HomeMy WebLinkAbout900 King Street Revised Construction Management Plan 2021-7-2900 King Street Site Plan Application: Construction Management Plan
DRAFT 1 07/02/2021
This section of the Site Plan Application provides the Construction Management Plan (“CMP”) for the
900 King Street Redevelopment Project. The CMP will necessarily be updated during the building
permitting and construction processes as additional information and details are available.
Table of Contents
1. PRIMARY CONTACTS .............................................................................................................................. 2
1.1. OWNER .................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2. CONSTRUCTION MANAGER .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3. VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK............................................................................................................................... 2
1.4. SCHOOL DISTRICT ....................................................................................................................................... 2
1.5. ARBORS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ........................................................................................................... 2
1.6. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.7. RYE BROOK SEWER .................................................................................................................................... 2
1.8. SUEZ WATER............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.9. CON EDISON CONTACT ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.10. ALTICE CONTACT........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.11. VERIZON CONTACT ..................................................................................................................................... 2
2. COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1. SCHOOL DISTRICT ....................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2. ARBORS ................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3. LOOK AHEAD ............................................................................................................................................ 3
2.4. UTILITY NOTIFICATION ................................................................................................................................ 3
3. CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND SEQUENCING ......................................................................................... 3
3.1. PHASING & SEQUENCING SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 3
3.2. SITE SAFETY .............................................................................................................................................. 4
3.3. ABATEMENT ACTIVITIES............................................................................................................................... 4
3.4. OTHER DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................. 4
4. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD TRAFFIC ........................................................................................................... 4
5. MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................................................... 5
6. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ....................................................................................................... 5
7. FUGITIVE DUST AVOIDANCE PLAN .......................................................................................................... 5
8. DIESEL EMISSION CONTROL PLAN ........................................................................................................... 6
9. VIBRATION MONITORING PLAN ............................................................................................................. 6
10. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD NOISE MITIGATION PLAN ................................................................................ 7
10.1. PHYSICAL NOISE MITIGATION ....................................................................................................................... 7
10.1.1. Arbor Drive ................................................................................................................................... 7
10.1.2. Southwest & Northeast – Facing Arbors HOA & Village Hall ....................................................... 7
10.2. SITE LAYOUT AND POLICY-BASED NOISE MITIGATION ....................................................................................... 8
10.3. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD NOISE MONITORING .................................................................................................. 9
APPENDIX: CONSTRUCTION PHASING & SEQUENCING PLANS
APPENDIX: CONSTRUCTION-PERIOD NOISE BARRIER ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
900 King Street Site Plan Application
07/02/2021 2 DRAFT
1. PRIMARY CONTACTS
1.1. OWNER
900 King Street Owner, LLC
c/o George Comfort & Sons
200 Madison Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10016
(212) 481-1122
1.2. CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER
A.P. Construction Company
707 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06901
(203) 359-4704
Site Contact: Lorem ipsum
(###) ###-####
1.3. VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
Michael Izzo, Building and Fire
Inspector
938 King Street
Rye Brook, NY 10573
(914) 939-0668
HDR; Village’s Special
Engineering Consultant
Project Contact: Lorem ipsum
(###) ###-####
1.4. SCHOOL DISTRICT
Blind Brook-Rye Union Free
School District
390 North Ridge Street
Rye Brook, NY 10573
District Contact: Lorem ipsum
(###) ###-####
MS/HS Contact: Lorem ipsum
(###) ###-####
1.5. ARBORS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
, President
(###) ###-####
1.6. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE
Pipeline Contact: Lorem ipsum
(###) ###-####
1.7. RYE BROOK SEWER
Sewer Contact: Lorem ipsum
(###) ###-####
1.8. SUEZ WATER
Suez Contact: Lorem ipsum
(###) ###-####
1.9. CON EDISON CONTACT
Electric contact: Lorem ipsum
(###) ###-####
Gas contact: Lorem ipsum
(###) ###-####
1.10. ALTICE CONTACT
Altice contact: Lorem ipsum
(###) ###-####
1.11. VERIZON CONTACT
Verizon FIOS contact: Lorem ipsum
(###) ###-####
Construction Management Plan
DRAFT 3 07/02/2021
2. COMMUNICATIONS
2.1. SCHOOL DISTRICT
Prior to the commencement of demolition or construction activities for the Project, the
Construction Manager (CM) shall coordinate with the School District to discuss the
construction project. The School District shall inform the CM of anticipated construction or
other special activities on MS/HS site for purposes of coordinating activities. The School
District shall identify critical testing days/times so that the Owner can avoid the most noise-
intensive activities during those times.
2.2. ARBORS
Prior to the commencement of demolition or construction activities for the Project, the CM
shall photo and/or video document the physical condition of Arbor Drive from its intersection
with King Street to the southwestern property line of the Project Site. This documentation shall
be provided to the Village and to the Arbors. During construction, the CM shall monitor the
condition of Arbor Drive and make repairs as warranted and appropriate, as determined by the
Village. Similarly, as determined necessary by the Village upon completion of construction,
the Owner shall restore that portion of Arbor Drive that was used as a path of travel during a
construction to a reasonable and safe condition.
