July 22, 2016

Matthew A. Beaton, Secretary Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs c/o Office of Coastal Zone Management 251 Causeway Street, Suite 800 , MA 02114 ATTN: Lisa Engler

Re: Waterfront MHP Amendment / 150 Seaport Blvd

Dear Secretary Beaton:

I am writing you today to register my concerns with respect to the SBW MHP Amendment:

• impacts onsite at 150 Seaport Blvd; • flawed public process drafting the SBW MHP Amendment • detrimental precedents set by the SBW MHP Amendment • low bar for offsets and benefits under Chapter 91 districtwide • routine undervaluation of privately owned tideland parcels with respect to projects undergoing approval

South Boston Waterfront landowners have been graced with billions of dollars in state and federal investment:

Boston Harbor Cleanup CA/Tunnel Ramps in Seaport MBTA Tunnel and Silver Line BCEC Moakley Courthouse Moakley Bridge

Value capture was and remains a primary responsibility of the Boston Redevelopment Authority. As evidenced in the following pages, public access and civic/cultural accommodation objectives of the Seaport Public Realm Plan and South Boston Municipal Harbor Plan are not being met, largely as a result of a systemic failure in the BRA’s planning, enforcement, zoning and public approval process.

Best regards,

Steve Hollinger 26-Year Resident 21 Wormwood St. #215 South Boston, MA 02210

Cc: Ms. Lisa Engler, CZM Mr. Ben Lynch, DEP Senator Linda Dorcena Forry Representative Nick Collins Mayor Marty Walsh City Councillors Michelle Wu, Ayanna Pressley and Bill Linehan Mssrs. Rich McGuinness, Chris Busch, Erikk Hokenson, BRA Mr. Jim Canales, Barr Foundation Ms. Sara McCammond, FPNA Community Representative Ms. Julie Wormser, Boston Harbor Now Ms. Deanna Moran, CLF Ms. Emily O’Neill, FPAC

ONSITE INTERIOR CIVIC SPACE UNDER SBW MHP AMENDMENT ISSUE: ECONOMIC CLASS SEGREGATION IN BOSTON’S

I attended two (2) SBW MHP Amendment Advisory Committee meetings and I wrote two (2) comment letters.

In both oral testimony and written comments, I asked the Boston Redevelopment Authority to consider carving a 2,500 square foot interior public civic/cultural space from the 10,700 square foot restaurant planned at 150 Seaport Blvd.

Proposed by BRA/Proponent at 150 Seaport:

10,700 SF commercial FPA, ground floor and 2nd floor

My proposal onsite at 150 Seaport:

8,200 sf commercial FPA, ground floor and 2nd floor 2,500 sf public civic/cultural FPA, ground floor

No action was taken by the BRA in response to my oral and written requests. More details are provided in the “Process” section of this letter.

Background and rationale for a 2,500 sf Civic Space at 150 Seaport Blvd

The Boston Redevelopment Authority’s inattention to fundamental civic needs in Fort Point and larger Seaport District has fostered an environment that is increasingly unwelcoming to visitors of all economic classes incapable of patronizing commercial establishments.

This failure to recognize the needs of citizens of limited means to afford commercial establishments has been compounded by the BRA’s support for the off-siting of affordable housing – including affordable housing proposed by 150 Seaport Blvd.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority seems to have adopted a view that waterfront visitors of lower and middle economic classes will enjoy scheduled invitations to private spaces such as a by-invitation-only Vertex classroom or a cavernous “family boat building workshop” operated by a tenant handpicked by a project’s developer. Lower income residents have to be explicitly invited the district for special events at privately owned facilities such as the Childrens Museum or ICA.

The South Boston Waterfront has seen over fifty large commercial projects built and approved in the 21st century. To date, not one significant civic facility (school, library, community center, etc) has been planned or built as a year-round destination for those who can’t afford to patronize commercial establishments.

2 FAILURE TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC REALM SUITED FOR PEDESTRIANS

The Boston Redevelopment Authority has ceded the entire ground floor design to suit the needs of a 10,700 sf restaurant enclave situated at the rear of the project (facing the Harbor).

The front façade of the project along Seaport Boulevard — the primary way for pedestrians walking between Liberty Wharf and Fan Pier — is devoid of active, attractive uses. Two garage bays and a loading dock front Seaport Boulevard, with truck cabs parking over public sidewalks.

