Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout900 King Street HDR Environmental Review Technical Memo 2021-4-5 hdrinc.com P a g e | 1 Environmental Review Technical Memo Date: Monday, April 05, 2021 Project: 900 King Street Redevelopment To: Chairman Robert Goodman and Members of the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board cc: Jennifer Gray, Michal Nowak, Chris Bradbury From: HDR: Noemi Castillo Michael Musso Subject: Review of PUD Site Plan documentation (Air Quality, Noise, Vibration and Hazardous Materials), provided March 8 and March 29, 2021 Introduction Henningson Durham & Richardson Architecture and Engineering, PC (HDR) performed a review of the Site Plan application submittals, provided to HDR on March 8 and March 29, 2021, for the purpose of determining compliance with the Air Quality, Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Materials sections of the November 2020 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and associated Findings Statement, prepared for the property located at 900 King Street. The Site Plan submittals received to date were also reviewed against HDR’s July 10, 2020 Environmental Review Technical Memo and other technical memoranda we prepared during the EIS review. This memo provides HDR’s comments on the Site Plan application submittals, with focus on the Site Plan Approval Drawings dated March 25, 2021 and the Construction Management Plan dated February 18, 2021. The Site Plan application submittals included: Site Plan Application Planning Board Submission 2.19.2021 (provided to HDR on March 8, 2021) • Exterior Building Permit Application, dated February 19, 2021 • Site Plan Application, dated February 19, 2021 • Steep Slope Work Permit Application, dated February 23, 2021 not reviewed • Wetlands Permit Application, Dated February 23, 2021 not reviewed • Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, prepared by JMC, dated February 18, 2021 not reviewed • AKRF Site Plan Application Transmittal Memo, dated February 18, 2021 • Building Permit Checklist & Zoning Analysis, dated February 19, 2021 • Village of Rye Brook Building Department Memo regarding the Preliminary Zoning/Building Analysis, dated March 4, 2021 not reviewed • Site Drawings o Site Plan Approval Drawings JMC, dated February 18, 2021 (33 sheets) o Topographic and Utility Map, JMC, dated August 16, 2017 P a g e | 2  TS-1 Topographic and Utility Map  TS-2 Topographic and Utility Map o Planting Plan (2 Sheets), JMC, dated May 2, 2019, revised February 18, 2021 not reviewed o Architectural Site Plan Drawings (16 Sheets), Perkins-Eastman, dated February 18, 2021 not reviewed • Construction Management Plan, dated February 18, 2021 • Concept Plan Stamped Certified Resolution, dated February 2, 2021 • SEQRA Finding Statement Stamped Certified Resolution, dated February 2, 2021 • SEQRA Findings Statement, dated February 2, 2021 • Site Plan Referral Stamped Certified Resolution, dated February 2, 2021 • 900 King Street Zoning Code Amendments Stamped Certified Resolution 2021-2-2.pdf • AI Engineers (Dolph Rotfeld Engineering) Site Plan Application Review Memo, dated March 6, 2021 • Snyder & Snyder, LLP Site Plan Application Review Letter, date March 8, 2021 submitted on behalf of the Arbors • Hardesty & Hanover, Site Plan Application Review Memo, dated March 8, 2021 • Veneziano & Associates Site Plan Application Review Letter, dated February 18, 2021 Site Plan Application Planning Board Submission – Supplemental Materials, 3.25.2021 (provided to HDR on March 29, 2021) • AKRF Site Plan Application Supplemental Transmittal Memo, dated March 25, 2021 • Required Contents Outline, dated March 25, 2021 • List of Drawings, dated March 25, 2021 • Draft EFS and Consultant Memos Requirements, dated March 25, 2021 • AKRF Response Memo to Hardesty & Hanover, Site Plan Application Review Memo, dated March 8, 2021 not reviewed • JMC Response Memo to AI Engineers (Dolph Rotfeld Engineering) Site Plan Application Review Memo, dated March 6, 2021 not reviewed • JMC Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Memorandum, dated March 25, 2021 not reviewed • Site Plan Approval Drawings (33 sheets), JMC, dated February 18, 2021, revised March 25, 2021 • Planting Plan (2 sheets), JMC, dated May 2, 2019, revised March 24, 2021. not reviewed • Project Description, dated March 25, 2021 General It is recommended that the applicant confirm with the Village the needs for specific approvals / permits for construction. HDR understands that these may include a Demolition Permit and single or Phased Building Permits, which will be required after Site Plan approval. Construction Management Plan (CMP), dated February 18, 2021 As stated in the CMP,HDR agrees that the CMP will evolve. However, HDR has the following comments on the February 18, 2021 of the CMP: P a g e | 3 General • “EFS” should be defined upon first use in document. • Construction days and hours should be noted in the CMP as well as the Site Plan Drawings, for compliance with the Findings Statement. Air Quality • Section 7 - Fugitive Dust Avoidance Plan of the CMP: o First sentence should be revised to state: “In order to minimize potential air quality impacts associated with demolition and construction activities…” o The last bullet should be revised to state: “Using truck covers/tarp rollers that fully cover hauled materials and keep debris and dust from being expelled from the truck along its haul route.” o In addition to the text in the final paragraph, the following statement should be added: “On-site visual monitoring of dust conditions will be performed to identify potential adverse air quality