2.3. LOOK AHEAD
Prior to the commencement of demolition or construction activities for the Project, and at least
every two weeks thereafter, the CM shall send to the Village, the School District, and the
Arbors a two-week “look ahead,” identifying the anticipated significant construction activities
during that period, especially those that have the potential to be noise intensive.
2.4. UTILITY NOTIFICATION
Prior to the commencement of demolition or construction activities for the Project, the CM
shall notify contacts for each subsurface utility provider adjacent to the Project Site. The CM
shall report to the Village on the notifications as well as any material feedback received from
the utility providers.
3. CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND SEQUENCING
The narrative in this section should be read in conjunction with the Construction Phasing and Staging
Plans developed by A.P. Construction and appended hereto, as well as Sheet C-110 to Sheet C-205 of
the engineering plans.
3.1. PHASING & SEQUENCING SUMMARY
Construction of the Project is anticipated to be completed in approximately 30 months and is
expected to occur in approximately seven phases. 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.
900 King Street Site Plan Application
07/02/2021 4 DRAFT
Construction of the proposed buildings would be separated into four phases 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.
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.
3.2. SITE SAFETY
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. A sign would be placed at the general location of
this path, as well as posted on the construction period noise wall, directing students and other
pedestrians 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.
3.3. ABATEMENT ACTIVITIES
Interior abatement activities related to ACM, lead-based paint, older equipment that may
contain mercury, PCBs, or other regulated material shall be completed prior to building
demolition and disturbance of the existing slab.
Prior to demolition surveys for asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and other regulated
building materials 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. As required by the Environmental Findings Statement
(EFS) adopted by the Board of Trustees, the Village shall be provided with a copy of the ACM
surveys as well as copies of agency correspondence related to abatement filings describing
abatement work within 45 days of completion.
Demolition shall occur in accordance with applicable regulations (e.g., OSHA and NYSDOL),
as well as in accordance with Village approvals.
3.4. OTHER DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the commencement of demolition, the CM shall provide to the Village a list of
potential transporters and recycling/ disposal facilities that will accept demolition materials
Within 30 days of the completion of work, the CM shall provide to the Village an inventory
of demolition materials/ types, including abated materials, together with the quantities
removed and the off-site destinations and disposal/ recycling documentation.
4. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD TRAFFIC
The following policies and procedures shall be implemented during construction to minimize adverse
traffic impacts from construction
Adequate on-site parking for construction workers shall be provided throughout the construction
process.
Construction Management Plan
DRAFT 5 07/02/2021
No construction worker vehicles shall be permitted to park, pick-up, drop-off, or otherwise stand
on Arbor Drive.
Construction Trucks shall use major roads (i.e., I-287; I-95; I-684) to reach the Project Site.
To the extent practical, construction truck trips shall be scheduled so as not to coincide with the
peak entry and exit hours of the MS/HS.
Adequate on-Site areas for the queuing, staging, loading, and unloading of vehicles shall be
provided throughout the construction process.
No construction trucks, including those related to the delivery of equipment or materials, shall
queue, load, un-load, park, or otherwise stand on Arbor Drive.
5. MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLAN
The EFS requires that the Materials Management Plan (“MMP”) “be prepared by the Applicant prior
to the start of excavation or ground disturbing activities.” As the MMP is a technical workplan, which
includes information based on the final approved site plan and any conditions thereof, it cannot be
finalized prior to Site Plan approval. The Applicant understands that any Site Plan approval for the
Project will be conditioned on the preparation of an MMP consistent with the EFS. Further, the
Applicant understands that demolition and construction permits will not be issued until completion of
the MMP. It is noted that the MMP will include the measures outlined in §M.2.a of the EFS related to
soil handling and contingency measures to be implemented if unknown soil conditions are encountered.
As required by §B.1.b of the EFS, the MMP will also reiterate that, “No blasting or rock crushing shall
be permitted without further review and approval by the Village Building Inspector.”
Upon completion, and prior to demolition or construction, the MMP will be appended to this CMP.
6. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be implemented in accordance with NYSDEC regulations.
The Plan is illustrated and described in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”)
accompanying the Site Plan Application. The final, approved plan shall be appended to this CMP.
7. FUGITIVE DUST AVOIDANCE PLAN
In order to minimize potential air quality impacts associated with construction and demolition activities,
the following policies and procedures shall be implemented during construction:
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
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.
900 King Street Site Plan Application
07/02/2021 6 DRAFT
As required by the EFS, in the event that airborne dust from the Project Site creates an adverse impact
to the MS/HS, the School District shall notify the CM and the Village immediately. The CM shall take
appropriate measures to ameliorate the temporary impact. The CM, Village, and the Village’s Special
Engineering Consultant shall, after the immediate situation is resolved, discuss the incident to
determine its cause and steps that can be taken to avoid future impacts. On-site visual monitoring of
dust conditions will be performed to identify potential adverse air quality impacts from airborne dust
and, potentially, the need to implement a Community Air Monitoring Plan (“CAMP”). Should visual
inspection of actual emission and dust conditions during construction warrant, as determined necessary
by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, a CAMP shall be implemented. The procedures for a
CAMP are included in the Materials Management Plan.
