other harmful substances. This is critical during the "subsurface disturbance associated with construction of the new building" as described on page 15-3 of the "Hazardous Materials" section of the proposal. Levine 048 (#368): What about during construction? The construction is what I’m most concerned about. There is such an unknown when you knock down a building and excavate the land and try to build something. We don’t even know what they are going to find, and it could potentially be hazardous. Response 132: As described in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,” the Applicant conducted Phase I and Phase II ESAs to identify potential sources of hazardous materials and to assess the potential presence of contamination. The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, HDR, reviewed these reports and stated that, “It appears that the Phase I has been completed in conformity with the applicable ASTM standard. The [recognized environmental conditions] RECs identified were investigated as part of the Phase II in accordance with industry practice. Based on the RECs identified, the scope of the sampling and laboratory analysis appears reasonable and appropriate. The conclusion that there is no evidence of a release appears reasonable.” With respect to the mitigation measures proposed in the original project, which are summarized in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,” the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant noted that, “the controls proposed in the Hazardous Materials section of the DEIS address the Phase II Recommendations and are reasonable standards of practice.” As noted in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,” and reiterated by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, the majority of the subsurface samples were collected in shallow soils as the majority of the RECs identified in the Phase I were above ground, and sampling protocol dictated that samples be collected from the soil zone with the highest potential for contamination (e.g., shallow soil). As with any construction project, excavation may reveal unknown or unreported conditions (e.g., underground tanks). In the event that unforeseen and unexpected contamination is discovered during construction, these areas would be addressed and handled in accordance with applicable State regulations. In addition, and as recommended by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, the Revised Proposed Project would include an MMP, which would be prepared by the Applicant prior to the start of excavation. The MMP would establish a protocol 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-110 DRAFT outlining the handling of Site soil and other subsurface materials encountered during the proposed excavation work. The MPP would include measures for appropriate soil handling, soil stockpile management, site controls to mitigate sediment and dust, and would include contingency measures to address potential unknown conditions (unknown tanks or contamination) in accordance with all prevailing regulations. Specifically, the MMP will include a plan for the contractor to monitor soil during all earthwork activities for evidence of contamination (i.e., staining, odors, etc.). In the event that areas of contamination are encountered, the MMP will include an action response where soil disturbance will cease in the affected area of the excavation, and an environmental consultant will respond to the Site to properly address the contamination. Any unknown contamination areas will be addressed in accordance with all prevailing local, state, and federal regulations, including Spill notification (if necessary), excavation, removal, stockpiling, and off-site disposal of the contaminated soil, and performance documentation (i.e., soil endpoint sampling) to confirm that the contamination area has been properly removed. As stated in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,” prior to demolition, ACM and LBP surveys would be conducted throughout the existing structure. ACM would be removed prior to demolition by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements and activities with the potential to disturb LBP would be performed in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA) regulations. In addition, the Applicant, as recommended by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, would provide the Village with results of the pre-demolition ACM and LBP surveys as well as provide progress reports on any required pre-demolition abatement. Based on the above, and with the implementation of the mitigation measures noted in Section 2.15, “Hazardous Materials,” no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would be expected to occur as a result of the construction of the Revised Proposed Project. Following construction, there would be no further potential for adverse impacts. Section 2.16.2.3, “Construction: Air Quality,” describes the measures included in the Revised Proposed Project that would avoid or mitigate potential off-Site air quality impacts during construction (e.g., dust) that are not specifically related to subsurface conditions. Comment 133: Comments were received requesting additional discussion of plans for the disposal of medical waste and hazardous material from the AL facility. (Snyder 007, Planning Board 018) Snyder 007 (#79): DEIS states that there will not be hospital care of skilled nursing care so it is not “expected” to generate significant quantities of medical waste. This statement is without support since the Assisted Living component intends to have dementia patients. Planning Board 018 (#226): Discuss and explain the plans for disposal of medical and hazardous material from the assisted living facility. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-111 7/2/202010/08/2020 Response 133: According to the National Institute on Aging at the National Institute of Health (NIH), there are differences between assisted living and nursing homes, where “Assisted living is for people who need help with daily care, but not as much help as a nursing home provides.” In addition, according to Chapter X of the New York Public Health Code, “Assisted Living Residences,” AL facilities are defined as entities which provide or arrange for housing, on-site monitoring, and personal care services and/or home care services in a home-like setting. AL residents usually live in their own apartments or rooms and share common areas. They have access to a number of services, including up to three meals a day; assistance with personal care; help with medications; housekeeping and laundry; and 24-hour supervision. However, AL residences differ from nursing homes, where full-time nurses provide skilled nursing care to patients and medical waste could be more common. In Chapter 15, “Hazardous Materials,” of the DEIS, the Applicant notes that “the Proposed Project would not include hospital care or skilled nursing care at the AL facility, it would therefore not be expected to generate significant quantities of medical waste. Any medical or biological waste generated would be handled, stored, and disposed in accordance with all applicable regulations, including those of the Department of Health (DOH).” Therefore, the Revised Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact as a result of the handling of disposable medical waste. 3.16. CONSTRUCTION GENERAL Comment 134: A comment was received requesting information on the duration of construction for the Proposed Project. (Fox 023) Fox 023 (#250): How long is the construction scheduled from mobilization to substantial completion? Response 134: As stated in Section 2.16.1, “Construction Phasing,” construction of the Revised Proposed Project would be completed in approximately 30 months. Comment 135: Comments were received requesting more definitive information on the need for blasting, rock chipping, pile-driving, and materials processing (e.g., rock crushing) during construction of the Proposed Project. (Snyder 007, Klein 062) Snyder 007 (#59): DEIS does not assure that there will not be blasting or rock crushing. The DEIS merely states rock crushing and blasting are not “anticipated” without any adequate support. Klein 062 (#514): Is rock chipping or pile driving expected and if so, at what stages and for how long? Klein 062 (#572): 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. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-112 DRAFT Response 135: Drawing C-410 titled “Excavation Cross Section” has been added to JMC’s site plan set to clarify the extents of excavation and the height of rock encountered during the soil borings performed by AKRF on November 9, 2017 and January 2018 (see Volume 4). As shown on drawing C-410 and using information from the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (DEIS Appendix I) and the Phase II ESA (DEIS Appendix H-2), competent rock will come no closer than approximately 11 feet from the bottom of the garage, which based upon the current design, would be the lowest excavation. Bedrock height can be unpredictable but from the accessible information, no blasting or rock crushing is anticipated during construction. As rock blasting, rock crushing, rock chipping, and pile driving are not anticipated during construction, on-Site materials processing will not be necessary. Based upon the recommendation from the geotechnical report, proposed foundations can be supported upon the soils present on-Site (see DEIS Appendix I). Therefore, shallow foundations are proposed and deep foundations, such as piles, are not feasible, nor recommended. Comment 136: Comments were received suggesting that adverse impacts from construction of the Proposed Project would be significant, especially to nearby residents in The Arbors, and that those impacts may affect the potential of The Arbors residents to sell their houses during construction. (Carravone 002, Stella-Turner 014, Levine 029, Barnett 034, Levy 055, Klein 062, Levy 067) Carravone 002 (#9): the noise of construction will be horrendous for me and every one of my neighbors. Stella-Turner 014 (#196): (Would you want to listen to) 3 years of building? Suffer the air and noise pollution? Levine 029 (#266): How are the Arbors residents or any houses around there going to sell their homes during that construction time? Our property values will definitely go down. Barnett 034 (#275): The Arbors is concerned because some people are only going to be 150 feet away from the construction that’s occurring. Levy 055 (#418): Quality of life certainly during construction in terms of noise for those of us who have businesses at homes, who are self-employed and can’t have that king of noise going on when we are working and trying to make a living. Especially for those people who are home all day, whether they are home because they are working or not home. I am a self-employed person, my husband is a self-employed person and we spend a lot of time working during the day and that noise level could really affect our work…quality of life during and after. Klein 062 (#505): 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 Plans should be cognizant of these concerns. Levy 067 (#532): There will be the noise of construction vehicles coming and going as well as the noise of the construction. At one meeting, it was mentioned that residents of the Arbors may need to keep windows closed to insulate us from some of the noise. Whether residents are working from home -as both myself and my husband do - or socializing on our patios, studying for school or sleeping, our quality of life should not be affected for 3 years of construction. Additionally, we should not be disturbed on the weekends with Sunday construction. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-113 7/2/202010/08/2020 Response 136: The potential impacts to The Arbors as a result of construction of the Revised Proposed Project are detailed in Section 2.16.2, “Construction Period Impacts and Mitigation.” As noted in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, the nature and magnitude of this temporary impact would be similar in all studied alternatives to the Revised Proposed Project, save the No Action alternative. Comment 137: A comment was received requesting additional information regarding “mitigation measures for the potential construction-period impacts to Harkness Park.” (Klein 062) Klein 062 (#509): [Section] 10.4.3 [of the DEIS] should include mitigation for loss of use of the tennis courts at Harkness due to construction during the 21 months of heavy construction anticipated Response 137: As summarized below, and described in more detail in response to Comment 149, the existing noise level at Harkness Park is approximately 70.0 dBA, which is greater than the NYSDEC recommended level for noise exterior to residential uses. The maximum predicted noise levels at the Park during construction of the Revised Proposed Project, which would occur during the approximately 3 months of excavation work, would be in the mid-70s dBA. This would be an increase of approximately 3 dBA, which would be barely perceptible. This approximately 3 dBA increase is below the 6 dBA threshold for potential significant adverse noise impacts as specified by NYSDEC. Outside of the approximately 3 months of excavation work, noise impacts from construction, and overall noise levels at the Park, would be lower. Consequently, the Park would not have the potential to experience a significant adverse construction noise impact as defined by NYSDEC and further mitigation would not be appropriate. Comment 138: A comment was received asking how off-Site stormwater flow that currently uses the on-Site stormwater basin will be accommodated during construction. (Planning Board 018) Planning Board 018 (#231): If other properties currently utilize the drainage basin on the subject property, how will this drainage be accommodated during construction? Response 138: The existing drainage basin will remain fully functional throughout the entire duration of construction. The extent of work to be done on the existing basin is minimal and should not take an extended period of time. The clearing of the basin would be limited to invasive species only. Reshaping of the basin would be limited to lowering the northeast portion of the basin in a 2,500-sf area (from 3 inches in some portions and up to 2 feet in other portions) and pulling back the western portion of the basin in order to increase the overall size of the basin. This work would occur on the opposite side of where the off-Site drainage is piped into the basin. As soon as the proposed grade is established, the exposed soil will be seeded and stabilized to prevent further erosion. This excavation will also be carefully planned around the weather to avoid exposing bare soil to any rain events before this soil can be stabilized. To further reduce potential siltation downstream, silt 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-114 DRAFT fence will be installed at the toe of the reshaped slope until vegetation is established. This work will take place during Phase 1 of construction. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Comment 139: The traffic consultant hired by The Arbors provided a letter which, in part, recited the potential construction period traffic impacts as identified in the DEIS. (Adler 039) Adler 039 (#302): Intersection capacity analysis shows that the proposed redevelopment of the 900 King Street Site would result in LOS “F” operating conditions for individual movements during the PM peak construction activity hour at the following intersections: (1) King Street (Route 120A) & North Ridge Street (2) King Street (Route 120A) & Glen Ridge Road/Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB on/off ramp. Adler 039 (#303): The 95th percentile queue in the northbound shared through/right-turn lane at the intersection of King Street with Blind Brook MS/HS -- Glenville Street is expected to exceed the available 345-foot storage lane during the PM peak construction activity hour. Response 139: As stated in the DEIS, to provide the most conservative analysis, the study analyzed the construction time period during which the most number of on-Site workers would be present—months 20 and 21. The study did not take any credits for potential carpooling, and assumed that all 180 workers would arrive and depart in separate vehicles during the peak hour. In reality, the periods of construction that have the most workers on-Site are those that include multiple trades. As stated in DEIS Section 16.3.2.1, “Construction Period Trip Generation,” it is unlikely that all 180 workers would arrive during a single peak hour, nor is it likely that each worker would arrive in a separate vehicle. In addition, only two months are estimated to have 180 workers present on-Site, with all other months expected to have fewer workers on-Site. Potential temporary adverse traffic impacts during construction are unavoidable and mitigation is not typically required. Comment 140: Comments were received regarding the potential impacts of construction truck traffic. One commenter questioned the accuracy of the number of trucks estimated in the DEIS based on a belief that the DEIS assumed a truck size that was too large. Other commenters questioned whether the intersection of Arbor Drive and King Street was properly configured to handle construction truck movements, while others questioned the overall impact to the traffic network from the number of trucks anticipated and requested more detail on the duration and timing of peak construction activity. (Snyder 007, Neumann 030, Zimmerman 046, Klein 062) Snyder 007 (#58): 9,000 cubic yards is the best case scenario…you would need at least 900 dump trucks to bring the fill to the site. (The DEIS assumes a 20 yard capacity truck and thus 420 truck trips, but that seems dubious when most trucks are 10-14 yard capacity). The DEIS needs to address worst case scenario as well as best case to fully analyze the impact of the subsurface structure excavation. Neumann 030 (#268): Where are all these trucks going to come from? They can’t go on the Hutch? How (are) they going to take the turn into the street? We’re talking about a big project. It’s huge. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-115 7/2/202010/08/2020 Zimmerman 046 (#358): Third thing was construction traffic. You were concerned with the construction at Broadview impact on Rye Brook. This one is right in Rye Brook, and it most assuredly is going to affect many areas in Rye Brook, as well as nearby Greenwich and Port Chester and whichever way the trucks are going to have to go. Klein 062 (#516): Please specify the amount of weeks for typical truck activity and peak truck activity (Section 16.3.2.3). Response 140: As noted in Section 2.4.1, “Soils,” the Revised Proposed Project reduces the excavation, or cut, required as well as the fill required within the Site. As shown in Table 3.4-1, the Revised Proposed Project also reduces the net cut-and-fill compared to the original project, which further mitigates potential adverse impacts related to on-Site construction activities and off-Site trucking of earthen material. It is anticipated that, owing to the size of the Revised Proposed Project, larger (20 cubic yard) capacity trucks would be primarily utilized for the import or export of earthen material. Conservatively assuming 14-yard capacity trucks, a total of approximately 105 truck trips would be required to deliver this material. These trucks are accounted for in the estimated number of weekly truck trips described in more detail below. Section 16.3.2.3, “Construction Truck Traffic,” of the DEIS describes the potential truck routes to and from the Site (i.e., I-95, I-684, and I-287). As shown in Figure 16-1 of the DEIS, 22 of the 30 months of construction are anticipated to have 30 or fewer weekly tuck trips to and from the Site and only three (non-consecutive) months are estimated to have more than 100 truck trips per week. At no time would truck parking or queuing be permitted on King Street or Arbor Drive. Figure 3-1 demonstrates the ability of a 20-yard dump truck to both access and exit Arbor Drive from both northbound and southbound King Street. As described in Section 2.16.2, “Construction Period Impacts and Mitigation,” a detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP) would be implemented that would provide for communication between the Project’s construction manager and Village staff, including the Police Department. Through the CMP, Village staff would be alerted to times of peak truck activity. Comment 141: A comment was received questioning the validity of the construction traffic analysis given that it assumed peak construction traffic would occur between 6 AM and 7 AM though the Village’s noise ordinance prohibits construction before 8 AM, which might indicate a later construction traffic peak time. (Klein 062) Klein 062 (#515): Given that the waiver has not been granted, the traffic study should examine an 8AM start time for construction. Response 141: The Village’s noise ordinance prohibits construction that makes audible noise beyond the project boundary prior to 8:00 AM on weekdays. During the periods of peak construction activity, a large number of workers in various trades will be doing interior finishing work. This work can take place prior to 8:00 AM as it would not create noise outside of the Site. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-116 DRAFT To further mitigate the potential for adverse impacts related to construction workers arriving during school arrival time, the Applicant has proposed that the Village allow for a waiver of the 8:00 AM start time by no more than 1 hour (i.e., allow a start time of 7:00 AM) in cases where the Village Board finds that such a waiver could reduce potential traffic impacts at sensitive locations within the Village, such as the Project Site (see Appendix L). See also the Response to Comment 139. Comment 142: The Village’s Traffic Consultant stated that, “The Applicant has provided an analysis for a worst-case condition at months 20-21 where up to 180 workers will arrive to the site between 6:00 and 7:00 AM and leave between 3:30 and 4:30 PM. To develop the 6:00 to 7:00 existing baseline volumes, the Applicant reduced the 7:00 to 8:00 AM traffic volumes from their counts by 50%.” (FP Clark 012) FP Clark 012 (#166): The Applicant has provided an analysis for a worst-case condition at months 20-21 where up to 180 workers will arrive to the site between 6:00 and 7:00 AM and leave between 3:30 and 4:30 PM. To develop the 6:00 to 7:00 existing baseline volumes, the Applicant reduced the 7:00 to 8:00 AM traffic volumes from their counts by 50%. Response 142: Comment noted. Comment 143: Comments were received that expressed concern for pedestrian safety, specifically for students walking to and from school, during construction of the Proposed Project. (Stella-Turner 014, Joy 033, Levine 048, Klein 062, Levy 067) Stella-Turner 014 (#195): Compromise your child’s safety when he walks to school every day? Wonder what was to become of the school systems. Joy 033 (#271): My concern…about the kids’ safety walking home from middle and high (schools). I will be concerned about safety during all (of) the construction time. Levine 048 (#370): The kids walk to school and they walk home crossing Arbor Drive. Sports take place throughout that land: Are those sports going to go away? What’s going to be the plan for the school? This is going to immediately impact the school for potentially three years. Klein 062 (#521): Pedestrian access to the school from the Arbors should be guaranteed during construction. Levy 067 (#533): Arbors residents use Arbor Drive for walking and driving. Residents use Arbor Drive for walking, for exercise, walking their dogs, and walking to school. It is our only means in and out of the Arbors. Arbor Drive is also used as party parking as well. I am concerned that the traffic created during the construction and after this project due to the density proposed will greatly impact our quality of life and safety. Response 143: During construction, the Site would be fenced off to ensure safety from construction activities and the existing parking lot would be physically closed from public use. The pedestrian path leading from the Village buildings to Harkness Park and the Blind Brook High School would be temporarily closed. At the end of the construction period, the pedestrian path on the Project Site would be restored and enhanced and would be re-opened to the public. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-117 7/2/202010/08/2020 To further reduce the potential for conflicts between pedestrians and construction traffic, the Applicant proposes that the Village allow for a waiver of the 8:00 AM construction start time for noise-producing activities by no more than 1 hour (i.e., allow a start time of 7:00 AM) in cases where the Village Board finds that such a waiver could reduce potential traffic impacts at sensitive locations within the Village, such as the Project Site (see Appendix L). This would minimize the number of workers anticipated to arrive during the peak school arrival time. Comment 144: Comments were received regarding the potential construction traffic mitigation measure of allowing construction to start at 7 AM, as opposed to 8 AM. Several commenters stated that allowing construction noise to begin at 7 AM would be detrimental to their quality of life. Other comments expressed concern over the impacts to the school district and the traffic network. The Village’s Traffic Consultant stated that from a traffic perspective, allowing construction to start at 7 AM, rather than 8 AM, would be beneficial and would avoid both the AM peak hour and the morning drop off time at the Blind Brook Middle School and High School. (Snyder 007, Ghosh 008, Parvani 009, Samuels 016, Planning Board 018, Zimmerman 026, Snyder 038, Ross 042, Galante 044, Zimmerman 046, Levine 048, Snyder 053, Zarkower 054) Snyder 007 (#84): Due to the magnitude of the project and the proximity to the school, the DEIS proposes a potential mitigation measure which would allow a start time of 7 a.m. (as opposed to the Village Code Section 158 provision requiring a start time of 8 a.m. Weekdays and Saturdays of 9 a.m.) Monday-Saturday, 6 days a week in an effort to reduce potential traffic impacts. The DEIS provides no analysis as to how that will impact The Arbors and the use of Arbor Drive and what specific measures will be in place to assure the surrounding community is not impacted. Ghosh 008 (#91): Construction starting a 7am for 3 years would severely impact King Street Traffic - morning school drop off would be a nightmare. Parvani 009 (#95): Construction starting a 7am for 3 years would severely impact King Street Traffic - morning school drop off would be a nightmare. Samuels 016 (#201): The impact of the proposed construction beginning at 7am for three years would impact the ability of school buses to get kids to school on time (and home on time for activities.) King Street would be the hardest hit, as mentioned above. Morning school drop off would be a nightmare. Planning Board 018 (#228): How will a 7AM construction start time affect planned renovations for the public school during summer months? How will that construction time affect school drop-off and children walking to school? After school activities should be considered in determining construction time frames. Zimmerman 026 (#281): the developer has proposed that they get a variance to have their construction crews come in at 7:00 am every day instead of 8:00 am. And we in the Arbors feel that would be a tremendous disservice to the community. It would severely negatively impact our quality of life for up to three years. Snyder 038 (#293): The Change in construction [start] time will certainly be adverse to the community. Ross 042 (#329): Several hundred cars and buses already travel on King Street to Blind Brook MS/HS located at 840 King Street during rush hour period. Please do not forget to take into consideration what the proposed complex may do to a traffic situation that is already not good and for the safety of students who walk and bike between their homes and the Middle and High School campus. We request that traffic generated by the construction be limited during school arrival (7:15-8:00am) and dismissal (2:15-3:00pm). 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-118 DRAFT Traffic generated by shift workers at the assisted living & memory care facility be limited during these arrival and dismissal times as well. Galante 044 (#346): From a traffic perspective and looking at our traffic volumes, we support what they were saying, because the volumes are substantially lower before 7:00 am in the morning. They increase from 7:00 on in the morning. The comment that bringing employees in, construction employees in, before 7:00, from a traffic perspective, does make sense. I’m not suggesting impacts to neighbors. Just from a traffic perspective. Zimmerman 046 (#359): As far as starting at 7:00am in the morning, while I understand that would mitigate traffic, that’s putting people in The Arbors and in nearby homes here in a very untenable living situation for three years, and I don’t think that’s fair to even consider. I don’t think it’s fair to ask our residents to live that way for a three-year period. Levine 048 (#371): So the trucks are going to be in you’re saying before 7:00 am. So no trucks are going to be coming in and out after 7:00? 7:20 is when parents, 7:15, 7:20 is when parents start bringing their kids to school. Snyder 053 (#405): This all assumes that the village will grant a waiver for their time requirements for construction and 3:30 to 4:30 when all 180 workers are expected to depart from the site. The change in these construction times would certainly be adverse to the community. Zarkower 054 (#413): The 3:30 to 4:30 slot which was discussed before, has the developer reached out to the school district directly to discuss some of these concerns and how to mitigate some of the issues during this 21 to 30 month period, the retrieve school buses come right through Arbor Drive, between 3:30 and 4:00. Response 144: Strict adherence to the Village’s existing noise code could create the situation where, during times of predominantly exterior construction that is not allowed to start prior to 8:00 AM, construction workers would be arriving at the Project Site at the same time as the peak school arrival time. As a potential mitigation measure and to reduce potential conflicts between construction worker trips and school arrival trips, the Applicant proposes that the Village allow for a waiver of the 8:00 AM start time by no more than 1 hour (i.e., allow a start time of 7:00 AM) in cases where the Village Board finds that such a waiver could reduce potential traffic impacts at sensitive locations within the Village, such as the Project Site (see Appendix L). As noted by the Village’s Traffic Consultant, permitting such a waiver “makes sense” from a traffic perspective “because the volumes [on the area roadways] are substantially lower before 7:00 AM.” Comment 145: The Planning Board stated that, “repairs to Arbor Drive should be performed by the Applicant as needed during construction; not just when construction is complete.” (Planning Board 018) Planning Board 018 (#232): Regarding page 6-11, repairs to Arbor Drive should be performed by the Applicant as needed during construction; not just when construction is complete. Response 145: In Section 16.3.2.3, “Construction Truck Traffic,” the Applicant committed to “monitor the condition of Arbor Drive throughout the construction period and make necessary repairs, such as repaving, at the conclusion of the construction period.” While it was always the Applicant’s intent, the Revised Proposed Project Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-119 7/2/202010/08/2020 includes an explicit commitment to make repairs to Arbor Drive during the construction period as warranted and as appropriate. AIR QUALITY Comment 146: Comments were received expressing a concern for the air quality impacts of construction as experienced by The Arbors and the school, especially outdoor activities at the school. An additional comment advocated for a reduced scale project that would necessitate less construction and earth moving, which would in turn reduce impacts to air quality during construction. In addition, the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant recommended that the measures listed in the DEIS to avoid and minimize adverse air quality impacts during construction be memorialized as part of any Project approvals and that two other measures be included: (1) the use of Best Available Technology (BAT) for all non-road diesel- powered vehicles rated at 50 horsepower (hp) or above; and, (2) the implementation of a Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP) during construction. (Snyder 007, Musso 013, Ross 042, Klein 062) Snyder 007 (#83): Furthermore, the extent of the air quality resulting in air pollutant emissions which would be occurring for more than 6 months due to the use of "large non- road diesel engines, such as excavators, dozers, graders and loaders" needs to be analyzed, especially as to its impact on school aged children. Again, the statement in the DEIS that the nature and magnitude of these significant adverse impacts would be similar in all alternatives, except for the No Action alternative cannot be supported. Certainly, project alternatives reducing the scale of the project should be considered which include decreasing the footprint of the buildings and eliminating the underground parking excavation. Accordingly, the project in its current form must be modified Musso 013 (#177): These control measures [The list of erosion and dust control measures listed in the DEIS] should be a listed as conditions included in the approvals/permits for the proposed project. In addition, use of best available technology (“BAT”) for reducing emissions, such as diesel particulate filters (“DPFs”) or diesel oxidation catalysts (“DOCs”), on all nonroad diesel-powered vehicle rated at 50 horsepower or more should be required. Since the project site is adjacent to sensitive receptors, the proposed project should also be required to prepare and implement a Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP). The focus of the CAMP would be to monitor airborne particulate levels during demolition, soil removal/handling activities and other activities that could potentially generate airborne particulates. The CAMP should include action levels and steps to be taken shall these action levels be met or exceeded. Ross 042 (#332): Air quality during demolition and construction is of greater concern. Air quality will be an issue for our students during the school day during construction, and particularly for students participating in Physical Education classes and team practices and competitions outside on the fields and tennis courts. Klein 062 (#517): 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. Response 146: As discussed in Section 2.16.2.3, “Air Quality,” the Revised Proposed Project includes the following measures to reduce pollutant emissions during construction to further reduce and mitigate potential air quality impacts during construction. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-120 DRAFT To reduce the potential for fugitive dust emissions (those emissions as a result of earth moving), the Revised Proposed Project would implement the following mitigation measures, which would be codified in the Construction Management Plan (CMP), which would be made a condition of site plan approval:  Minimizing the area of soil that is disturbed at any one time;  Minimizing the amount of time during which soils are exposed;  Installing truck mats or anti-tracking pads at egress points to clean the trucks’ tires prior to leaving the Project Site;  Watering of exposed areas during dry periods. Dust suppression activities would not be expected to generate standing or flowing water.;  Asphalt parking areas, driveways, and Arbor Drive would be cleaned using a ‘street sweeper’ as needed to reduce fugitive dust.  Using drainage diversion methods (e.g., silt fences) to minimize soil erosion during Site grading;  Covering stored materials with a tarp to reduce windborne dust;  Limiting on-Site construction vehicle speed to 5mph; and  Using truck covers/tarp rollers that cover fully loaded trucks and keep debris and dust from being expelled from the truck along its haul route. With the implementation of these measures, the Revised Proposed Project would avoid and minimize potential air quality impacts from fugitive dust to the maximum extent practicable. As stated in Section 2.16, the CMP would include provisions for robust and regular communication with the BBRUFSD and the Village. In the unlikely event that airborne dust from the Project Site creates an adverse impact to the BBRUFSD, procedures would be in place to immediately alert the on-Site construction manager and the Village so that appropriate measures could be taken to ameliorate the potential temporary impact and, if determined necessary by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, initiate a CAMP. As stated in Section 2.16.2.3, “Air Quality,” the Revised Proposed Project would also include the following measures to minimize emissions from construction vehicles and equipment:  Ultra-low sulfur diesel would be utilized for all construction equipment and vehicles;  All equipment would be properly maintained;  Idling of construction or delivery vehicles or other equipment would not be allowed when the equipment is not in active use; and To further reduce the potential for adverse air quality impacts, the Revised Proposed Project includes the following mitigation measure that was not included in the original project: Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-121 7/2/202010/08/2020  Use of Best Available Tailpipe Reduction Technologies. The Revised Proposed Project includes this mitigation measure that was not included in the original project. Construction of the Revised Proposed Project would mandate that non-road diesel engines with a power rating of 50 hp or greater and controlled truck fleets (i.e., truck fleets under long-term contract with the project) including but not limited to concrete mixing and pumping trucks would utilize BAT technology for reducing DPM emissions. Diesel particulate filters (DPFs) have been identified as being the tailpipe technology currently proven to have the highest reduction capability. Construction contracts would specify that all diesel non-road engines rated at 50 hp or greater would utilize DPFs, either installed by the original equipment manufacturer or retrofitted. Retrofitted DPFs must be verified by EPA or the California Air Resources Board. Active DPFs or other technologies proven to achieve an equivalent reduction may also be used. NOISE AND VIBRATION Comment 147: The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant questioned whether the construction noise