HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-5-13 900 King Street Rosemary A. Schlank LetterROSEMARY A. SCHLANK
9 Bayberry Lane
Rye Brook, NY 10573
(914) 939-9273
RSchlank@ix.netcom.com
May 13, 2025
Mayor Klein and Members of the Village Board of Trustees
Village of Rye Brook Offices
938 King Street
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Dear Mayor Klein and Trustees,
Re: SEQRA Amended Findings Statement – 900 King Street
The draft resolution for the Amended Findings Statement for the 900 King Street site
indicates the Village has considered the environmental impacts associated with the changes
proposed for the project, and the Board has determined that no supplemental EIS
statement is required solely due to those changes. The purpose of this letter is to highlight
some of the concerns that arise from other aspects of a SEQRA review, including the
consideration of any significant adverse impacts that may result from: (a) newly discovered
information, or (b) a change in circumstances related to the project (6 CRR-NY 617.9).
The potential adverse impacts and ways to help mitigate them
As mentioned in the attached letter to the Planning Board, several questions and concerns
have arisen as a result of new information and changes in circumstances. The potential
adverse impacts are important to me as a taxpayer and property owner in the Arbors, but
they do not seem like “show-stoppers.” It seems likely they could be addressed by changes
in the approval conditions or construction management plan and/or separate agreements
with neighboring property owners.
Here are the concerns and possible ways to mitigate any adverse impacts.
1. Changes related to clean energy. New York state has been issuing new laws and
regulations to help promote clean energy. The regulations include the “All-Electric
Building Act” that takes effect for new buildings as of the end of this year. Specific
guidance for the state’s building and energy codes has not yet been finalized, and it
is not yet clear if the 900 King Street site (or a portion of it) might qualify for an
exception. But, for now, the current plans for 900 King Street seem to rely on fossil
fuels like natural gas connections. Any subsequent effort to make the development
electrification-ready and/or more affordable for the residents could affect the
appearance of the site in a manner that is inconsistent with the character of the
community – and this is key area of concern in a SEQRA review.
Rosemary Schlank
SEQRA Amended Findings, 900 King Street, page 2
As a resident of the Arbors, I drive past the 900 King Street site constantly on my
way in and out of Arbor Drive. I would not want to see outdoor heat pumps, above-
ground transformers, overhead wires, or solar panels hung from the balconies on the
independent living building in the future as part of subsequent attempts to make the
development electrification-ready and/or more affordable for the residents.
Perhaps this concern could be addressed as part of the site plan conditions.
2. Reductions in availability of parking spaces for abutting properties. The
state’s push toward clean energy has also increased the need for electric-vehicle
charging stations, and the installation of these stations in the Arbors has reduced the
already-limited number of parking spaces available for townhouses that have two or
more vehicles but no garage. This parking shortage will become even more acute if
and when overflow parking spaces are no longer available at 900 King Street.
Decades ago, the commercial office building and residences were combined into one
PUD as complementary land-uses. Toward that end, the owners of the 900 King St.
site worked cooperatively with the Arbors and the nearby school to provide overflow
parking spaces for Blind Brook students and Arbors homeowners. For the Arbors, the
additional parking space is especially helpful when large trucks need a place to park.
Currently, there are no parking areas in the Arbors that can accommodate large
trucks that take up multiple standard-sized parking spaces. As a temporary measure,
the school district has allowed the homeowners to use a portion of its land for
parking. But it is not inconceivable this may change in the future since the school will
also face potential parking shortages soon. The shortages will be most critical when
the roads and parking areas in the Arbors need to be repaved. This will likely occur
soon after the completion of construction at 900 King Street.
Perhaps this concern could be addressed by: (a) reducing the number of “land-
banked” spaces on the 900 King Street site plan and paving them sooner rather than
later, and (b) encouraging the owner/contract-vendee to negotiate agreements with
the Arbors homeowners and the school district that will permit continued overflow
parking at the 900 King Street site.
3. Increases in residences and traffic along the NY/CT border. The proposed
changes to the 900 King Street site plan will not add more traffic than the prior site
plan. But it is the cumulative effect that matters in a SEQRA review. There have been
many new residential developments added along the NY/CT border in recent years,
and major construction projects in this area are underway now. Here are a few that
come to mind quickly:
CT/ North Castle
Plans to build 198 residential units at the Greenwich American Center off
upper King Street.