8. DIESEL EMISSION CONTROL PLAN
In order to minimize potential impacts from diesel emissions related to construction equipment and
vehicles, the following policies and procedures shall be implemented:
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.
Construction trucks would not be allowed to idle for longer than 3 minutes.
Use of Best Available Tailpipe (BAT) Reduction Technologies. 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 diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. Diesel particulate
filters (DPFs) have been identified as being the tailpipe technology currently proven to have the
highest reduction capability. Construction contracts shall specify that all diesel nonroad 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.
9. VIBRATION MONITORING PLAN
The Owner shall implement a Vibration Monitoring Program (“VMP”) during demolition of the
existing building, subsurface construction activities, and activities involving the use of construction
impact devices (such as jackhammers, pavement breakers, pile drivers, pneumatic tools, etc.) on the
Project Site. Specifically, the VMP will monitor subsurface vibration levels proximate to the Arbors
and the Tennessee Gas Pipeline. The precise monitoring locations will be determined by the Owner in
consultation with the Project Engineer and Vibration Consultant and shall be subject to review and
approval of the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant. The VMP shall contain the following
elements:
Baseline vibration monitoring for two weeks prior to the start of demolition.
Continuous vibration monitoring at one location proximate to the Arbors and one location
proximate to the Tennessee Gas pipeline.
Vibration monitoring shall be conducted using a seismograph with a velocity transducer capable of
measuring vibration on three mutually perpendicular axes. The seismograph will include a wireless
modem and will be configured to have a warning trigger level of 0.3 inches/second and permissible
threshold level of 0.5 inches/second, consistent with federal guidance on the protection of structures
Construction Management Plan
DRAFT 7 07/02/2021
from construction vibration. In the event of construction-induced vibration exceeding either threshold
level, an email alert will be sent to the CM and the Owner’s Vibration Consultant. In the event that the
permissible threshold is exceeded as a result of construction activity, the construction activity producing
the vibration would be stopped until an alternative method can be implemented that does not result in
exceedances of the permissible threshold.
The Owner’s Vibration Consultant shall prepare and circulate to the Owner, CM, Village, and Village
Special Engineering Consultant monthly reports summarizing the vibration monitoring results. The
reports will include an executive summary of vibration levels at each monitoring location, and detailed
vibration data at each monitoring location throughout each workday during the monitoring period.
10. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD NOISE MITIGATION PLAN
10.1. PHYSICAL NOISE MITIGATION
10.1.1. Arbor Drive
A 12-foot tall construction period noise barrier will be installed on the Project Site
along its Arbor Drive frontage extending southwest from the Main Site Driveway
to the point at which the barrier turns toward the north. The barrier will be
constructed from plywood, or a material of similar noise abatement properties, and
shall be installed prior to the start of significant construction activities during the
time that the MS/HS is in session during the normal school year and maintained
throughout demolition and construction activities. Gates in the barrier to provide
authorized access to the construction site shall be closed at all times except when
needed for access/egress.
Given the visual prominence of the noise barrier, the Owner shall take measures
to make the barrier more aesthetically pleasing than a “plain” plywood wall. Upon
installation, the barrier will be painted green. Subsequent to the construction of the
barrier, the Applicant will seek to install one or more works of art on the barrier
and will coordinate with the Village and School District on the creation of the
same. Given the potential safety implications of having art physically painted on
the barrier during active construction activities and in proximity to vehicular traffic
on Arbor Drive, the Applicant may instead have the art that is created printed on
banners or posters and applied to the barrier.
10.1.2. Southwest & Northeast – Facing Arbors HOA & Village Hall
Pursuant to the EFS, the Arbors HOA and the Village Hall sides of the property
shall be improved with a construction period noise barrier constructed of plywood,
or a material of similar noise abatement properties. This barrier shall be painted
green upon its installation. Consistent with the EFS, and to determine the
appropriate height of the noise barrier, an supplemental acoustical analysis was
performed (see attached May 24, 2021 letter from AKRF, Inc.). The analysis was
conducted using a three-dimensional noise modeling software, “CadnaA,” which
is a state-of-the-art tool for noise analysis. Geographic data associated with the site
work, adjacent building footprints and heights, and the location and elevation of
other improvements were input into the software. For each construction phase
900 King Street Site Plan Application
07/02/2021 8 DRAFT
various data, including construction equipment, location, noise emissions and
duration of use, was also input.1
The refined acoustical analysis indicated that a 12-foot tall noise barrier along the
Arbors and Village Hall portions of the Project Site would provide minimal, or no,
additional noise reduction compared to a condition in which no barrier was located
on those sides of the Site.2 There are a few likely reasons for this result. 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. Most equipment used during
construction of the Project would operate farther from the barrier for a majority of
the construction period. Consequently, the benefit of the barrier is reduced as the
distances between source and barrier or receptor and barrier increase. Additionally,
benefit from utilizing barriers is minimized in part due to existing characteristics
of the area, including topography, which sets construction noise sources at a higher
elevation thereby reducing the effective height of surrounding barriers, as well as
moderate to high existing noise levels at some nearby noise receptors.