analysis should be augmented with data collected on a weekend. (Musso 013) Musso 013 (#187): Table 16-4 of the DEIS provides existing noise levels for the sensitive receptors included in the construction noise analysis. However, it is not stated if this noise measurement data is from a weekday or Saturday. Since construction may occur on Saturdays, the noise analysis should be performed for both a typical weekday and Saturday. Response 147: Regular construction will occur on Monday through Friday, with limited Saturday work as required by the Project schedule. The primary noise-generating construction activities (e.g., excavation, concrete operations) would not typically occur on Saturday. Because the primary noise-generating construction activities would typically occur on weekdays, the construction noise analysis considered weekday construction as the worst-case construction scenario. Comment 148: Comments were received suggesting that the noise impacts to the Blind Brook Middle School and High School from construction noise, both within the school building and outside of the school building during physical education and/or sports practices and games, may be significant. One commenter requested additional information on the distance from the various on-Site construction locations (e.g., townhouses and IL and AL building) and the school and suggested that additional receptors on the school and Village playing fields be evaluated. In addition, several commenters questioned what measures would be implemented to mitigate this impact. Suggestions included restrictions on the most noise- intensive construction activities during sensitive times (e.g., AP testing) and the prioritizing of summers and school holidays for noise-intensive activities. (Ghosh 008, Parvani 009, Samuels 016, Zarkower 028, Barnett 034, Ross 042, Levine 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-122 DRAFT 048, Feinstein 049, Zarkower 054, Levy 055, Klein 062, Heiser 065, Levy 067, Stella-Turner 073, Barnett 074) Ghosh 008 (#92): The noise from blasting and construction would negatively impact our students. Parvani 009 (#96): The noise from blasting and construction would negatively impact our students. Samuels 016 (#202): The noise from blasting and construction would negatively impact our students. Zarkower 028 (#258): Middle and high school…especially those classrooms that overlook this construction site, are in harm’s way. That is not a soundproof building…you’re talking about impacting high school kids for three years. Zarkower 028 (#259): Is this developer prepared to shut down the construction during, say, the two weeks of Advanced Placements (APs)? You have to be able to provide classrooms that are quiet…you also have Regents, you have PSATs. There has to be more addressed in terms of that building, which to me is in harm’s way. Barnett 034 (#273): Construction noise…how are you going to protect students after school? Those fields are right up against 900 (King Street). Ross 042 (#330): If the 900 King Street project is approved, the District expects that during the time of construction the Village of Rye Brook will issue general restrictions on the amount of noise that emanates from construction site during the day from 7:45 am to 3:45 pm during days when school is in session. Based on Appendix J of the DEIS, BBHS will be exposed to one of the highest Constant LEQ of 80.0dB due to its close proximity to the site. We request that noise-intensive construction work be contained during summer months and school holiday and vacation days. Curtailing noise will be a particularly important matter during the testing periods that occur through the school year. Ross 042 (#333): Concerned that the District may lose use of its outdoor sports fields due to noise and air quality issues…and the implications should this occur. We (BBSD) would want some sort of assurances that this will not occur but if it does, the developer will provide compensation to the District if it incurs costs because it had to relocate athletic programs. Levine 048 (#369): Noise is going to be right there when our kids are studying, our kids are working, our kids are taking tests. What’s going to happen during the school day during testing? Are they not going to be blasting? Are they not going to be bulldozing? Are they not going to be digging? Because all of that will affect the kids. Feinstein 049 (#381): I just want to let you know that Blind Brook High School existed before The Arbors was constructed. So we had to deal with that issue way back in the early ‘70s, in the mid ‘70s when The Arbors were built…because construction was going on when kids were at Blind Brook High School. Zarkower 054 (#410): I am focusing on the concern with the school district. I brought up the fact that those noise components during key periods such as AP exams, PSATs will have to be addressed…have to be some kind of commitment to work around those schedules. Zarkower 054 (#411): Should there be noise during those times that the students can’t hear in the classrooms, every student’s report and file will have to show an irregularity that would be reported to the college board, and could wind up being put on their exams that are sent later to colleges if this isn’t remedied ahead of time. Zarkower 054 (#412): If this goes more than the testing site, the school could be in jeopardy of losing a key status if they can’t not provide, they have to agree to provide a quiet setting during each test period the following year. Zarkower 054 (#414): You have tennis courts out there that are utilized by the school for the tennis team. What will the developer proposed if during that period of time those tennis courts are not going to be able to utilize and those students will have to be…relocated? It shouldn’t really be beyond the cost to the school district. Zarkower 054 (#415): There are greater issues that the school district can really benefit from, an enriched tuition program at the high school and that it actually offsets the budget and helps them stay within the tax cap. If I was a parent coming to look at the school Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-123 7/2/202010/08/2020 district and this noise was going on for 20 months, I might not go there. You could lose one or two kids, maybe, but you lose 10 or 15 that’s going to have a direct financial impact on the school district, may push them either towards to override that tax cap or take money out of those classrooms. Zarkower 054 (#416): I’d like to know if the developer has reached out and really understood the short term impacts when running the school district. Levy 055 (#419): In terms of our children and the noise. It is important during APs and those big testing periods for a lot of the kids. Noise, any day, in test taking and listening to their teachers and paying attention. You know, there is a discussion in the school about this block schedule that has longer periods, so they (the kids) are already going to be asked to be focused longer and then you are going to add noise to that, and dust and whatever else is going to come from that. Klein 062 (#518): How far is the High School from the AL and IL work areas where more prolonged construction is taking place? Klein 062 (#519): 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. Klein 062 (#520): Why are there not mitigation measures listed in this section as with other sections? These could include measures around testing times. Paying to increase insulation on the walls closest to the construction. Heiser 065 (#529): I am concerned about the adequacy of protection for the school when you are doing the construction. Levy 067 (#536): The construction times will interfere with children coming and going to school. Also, the noise created during construction, if heard in the middle school and high school, will impact students’ ability to learn. Stella-Turner 073 (#568): 21 months of building is what we are putting at the back door of an educational school system which is bar none. Barnett 074 (#569): He essentially asked for no construction until 3:45 pm, and the Arbors, you know, while we agree, the school has to you know, have protections. We also live right there as well. Response 148: As discussed in Section 2.16.2.4, “Noise,” a revised construction noise analysis was conducted. The revised analysis included additional receptors as requested by the Village’s special engineering consultant and a more detailed analysis of the distance between the closest receptors to the Project Site and the work areas of the Revised Proposed Project based on specific sites plans and construction logistics diagrams. The updated construction noise analysis uses the same methodology and evaluation criteria as the DEIS analysis, but includes the additional receptors. The updated analysis also assumes implementation of the construction noise mitigation measures that were identified in the DEIS and FEIS, specifically:  Erection of a noise barrier that is 12 feet tall along the perimeter of the Project Site on Arbor Drive between the Main Site entrance and the southern site boundary. The barrier would be constructed from plywood, or a material of similar noise abatement properties, and would be installed prior to the start of construction activities during the time that the Blind Brook Middle School and High School is in session during the normal school year;  Noisy construction equipment, such as cranes, concrete pumps, concrete trucks, and delivery trucks, would be located away from, and shielded from, sensitive receptors, such as the school, to the extent practicable; 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-124 DRAFT  Construction equipment, including the mufflers on the equipment, would be required to be properly maintained;  Electrification of construction equipment to the extent feasible and practicable would be undertaken as soon in the construction process as logistics allow;  The construction site would be configured to minimize back-up alarm noise to the extent feasible and practicable; and  Construction trucks would not be allowed to idle for longer than 3 minutes. Noise receptor locations associated with the BBRUFSD listed Table 3.16-1 were evaluated as part of the revised analysis. A detailed discussion of the complete revised construction analysis is included in Section 2.16.2.4, “Construction: Noise.” Table 3.16-1 BBRUFSD Construction Noise Receptor Areas Receptor(s) Land Use(s) Relationship to Proposed Construction Work Areas Blind Brook Middle/High School West façade (facing Arbor Drive) Education 170 feet east of Townhouse Work Area Blind Brook Middle/High School South façade (facing baseball field) * Education 295 feet southeast of Townhouse Work Area Blind Brook School Baseball Field* Active Recreation 340 feet east of Townhouse Work Area Blind Brook School Football Field/Track* Active Recreation 750 feet east of Townhouse Work Area Blind Brook Middle School Education 335 feet east of Townhouse Work Area Harkness Tennis Court* Active Recreation 345 feet east of Independent Living south Wings Work Area Note:* Indicates new receptor location in FEIS The projected maximum noise levels during construction for the BBRUFSD receptors are summarized in Table 3.16-2. The construction noise estimates for the full construction period are shown in Appendix J and discussed in detail in Section 2.16.4.2, “Construction: Noise.” The maximum noise level estimates presented below are for noise levels exterior to the receptor during the worst-case scenario. Noise levels interior to a structure would be significantly lower than the levels presented below due to the attenuation provided by building walls and windows (approximately 25 dBA lower for typical façade construction with a closed-window condition). Typical façade construction, including insulated glass windows and some kind of alternate means of ventilation (i.e., air conditioning) would be expected to provide approximately 25 dBA reduction in interior noise levels compared to exterior levels for a closed-window condition. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-125 7/2/202010/08/2020 Table 3.16-2 BBRUFSD Estimated Maximum Construction Noise Summary (in dBA) Receptor Area Existing Leq Maximum Construction Noise Levels Leq Increase Blind Brook Middle/High School West façade (facing Arbor Drive) 59.0 70.6 11.6 Blind Brook Middle/High School South façade (facing baseball field) * 59.0 59.6 0.6 Blind Brook School Baseball Field* 59.0 60.6 1.6 Blind Brook School Football Field/Track* 59.0 60.9 1.9 Blind Brook Middle School 59.0 59.6 0.6 Harkness Tennis Court* 70.0 73.1 3.1 Note: * Indicates new receptor location in FEIS The maximum predicted noise levels shown in Table 3.16-2 would occur at times during the most noise-intensive activities of construction, which would not occur every day during the construction period, and would not occur during every hour on days when those activities are underway. During hours when the loudest pieces of construction equipment are not in use, receptors would experience lower construction noise levels than those shown above. As described below, construction noise levels would fluctuate during the construction period at each receptor, with the greatest levels of construction noise occurring for limited periods during construction. Blind Brook Middle/High School West Façade (Facing Arbor Drive) As shown in Table 3.16-2, the west façade of the Blind Brook Middle School and High School building across Arbor Drive from the Project Site would experience high levels of construction noise and increases in exterior noise levels that would be considered highly objectionable at times during the most noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the low 70s dBA, resulting in exterior noise level increases of up to approximately 12 dBA. Consequently, the maximum exterior noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction activities at this receptor would be expected to exceed the NYSDEC noise level threshold at times during the construction period. The maximum construction noise levels would occur during portions of the approximately 3 months of road and utilities installation and parking garage foundation construction as well as during the approximately 2 months during the overlap of interior and exterior finishing at the AL facility and IL center core and framing and roofing construction at the IL south wings and townhouses. Construction noise levels in the mid 60s dBA, resulting in noise level increases up to approximately 8 dBA, would occur intermittently over portions of another 6 months during the construction period. During the remainder of construction, noise levels would remain below the 65 dBA NYSDEC recommended exterior 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-126 DRAFT noise levels and the 6.0 dBA noise increment threshold identified by NYSDEC. Consequently, while construction noise levels would not persist at their maximum level throughout all construction activities, construction noise levels are predicted to exceed the NYSDEC noise threshold for approximately 11 months during construction of the Revised Proposed Project. It is important to note that the spaces along this west façade, generally include areas that would not be considered noise-sensitive, including the cafeteria, gymnasium, custodial, and loading spaces. The only classrooms along this façade are those on the second floor towards the north end of the building, and these classrooms have very limited window area, with the façade facing the Arbor Drive consisting mostly of brick. As stated above, standard façade construction (e.g., with regular size windows in a closed window condition), provides at least 25 dBA attenuation from exterior noise levels. Given that there are no façade penetrations for ventilation and there is a relatively small amount of glazing in an otherwise brick façade, noise levels interior to these classrooms would, in a closed window condition, benefit from façade attenuation in excess of 25 dBA. Therefore, given maximum exterior noise levels from construction of approximately 70.6 dBA at this location, noise levels in these classrooms would be expected to be approximately 45 dBA or lower during construction, which would be considered acceptable for classroom use. South Façade (facing the baseball field) As shown in Table 3.16-2, the south façade of the Blind Brook Middle School and High School building, facing the baseball field, would experience minimal levels of construction noise. Maximum exterior Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the high 50s dBA. Consequently, the maximum exterior noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction activities at this receptor would not be expected to exceed the NYSDEC noise level threshold during the construction period. North and East Façades (facing Harkness Park and the School Parking Lot) The south and west façades of the school, analyzed above, represent the locations with the maximum potential for adverse noise impacts within the school during construction. Receptors along the north and east façades of the school would experience lower noise levels than those for the south façade due to additional distance and shielding from the construction work areas at these façades. Blind Brook School Baseball Field, Track, and Football Field As shown in Table 3.16-2, the Blind Brook School baseball field, track, and football field across Arbor Drive from the Project Site would experience low levels of construction noise. Increases in noise levels at the track and football field would be considered imperceptible to barely perceptible during the most noise- intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the mid-50s dBA, Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-127 7/2/202010/08/2020 resulting in noise level increases of up to approximately 1 dBA. Consequently, the maximum noise levels predicted to be generated by on-Site construction activities at these receptors would not be expected to result in exceedances of the NYSDEC noise level thresholds. Blind Brook Middle School and High School Additional Mitigation Measures Because of the predicted high levels of construction noise at a limited area along the west façade of the school, the Applicant has agreed to the following additional mitigation measures as part of the Revised Proposed Project. These measures, in addition to the ones listed above, would be expected to further reduce the potential for adverse impacts to the operation of the school during construction of the Revised Proposed Project. The additional mitigation measures include:  Coordinating with the BBRUFSD to avoid the most noise-intensive activities during critical testing days/times (e.g., Advanced Placement, and other tests).  Coordinating with the BBRUFSD during the construction process and providing a 2-week look-ahead construction schedule that would identify potentially noise-intensive activities. Harkness Park Tennis Court As shown in Table 3.16-2, the Harkness Park Tennis Court across Arbor Drive from the Project Site would experience moderate levels of construction noise and increases in noise levels that would be considered noticeable at times during the most noise-intensive construction activities. Maximum Leq(1) noise levels at this receptor resulting from construction would be in approximately the low 70s dBA, resulting in noise level increases of up to approximately 3 dBA. As discussed in Section 2.16, “Construction” of this FEIS, it is not anticipated that construction of the Revised Proposed Project would require blasting. Comment 149: Comments were received regarding the general mitigation measures included in the DEIS with respect to construction noise. Specifically, the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant requested documentation with respect to the DEIS’ statement that typical façade construction would be expected to provide approximately 25 dBA noise attenuation and recommended that the noise mitigation measures included in the DEIS, including the time of day and day of week restrictions, be conditions of any future permit or approval. The Village’s Special Engineering Consultant also requested a discussion of the appropriateness of additional construction noise mitigation measures, including a barrier of greater than 12 feet, noise absorbent material for the barrier, and path controls for construction equipment expected to increase noise levels by more than 6 dBA or to a level greater than 65 dBA at the property boundary. Other commenters suggested that the Proposed Project should be reduced in scope to avoid potential significant adverse, though temporary, noise impacts, while still other 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-128 DRAFT commenters expressed their concern with the overall level of noise anticipated during construction. (Snyder 007, Musso 013, Planning Board 018) Snyder 007 (#80): The DEIS readily admits that “construction of the Proposed Project would result in large noise level increases and high noise levels during the most noise- intensive construction activities at the adjacent work area. These noise levels would have the potential to occur for approximately 21 months. Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, construction noise at these receptors would rise to the level of significant but temporary adverse impact.” The DEIS concedes that the project does indeed result in the creation of significant adverse environmental impacts [with respect to noise impacts during construction] that cannot be mitigated, and thus the project must be modified. The applicant, a private developer, cannot require a community to endure significant adverse impacts for nearly 2 years and likely longer. Musso 013 (#185): Maximum noise levels during construction at 12 noise-sensitive receptor sites are predicted to range from 57.4 dBA to 84 dBA, resulting in an increase of 0.3 to 21 dBA. Per the DEIS, “construction of the Proposed Project would be expected to result in elevated noise levels at nearby receptors and noise due to construction would at times be noticeable and highly objectionable. However, at receptors other than those directly adjacent to the Project Site, noise from construction would be intermittent and of limited duration, and estimated construction noise levels would not exceed NYSDEC noise screening thresholds. Consequently, in the Applicant’s opinion, noise associated with the construction of the Proposed Project would not rise to the level of a significant adverse noise impact at receptors not directly adjacent to the project. At receptors immediately adjacent to the Project Site, construction of the Proposed Project would result in large noise level increases and high noise levels during the most noise- intensive construction activities at the adjacent work areas. These noise levels would have the potential to occur for approximately 21 months. Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, construction noise at these receptors would rise to the level of significant, but temporary, adverse impact.” The noise control measures presented in the DEIS should be a listed as conditions included in the approvals/permits for the proposed project. The DEIS states that these temporary noise impacts would only occur during the daytime hours, Monday through Saturday, and that construction would not regularly occur during evening and overnight hours or on Sundays. It is recommended that the approvals/permits for the proposed project restrict construction hours to Monday through Saturday and NOT allow construction to occur during evening and overnight hours or on Sundays. Musso 013 (#186): In addition, the predicted increases would be greater than 10 dBA and for a duration of approximately 21 months. Although temporary, exposure to this much of an increase in noise for almost two years would cause an annoyance and disturbance to the adjacent receptors. The noise analysis should determine if a noise barrier greater than 12 feet and/or with noise absorbent material would reduce the noise level increase. In addition, equipment predicted to increase noise levels at the property boundary by more than 6 dBA or to a noise level greater than 65 dBA should be required to include path controls. Musso 013 (#188): The DEIS states that “Typical façade construction, including insulated glass windows and some kind of alternate means of ventilation (i.e., air conditioning) would be expected to provide approximately 25 dBA reduction in interior noise levels compared to exterior levels for a closed-window condition.” A source for this value should be provided. Planning Board 018 (#229): Consider a prohibition of construction on Sundays. Response 149: The assumption of a 25 dBA reduction in noise levels associated with typical façade construction is based on New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) guidelines and AKRF’s experience with acoustical test reports for typical insulated glass windows. Table 19-3 from Chapter 19 of the CEQR Technical Manual has been added to Appendix J. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-129 7/2/202010/08/2020 Additional mitigation measures, including a barrier greater than 12 feet in height or noise absorption material on the noise barrier would not result in significant reductions in construction noise levels. Noise barriers are most effective for reducing noise at receptors within approximately 50 feet of the barrier if the noise sources (e.g., trucks, excavators) are within a comparably small distance to the noise barrier. The benefit of the barrier reduces as the distances between source and barrier or receptor and barrier increases. Taller barriers require horizontal structural support to safeguard against wind loads and properly support the structure. Consequently, a taller barrier would result in increased cost, logistical and safety concerns with minimal increase in noise mitigation. Likewise, the benefit of sound absorption material on the noise barrier would be minimal, as most equipment would operate too far from the barrier for a majority of the construction period for the material to be effective. Sound absorption material would add material cost for minimal noise reduction benefit, given the relatively long distances between the construction work areas and the receptors and the minimal number of reflective surfaces in the project area. The Applicant agrees that the noise mitigation measures described in the DEIS and this FEIS should be conditions of any future site plan approval for the Revised Proposed Project. These mitigation measures include:  The days of the week and time of day restrictions codified in the Village Noise Code, with the exception of the morning start time, as discussed in Section 2.16.2.2, “Construction: Potential Traffic Impacts on the MS/HS”;  Construction of the noise wall as described above; and  Coordination with the school district. As stated in Section 2.16, “Construction,” the Applicant would prepare a detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP), which would provide for implementation of the proposed construction plan and the measures proposed to mitigate potential adverse impacts. The CMP would be reviewed by Village staff and consultants and approved as part of the final site plan approval and would be made a condition thereof. Implementation of the CMP would be enforceable by the Building Department. The Building Department would ensure compliance with the various noise control commitments in the CMP and may conduct noise assessments as needed to determine compliance. It is important to note that demolition of the existing office building may occur after the conclusion of the SEQRA process, but before final site plan approval so as to minimize the impact on the Blind Brook Middle School and High School. In this case, the CMP would not yet be approved by the Village, but the Applicant would commit to adhering to the mitigation measures included in the DEIS and FEIS during demolition activities and would be subject to the specific approvals and conditions of a future demolition permit. Comment 150: A comment was received requesting confirmation of the DEIS’ statement that vibration from building demolition would be expected to be well below the 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-130 DRAFT threshold of damage to the Tennessee gas pipeline or to structures within the Arbors. (Snyder 007) Snyder 007 (#85): the DEIS makes statements that vibration from building demolition "would be expected" to be well below the threshold of damage to the Tennessee gas pipeline and the residents of The Arbors, some of who are only 250 feet away. Statements as to "would be expected" to not have an impact require further definitive review, especially when you have nearby residents and a major gas line in the vicinity of the project. Response 150: As described in Section 16.3.5, “Vibration,” of the DEIS, demolition of the existing office building will occur at least approximately 250 feet from the nearest residences within The Arbors community. At this distance, vibrations from building demolition would be imperceptible and would not have the potential to result in architectural or structural damage to even a structure extremely susceptible to damage from vibration. Therefore, vibrations from construction of the Revised Proposed Project would not have the potential to result in a significant adverse impact at The Arbors townhouses. Similarly, at a distance of 1,000 feet from demolition activity, vibration levels at the Tennessee Gas Pipeline would be well below the threshold of damage to even a structure extremely susceptible to damage from vibration. Therefore, vibrations from construction of the Revised Proposed Project would not have the potential to result in a significant adverse impact at the Tennessee Gas Pipeline. Nevertheless, the Applicant will commit to a vibration monitoring program at The Arbors community and at the Tennessee Gas Pipeline during demolition of the existing office building to ensure that vibration levels do not exceed the thresholds that could potentially result in damage during construction. 3.17. ALTERNATIVES GENERAL Comment 151: A comment was received requesting an evaluation of a range of alternatives to the Proposed Project that includes what is allowable under existing zoning, on the low end, to what is proposed by the Applicant, on the high end. (Barnett 047) Barnett 047 (#367): This complex, I think most of us in our gut know, is too large, and so what number is acceptable? Until we see real alternatives that encompass a range from what is legally allowed today to the moon…we really can’t sit back as a community, to try to determine what would be best for all of us. Response 151: Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, evaluated the potential environmental impacts of a range of alternatives to the Proposed Project as required by the adopted DEIS scoping outline. These alternatives included, among others, the following:  An alternative that did not involve demolition of the existing building or construction or a new building (i.e., the “No Action” alternative); Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-131 7/2/202010/08/2020  Two alternatives that could be constructed under the existing zoning (i.e., the “Residential As-of-Right” and “Senior Living Facility As-of-Right” alternatives);  A project similar to the Proposed Project, but with 20 percent fewer units (i.e., the Reduced Density” alternative); and  A project with the same number of units as originally proposed, but in three- story buildings and reduced unit sizes (i.e., the “Reduced Size” alternative). As shown in the analyses in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, with the exception of the reuse of the existing office building, which would result in a significant increase in traffic generation, the remaining alternatives would generate similar volumes of traffic as the Proposed Project. Community service impacts would be similar for the various senior living alternatives, with the market-rate residential alternative having a smaller impact on EMS service, but a significantly larger impact on the school district. Similarly, and with the exception of the No Action alternative, each alternative, as well as the Proposed Project, would entail similar levels of site disturbance and construction and similar impacts to the Site’s natural resources. Another difference between the various new construction alternatives and the Proposed Project would be in terms of visual impacts. In the Reduced Size alternative and the two As-of-Right alternatives, building height would be three and two stories, respectively. With the Proposed Project, buildings would be two, three, and four stories. In addition, the Revised Proposed Project includes measures to further reduce the potential for adverse visual impacts, including increasing the setback of the four-story portion of the buildings from Arbor Drive and from The Arbors, as well as reducing the roof height of the four-story building closest to The Arbors. Comment 152: The Village’s Planning Consultant requested a comparative analysis of building coverage, parking coverage, impervious coverage, and gross floor area for Alternative 17.3, Senior Living Facility under the Existing PUD Regulations. (FP Clark 012) FP Clark 012 (#144): it would be helpful to provide the same type of statistics [building coverage, parking coverage, impervious coverage, and gross floor area], presented in a similar manner, for Alternative 17.3, Senior Living Facility under the Existing PUD Regulations, to inform the Village Board’s review of the potential impacts to community character from the current building as built, a development under the current zoning and the Proposed Action. Response 152: The building coverage, road coverage, and total Site coverage for the Senior Living Facility As-of-Right alternative is shown in Table 3.17-1, which was originally included as Table 8-2 in the DEIS and updated and presented in Response to Comment 34. As described in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, the As-of-Right alternative could reasonably include two configurations; one that adheres to the baseline PUD standard of 9,000 sf of gross floor area per acre (“Alternative 17.3”) and one that uses building sizes similar to The Arbors, 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-132 DRAFT while maintaining the base six units per acre PUD standard (“Alternative 17.3A”). As shown in Table 3.17-1, the building and impervious coverage of the alternative using the PUD baseline standard for both the number of units and total gsf could yield a project with a total of 4.92 acres of impervious coverage—27.67 percent of the Site. The alternative that adheres to the PUD baseline standard of six units per acre but allows for unit sizes similar to The Arbors, could create a project with 2.78 acres of building coverage, 4.28 acres of roads and other impervious areas, and a total of 7.06 acres of impervious area—39.74 percent of the Site. As shown in Table 3.17-1, if the Revised Proposed Project utilized the baseline PUD standards for number of units and gsf building and Site coverage could be reduced from that proposed. However, an increase in gsf that would permit units of the same size of The Arbors, while still maintaining the baseline PUD standard of six units per acre, could result in a project with greater building and Site coverage than the Revised Proposed Project. Table 3.17-1 Parcel Coverage Comparison Site Parcel Size (ac) Building Coverage (ac) Roads, Drives, Parking (ac) Total Site Coverage (ac) Percent Building Coverage Percent Other Coverage Percent Total Coverage Existing Condition 17.77 2.17 5.29 7.46 12.22% 29.77% 41.99% Original Project 17.77 3.14 3.91 7.05 17.67% 22.00% 39.67% Revised Proposed Project 17.77 2.93 3.83 6.76 16.49% 21.55% 38.04% DEIS Alternative 17.3 17.77 1.84 3.08 4.92 10.35% 17.33% 27.67% DEIS Alternative 17.3A 17.77 2.78 4.28 7.06 15.64% 24.09% 39.74% The Arbors 35.29 5.58 6.26 11.83 15.80% 17.73% 33.53% The Arbors (w/o Arbor Dr) 33.49 5.58 5.26 10.83 16.65% 15.70% 32.34% 800 Westchester Ave 44.94 5.46 6.30 11.76 12.15% 14.02% 26.17% Hilton Westchester 35.52 3.80 7.10 10.89 10.69% 19.97% 30.67% Doral Arrowwood Conference Center 105.93 10.67 13.51 24.18 10.07% 12.76% 22.83% Doral (w/o golf) 46.46 10.38 11.89 22.26 22.34% 25.58% 47.92% Note: *includes area of pervious pavers Sourcess Westchester County GIS & 900 King Site Survey and Proposed Project (originally included as Table 8-2 in the DEIS) As stated in Response to Comment 24, it is the Applicant’s understanding that, with the exception of BelleFair, there is no PUD development within the Village that meets all of the “standard” PUD requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance. Instead, the Lead Agency utilized the discretion provided by the PUD Zoning District to make site-specific findings that allowed appropriately scaled development that deviated from the baseline standards of the ordinance. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-133 7/2/202010/08/2020 Comment 153: A comment was received suggesting that the DEIS alternatives should be compared to the existing condition of the Site and not to the full occupancy of the existing office building. (Snyder 007) Snyder 007 (#33): The entire alternative analysis should reference [the] current conditions-not a fully occupied office building Response 153: Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, compares the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project to several other alternative Site configurations and developments, as required by the DEIS Scoping Outline. One of the project alternatives is the No Action alternative, which in the instance, was defined as the full occupancy of the existing office building. This is consistent with both SEQRA regulation and guidance.12 Each chapter in the DEIS also describes the current, relevant, environmental conditions so as to allow the Lead Agency the ability to compare the Revised Proposed Project’s impacts to the current condition, a future condition without the Proposed Project, and to project alternatives. Comment 154: A comment was received suggesting that, “The statement in the DEIS that the nature and magnitude of these significant adverse impacts [with respect to construction noise or air emissions] would be similar in all studied alternatives, except the No Action alternative, cannot be supported.” (Snyder 007) Snyder 007 (#81): In addition, if a potentially adverse impact has been identified, the DEIS must provide specific measures to appropriately mitigate that impact. Referencing that a Construction Management Plan (CMP) will be prepared is inadequate and does not meet the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regulations. The DEIS notes that approximately 180 workers will be working at the construction site, and the impacts of that magnitude require the project to be modified. Moreover, the DEIS construction noise levels to occur at the Blind Brook High School, The Arbor condos, 942 King Street, and Walker Court, among others, are unacceptable levels at any time and incompatible with the surroundings. For a comparison with selected typical sounds, if the project proceeds, Blind Brook High School and The Arbors as well as the other properties would be forced to ensure noise as if a radio or vacuum cleaner was blasting for at least 13 months, according to the DEIS. These noise levels, some as high as 80 dBA levels, can be found to result in hearing loss. The DEIS’ suggestion that windows be kept closed to mitigate the impacts is unacceptable. Response 154: Section 2.16.2, “Construction Period Impacts and Mitigation,” lists the measures that have been identified and would be implemented to avoid and mitigate potential adverse impacts resulting from construction of the Revised Proposed Project. The CMP, which would be approved as part of Site Plan Approval, would memorialize 12 6 NYRCR 617.9(g)(5)(v) states that “For private project sponsors, any alternative for which no discretionary approvals are needed may be described.” The SEQRA Handbook states that, “For many private actions, the no action alternative may be simply and adequately addressed by identifying the direct financial effects of not undertaking the action, or by describing the likely future conditions of the property if developed to the maximum allowed under the existing zoning.” Re-occupancy of the existing site building requires no discretionary approvals and describes the likely future conditions of the property if developed to the maximum allowed by zoning. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-134 DRAFT the Applicant’s commitment to those mitigation measures such that those commitments would be enforceable by the Village during the construction process. As stated in Section 16.3.3, “Construction: Air Quality,” of the DEIS, and Section 16.3.4, “Construction: Noise,” of the DEIS, potential off-Site impacts during construction related to air quality and noise are directly related to the operation of construction vehicles, as well as the various construction processes (e.g., dust- generating and noise-generating activities). As with the original project, all of the alternatives, with the exception of the No Action alternative, would utilize on- Site construction vehicles and require the demolition of the existing office building, regrading of the Project Site, and construction of new buildings. Therefore, the impacts to the community as a result of those activities would be the same. As noted in Chapter 17, “Alternatives,” of the DEIS, the main difference in the level of off-Site noise and air impacts relates to the duration of construction. The As-of-Right alternatives would likely require slightly shorter construction periods than the original project, which would reduce the duration of off-Site construction impacts when compared to the Revised Proposed Project. While these alternatives would not include excavation for an underground garage included in the original project, significant Site-regrading and foundation work, which are noise intensive, would be required. Similarly, these alternatives would also require the demolition of the existing building, which would also be a noise- intensive activity. With respect to the Reduced Density and Reduced Size alternatives, the construction phases and sequences would be nearly identical to the original project. As such, the impacts of construction would be similar. COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC DEIS ALTERNATIVES Comment 155: A comment was received requesting the evaluation of alternatives that “do not require major demolition or construction.” (Straubinger 003) Straubinger 003 (#15): (Look at alternatives that) do not require major demolition and a massive construction. Response 155: Section 17.1 “No Action Alternative,” of the DEIS, evaluates the scenario where the Proposed Zoning is not adopted and the Proposed Project is not implemented. This alternative considers the existing office building to be fully occupied, which may include rehabilitation and upgrades to the building for energy efficiency, incorporation of green building practices, and other amenities consistent with current zoning and a modern office building. Section 17.1, “No Action Alternatives,” of the DEIS, discusses an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the No Action alternative. As noted therein, although the No Action alternative has been evaluated, this alternative does not meet the Applicant’s purpose and would be following a downward trend of declining demand for stand- alone office buildings in the region. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-135 7/2/202010/08/2020 Comment 156: A comment was received requesting additional specificity on the number of vehicular trips and the duration of construction for Alternatives 17.2 and 17.2A in the DEIS. (Snyder 007) Snyder 007 (#34): Development under the Existing PUD regulations, 17.2 and 17.2A references to slightly fewer trips than proposed project, slightly shorter construction time and other vague terms are made. These terms should be quantified and again should also be compared to its current use, not to a fully occupied office building. Response 156: As stated in Section 17.2.10, “Traffic and Transportation,” of the DEIS, the As- of-Right residential alternatives are, “anticipated to generate 55 AM peak hour trips (10 in/45 out), 59 Midday peak hour trips (26 in/33 out), and 63 PM peak hour trips (42 in/21 out). This is 15 to 27 fewer peak hour trips than the Propose[d] Project and significantly less than the number of vehicular trips generated in the No Action alternative.” The number of trips generated by the Project Site at the time of the Existing Conditions Traffic Counts in 2017 were, as noted in the TIS included as Appendix F of the DEIS, 34 AM peak hour trips (30 in/4 out), 26 Midday peak hour trips (3 in/22 out), and 21 PM peak hour trips (6 in/15 out). As stated in Section 17.2.13, “Construction,” of the DEIS, “Construction of [the residential As-of-Right] alternative would be expected to take approximately 24 months, 6 months less than the Proposed Project.” Comment 157: A comment was received asking, “if the population [of Alternative 17.3] is expected to be half of the population of the Proposed Project, why aren’t the impacts ‘considerably less’ than the Proposed Project?” (Snyder 007) Snyder 007 (#35): (In alternative) 17.3…it would seem that with half as many people as the Proposed Redevelopment, the impacts should be considerable less than the project. Response 157: The impacts of a given alternative are not necessarily directly proportional to the population of that alternative. Specifically with respect to a comparison of the potential impacts of Alternative 17.3, the “Senior Living Facility As-of-Right” alternative to the original project, the Applicant notes the following (which is further explained in Section 17.3, “Senior Living Facility Development under the Existing PUD Regulations,” of the DEIS):  Site coverage and limit of disturbance would be similar as Alternative 17.3 would have buildings of lower height that are more spread out than the original project;  Water and sewer demand would be lower with Alternative 17.3 than the original project as the number of units and bedrooms are lower;  The visual and community character impacts would be similar to that of the Residential As-of-Right alternative in that the physical layout of the alternatives are the same;  The impacts to the Village’s senior services would be greater with Alternative 17.3 as it would not contain the same level of amenities included in the original project; 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-136 DRAFT  The number of vehicle trips would only be slightly lower than the original project, as attached townhouses, even age-restricted townhouses, generates a trips at a higher rate than an IL building. Comment 158: Comments were received questioning why 20 percent was chosen as the percentage by which the density of the Proposed Project was reduced in the Reduced Density alternative. One comment requested that an alternative that reduces the density by more than 20 percent be studied, while other comments suggested that an alternative with just the AL facility be analyzed. (Snyder 007, Planning Board 018, Snyder 022) Snyder 007 (#36): Reduced Density, 17.4, alternative of a senior living facility for assisted living within just one structure. Given that the DEIS has disclosed potential adverse impacts, simply reducing the scale by 20 percent is not meaningful. Rather an analysis of just one component should be considered. This will also substantially reduce the traffic and other site development impacts. Planning Board 018 (#218): Why was 20% chosen as the percentage by which the density of the project was reduced in the “Reduced Density” alternative? How is the Reduced Density alternative consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendation for increased density that is in keeping with the low density character of the Village? Snyder 022 (#280): Alternatives that are presented – really are not adequate to mandate that – alternatives that reduce the scope much more substantially than what we – you have in the scoping…rather than being stuck with the alternatives that the Applicant has proposed. I would hope…Applicant will…reduce that scope of the project much more considerably than what they’ve presented at their alternatives. I wouldn’t want to be limited to the alternatives that they proposed. Response 158: As stated in the SEQRA Handbook, “An analysis of alternative project configurations or designs will enable the lead agency to determine if there are reasonable, feasible alternatives which would allow some or all of the adverse impacts to be avoided while generally satisfying the sponsor’s goals…The goal of the alternatives discussion in an EIS is to investigate means to avoid or reduce one or more identified potentially adverse environmental impacts.” The Applicant selected a 20-percent reduction in the number of units to illustrate the impact of a significant reduction in the number of units proposed that had the potential to avoid or reduce potential adverse impacts relating to density, traffic, visual and community character, and construction. The analysis of this alternative illustrates that eliminating 20 percent of the units proposed would reduce the peak generation of vehicular trips by 14-18 per hour; or put another way, result in 1 less trip every 3 to 4 minutes. As noted in Section 2.12.1, “Site Generated Traffic,” the Revised Proposed Project reduces the trip generation 19 to 23 trips per hour from the original project. The analysis of the Reduced Density Alternative in the DEIS also illustrates that reducing the density of the original project would not significantly change the duration or sequencing of construction, and therefore the construction-period impacts of the Reduced Density alternative would be similar in nature and duration to the original project. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-137 7/2/202010/08/2020 With respect to the consistency of the density proposed in the original project or the Reduced Density alternative with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendation to allow increased density on the Project Site while maintaining the Village’s overall low-density character, please see Response to Comment 36. It is also noted that the Applicant has reduced the size of the Revised Proposed Project by 20 percent, or 89,908 sf, from the original project to address the concerns expressed that the size of the original project was not in keeping with the character of the community. To illustrate the potential reduction in traffic impacts associated with further reducing the number of units proposed, the Applicant prepared trip generation estimates for a project that had 40 percent fewer units than the original project. Such an alternative could reduce the total number of Site-generated trips by 28 to 36 per hour from the original project, or 1 trip every 2 minutes, from the original project. As noted in Section 2.12.1, “Site Generated Traffic,” the Revised Proposed Project reduces the trip generation 19 to 23 trips per hour from the original project. Comment 159: Comments were received regarding the design of the site plan for the Reduced Size alternative in Section 17.5, “Reduced Size Proposed Project,” of the DEIS. One commenter stated that while “size” was the factor listed in the scope, the intention of the alternative was to have a project reduced in not only sf, but number of units. Another commenter stated that this alternative should eliminate the townhouses and reduce both the size and number of units within the IL and AL components to reduce adverse impacts associated with the Proposed Project. (Snyder 007, Snyder 045, Klein 062) Snyder 007 (#37): in the Reduced Size Proposed Project in 17.5, the alternative should eliminate the townhomes and more considerably reduce the assisted living and independent living (in terms of size and number of units) to make it have less of an impact. Given that the DEIS has disclosed potential for adverse impacts associated with the project, simply providing for smaller buildings and reduced unit sizes is meaningless. A site development plan with fewer residential units, possibly just the assisted living units, should be presented. Snyder 045 (#352): The Arbors has stated if it was just assisted living and you just had that one building, I think they would be able to work alongside the Applicant. Klein 062 (#523): (Alternative) 17.5 does not meet the intention of this alternative. While size is the listed factor, the alternative simply made the units smaller and kept nearly the same number of units. 