Rosemary Schlank
SEQRA Amended Findings, 900 King Street, page 3
Port Chester
United Hospital site off the Boston Post Road in Port Chester, 775 multi-family
residential units, a 120-room hotel and retail space, 90 independent-living
apartments and 110 assisted living and memory care units.
163-175 North Main St., Tarry Lighthouse development, a six story, 209-unit
apartment building plus retail.
30 Broad Street, a nine-story building with 36 residential units, plus a brew
pub and 4,000 square feet of office space.
108 S. Main St., The Magellan, 95 loft-style rental apartments plus work
suites, roof-top lounge, rooftop fitness center, and outdoor recreation area.
1 North Main St., The Port and Main building, a 79-unit apartment building,
plus fitness center and outdoor recreation space.
140-150 Westchester Ave., plans for a large new 12-story building with 223
residential units across from The Capitol Theatre.
When reviewing the traffic impact, a new senior housing facility at 900 King Street
could turn out to be “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” Or it could be
manageable with minor changes in roadways and traffic signals. Perhaps this concern
is best addressed with an updated traffic impact study like the one requested by the
New York State Department of Transportation.
4. Increases in retirement communities and adult living facilities near Rye
Brook. A long-standing concern about the redevelopment of the 900 King Street
office building into a senior housing complex has always been with the sustainability
of the project in the face of strong competition and a changing marketplace. The
concern is with the limited options that may be available in the hopefully unlikely
event that the market demand is less than expected, and the complex is forced out
of business sometime in the future.
This concern is reinforced by the recent increases in other retirement communities
near Rye Brook. In addition to the assisted living and memory care facilities to be
built at the former United Hospital site, we are hearing that the former nursing home
at 1188 King Street may soon become an assisted living facility with one-and two-
bedroom residences and private outdoor recreation areas. Additionally, Broadview at
Purchase College is accepting applications now for its assisted living, enhanced
assisted living, and memory care center. And the Osborn in Rye is working on
updating its applicable zoning before expanding and upgrading its facilities.
Perhaps this concern could best be addressed by asking the applicant to submit an
updated market study. The applicant probably has already compiled all the
information. And, if the Board of Trustees does not request a market study in
connection with its SEQRA review, the Westchester County IDA might request one
anyway in connection with a PILOT application.
Rosemary Schlank
SEQRA Amended Findings, 900 King Street, page 4
5. New information about noise levels in the Arbors. The prior site plan
application contained a construction management plan that included a “construction
period noise mitigation plan.” New information has come to light since that plan was
approved. Our local airport allowed us to use one of its portable noise monitors to
establish a baseline for the total noise level in the Arbors. The findings show that the
total noise level is already very high. This is not necessarily due solely to occasional
aircraft noises. It is a cumulative measure of all the noises. If the construction noise
from 900 King Street were to push the total noise level even higher, that would be
similar in some ways to any incremental traffic that might be “the straw that broke
the camel’s back.” The solution would not necessarily involve stopping either the
construction or the aircraft. Instead, it might involve stopping another source of
noise, such as the noise from the nearby athletic fields or the gas-powered
landscaping equipment used in the Arbors. We would have no way of finding the best
solution without a noise monitor like the airport’s portable monitor and someone
from the Village who would be willing to investigate and resolve noise complaints.
Perhaps this concern might best be addressed through a minor update of the
construction management plan.
I am a little confused by the approval process for the proposed changes to the 900 King
Street site. But I hope the above concerns will be addressed at some point in the review
process – either in a supplemental EIS statement or as part of the Planning Board’s review.
Thank you for listening to the concerns.
