The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Charles D. Baker GOVERNOR
Karyn E. Polito LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Kathleen A. Theoharides Fax: (617) 626-1181 SECRETARY http://www.mass.gov/eea
May 7, 2021
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
PROJECT NAME : Parcels O&P in the Raymond L. Flynn Marine Park PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Boston PROJECT WATERSHED : Boston Harbor EEA NUMBER : 16350 PROJECT PROPONENT : MCP III Foundry, LLC DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : April 17, 2021
Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA; M.G.L. c. 30, ss. 61-62I) and Section 11.06 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I hereby determine that this project does not require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Project Description
As described in the Environmental Notification Form (ENF), the project consists of the redevelopment of two parcels of land separated by a roadway in the Raymond L. Flynn Marine Park (RLFMP). Project activities on the eastern lot, known as Parcel O, include demolition of 46,000-square foot (sf) building and a one-story 700-sf building, construction of a 151.5-ft high, 219,000-sf building with lab/research and development (R&D), and reconstruction of an existing 96-space parking lot to provide 89 parking spaces. An existing 12,700-sf building on the western lot, known as Parcel P, will be renovated to provide 9,000 sf of amenity space for tenants of the lab/R&D building and seven parking spaces. The project includes construction of a new stormwater management system and streetscape improvements, including a widened sidewalk and street trees.
Project Site
The 2.64-acre project site consists of Parcel O (68,384 sf or 1.6 acres), Parcel P (24,280 sf or 0.55 acres) and the approximately 0.5-acre Au Bon Pain Way between the two parcels. The site is bordered to the north by Fid Kennedy Avenue, to the east by Capstan Way, to the west by Anchor Way EEA# 16350 ENF Certificate May 7, 2021 and to the south by the Ship Repair Dry Dock #3. The parcels are located within the RLFMP, which is owned by the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) and Economic Development and Industrial Corporation’s (EDIC) 1. The building on Parcel O was formerly used as a bakery and is now vacant. The Parcel P building is currently use by a steel products manufacturer.
The entire site is located on filled Commonwealth Tidelands subject to jurisdiction by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Waterways Regulation Program (WRP) pursuant to Chapter 91 (c.91) and the Waterways Regulations (310 CMR 9.00). The site is also located in the South Boston Designated Port Area (DPA), one of ten areas established by the Commonwealth where water-dependent industrial activity is promoted through state funding, planning, policy, and regulation.
As shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (number 25025C0082J, effective date March 16, 2016), the entire project site is located within the 100-year floodplain (Zone AE) with a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 10 ft North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). The entirety of the site is mapped as Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF). Approximately 2.51 acres of the site are covered by impervious surfaces.
The site is located within the South Boston Naval Annex/Boston Army Supply Base area (MHC# BOS.RT), which is included in the Massachusetts Historical Commission’s (MHC) Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth (Inventory) and eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The building on Parcel O was historically known as Building 29/Dispensary and Fire Station (BOS.12963) and the building on Parcel P was known as Building 14/McDonald Steel (BOS.12944). According to MHC, the existing buildings are non-contributing resources to the South Boston Naval Annex and the project will have “no adverse effect” on the South Boston Naval Annex.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Potential environmental impacts associated with the project include generation of 2,910 average daily trips (adt), including 2,608 new adt; alteration of approximately of 2.6 acres of LSCSF; use of 18,801 gallons per day (gpd) of water; and generation of 17,100 gpd of wastewater. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and other air pollutants are associated with the burning of fossil fuels for on-site energy use and automobile travel by employees and visitors to the site. The project is a nonwater- dependent industrial use within the DPA.
The project will generate revenue for the BPDA/EDIC that will be used to promote water- dependent industrial uses in the RLFMP. Measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts include implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures such as encouraging use of public transit and other alternate modes of travel. The project will provide an enhanced streetscape with widened sidewalks and a new stormwater management system with Best Management Practices (BMPs) to improve water quality, reduce flow rates, and infiltrate stormwater. The project will employ measures to conserve water and contribute to Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) reduction to preserve sewer capacity. The project will mitigate GHG emissions by incorporating energy efficiency measures into the building design and incorporate climate change resiliency measures.