impacts from airborne dust and, potentially, the need implement a Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP). Should visual inspection of actual emission and dust conditions during construction warrant, a CAMP shall be implemented.” Noise • Sections 10.1.1 through 10.1.3 should be modified to clarify that: “Noise barriers shall be maintained throughout the demolition and construction activities.” • Section 10.1.1 should be revised to more clearly define the limits of the noise barrier to be constructed along Arbor Drive. As per the Findings Statement, the noise barrier should be constructed between the Main site Entrance [to the existing parking lot] and the southern site boundary [near Ivy Hill Lane]. • The last sentence in Section 10.1.1 should be revised to clarify that “Gates in the barrier to provide authorized access to the construction site shall be closed at all times except when needed for access/egress.” • It should be clarified that measures listed in Section 10.2 are application during demolition and construction activities. • Section 10.2, the following bullet should be added “Equipment anticipated to increase noise levels at the property boundary by more than 6 dBA or to a noise level greater than 65 dBA shall include path controls. Vibration • Section 9 – Vibration Monitoring Plan should be modified to state that the VMP will also be implemented during the use of construction impact devices (such as, jackhammers, pavement breakers, pile drivers, pneumatic tools, etc.) P a g e | 4 • The warning trigger levels and permissible threshold levels should be defined clearly in the CMP. Exceedance of the permissible threshold level should result in a stop work order. Hazardous Materials • Section 3.3 – Abatement Activities: o The end of the first sentence should be revised to state: “…..shall be completed prior to building demolition and disturbance of existing slab.” o The first sentence in the second paragraph should be revised to state “Prior to demolition surveys for asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and other regulated building materials would be conducted throughout the existing structure.” o It is understood that the Material Management Plan (MMP) is forthcoming. Please refer to pages 56 through 58 for information that should be included in the MMP. Comments on the Site Plan Approval Drawings dated March 25, 2021 General • Implementation of the CMP throughout construction Phases 1 through 7 is not mentioned on the Site Plan Approval Drawings. This should be added as a note to the Site Plan Approval Drawings. • Construction days and hours should be noted in the CMP as well as the Site Plan Drawings. Air Quality • The following air quality control measures were recommended by HDR during the technical review of the EIS, to be required as a permit/approval condition during demolition and construction activities, and were included in the Findings Statement. o Installing truck mats or anti-tracking pads at egress points to clean the trucks’ tires prior to leaving the Project Site:  Based on a review of the Site Plan Approval Drawings dated March 25, 2021, Drawing C-200 notes that stabilized construction entrance/exits would be established during Construction Phase I Work (Demolition). However, the location of these are not shown until Drawing C-201, Construction Phase 2 Work (Road and Site Utilities). Drawing C-200 should be revised to show the proposed stabilized construction entrance/exits.  Item #3 on Drawing C-200 should clearly state that the stabilized construction entrance/exits shall be established prior to the start of any construction activity or site disturbance, and shall remain on-site and in use through completion of Phase 7 Work. P a g e | 5  As per Drawings C-202 through C-204, a concrete truck washout/truck washdown area will be included for Construction Phases 3 through 6. Please confirm that Phases 1, 2 and 7 will not include any concrete work. o Covering stored materials with a tarp to reduce windborne dust  The covering of stored materials is not included in the Site Plan Approval Drawings. This should be added. o Limiting on-Site construction vehicle speed to 5 miles per hour (mph)  The construction notes on Drawings C-200 through C-205 should clearly state that on-Site construction vehicle speed is limited to 5 mph. In addition, will signs be installed throughout the site stating this? o Trucks shall not be allowed to idle for longer than three minutes  The construction notes on Drawings C-200 through C-205 should clearly state that trucks shall not idle for longer than three minutes. Noise • The following noise control measures were recommended during the technical review of the EIS to be required as a permit/approval condition during demolition and construction activities, and were included in the Findings Statement. o Erection of a noise barrier that is 12 feet tall along the perimeter of the Project Site on:  Arbor Drive along the southern property boundary (Blind Brook School), with the exception of the site entrance: • It is unclear on Drawing C-200 the extent of the Temporary 12 foot high plywood construction sound fence vs. the Temporary construction fence also labeled. This should be clarified as the plywood noise barrier should be installed along the entire southern property boundary of the site, with the exception of the site entrance. • It should be clearly stated on Drawing C-200 that the noise barrier shall be established prior to the start of any construction activity or site disturbance, and shall remain on-site and in use through completion of Phase 7 Work. • The symbol for the noise barrier should be included in the legend shown on Demolition and the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan legends on C-010.  