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. Response 159: The Approved Scoping Outline required that the Reduced Size alternative should “maintain the proposed density” and reduce the size of the units. In addition, the scoping outline requires that buildings in this alternative be limited to 35 feet in height. As such, the analysis of this alternative in Section 17.5 of the DEIS, “Reduced Size Proposed Project,” considered a 10 percent reduction in the gross 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-138 DRAFT square footage of the project by reducing the average unit size and maintaining the number of units proposed and a 3-story height limit. In response to comments from the Lead Agency and the public, including those comments on the analysis of the Reduced Size alternative in the DEIS, the Applicant has revised the original project, as described in Chapter 1, “Revised Proposed Project.” The Revised Proposed Project reduces the gross square feet of the project by 20 percent from the original project, reduces the number of bedrooms in the IL building by 22 percent, reduces the average IL unit size by 8 percent, reduces the number of IL units by 15 percent, and reduces the number of townhouse units by 17 percent. Comment 160: Comments were received suggesting that additional details on the potential impacts of the DEIS alternative that considered the Proposed Project with an age restriction of 62 years old and older were needed. In addition, comments were received that expressed concerned that the only 62 years old and older project that the Lead Agency could adopt is the original project at 62 years old and older and not a project with reduced density that was also age-restricted to 62 years old and older. (Snyder 007, Zimmerman 026, Zimmerman 046) Snyder 007 (#38): an alternative providing for the same project but raising the minimum age for residents to 62 does not take into account the practical effect of having residents older than 62. If the minimum age of the project is 62, the project will more fully address senior housing and not just end up being a rental development with no set purpose. There should be a discussion as to what services will be for seniors as opposed to those at age 55. Zimmerman 026 (#256): There’s only one scenario, which was a full build with all 269 units, and that was the only one that was addressed with age 62. Zimmerman 046 (#355): There was only one scenario that encompassed age 62, which we know now 62 is going to be the age limit. All of the other ones only encompassed age 55. We have not to this date seen any plan that shows any kind of reduction in the density of this project that also encompassed the age 62. Response 160: As stated in Response to Comment 158, the analysis of Project alternatives in the DEIS is intended to provide an illustration as to the type and magnitude of changes to environmental impacts that could be expected given a range of changes to a given project. In this case, while there was only one alternative that contained a 62 years old and older community, the DEIS analyzed the potential change in environmental impacts associated with that specific project modification, as well as other specific modifications. Based on these analyses, and the comments from the Lead Agency and members of the public, the Applicant has revised the original project and is no longer seeking to lower the minimum age of Project residents to 55 years old. In addition, and based on the analysis of other Project alternatives and comments received, the Applicant has also revised the original project to reduce the size of the units proposed, reduce the roof height of the four- story building closest to The Arbors, increase the setback of the IL building from both The Arbors and Arbor Drive, and modify the design of the townhouse units to further differentiate them from other Village properties. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-139 7/2/202010/08/2020 3.18. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Comment 161: A comment was received opining that because the “DEIS has disclosed the potential for adverse impacts associated with the project, the project should be modified, if not totally denied.” (Snyder 053) Snyder 053 (#408): DEIS has disclosed potential for adverse impacts associated with the project, the project should be modified, if not totally denied. Response 161: The Applicant has incorporated measures to avoid and reduce adverse environmental impacts associated with the Revised Proposed Project. 3.19. IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS No comments received. 3.20. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS No comments received. 3.21. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Comment 162: Comments were received requesting a revision to the cumulative impact analyses to include projects, such as projects in Glenville, proposals to toll I-95 in Connecticut, and another senior living facility in the Village. (Snyder 007, Schlank 060, Schlank 068) Snyder 007 (#88): The DEIS does not adequately evaluate the project and particularly its cumulative impacts which include long term visual impacts, traffic impacts, noise and air quality impacts, socio-economic impacts resulting in a potential fiscal drain on the Village due to EMS, fire and other essential services, as well as avoidable erosion and wetlands impacts. Schlank 060 (#426): Questions related to the implications of other local projects…including the cumulative effects of recent land-use decisions in Glenville and other neighboring areas, the effects of major construction projects and toll proposals on nearby roads, and the potential for a competing senior living facility in a more suitable area of Rye Brook. Schlank 068 (#553): As a result of events that occurred subsequent to January 2018, there are other planned or potential projects that may need to be considered when evaluating and discussing the environmental impacts in the FEIS, particularly with regard to traffic on King Street. Response 162: The Lead Agency identified relevant projects to be included in the cumulative impact analyses that were included in the DEIS. Impacts related to speculative projects or proposals, or projects or proposals that are not likely to significantly impact the same resources as the Proposed Project, were not discussed in the DEIS. 900 King Street Redevelopment 7/2/202010/08/2020 3-140 DRAFT 3.22. COMMENTS NOT REQUIRING RESPONSE DUPLICATE Comment 163: These comments, made at a public hearing, consisted of reading excerpts of a letter or statement that was submitted in writing, the contents of which are already included and responded to in this FEIS. Snyder 053 (#396): The Adler Report states, "the proposed redevelopment project will have a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions in the immediate neighborhood and the community as a whole. Traffic conditions which were already at or near capacity will be exacerbated by the influx of passing vehicles and trucks associated with the project resulting in deleterious conditions." Snyder 053 (#397): The project will cause several intersections in the immediate area to operate at capacity levels of service, E, or levels of service F during peak travel times Snyder 053 (#398): Intersections at failing conditions include King Street at Anderson Hill Road, King Street and North Ridge Street, King Street and Glen Ridge Road, by the Hutch. King Street and the Hutchinson River Parkway off ramp, and King Street at Betsy Brown Road. The project will cause at all peak hours at the intersection of King Street and North Ridge Street to result in level of service F. Snyder 053 (#399): Significant increases in vehicle delays to almost six minutes in a.m. peak hour, almost three minutes in the mid-day peak hour, and 99.5 seconds in the p.m. peak hour. Snyder 053 (#400): The project will also result in the intersection of the King Street and Betsy Brown Road to also operate at (LOS) F during a.m. and mid-day peak hours, with significant increases to vehicle delays to more than six minutes in the a.m. peak hour and 69.6 seconds in the mid-day peak hour. Snyder 053 (#401): The Adler Report aptly concludes that the levels of service of E and F, that delay will result in a myriad of consequences…driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, increase travel time, and most importantly a greater likelihood of more traffic accidents. Snyder 053 (#403): The project only has Arbor Drive as a sole method of ingress and egress to King Street. The Adler Report determined that, "the singular access point for vehicles traveling to or from King Street cannot safely sustain the significant increase in vehicles and trips associated with the proposed project. In its current form, the proposed project would likely result in an adverse environment for both pedestrians and drivers alike as levels of service F conditions have been found to lead to many more traffic accidents. Snyder 053 (#404): The proposed project senior population could be at risk since emergency service vehicles would be unable to quickly enter and exit the property due to a failing level of service condition." Snyder 053 (#406): The Adler Report found, "the intersection capacity analysis shows that the project will result in levels of service F, operation conditions for individual movements during the pm peak construction activity hours at the following intersections resulting in more than doubling the delay experienced by motorist making the left turn from North Ridge Street onto King to 149.4 seconds, almost three minutes, in the build condition and tripling the delay experienced by motorist in the westbound shared left turn right turn at King Street and Glen Ridge Road, by the Hutch. The change in time proposed by the applicant provides no benefit to the area. Snyder 022 (#249): Oral testimony was duplicate of first letter, already cataloged as correspondence 007. (Ms. Snyder’s written comments were read during the PH so her oral comments are noted in the FEIS.) Rosenberg 064 (#554): {Read stmt, which is categorized as 063} Fry 069 (#555): {Duplicate of Snyder Letter, which was 061} Klein 070 (#557): {Testimony captured in ltr, #062) Response 163: Responses previously provided. Chapter 3: Response to Comments DRAFT 3-141 7/2/202010/08/2020 NOT SUBSTANTIVE Comment 164: These comments are not considered substantive and/or they do not deal with a substantive environmental issue associated with an impact of the Proposed Project. Mignogna 001 (#2): The Arbors is not a condominium community Snyder 053 (#392): Arbors reiterates its opposition to the project in its current form to the devastating impacts that the Arbors and the community will be forced to endure if approved. Snyder 007 (#29): The Village Board does not have any obligations to continue to entertain the zoning text amendment being sought by the Applicant. Zimmerman 026 (#255): Our development (The Arbors) will be more impacted than any other place in Rye Brook. We are not against having something at 900 King. What we are against is something of this size and this scope. Schlank 040 (#314): Who is the current owner of the 900 King Street property? Could the Applicant please disclose the names of the LLC principals that hold title to the property through the LLCs named on the deed? Snyder 053 (#390): Numerous residents in extreme close proximity to the project. Snyder 053 (#391): The Arbors will share an access drive with the proposed project...single access point for both. Snyder 053 (#393): Tonight I would like to focus on the significant adverse, traffic impacts of the project, if approved, that will have on the surrounding roadway network…affect village residents on a daily basis, not only during the applicant’s conservative estimate of 21 to 30 months for construction, but also for the many years to follow. Maniscalco 059 (#423): Please advise me how I can view the proposed contractor’s responses to my concerns. Snyder 061 (#504): Once the public hearing has been closed, please allow for an additional 30-day period for submission of any written comments. Klein 062 (#522): 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. Fry 069 (#556): The only other request that I would make is that as changes to the plans are being made, if perhaps the public would have the opportunity to also comment on any updates really in connection with the FEIS. Response 164: Comments noted. 