1 The RLFMP was formerly known as the Boston Marine Industrial Park (BMIP). 2
EEA# 16350 ENF Certificate May 7, 2021
Jurisdiction and Permitting
The project is undergoing MEPA review and requires preparation of an ENF pursuant to 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)(1)(f) and 301 CMR 11.03(6)(b)(13) because it requires Agency Actions and will alter one-half acre of wetlands (LSCSF) and will generate 2,000 or more adt on roadways providing access to a single location. The project requires a Minor Revision of the c. 91 Master License from MassDEP and a Sewer Use Discharge Permit from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). This filing is intended to be consistent with anticipated procedures for review of individual development parcels under the City’s Final Master Plan Update (FMPU) for the RLFMP.
The project requires an Order of Conditions from the Boston Conservation Commission (or in the case of an appeal, a Superseding Order of Conditions from MassDEP). It requires Article 80 Large Project Review Approval by the BPDA and a Transportation Access Plan Agreement (TAPA) and Construction Management Plan approval from the Boston Transportation Department (BTD). The project may require a determination of no hazard to air navigation related to construction cranes from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater General Permit from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The project requires a land transfer in the form of a ground lease from the BPDA/EDIC. The BPDA was created as an authority under G.L. c. 121B, s. 4, and was merged with the EDIC in 1993 to undertake City-wide development activities. The Proponent submitted information suggesting that the 1993 merger between EDIC and BPDA did not allow for actions of the EDIC to be construed as actions of the BPDA (and vice versa), and that these entities therefore should be treated as distinct for purposes of determining the scope of MEPA jurisdiction.2 The Proponent argues the EDIC does not fit the definition of “Agency” in the MEPA statute, and that since it is technically the EDIC that will be entering into leases for development of the RLFMP, these leases do not qualify as Land Transfers triggering MEPA jurisdiction. I do not find it necessary to resolve this legal question, since the BPDA/EDIC will require a c. 91 Master License from MassDEP for development of projects in the RLFMP located on tidelands, and individual development parcels will be reviewed under review procedures to be set forth as part of the upcoming FMPU. Because c. 91 jurisdiction extends to all parcels subject to the c. 91 Master License, including the entire project site, MEPA jurisdiction for is broad and extends to those aspects of each project that are likely, directly or indirectly, to cause Damage to the Environment.
Review of the ENF
The ENF included a project description and plans of existing and proposed conditions. It identified environmental resources and potential impacts and included analyses of the project’s transportation and GHG impacts.
Alternatives Analysis
The ENF documented environmental impacts associated with the industrial and commercial uses that occupy or formerly occupied the existing buildings, including a bakery and steel products
2 This information was provided on April 20, 2021 in two emails from Ken Fields to Alex Strysky and on April 23, 2021 in an email from Richard Rudman to Alex Strysky. 3
EEA# 16350 ENF Certificate May 7, 2021 manufacturing. Continuation of these uses under the No Build Alternative would generate 302 adt, use 4,313 gpd of water and generate 3,912 gpd of wastewater; however, both buildings are currently vacant and do not generate these impacts. The site is almost entirely impervious, with runoff conveyed from the site through a stormwater management system that lacks BMPs.
The ENF reviewed a Design Alternative that would demolish all buildings on the site and construct a five-story, 215,000-sf lab/R&D building with a footprint of 43,000 sf. Au Bon Pain Way, which separates the two parcels, would be discontinued and the building would be constructed in the center of the site, extending across both parcels and the roadway. According to the ENF, the Design Alternative would have similar impacts as the Preferred Alternative with respect to trip generation, water use and wastewater generation. However, the Design Alternative would result in the discontinuation of Au Bon Pain Way and preclude its use as a vehicular connection between Fid Kennedy Avenue and the boat repair facility and other existing or potential future waster-dependent industrial uses south of the site.