Based on this analysis, and in accordance with the EFS, in addition to the 12-foot
tall barrier along the Site’s Arbor Drive frontage, the Applicant will construct a 6-
foot plywood barrier along the Arbors and Village Hall portions of the Site. The
barrier shall be constructed prior to site demolition and maintained throughout
construction. The location of the noise barriers are shown on Sheet C-200.
10.2. SITE LAYOUT AND POLICY-BASED NOISE MITIGATION
The following measures are included in the construction staging plans or will be otherwise
implemented during construction and demolition to minimize off-Site noise impacts.
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 MS/HS, to the extent practicable;
Construction equipment, including the mufflers on the equipment, shall be properly
maintained;
Electrification of construction equipment to the extent feasible and practicable will be
undertaken as soon in the construction process as logistics allow;
The construction site is configured to minimize back-up alarm noise to the extent feasible
and practicable;
Construction trucks shall not idle for longer than 3 minutes;
The hours of operation during construction shall comply with the time of day and day of
week requirements of Chapter 158 of the Village Code;
1 The construction-period data used in this analysis is significantly more detailed than the data utilized in the
FEIS, given the progression of construction planning subsequent to approval of the PUD Master Plan. Whereas
the FEIS included conservative estimates of noise generation and equipment location given the lack of specific
details available regarding equipment types and location, the current analysis made use of more fine-grained
site logistics details. It should be noted that this supplementary analysis does not supersede the FEIS analysis;
rather, it was conducted for a different purpose, as described above.
2 Additionally, the projected noise levels with only the 12-foot tall barrier along Arbor Drive were comparable
to, or less than, the levels predicted by the FEIS construction noise analysis. This is due in large part to the more
refined analysis that was possible.
Construction Management Plan
DRAFT 9 07/02/2021
Pile driving, jack hammering, blasting, and rock crushing shall not be permitted absent
further review by the Village.
10.3. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD NOISE MONITORING
Pursuant to the EFS, the Village may require the Owner to provide in-field noise level readings
upon request, if warranted based on site work activities. These measurements would be
compared to the noise levels modeled and reported in the FEIS and any supplementary noise
modeling conducted to support the noise barrier design. Existing condition noise level
monitoring shall be conducted by the Applicant for purposes of establishing baseline noise
levels absent construction. The scope and schedule of this monitoring shall be coordinated with
the Village’s Building Department.
ARCHITECT:APPLICANT/OWNER:Drawing No:Project No:Date:Scale:Drawn:Approved:ANY ALTERATION OF PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, PLATS ANDREPORTS BEARING THE SEALOF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER OR LICENSED LANDSURVEYOR IS A VIOLATION OFSECTION 7209 OF THE NEWYORK STATE EDUCATION LAW,EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR BYSECTION 7209, SUBSECTION 2.No.RevisionDateBy• • ••• •• • ••• •••••••••••••2017 by JMCAll Rights Reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of JMC PLANNING, ENGINEERING, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & LAND SURVEYING, PLLC | JMC SITE DEVELOPMENTCONSULTANTS, LLC | JOHN MEYER CONSULTING, INC. (JMC). Any modifications or alterations to this document without the written permission of JMC shall render them invalid and unusable.Phase 1 - DemolitionDetentionPond withSilt Fence& HaybalePerimeter
DNDNBBGBCBGGAAAAFDEFEDBGBAADDFFDDDEAAAAADADDDDFDD100' - 0"100' - 0"100' - 0"100' - 0"2/8/2021 8:16:28 PMC:\REVIT LOCAL\70700_900King_Arch_2019_reduced footprint_m.taubin.rvt1 Date 1 Revision 1MaterialStaging AreaDetentionPond withSilt Fence& HaybalePerimeterContractor Parking(150 Spaces)DNGarage FoundationConcurrent withRoad & UtilitiesPhase 2 - Road Construction & Site Utilities
DNDNBBGBCBGGAAAAFDEFEDBGBAADDFFDDDEAAAAADADDDDFDD100' - 0"100' - 0"100' - 0"100' - 0"2/8/2021 8:16:28 PMC:\REVIT LOCAL\70700_900King_Arch_2019_reduced footprint_m.taubin.rvt1 Date 1 Revision 1MaterialStaging AreaDetentionPond withSilt Fence& HaybalePerimeterContractor Parking(150 Spaces)DNPhase 3 - Assisted LivingBGBAFFDDF
DNDNBBGBCBGGAAAAFDEFEDBGBAADDFFDDDEAAAAADADDDDFDD100' - 0"100' - 0"100' - 0"100' - 0"2/8/2021 8:16:28 PMC:\REVIT LOCAL\70700_900King_Arch_2019_reduced footprint_m.taubin.rvt1 Date 1 Revision 1MaterialStaging AreaDetentionPond withSilt Fence& HaybalePerimeterContractor Parking(150 Spaces)Phase 4 - Independent Living Center CoreBGBAFFDDFDNADEADDDNBuild StructureOver Garage