3 FAILURE TO DELINEATE PUBLIC VS. PRIVATIZED AREAS OF HARBORWALK

The BRA is touting a 26-foot wide Harborwalk adjacent to the restaurant space as a significant public benefit onsite.

At two SBW MHP Advisory Committee meetings that I attended, I asked the BRA to differentiate between public space on the Harborwalk and space on the Harborwalk that could be permitted for exclusive use as a commercial patio by the ground floor restaurant.

No action was taken by the BRA in response to this request for delineation of public vs. private Harborwalk areas.

It is my belief that while refusing to delineate permanent public portions of the Harborwalk from potential private portions of the Harborwalk, the BRA was fully aware that a commercial patio adjacent to the restaurant would be sought at a later date for permitting by the proponent.

4 FAILURE TO REASONABLY ASSESS VALUE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES

Value of air rights over publicly owned sidewalks were not contemplated in BRA’s proposed SBW MHP Amendment.

Rights to public parcels on land and within Boston Harbor are being amassed and contributed to the project by the City of Boston, Massport et. al.

The public interest in these properties and/or rights were not assessed in the MHP or compensated for in the Chapter 91 project benefit package.

5 FAILURE TO ASSESS OFFSITE OPEN SPACE BENEFITS COMMENSURATE WITH PROJECT

In my view, the park to honor Martin Richard at Childrens Wharf is an extraordinary initiative, and wholeheartedly supported.

As I understand, an estimate of the park’s cost is $7.5 million.

A $1.5 million contribution to the park as proposed as a project benefit in the SBW MHP is arbitrary and insignificant relative to the scope of the luxury 150 Seaport condo project made possible under the MHP.

For context with respect to a project of the scale of 150 Seaport and a $1.5M contribution, consider:

Seaport lots acquired at $9 million per acre, once BRA-approved for Class A office space or a luxury tower, have routinely flipped to developers for $23 to $26 million per acre. The recently completed PwC office tower sold for over $400 million.

For the BRA to negotiate a payment of $1.5 million towards Martin Richard Park during approval of a project of this scale is an abrogation of responsibility to the public trust.

This is the type of disappointing BRA horsetrading (outside of public process) that has left the Seaport with commercial buildings shaped like boxes hulking over an array of inordinately bland and anemic public accommodations ranging from plain, manicured lawns to cobwebbed and desolated interior spaces.

6 FAILURE TO REASONABLY ASSESS PROPOSED OFFSITE CIVIC/CULTURAL BENEFITS COMMENSURATE WITH PROJECT

Following my testimony and written request for a 2,500 sf civic/cultural space at 150 Seaport Blvd, the BRA returned to the next Advisory Committee meeting with a presentation suggesting that the BRA had been working with the Fort Point Arts Community (FPAC) to secure funds from 150 Seaport Blvd benefit package necessary to complete a fit-out of FPAC’s 1,200 sf space at the Envoy Hotel.

As I understand, the estimated value of the stated benefit arriving from 150 Seaport is $100k - $200K. This amount is arbitrary and insignificant relative to the scope of the 150 Seaport condo project made possible under the MHP. More importantly, the anticipated contribution to FPAC is insignificant relative to the benefit of a useful civic/cultural space onsite at 150 Seaport.

A slide presented by the BRA to MHP Advisory Committee members announcing FPAC’s Envoy fit-out as a key benefit of the 150 Seaport project inferred that FPAC had already been on board with the BRA, fully engaged and supportive of the 150 Seaport process. There is no public letter or attendance record indicating engagement of FPAC in SBW MHP Amendment process or 150 Seaport approvals.

Few citizens including this commenter understand the pathetic reality of how the BRA approaches its responsibility to offsite benefits. I have too much respect for FPAC to be critical of this organization, and I am aware of pressing needs at the Envoy. But suffice it to say that no FPAC members attended the MHP Advisory Committee hearing when FPAC was announced as a beneficiary. Perhaps EEA/DEP can ask the BRA for an accounting of the process leading up to and Advisory Committee hearing presenting FPAC as a collaborator in the SBW MHP process and approvals 150 Seaport Blvd.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING MUNICIPAL HARBOR PLAN

The BRA’s mismanagement of civic/cultural accommodations Seaport-wide continues to violate EOEA Secretary Robert Durand’s demand in the Municipal Harbor Plan decision (p. 31) calling on the BRA to form an advisory body representing cultural interests “citywide.”