According to the ENF, both the Preferred Alternative and the Design Alternative could be authorized administratively by MassDEP as Minor Revisions under the existing Master License rather than requiring a new or amended c. 91 License. In addition, both alternatives would qualify as Supporting DPA Uses that provide economic support to uses within the DPA. The Preferred Alternative will minimize impacts by reusing the building on Parcel P and the parking lot on Parcel O, constructing a new stormwater management system and providing streetscape improvements, including a wider sidewalk, along the site’s Fid Kennedy Avenue frontage. A significant benefit of the Preferred Alternative design is that it will not preclude vehicular access on Au Bon Pain Way for water-dependent industrial uses south of the site.
Chapter 91
The site is located on filled Commonwealth Tidelands within the DPA. The Waterways Regulations generally require that 75 percent of filled tidelands on a site within a DPA be reserved for water-dependent industrial use. To facilitate the development of a mix of industrial uses in the DPA, the City of Boston (City), through the BPDA and the EDIC, developed a Marine Industrial Park Master Plan to establish the RLFMP as a Marine Industrial Park (MIP), as defined at 310 CMR 9.02. The MIP designation provides greater flexibility in uses within a DPA, with up to one-third of the land area being available for general industrial use as long as the remaining two-thirds is used primarily for water- dependent industrial use.
The MIP completed MEPA review in 2000 (EEA# 8161) and a c.91 Master License was issued by MassDEP in 2005 (License No. 10233). As permitted by the Waterway Regulations and the Master License, two-thirds of the tideland area within the RLFMP is reserved exclusively for WDI use. An update of the Master Plan for the RLFMP is currently being undertaken by the BPDA. A Draft Master Plan Update (DMPU) was submitted as a Notice of Project Change (NPC) for MEPA review in 2017 and a Certificate on the NPC was issued on January 19, 2018 that included a Scope for further information and analysis to be provided in the Final Master Plan (FMPU). State agencies, including the MEPA Office, MassDEP and the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM), have held regular coordination meetings with the BPDA to provide assistance as the BPDA finalizes the FMPU. This project is currently subject to the existing RLFMIP Master Plan and c. 91 Master License, but is anticipated to proceed simultaneously with development of the FMPU. This filing is intended to align with the framework for development anticipated to be set forth in the FMPU, including anticipated 4
EEA# 16350 ENF Certificate May 7, 2021 procedures for MEPA review of private development on specific parcels within the RLFMIP. The DMPU did not anticipate changes to the site or its use for industrial purposes; however, according to the ENF, the project is consistent with a goal of the DMPU to increase compatible industrial development to generate revenue for improvements to water-dependent industrial infrastructure.
According to MassDEP, the proposed use of the site as lab/R&D space is consistent with the designation of the parcels for General Industrial use in the existing Master License. Because the proposed building is larger than anticipated in the Master License, it requires review and approval as a Minor Revision. The Minor Revision process includes the submission of a detailed project description and plans, followed by a 30-day comment period. Within 60 days of the end of the comment period, MassDEP will issue a decision as to whether the project conforms to the MIP and relevant c. 91 regulatory standards. The decision is subject to appeal. If the Minor Revision is approved and not appealed, MassDEP’s decision will be recorded as an addendum to the Master License. According to MassDEP, review of a Minor Revision application will commence upon completion of MEPA review.
Comments from MassDEP and CZM note that the Proponent will be required to document that the project meets the standard outlined in the Waterways Regulations at 310 CMR 9.36(5)(b), which prevents nonwater-dependent uses from preempting marine-industrial uses within the DPA. Compliance with this standard includes a demonstration that reasonable arrangements have been made to prevent commitments of space or facilities that would significantly discourage present or future marine- industrial activity both on the project site or elsewhere in the DPA. Under existing conditions, vehicular access from Au Bon Pain Way to water-dependent industrial uses south of the project site, including the Ship Repair Drydock, is blocked by a fence around the dry dock site. According to the ENF, the project has been designed to maintain vehicular access on Au Bon Pain Way so as not to preclude future vehicular access for water-dependent industrial uses. As recommended by CZM, the Proponent should consider incorporating language in its leases that describes the industrial nature of the uses around the site and potential impacts such as noise and truck traffic. The Proponent must demonstrate that the building height complies with the height limits established in the Master License and does not extend into the airspace limit specified by Massport’s Logan Airspace Map.