Yours truly,
Rosemary Schlank
c: Chris Bradbury, Village Administrator
Attachment: Letter to Planning Board for 900 King Street hearing
Rosemary Schlank
Amended Site Plan Application for 900 King Street, page 2
2. Are any changes needed to the previously submitted “Construction
Management Plan?” The 2021 amended site plan application included the
attached Construction Management Plan. This plan is especially important to
me as an individual property owner in the Arbors. Since the section on the
“Construction period noise mitigation plan” was originally drafted, our local
airport has allowed us to use one of its portable noise monitors to establish a
baseline for the total noise level in the Arbors. The findings show that the
total noise level is already very high. This is not necessarily due solely to
occasional aircraft noises, which the monitor reports separately. It is due to
the combination of the aircraft noises with the noises from other sources that
are also measured by the monitor. These sources include road traffic, gas-
powered landscaping equipment, and the nearby school and athletic fields.
The findings show the importance of monitoring and measuring the total
noise level in the Arbors. It is not inconceivable that the incremental noise
from demolition or construction could make the total noise level intolerable if
appropriate noise-monitoring equipment and controls are not put in place
before the start of the demolition and construction activities.
3. Would any changes in the plans help to address the traffic impacts
and parking shortages caused by other recent developments? The
many recently approved redevelopments of land in other nearby areas will
result in increased traffic, and the push toward clean energy combined with
the split-up of the Arbors/900 King Street PUD will result in severe parking
shortages. For decades, the owners of townhouses in the Arbors have relied
on the ample parking spaces in the 900 King Street office complex for
overflow parking. Examples:
- Each townhouse without a garage is sold with an exclusive easement
for one parking space. If the residents of the townhouse have two cars
- which is fairly typical, - then the second car must use one of a small
number of shared parking spaces. The owners of the second cars have
always shared their spaces with visitors because there are no spaces
reserved exclusively for visitors. The major change in recent years is
that some of the shared spaces have been converted to EV-charging
stations, which creates a parking shortage for townhouses with two
cars. Additionally, if a townhouse had 3 cars in prior years, the third
car was required to be parked at 900 King Street, and this option will
likely no longer be available which will add to the parking shortage.
Rosemary Schlank
Amended Site Plan Application for 900 King Street, page 3
- As an interim solution, the nearby school has provided some parking
spaces for the occupants of the townhouses. But the school has always
relied on the 900 King Street site for overflow parking too. And it is
not inconceivable that the school district may soon need to take back
the spaces made available to the Arbors homeowners, so these spaces
can be used for the school’s students, teachers, and visitors. This will
make the parking shortage even more severe at a time when the
Arbors HOA is planning to repave the roadways in the Arbors.
- In prior years, the townhouse owners were permitted to park in the
900 King Street lot when our roads were being repaved. Soon, this
option will likely no longer be available and the townhouse owners will
have no place to park that is within walking distance while the roads
are being repaved.
Additionally, there are questions about the impacts on the SEQR findings of: (a) the
increased supply of senior housing facilities in the area, and (b) the changes in the
corporate ownership of the applicant, (i.e., the current applicant is now owned by a
Canadian pension fund, and there are uncertainties about the effects of the changes
in tariffs and taxes that are being introduced by the Trump administration).
I apologize for submitting this letter at the last minute, but I have been confused
about the process and the purpose of today’s public hearing. If possible, could you
please take a few minutes this evening to explain the process for addressing the
types of questions described in this letter?
Yours truly,
Rosemary Schlank
c: Chris Bradbury, Village Administrator
Dan Barnett, Arbors HOA President
Attachment: Construction Management Plan
900 King Street Site Plan Application: Construction Management Plan
DRAFT 1 07/23/2021
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
07/23/2021 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 07/23/2021
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 designate a single
point of contact (whose contact information shall be shared with the Village and the Arbors)
who shall be responsible to monitor the condition of Arbor Drive and make repairs as warranted
and appropriate, as determined by the Village. At the conclusion of construction, the Applicant
shall resurface Arbor Drive from King Street to the southwest corner of the Project Site.
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
07/23/2021 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 07/23/2021
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
07/23/2021 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.
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 07/23/2021
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 install a “faux ivy,” or similar three dimensional
product, covering on the exterior of the noise 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
various data, including construction equipment, location, noise emissions and
duration of use, was also input.1
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
900 King Street Site Plan Application
07/23/2021 8 DRAFT
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;
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;
Pile driving, jack hammering, blasting, and rock crushing shall not be permitted absent
further review by the Village.
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 07/23/2021
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.