DNDNBBGBCBGGAAAAFDEFEDBGBAADDFFDDDEAAAAADADDDDFDD100' - 0"100' - 0"100' - 0"100' - 0"2/8/2021 8:16:28 PMC:\REVIT LOCAL\70700_900King_Arch_2019_reduced footprint_m.taubin.rvt1 Date 1 Revision 1DetentionPond withSilt Fence& HaybalePerimeterBGBADFFDDFDNDNADEADDBBGBCBGGAAFDEFEDDADAAAADDMaterialStaging AreaMaterialStagingAreaMaterialStagingAreaMaterialStaging AreaContractor ParkingIn Garage Below
DNDNBBGBCBGGAAAAFDEFEDBGBAADDFFDDDEAAAAADADDDDFDD100' - 0"100' - 0"100' - 0"100' - 0"2/8/2021 8:16:28 PMC:\REVIT LOCAL\70700_900King_Arch_2019_reduced footprint_m.taubin.rvt1 Date 1 Revision 1Phase 6 - TownhousesDetentionPond withSilt Fence &HaybalePerimeterDNDNADEADDBBGBCBGGAAFDEFEDDADAAAADDBGBAFFDDFMaterialStaging AreaMaterialStagingAreaMaterialStagingArea
DNDNBBGBCBGGAAAAFDEFEDBGBAADDFFDDDEAAAAADADDDDFDD100' - 0"100' - 0"100' - 0"100' - 0"2/8/2021 8:16:28 PMC:\REVIT LOCAL\70700_900King_Arch_2019_reduced footprint_m.taubin.rvt1 Date 1 Revision 1Phase 7 - Site RestorationDNDNBBGBCBGGAAAAFDEFEDBGBAADDFFDDDEAAAAADADDDDFD100'- 0"100'-0"100' -0"
Environmental, Planning, and Engineering Consultants
440 Park Avenue South
7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
tel: 212 696-0670
fax: 212 213-3191
www.akrf.com
Offices in New York ● New Jersey ● Pennsylvania ● Maryland ● Connecticut
May 24, 2021
Peter S. Duncan
900 King Street Owner, LLC
200 Madison Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Re: 900 King Street Redevelopment – Rye Brook, New York
Construction Noise Barrier Efficacy Assessment Report
Dear Mr. Duncan:
AKRF has completed an acoustical analysis to evaluate an alternative configuration of construction site
noise barriers at the 900 King Street redevelopment site in the Village of Rye Brook, New York, which
were specified as a result of a construction noise analysis included in the project’s Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The FEIS included conservative spreadsheet estimates of noise levels during construction of the project at
noise receptors surrounding the site. The FEIS construction noise analysis included the assumption of a
noise barrier along the south side of the Project Site on Arbor Drive between the Main Site entrance and
the southern site boundary, but found that noise levels would still potentially exceed applicable noise impact
criteria at surrounding receptors. The Village’s Environmental Findings Statement (EFS) included a
requirement for the erection of noise barriers along the east and west side (i.e., along the Arbors and Village
Halls portions, respectively) of the Project Site in addition to implementation of the Applicant’s
commitment to install a 12-foot noise barrier along Arbor Drive across from Blind Brook High School. The
EFS stated that, “details on all three noise barriers to be constructed, including proposed wall height, should
be provided for review and approval during PUD Site Plan review prior to mobilization and coordinated
with the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant.” The EFS went on to say, “alternative noise mitigation
measures that achieve the same level of mitigation may be explored by the Village Board during detailed
PUD Site Plan review.”
Subsequent to the issuance of the EFS, additional information about construction logistics has become
available, and a more refined analysis of construction noise has been conducted based on 3D computerized
noise models. Noise levels at noise receptors identified in the FEIS were determined during five (5)
representative time periods over the course of construction with both a 12-foot barrier around three sides
of the Project Site and a configuration that included a 12-foot barrier along Arbor Drive and no barrier
along the east and west sides of the Project Site. Phases occurring for less than 3 months each and during
which fewer pieces of equipment would be operating (i.e., Phases 2 and 7) were excluded from the refined
analysis.
900 King Street Owner LLC 2 May 24, 2021
The purpose of the refined analysis is not to alter the FEIS construction noise analysis conclusions or the
areas at which the FEIS found the potential for construction noise impacts. Rather the refined analysis is
specifically intended to determine the amount to which the additional barriers required by the EFS (i.e., the
east and west side barriers) would reduce construction noise levels at nearby receptors as compared to a
barrier only along the south side of the Project Site. While the noise levels predicted by the refined analysis
are generally consistent with those predicted by the FEIS construction noise analysis, the conclusions of
the refined analysis are not based on the total projected noise levels but rather the difference between
projected noise levels in each of the two barrier configurations. This difference represents the additional
benefit provided by the east and west side barriers.