The BPDA should incorporate the project area into the overall use calculations to be presented in the FMPU. The ENF acknowledged that the BPDA may use the income from the lease of the site to address water-dependent infrastructure needs in the RLFMP; any estimates of revenue presented in the FMPU should include the lease of the project site.
Traffic and Transportation
The ENF included a transportation study generally consistent with the EEA/Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines issued in March 2014. It described existing and proposed roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle conditions, public transit capacity and infrastructure, roadway and intersection volumes, and roadway safety issues.
Analyses of transit and vehicular operations were provided for the weekday morning and evening peak hours for Existing 2021, No Build 2028, and Build 2028 scenarios. The TIA identified TDM measures which will be implemented to minimize impacts to the transportation network. Analyses of the transportation impacts in a study area including the following 11 intersections were provided:
• Summer Street at Drydock Avenue/Pappas Way (signalized); 5
EEA# 16350 ENF Certificate May 7, 2021
• Drydock Avenue at Harbor Street/Terminal Street (unsignalized); • Drydock Avenue at Tide Street (unsignalized); • Northern Avenue at Tide Street (unsignalized); • Tide Street at Fid Kennedy Avenue (unsignalized); • Northern Avenue at Harbor Street (unsignalized); and, • Northern Avenue at Massport Haul Road (roundabout).
Vehicular access to the site will continue to be provided via driveways along Fid Kennedy Avenue, Anchor Way, and Au Bon Pain Way. Access to the proposed loading dock at the south end of the new building will be provided from Au Bon Pain Way.
Trip Generation
The project’s trip generation was estimated using trip rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook. Based on the ITE trip generation rates for land use code (LUC) 760 (Research and Development Center), the project would generate 2,910 adt on an average weekday. The analysis converted the estimated adt to average person trips using vehicle occupancy rates based on census data. The person trips were then assigned a travel mode based on data provided by the BTD for South Boston; on a daily basis, person trips were assigned mode shares of 57 percent vehicle, 21 percent transit and 22 percent walking/bicycling. As adjusted for mode share, the project will generate 612 transit trips, 640 trips by walking/bicycling, and 1,502 vehicle trips on a daily basis. In the morning peak hour, the project will generate 20 transit trips, 27 trips by walking/bicycling, and 56 vehicle trips. During the evening peak hour, the project will generate 23 transit trips, 31 walking/bicycling trips, and 65 vehicle trips. After deducting existing peak hour vehicular and transit trips, the project’s net peak period trip generation will be 30 vehicle trips and 11 transit trips in the morning peak hour and 39 vehicle trips and 12 transit trips in the evening peak hour.
Traffic volumes for the Existing 2021 condition were established using traffic counts collected in 2018, the most recent trip counts available that predated the reduced traffic volumes experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic. The 2018 counts were adjusted using guidance provided by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to determine 2021 Existing traffic volumes. Historic pedestrian and bicycle trip volumes were increased by an annual growth factor to establish 2021 Existing counts. The No Build 2028 scenario incorporated additional trips generated by eleven development projects either planned or approved in the study area. The Build 2028 condition includes the addition of project-generated trips to the No Build 2028 scenario.
