The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About900 King Street HDR Environmental Review Technical Memo 2021-5-7 hdrinc.com P a g e | 1 Environmental Review Technical Memo Date: Friday, May 07, 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 Revised PUD Site Plan documentation (Air Quality, Noise, Vibration and Hazardous Materials), provided April 29, 2021 Introduction Henningson Durham & Richardson Architecture and Engineering, PC (HDR) performed a review of the revised Site Plan application submittals prepared for the property located at 900 King Street, provided to HDR April 29, 2021, for the purpose of determining if previous HDR comments on the Site Plan application submittals have been addressed. The April 29, 2021 Revised Site Plan submittals were prepared by the Applicant to address comments received from the Village of Rye Brook and its’s consultants, including HDR, on the original Site Plan application submittals (dated February 19, 2021) and supplemental materials submittal (dated March 29, 2021) . HDR submitted to the Village on April 5, 2021, an Environmental Review Technical Memo consisting of comments based on the February 19 and April 5, 2021 Site Plan application submittals for compliance with the Air Quality, Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Materials sections of the November 2020 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and associated Findings Statement. This Environmental Review Technical Memo provides any outstanding HDR comments on the Site Plan application submittals, with focus on the Site Plan Approval Drawings dated April 28, 2021, the Construction Management Plan (CMP) dated April 29, 2021, and the Project Description, dated April 29, 2021, including the April 14, 2021 Outdoor Mechanical Equipment – Acoustical Impact Assessment Report, included as Attachment 2 to the Project Description. The Revised Site Plan application submittals included: P a g e | 2 Site Plan Application Planning Board Submission 04.29.2021 • Transmittal document not reviewed • A: Required Content not reviewed • B: List of Drawings not reviewed • C: EFS Cross walk not reviewed • D: Response to Comments Memo • E – F : Engineering and Landscape Plans partially reviewed • G: Project Description, including: o Attachment 1 – MEP Narrative not reviewed o Attachment 2 – HVAC Acoustical Analysis • H: Construction Management Plan o Appendix 1 Phasing-Staging Plans Revised Construction Management Plan (CMP), dated April 29, 2021 Construction Noise • Information provided in Section 10.1.2 of the CMP regarding the heights of the noise barriers to be constructed along the eastern property boundary and western property boundary was based on a noise barrier analysis that has been reviewed and commented on by HDR. Based on HDR’s review of the current noise modeling, the information provided in the April 29, 2021 applicant submittals, and the draft supplemental acoustical analysis (still pending Planning Board submittal), the applicant information does not currently provide sufficient information to support the current conclusions made by AKRF for the height of these noise barriers. Therefore, the height of 6 feet and the results of the noise barrier analysis provided in the Revised Construction Management Plan (CMP) dated April 29, 2021, should be considered preliminary and under revision. It should be noted that HDR participated in a conference call with AKRF, Jennifer Gray and Sarah Brown 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. AKRF provided the draft supplemental noise analysis to HDR on April 15, 2021. HDR reviewed the draft supplemental noise analysis and participated in conference calls with AKRF on Tuesday April 27, 2021 and Tuesday May 4 , 2021 to discuss HDR’s preliminary comments on the draft noise analysis. HDR’s preliminary comments on the draft noise analysis were provided to AKRF on April 23 and April 30, 2021. In addition to specific comments regarding the noise modeling, the supplemental noise analysis memo should be clear that the purpose of the analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of the east and west noise walls, as stated verbally to HDR by AKRF during a call on April 30, 2021. The memo, as well as the text in the April 29, 2001 CMP leads the reader to believe that this noise analysis supersedes the FEIS noise analysis, which, per AKRF is not the intent. HDR anticipates that an updated supplemental analysis and associated memo will be submitted by AKRF for review, prior P a g e | 3 to the May 13, 2021 Planning Board meeting. A follow-on technical review memo will be submitted to the Planning Board after the revised supplemental analysis is received.. Comments on the Site Plan Approval Drawings dated April 29, 2021 Construction 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:  The AKRF Response to Comments Memo, dated April 29, 2021, states that Phases 1, 2, and 7 will not include concrete work. However, the Phasing-Staging Plans for the project show that Concrete trucks on rotation will be on the site for Phases 2 through 6. Therefore, a concrete truck washout/truck washdown area should also be shown on drawings for Phases 2 (C-201) and 7 (C- 205). Construction Noise • See comment above regarding the eastern property boundary and western property boundary noise walls which also applies to the information shown regarding these walls provided on the April 29, 2021 Site Drawings. • The AKRF Response to Comments Memo, dated April 29, 2021, states that Sheet C-010 was updated to show the noise barrier symbol. However, this does not appear to have been completed. In addition, two symbols should be shown for the noise barriers, since two symbols are used on Sheet C-200. Operational Noise • The AKRF Response to Comments Memo, dated April 29, 2021, states that the required specifications and details with respect to the generator and enclosure are provided in Sheet C-910. However, Sheet C-910 lists information for the Enclosure, if selected. The Construction Drawings should clearly indicate that a Level 1 Enclosure has been selected, as stated in the April 14, 2021 Outdoor Mechanical Equipment – Acoustical Impact Assessment Report, included as Attachment 2 to the Project Description. • HDR has reviewed the April 14, 2021 Outdoor Mechanical Equipment – Acoustical Impact Assessment Report, included as Attachment 2 to the Project Description, and has no comments.