To the BRA, everything is simply a matter of internal horsetrading sufficient to either win support of a necessary constituency or to maximize public support through some type of inflated announcement. Nearly every civic/cultural accommodation made under Chapter 91 since the ICA has been subpar. Even the most recent high bar, in which Society of Arts will take space at 100 Pier 4, provides a remnant space with low ceilings and columns.

See the final page herein for an instructive list of how the BRA manages FPAs.

7 FAILURE TO CONSIDER MASSING APPROPRIATE FOR SITE

A 22’ gap between 150 Seaport and existing 100 Pier 4 should have been a red flag for any planning agency.

But to the BRA, it was entirely acceptable for the existing 100 Pier 4 residential apartment windows to face 150 Seaport at a distance of 22’.

The 22’ gap between buildings also results in the narrowing of a direct connection between the Harborwalk and Seaport Blvd.

The BRA justified a massing with this 22’ gap on the rationale that the existing 2- story Whiskey Priest structure was already this distance apart from 100 Pier 4. The BRA pushed back on Advisory Committee members questioning this rationale applying to two towers with a 22’ gap as opposed to a 2-story structure with a 22’ gap.

8 As shown below, a widened gap between buildings would have allowed the Harborwalk to continue without narrowing to an uninviting alley. A widened gap would also have potentially allowed alley access to the garage instead of the proposed garage access on the front façade of the building.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority was unwilling to consider proposed changes to massing to support these types of alternatives.

9 FAILURE OF PUBLIC PROCESS

I wrote a comment letter to the BRA regarding the SBW MHP on 4/1/2016. My comment letter was not made available by the BRA to the SBW MHP Advisory Committee until one month later, on 5/3/16.

At a 5/4/16 MHP Advisory Committee meeting a member of the committee asked me why I had not made my concerns known earlier. I stated that I had written a letter that had not been provided in a timely way to the Committee.

On 5/9/16, the BRA published a DRAFT SBW MHP Amendment and announced a public comment period through June 3, 2016. I and others including Fort Point Neighborhood Association and Boston Harbor Now wrote comment letters during the BRA-stated comment period ending June 3, 2016.

On 6/8/16 I asked the BRA why no Final Draft SBW MHP Amendment was available. The BRA directed me to the 5/9/16 draft that was available on the BRA website (a draft written before the public comment period ending 6/3/16).

On 6/9/16 the BRA Board voted to approve the SBW MHP Amendment. As of the date of the BRA Board vote, the only SBW MHP Amendment draft available publicly was the draft of 5/9/16, a draft written prior to the public comment period.

On or around 6/15/16 (after the BRA Board hearing), the BRA published its FINAL DRAFT of the SBW MHP Amendment. This FINAL DRAFT contained a few small but substantive changes that were not in the draft available to the public on the day of the 6/9/16 BRA Board hearing. No changes to the FINAL DRAFT of 6/15/16 reflected input from public comments received after the prior draft.

Advisory Committee Meetings contemplating benefits unrelated to Chapter 91 The Boston Redevelopment Authority allowed discussions regarding affordable housing — housing that would be required of any inland luxury project — to dominate a significant portion of MHP Advisory Committee discussions. When asked why IDP units were on the table for discussion, the BRA suggested that Chapter 91 benefits should be considered based on all contributions and benefits including those outside the scope of Chapter 91.

Overlapping BRA Approval Process to Fast-track 150 Seaport The 150 Seaport project entered the design approval process at the Boston Civic Design Commission prior to the PDA (zoning) being approved. The PDA (zoning) was filed prior to the SBW MHP being approved. The BRA stated to Advisory Committee members that the Article 80 process would be the appropriate venue for addressing repeated massing concerns, while simultaneously fast-tracking the Article 80 approval process by allowing overlap between design review, zoning and MHP approval. At no point in time did currently available drafts of 150 Seaport match between PDA, PNF and MHP.

