Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout900 King Street HDR Environmental Review Technical Memo 2021-6-11 hdrinc.com P a g e | 1 Environmental Review Technical Memo Date: Friday, June 11, 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 Supplemental Materials for PUD Site Plan documentation (Air Quality, Noise, Vibration and Hazardous Materials), provided May 27, 2021 Introduction Henningson Durham & Richardson Architecture and Engineering, PC (HDR) performed a review of the supplemental Site Plan application submittals prepared for the property located at 900 King Street (AKRF; dated May 27, 2021) This review was completed for purposes of determining if previous HDR Site Plan comments have been- addressed. The May 27, 2021 supplemental Site Plan submittals were prepared by the Applicant to address comments received from the Village of Rye Brook and its consultants, including HDR, on the Revised Site Plan application submittals. ). HDR previously submitted to the Village Planning Board two Environmental Review Technical Memos (dated April 5 and May 7, 2021).. Our technical reviews of the Site Plan continue to focus on compliance with the Air Quality, Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Materials sections of the November 2020 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and associated Findings Statement. The May 27, 2021 Supplemental Site Plan Application Planning Board Submission, that is the subject of this review, included: • Transmittal document reviewed • A: Required Content not reviewed • B: Consultant Response Memo reviewed • C: JMC Site Plans Sheet Updates reviewed • D: Construction Management Plan – updated Section 10.1.2 reviewed o Final Appendix: Construction Noise Barrier Efficacy Assessment Report reviewed P a g e | 2 As listed above, the May 27, 2021 submittal included a Construction Noise Barrier Efficacy Assessment Report (noise barrier analysis), as an appendix to the Construction Management Plan. HDR participated on conference calls with AKRF, Jennifer Gray and Sarah Brown on April 1, 2021, where the applicant’s noise barrier analysis was first discussed, and ideas on the visual appearance of the noise barriers were discussed. AKRF provided a draft of this noise barrier analysis to HDR on April 15, 2021. HDR reviewed and provided to AKRF preliminary comments on the draft noise analysis on April 23 and April 30, 2021. A revised draft of the noise barrier analysis was provided to HDR on May 7, 2021; HDR reviewed and provided preliminary comments to AKRF on May 20, 2021. In addition, HDR participated in additional conference calls with AKRF on April 27, May 4,May 12, and May 21, 2021 to discuss HDR’s comments prior to the formal (May 27) submittal to the Planning Board. This Environmental Review Technical Memo provides a review of outstanding HDR comments on the Site Plan application submittals received to date, including the Construction Noise Barrier Efficacy Assessment Report. Construction Noise Barrier Efficacy Assessment Report, dated May 27, 2021 • With the exception of HDR’s comment to provide the Planning Board with a cover letter for this analyses and report, HDR’s preliminary comments, provided on April 23, April 30, and May 20, 2021 have been generally addressed. • Since the purpose of the Noise Barrier Efficacy analysis is not to alter the FEIS construction noise analysis conclusions or requirements, or the areas at which the FEIS found the potential for construction noise impacts, the first paragraph on page 6, after Table 5, should be deleted. • Appendix D should be updated based on HDR’s previous comments on Tables 1 through 5 of the report. The calculated difference results in Appendix D are at times not comparing to the same receptor, with and without the western and eastern barriers. This should be rectified. As at times multiple receptors were modeled to represent a location (e.g., Arbors Condos), the difference for each receptor should be determined and then the range reflected in the Appendices. • HDR has no further comments on the analytical methods themselves. However, since the construction is expected to result in noise level increases greater than 6 dBA at the Arbors Condos and the Village Hall, Police Department and Fire Department, it is recommended that: o The Applicant obtain weekday and weekend baseline measurements at the receptors, including Arbors Condos, Blind Brook High School, Harkness Tennis Court, the Village Hall, Police Department, Fire Department, and King Street residencies, no earlier than two weeks prior to the initiation of construction and demolition activities. This data should P a g e | 3 be submitted to the Village Building Department prior to on-site activities commencing. o The Planning Board should consider the following conditions to the Site Plan approval, to reflect what was assumed by AKRF in the Construction Noise Barrier Efficacy noise models:  Pile Driving (impact and vibratory), blasting, jack hammering, and rock crushing activities are not permitted absent further review by the Village Building Department and, if requested, by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant. (These were not included in the noise analyses, and therefore should be restricted from occurring.)  On-site activities shall be limited to the site disturbance boundaries shown on the Construction equipment per phase (Phase 1 through 6) drawings attached to the May 7, 2021 preliminary Construction Noise Barrier Efficacy Assessment Report.  Delivery trucks shall be required not to idle engines. Revised Construction Management Plan (CMP), dated May 27, 2021 Construction Noise • As per HDR’s preliminary comments on the noise barrier analysis, Section 10 of the CMP should include the following statement, since these activities/noise sources were not included in the noise model: “Pile Driving (impact and vibratory), blasting, jack hammering, and rock crushing activities are not permitted absent further review by the Village.” Comments on the Site Plan Approval Drawings dated May 27, 2021 Construction Noise • The AKRF Response to Comments Memo, dated May 27, 2021, states that the S&E Plan Legend has been updated on drawing C-010 to show three separate types of fencing. These three types include the 6’ high noise barrier, the 12’ high noise barrier and the 6’ chain link fence, all shown with different symbols on the plans. However, this does not appear to have been completed. Operational Noise • As requested by the Village Board during the May 13, 2021 Planning Board meeting, AKRF should revise the April 14, 2021 Outdoor Mechanical Equipment – Acoustical Impact Assessment Report to more clearly explain the presented results. Table 2 of this report should be modified to differentiate between the modeled predicted noise levels of the proposed mechanical equipment and the Total Future Noise Level (i.e., existing noise level plus proposed mechanical equipment noise level).