The refined analysis indicated that a 12-foot barrier along the east and west sides of the Project Site would
provide minimal or no additional noise reduction compared to a barrier only along the south side (i.e., along
Arbor Drive). Based on this analysis, and in accordance with the EFS, the Applicant proposes to erect and
maintain a 12-foot plywood barrier along the Project Site’s Arbor Drive frontage and a 6-foot plywood
barrier along the east and west sides of the Project Site (see attached figure).
ACOUSTICAL FUNDAMENTALS
Oscillatory fluctuation in air pressure is referred to as sound or airborne sound. Sound pressure levels are
measured in units called “decibels” (“dB”). Unwanted sound is typically referred to as noise. In order to
establish a uniform noise measurement that simulates people’s perception of loudness and annoyance, the
decibel measurement is weighted to account for those frequencies most audible to the human ear. This is
known as the A-weighted sound level, or “dBA,” and it is the descriptor of noise levels most often used for
community noise. Because the dBA sound pressure level unit describes a noise level at just one moment,
and very few noises are constant, other ways of describing noise that fluctuates over extended periods have
been developed. One way is to describe the fluctuating sound heard over a specific time period as if it had
been a steady, unchanging sound. For this condition, a descriptor called the “equivalent sound level,” Leq,
can be computed. Leq is the constant sound level that, in a given situation and time period (e.g., 1 hour,
denoted by Leq(1)), conveys the same sound energy as the actual time-varying sound. Statistical sound level
descriptors such as L1, L10, L50, L90, and Lx, are used to indicate noise levels that are exceeded 1, 10, 50, 90,
and x percent of the time, respectively.
Attenuation of sound refers to the reduction in the level of sound. Attenuation of airborne sound can occur
over distance from the sound source or can occur when sound is transmitted through/around an obstacle.
Estimates of façade attenuation (i.e., the reduction in sound level between the exterior of a building and the
interior) in this report are quantified in dBA.
NOISE LEVEL EVALUATION CRITERIA
Typically, for evaluations of environmental noise, Leq(1) is the descriptor used to evaluate changes in noise
level as they will be perceived by people experiencing noise. A change in Leq(1) of up to 3 dBA would be
considered barely perceptible. A change of 5 dBA would be considered readily noticeable. A change of 10
dBA represents sound being a perceived as twice as loud, and a change approaching 20 dBA would
represent a perceived quadrupling of apparent loudness. While responses to changes in noise level vary
somewhat from individual to individual, the above relationships are used to describe the expected general
perception of noise as compared to the existing conditions.
As with the FEIS construction noise assessment, increases in ambient Leq(1) noise levels at receptor sites of
more than 6.0 dBA resulting in total levels of more than 65 dBA over a prolonged period of time would be
considered significant. These criteria are consistent with New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) guidance for evaluation of noise impacts.
900 King Street Owner LLC 3 May 24, 2021
PROCEDURE OVERVIEW
CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL
Noise effects from construction activities were evaluated using the Computer Aided Noise Abatement
(“CadnaA”) model, a computerized model developed by DataKustik for noise prediction and assessment.
The model can be used for the analysis of a wide variety of noise sources, including stationary sources (e.g.,
construction equipment, industrial equipment, power generation equipment), transportation sources (e.g.,
roads, highways, railroad lines, busways, airports), and other specialized sources (e.g., sporting facilities).
The model takes into account the reference sound pressure levels of the noise sources at 50 feet, attenuation
with distance, ground contours, reflections from barriers and structures, attenuation due to shielding, etc.
The CadnaA model is based on the acoustic propagation standards promulgated in International Standard
ISO 9613-2. This standard is currently under review for adoption by the American National Standards
Institute (“ANSI”) as an American Standard. The CadnaA model is a state-of-the-art tool for noise analysis
and is approved for construction noise level prediction by the CEQR Technical Manual.
Geographic input data used with the CadnaA model included site work areas, adjacent building footprints
and heights, locations of streets, and locations of sensitive receptors. For each analysis period, the
approximate geographic location and operational characteristics—including equipment usage rates
(percentage of time operating at full power) for each piece of construction equipment operating at the
proposed development site, as well as noise control measures—were input to the model. Construction trucks
were included in the model for internal roads as well as roadways leading to the site. Construction worker
autos were not modeled as they are not expected to be on the roads during worst-case construction activity
and would not be traveling within the site simultaneously with the construction work. Delivery trucks were
not modeled as stationary sources as they are required not to idle engines during unloading operations. Pile
Driving (impact and vibratory), blasting, jack hammering, and rock crushing activities are not permitted
absent further review by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant and were therefore not included in
the analysis.
Construction equipment source strength was determined by the Lmax levels presented in Table 1 of the
Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) User’s Guide.
DETERMINATION OF NON-CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
As in the FEIS analysis, noise generated by construction activities (calculated using the CadnaA model as
described above) were added to baseline (i.e., non-construction) noise levels, including noise generated by
non-construction traffic on adjacent roadways, to determine the total noise levels at each receptor location.