10 FALSE RENDERING(S) PRESENTED TO MHP ADVISORY COMMITEE

A rendering that was known to the Boston Redevelopment Authority as structurally and substantively impossible was widely published in the media and repeatedly presented to the Advisory Committee.

A repeated assertion by the BRA (made within the SBW MHP Amendment itself) is that 150 Seaport is an architecturally “iconic” tower. This assertion was made repeatedly in media accounts and during at least one Advisory Committee meeting I attended, often accompanied by an illusory, deceptive rendering of 150 Seaport.

The example provided on the next few pages presents one of multiple false renderings presented to the public and Advisory Committee by the BRA.

11

12

The Boston Redevelopment Authority was aware the front-facing “iconic” view of 150 Seaport Blvd distributed to the public, and presented to the MHP Advisory Committee, would actually be obscured by M Block towers already approved directly across Seaport Blvd.

Below is an early rendering of Seaport Square M Block, obscuring a front view of the Whiskey Priest site as presented by the BRA publicly and in Advisory Committee presentations. Massing of M Block shown below was approved in 2010 (PDA #78).

13

As shown in this 2015 rendering, the Boston Redevelopment Authority was aware the “iconic” front view of 150 Seaport Blvd presented from an open vantage point would be obscured by already-approved towers at M Block.

Below is the KPF/CBT rendering of Seaport Square M Block moving through BRA approvals in 2015, obscuring the front-facing view of 150 Seaport site. As shown on prior page, massing of M Block had been approved in 2010 (PDA #78).

14 GENERAL FAILURE OF BRA REGARDING CHAPTER 91 FPA SPACES

150 Seaport Blvd represents the first PDA on Chapter 91 tideland in the South Boston Waterfront lacking interior civic space for citizens unable to patronize commercial uses. Simply put, the project proposes a luxury condo with a restaurant enclaved at the 1st floor rear.

Seaport-wide, a number of factors evidence a systemic failure with respect to the approval of Chapter 91 FPA spaces. The BRA presents Chapter 91 as a hurdle for developers to meet, not a standard of excellence to meet and exceed.

Consider:

• Approval of an array of remnant spaces (low ceilings, limited window views, alley locations, hidden entrances) for interior civic/cultural FPAs • Approval of corporate hallways, lobbies, gazebos as interior civic/cultural FPAs • Repetition of failed and uninviting uses such as “Visitor Centers” • Increasingly routine approval of upper floor spaces for public FPAs • BRA facilitation of handpicked tenancies without public process • BRA facilitation of closed processes including the introduction of private entities to significant FPA benefits and opportunities without fair public process (e.g. limited competition) • Numerous examples of BRA-facilitated overlap between MHP Advisory Committee seat holders and FPA tenancies • BRA gaming of MHP Advisory Committee formation process, including an imbalance of commercial RE development advocates (Boston Chamber, Greater Boston Real Estate Board, Artery Business Committee, Save the Harbor, et al.) over proven civic and public FPA space advocates (TBHA, CLF, Greenway et al.). Please reference BoDs of each respective MHP Advisory Committee seat holder to further understand influence of CRE sector in MHP drafting and subsequent approval processes. • Near-complete exclusion from MHP Advisory Committee seats and process by renown civic/cultural space experts, civic/cultural space professionals, and non-profit leaders representing interests of the civic/cultural sector citywide • Near-complete exclusion of civic/cultural professionals from Boston Civic Design Commission responsible for design review of CH91 projects • Lack of compliance monitoring, particularly with respect to signage for access to public FPA spaces • Inattention to widespread non-compliance at existing waterfront FPA spaces, as cited in 2012 published study by Conservation Law Foundation and Northeastern University • BRA Non-compliance with EOEA Secretary Robert Durand’s call (SBW MHP decision, 2000, page 30) requiring formation of an FPA advisory body comprised of representatives of civic and cultural sectors “citywide” • BRA’s routine application of an "economic viability” argument, used to justify low priority accommodation of civic/cultural FPA space during project approvals, belied by publicly available data demonstrating sanctioned, rampant profiteering by local specialists securing and flipping zoning variances • BRA’s repeated use of MHP drafting processes as a tool for moving individual projects forward (Pritzker / Fan Pier, Atlantic Wharf, Harbor Square, 150 Seaport)

15