Along the western property boundary: • The Site Plan Approval Drawings do not show the required noise barrier along the western property boundary. This should be added. It should be noted that HDR participated in a conference call on Thursday April 1, 2021 with AKRF, Jennifer Gray and Sarah Brown to discuss the preliminary P a g e | 6 results of the barrier analysis. Further submittals on this barrier are anticipated from AKRF and the Applicant.  Along the eastern property boundary: • The Site Plan Approval Drawings do not show the required noise barrier along the eastern property boundary. This should be added. It should be noted that HDR participated in a conference call on Thursday April 1, 2021 with AKRF, Jennifer Gray and Sarah Brown to discuss the preliminary results of the barrier analysis. Further submittals on this barrier are anticipated from AKRF and the Applicant.  Details on all three noise barriers to be constructed should be provided for review and approval during the Site Plan review and prior to mobilization. Notes on barrier inspection and maintenance during all phases of construction should also be included. o Trucks shall not be allowed to idle for longer than three minutes.  The construction notes on Drawings C-200 through C-205 should clearly state that trucks shall not idle for longer than three minutes. HDR participated in a conference call with AKRF on April 1, 2021, where the applicant’s refined noise analysis was discussed, and ideas on the visual appearance of the noise barriers were discussed. It is understood that the applicant will be submitting additional information on the noise barriers in advance of the Planning Board’s May 2021 meeting, including items noted above. Vibration • Prior to starting demolition / construction (i.e., during Village permit stage), a site vibration monitoring plan should be prepared and should include a listing of a Tennessee Gas Pipeline contact, along with the contacts for all existing subsurface utilities at the site and adjacent properties (water, sewer, gas, electric, fiber / cable). It is recommended that the applicant make a notification to each utility entity (Tennessee Gas Pipeline and all others) prior to the start of demolition and construction activities, and report to the Building Department on such notifications and any feedback received. o Implementation of a Vibration Monitoring Plan throughout construction Phases 1 through 7 is not mentioned on the Site Plan Approval Drawings. This should be added. Hazardous Materials • All interior building abatement (asbestos, lead-based paint; older electrical equipment such as light fixtures, switches, caulking that could contain mercury, PCBs, or other regulated materials), as required, should be completed prior to any demolition activities including but not limited to disturbing existing building walls and the existing slab. o Item #5 on Drawing C-200 should be revised to include the surveying of lead-based paint. P a g e | 7 o Item #17 on Drawing C-200 should be clearly state that the removal of these materials shall be completed prior to any demolition activities including but not limited to disturbing existing building walls and the existing slab. • As agreed to (and as noted in the revised PFEIS), the Applicant shall prepare a Materials Management Plan (MMP) prior to the start of excavation or ground disturbance work. The MMP in accordance with the revised PFEIS shall be included as a permit/approval condition. The Planning Board should specify if the MMP is required for the Site Plan review. Demolition and all other phases of work shall be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations (OSHA, NYSDOL, NYSDEC, etc.), and in accordance with any demolition-related approvals from the Village, see above note recommended for Drawing ----. o The preparation of an MMP prior the start of any construction activity or site disturbance and implementation of an MMP throughout construction Phases 1 through 7 is not mentioned on the Site Plan Approval Drawings. This should be added. It is recommended that the applicant confirm with the Village the needs for specific approvals / permits for construction (post Site Plan review). HDR understands that these may include a Demolition Permit, along with single or Phased Building Permits. HDR also notes that per the applicant’s information inventory, items noted in the 3/24/2021 AKRF ‘crosswalk’ table as complete, may not be complete based on comments provided above and by other Village Consultants. As alluded to earlier, additional information on the noise barriers is anticipated to be submitted as related to the Site Plan. In addition, based on HDR’s prior reviews and Mitigations noted in the Findings Statement, a couple of items related to noise during the operational phase of the project (once construction is completed) are noted below. If appropriate at this time, notes can be added to the Site Plan drawings that address these items: • Generator models with Level 1 or 2 enclosures shall be selected. • Deliveries during overnight hours will be limited to the maximum extent practicable. • The mechanical systems will be designed to avoid producing a combined 6.0 dBA or more increase at nearby receptors. Further, at receptors where the existing noise level is less than 6 dBA during the daytime hours, the mechanical systems will be designed to avoid causing future noise levels to exceed 65 dBA. HDR looks forward to continue the Site Plan review as additional information is received.