The FEIS included measurements of baseline noise levels at locations representing the nearby noise
receptors.
GENERAL PROCEDURE
AKRF’s procedure for evaluation of construction noise barrier configurations included the following:
Obtain the most recent detailed construction schedule, means and methods, equipment lists, and
logistics diagrams;
Create a 3D model of construction-generated noise by construction phase;
Analyze predicted construction noise levels at sensitive noise receptors identified in the FEIS under
two noise barrier configurations; and
Evaluate and compare effectiveness of noise reduction between the two noise barrier configurations
and against the FEIS and the Village’s EFS commitments.
NOISE RECEPTOR SITES
Receptors identified in the FEIS as having the most potential to experience construction noise impacts were
selected for the construction noise barrier analysis. These receptors are located adjacent to the Project Site
900 King Street Owner LLC 4 May 24, 2021
and planned areas of activity. At some buildings, multiple façades were analyzed as receptors. At multi-
floor buildings, noise receptors at multiple elevations were analyzed.
RESULTS
Using the methodology previously described, construction noise levels with two separate barrier conditions
were calculated for each of the receptor sites in each of the selected analysis periods. These results as well
as the estimated FEIS noise levels are in Tables 1 through 5 below:
Table 1
Estimated Maximum Noise Levels during Demolition (in dBA)
Location
Previously Reported Post-FEIS CadnaA Analysis
Existing
Leq
FEIS Estimate of
Maximum
Construction Leq
Arbor Drive Barrier Only
(same configuration as
FEIS)
Arbors, Village Hall, and
Arbor Drive Barrier
Condition
Maximum
Leq
Range of
Increments
from Existing
Maximum
Leq
Range of
Reductions
from Add’l
Barriers
Arbor Condos 58.1 70.1 64.7 3.3 to 6.6 63.4 0.1 to 1.8
Blind Brook High School 59.0 61.5 64.6 1.6 to 5.6 64.6 0.0
Harkness Tennis Court 70.0 72.3 70.2 0.2 70.2 0.0
Rye Brook Village Police
Department and Village
of Rye Brook Hall
70.0 79.0 73.1 0.4 to 3.1 70.8 0.1 to 2.7
Rye Brook Firehouse 70.0 79.0 71.1 0.6 to 1.1 70.8 0.2 to 0.7
King Street Residences 68.7 72.7 70.1 0.1 to 1.4 69.4 0.0 to 0.7
Table 2
Estimated Maximum Noise Levels during Assisted Living Construction (in dBA)
Location
Previously Reported Post-FEIS CadnaA Analysis
Existing
Leq
FEIS Estimate of
Maximum
Construction Leq
Arbor Drive Barrier Only
(same configuration as
FEIS)
Arbors, Village Hall, and
Arbor Drive Barrier
Condition
Maximum
Leq
Range of
Increments
from Existing
Maximum
Leq
Range of
Reductions
from Add’l
Barriers
Arbor Condos 58.1 62.9 61.3 0.9 to 3.2 61.3 0.0 to 0.2
Blind Brook High School 59.0 61.5 61.7 0.6 to 2.7 61.7 0.0
Harkness Tennis Court 70.0 71.2 70.1 0.1 70.1 0.0
Rye Brook Village Police
Department and Village
of Rye Brook Hall
70.0 81.8 72.8 1.4 to 2.8 72.3 0.4 to 2.1
Rye Brook Firehouse 70.0 81.8 71.4 0.5 to 1.4 71.4 0.0 to 0.1
King Street Residences 68.7 74.4 70.5 0.3 to 1.8 70.5 0.0 to 0.1
900 King Street Owner LLC 5 May 24, 2021
Table 3
Estimated Maximum Noise Levels during Independent Living Construction (in dBA)
Location
Previously Reported Post-FEIS CadnaA Analysis
Existing
Leq
FEIS Estimate of
Maximum
Construction Leq
Arbor Drive Barrier Only
(same configuration as
FEIS)
Arbors, Village Hall, and
Arbor Drive Barrier
Condition
Maximum
Leq
Range of
Increments
from Existing
Maximum
Leq
Range of
Reductions
from Add’l
Barriers
Arbor Condos 58.1 67.1 61.0 0.8 to 2.9 60.8 0.0 to 0.6
Blind Brook High School 59.0 67.3 61.5 0.6 to 2.5 61.5 0.0
Harkness Tennis Court 70.0 71.8 70.1 0.1 70.1 0.0
Rye Brook Village Police
Department and Village
of Rye Brook Hall
70.0 75.0 70.4 0.2 to 0.4 70.4 0.0 to 0.2
Rye Brook Firehouse 70.0 75.0 70.1 0.0 to 0.1 70.1 0.0
King Street Residences 68.7 71.5 68.8 0.0 to 0.1 68.8 0.0
Table 4
Estimated Maximum Noise Levels during Independent Living South Wings Construction
(in dBA)
Location
Previously Reported Post-FEIS CadnaA Analysis
Existing
Leq
FEIS Estimate of
Maximum
Construction Leq
Arbor Drive Barrier Only
(same configuration as
FEIS)
Arbors, Village Hall, and
Arbor Drive Barrier
Condition
Maximum
Leq
Range of
Increments
from Existing
Maximum
Leq
Range of
Reductions
from Add’l
Barriers
Arbor Condos 58.1 67.3 62.7 1.8 to 4.6 62.7 0.0 to 0.7
Blind Brook High School 59.0 65.3 65.3 2.4 to 6.3 65.3 0.0
Harkness Tennis Court 70.0 73.1 70.3 0.3 70.3 0.0
Rye Brook Village Police