Traffic Operations
The TIA provided an evaluation of the impact of project-generated vehicular traffic on roadways in the study area, including an intersection capacity analysis of peak hour traffic operations at study area intersections. The analysis designated intersections with a Level-of-Service (LOS), which reflects the overall operations of an intersection, including traffic speed, delay, and capacity. For urban intersections, LOS D reflects an acceptable level of operations. According to the analysis, traffic operations involving one or more turning movements at most intersections will degrade from LOS C or LOS D under Existing 2021 conditions to LOS E or LOS F under No Build 2028 conditions in one or both peak periods. Traffic generated by the project will not cause changes in the LOS at any intersection between the No Build 2028 and Build 2028 modeled conditions, with only minor increases in delay or
6
EEA# 16350 ENF Certificate May 7, 2021 vehicle queues. The City is preparing a transportation analysis as part of the FMPU that will assess the cumulative impacts of traffic generated by a higher density of nonwater-dependent industrial uses proposed in the DMPU. The analysis will provide a framework for traffic mitigation including priorities for future roadway improvements that would be required to absorb future development at the RLFMIP. It is my expectation that future development will provide traffic analysis and mitigation consistent with this planning process.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Given the industrial nature of the area, pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the study area are limited compared to other parts of Boston. Sidewalks are generally present along roadways, except for the most industrial sections of the RLFMP. Bicycle lanes are located on Summer Street, Drydock Avenue, and Northern Avenue and sharrows are present along Fid Kennedy Avenue. Four bicycle sharing stations are located in proximity to the project site.
The project will provide enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including a new sidewalk along the site frontage on Fid Kennedy Avenue, 88 secure bicycle parking spaces for employees and exterior bike racks for visitors. I encourage the Proponent to work with other commercial uses in the RLFMP and the City to minimize potential conflicts between industrial traffic and employees and visitors to the site by promoting pedestrian and bicycle routes that avoid industrial uses.
Public Transportation
The site is located in proximity to public transportation service provided by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). The Silver Line SL1, SL2, and SL3 routes and Bus Routes 4 and 7 have stops within one-half mile of the site. The ENF included a review of transit conditions based on the MBTA’s Passenger Comfort metric and reliability data. The Passenger Comfort metric is calculated by the MBTA for bus routes and reflects the percentage of a passenger’s travel time that occurs in comfortable conditions, which are defined as 140 percent or less of seated capacity during peak periods and 125 percent or less at other times. The MBTA’s Service Delivery Policy establishes a minimum goal of 92 percent of travel time per passenger under comfortable conditions and a target goal of 96 percent. The ENF included an analysis of bus capacity under 2021 Existing, 2028 No Build, and 2028 Build Conditions at stops closest to the project site. Due to the limited number of new peak hour transit trips generated by the project and the distribution of these trips across several bus routes, the ENF concluded that project-generated transit trips will not cause any of the bus routes to exceed capacity. However, as noted by Massport, the ENF did not address capacity constraints at other locations along the route. I encourage the Proponent to consult with the City and the MBTA regarding additional measures that could be implemented to minimize capacity constraints in the system.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
The TIA included a TDM program that will be implemented to promote alternative modes of travel by employees and visitors to the site. The proposed TDM measures include:
• A Transportation Coordinator who will oversee parking and delivery operations, promote the use of alternative transportation measures, and develop an orientation packet to inform residents, visitors and employees about transportation options; • Join the Seaport Transportation Management Agency (TMA); 7
EEA# 16350 ENF Certificate May 7, 2021
• Provide orientation packets to new tenants containing information on multimodal travel options; • Work with tenants to promote alternative modes of travel, including on-site transportation information events and preparation of a newsletter or bulletin summarizing transit, ridesharing, bicycling, alternative work schedules and other options for reducing vehicle trips to the site; • Provide real-time transit information, including schedules, maps and fare information, in the building lobby • Provide travel information for employees and visitors in the lobbies of the buildings and on the internet; • Provide a transit pass subsidy to employees; • Promote a “Guaranteed Ride Home” program; • Provide 88 covered, secure bicycle spaces for employees and exterior bike racks for visitors; • Provide on-site lockers and showers for employees; • Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at 25 percent of the parking spaces and the necessary infrastructure so that all spaces are EV-ready; and, • Designate at least four percent of the parking spaces (at least four spaces) as preferred parking for low emission vehicles.
Wetlands and Stormwater
The site is located entirely within LSCSF. According to the ENF, the project will not alter the direction or velocity of coastal floodwaters across the site because the proposed fill and structures will occupy essentially the same footprint as the existing buildings.