Department and Village
of Rye Brook Hall
70.0 72.9 70.6 0.2 to 0.6 70.6 0.0 to 0.1
Rye Brook Firehouse 70.0 72.9 70.2 0.0 to 0.2 70.2 0.0
King Street Residences 68.7 70.5 68.8 0.0 to 0.1 68.8 0.0
900 King Street Owner LLC 6 May 24, 2021
Table 5
Estimated Maximum Noise Levels during Townhouses Construction (in dBA)
Location
Previously Reported Post-FEIS CadnaA Analysis
Existing
Leq
FEIS Estimate of
Maximum
Construction Leq
Arbor Drive Barrier Only
(same configuration as
FEIS)
Arbors, Village Hall, and
Arbor Drive Barrier
Condition
Maximum
Leq
Range of
Increments
from Existing
Maximum
Leq
Range of
Reductions
from Add’l
Barriers
Arbor Condos 58.1 67.3 67.5 4.5 to 9.4 66.6 0.0 to 1.4
Blind Brook High School 59.0 70.6 66.5 2.4 to 7.5 66.5 0.0
Harkness Tennis Court 70.0 70.5 70.1 0.1 70.1 0.0
Rye Brook Village Police
Department and Village
of Rye Brook Hall
70.0 70.2 70.1 0.1 70.1 0.0 to 0.1
Rye Brook Firehouse 70.0 70.2 70.1 0.0 to 0.1 70.1 0.0
King Street Residences 68.7 68.9 68.8 0.0 to 0.1 68.8 0.0
The noise levels calculated in the analysis described above under either barrier configuration are
comparable or less than what was originally predicted in the FEIS. Where noise levels in this analysis
deviate from those projected in the FEIS analysis, changes are due to refined schedule and logistics as well
as more refined predictions of noise emissions from the equipment using the 3D noise model.
As shown in the above tables, the calculated additional noise reduction from utilizing barriers along the
Arbors, Village Hall, and Arbor Drive portions of the Project Site as compared to a sole barrier along Arbor
Drive would most often be zero and would be less than 3 dBA at most. Such differences would be
considered minimal to negligible. 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. Most equipment would operate farther from the barrier for a majority of
the construction period. Consequently, the benefit of the barrier is reduced as the distances between source
and barrier or receptor and barrier increase. Additionally, benefit from utilizing barriers is minimized in
part due to existing characteristics of the area, including topography, which sets construction noise sources
at a higher elevation thereby reducing the effective height of surrounding barriers, as well as moderate to
high existing noise levels at some nearby noise receptors.
Attached to this report are noise level contour maps showing the difference in construction-generated Leq
between the two barrier configurations during the four major construction phases. In these maps, warmer
colors indicate areas where the barriers along The Arbors and Village Hall portions of the Project Site
boundary provide greater noise control. As would be expected, the greatest differences are shown just
outside the barriers, or “in the shadow” of the barriers. Inside the barriers, there is no difference shown (i.e.,
green) since the change in barrier configuration doesn’t affect noise levels inside the barriers. Additionally,
at receptors located at considerable distance outside the barriers (e.g., the Arbors), there is also little or no
difference between the two proposed barrier configurations, because they are located sufficiently far away
from the construction noise sources that the shielding provided by the barriers do not provide much
additional reduction in noise level. These maps show, consistent with Tables 1 through 5, that the barriers
along the Arbors and Village Hall sides of the property do not provide substantial benefit at the nearby
receptors.
900 King Street Owner LLC 7 May 24, 2021
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
A. “Illustrative Noise Barrier Configuration.” Figure showing proposed construction noise barrier
configuration
B. “Noise Barrier Contour Maps.” Contour maps of difference in noise levels with and without noise
barriers on north and south site perimeters during each construction phase.
C. “Spreadsheet of noise modeling results”
D. “Direct output tables from CadnaA noise model”
E. Appendix J, “Construction Noise,” of the FEIS
F. “Equipment Library.” Table of noise emission level for each piece of construction information
This concludes our comments at this time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
ecohen@akrf.com or (646) 388-9770.
Sincerely,
AKRF, Inc.
Libby Cohen
Acoustical Consultant
Daniel Abatemarco
Vice President – Acoustics, Noise, and Vibration
cc: Peter Feroe / AKRF, Inc.