The project includes construction of a stormwater management system that will meet the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards (SMS) and the requirements of the Boston Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC), including the on-site retention of the first 1.25 inches of rainfall over the site. Surface runoff will be collected in deep-sump, hooded catch basins and directed to a subsurface infiltration system under the parking lot. According to the ENF, the system will maintain pre- development peak flow volumes and rates and remove at least 80 percent of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) from stormwater prior to discharge into the BWSC drainage system. According to MassDEP, the project is a land use with a higher potential pollutant loading because it will generate more than 1,000 adt; therefore, the stormwater management system must be designed to remove 44 percent of TSS before it is discharged to the on-site infiltration system. As the project design is finalized, the Proponent should evaluate opportunities to minimize impervious area and incorporate Low Impact Design (LID) measures such as rain gardens, filter strips, tree box filters and infiltration trenches. As noted below, I encourage the Proponent to design the stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to convey stormwater flows under future sea level and climate conditions.
Water and Wastewater
The project will use 18,081 gpd of water and generate 17,100 gpd of wastewater. Water and sewer service will be provided by the BWSC. According to the ENF, the project will minimize water use by incorporating water-efficiency measures into the project design, including an efficient irrigation system that will reduce water use by 50 percent, water-conserving plumbing fixtures, and advanced water metering. 8
EEA# 16350 ENF Certificate May 7, 2021
According to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), the site is served by a sanitary sewer system in Fid Kennedy Avenue that conveys flows to BWSC’s South Boston Interceptor North Branch, which directs flows to the MWRA’s Deer Island Treatment Plant via the Columbus Park Headworks. Stormwater entering the South Boston Interceptor North Branch may cause surcharging during large storms that contributes to combined sewer overflows (CSO) in the Reserved Channel and Fort Point Channel. The project will be required to mitigate its contribution of flow into the BWSC sanitary system. MassDEP regulations at 314 CMR 12.04(2)(d) specify that communities with combined sewer overflows (CSOs), such as Boston, must require projects generating 15,000 gpd or more of new wastewater flow to remove four gallons of infiltration and inflow (I/I) for each gallon of wastewater. The Proponent should consult with BWSC to identify appropriate I/I mitigation for this project. As noted by the MWRA, groundwater or stormwater discharges into the sanitary system are prohibited. In addition, a Sewer Use Discharge Permit is required prior to the discharge of laboratory wastewater to the MWRA’s system.
Climate Change
Governor Baker’s Executive Order 569: Establishing an Integrated Climate Change Strategy for the Commonwealth (EO 569; the Order) was issued on September 16, 2016. The Order recognizes the serious threat presented by climate change and direct Executive Branch agencies to develop and implement an integrated strategy that leverages state resources to combat climate change and prepare for its impacts. The Order seeks to ensure that Massachusetts will meet GHG emissions reduction limits established under the Global Warming Solution Act of 2008 (GWSA) and will work to prepare state government and cities and towns for the impacts of climate change. I note that the MEPA statute directs all State Agencies to consider reasonably foreseeable climate change impacts, including additional greenhouse gas emissions, and effects, such as predicted sea level rise, when issuing permits, licenses and other administrative approvals and decisions. M.G.L. c. 30, § 61.
Adaptation and Resiliency
The ENF reviewed project design measures that will increase the resilience of the site under future climate conditions. The new building has been designed with a first-floor elevation of 14 ft NAVD 88 (20.5 ft Boston City Base (BCB)), which corresponds to the City’s 2070 Sea Level Rise Design Flood Elevation, and critical equipment will be located at elevation 15.5 ft NAVD 88 or higher. The ENF included a review of flood flow pathways for the current one percent storm event under existing and proposed conditions. Because the project will essentially maintain the existing building footprints with a limited amount of additional fill and structures outside those footprints, the project is not anticipated to cause significant changes to flood pathways. As recommended by CZM, the Proponent should evaluate flood pathways under future sea level conditions to determine whether the project could have impacts under those conditions that could be minimized by revisions to the proposed design, such as reducing the amount of proposed fill and converting impervious area to vegetated landscaped areas. I also encourage the Proponent to consult the new climate tool released by EEA’s Resilient MA Action Team (RMAT) ( https://resilientma.org/rmat_home/designstandards/) which incorporates the best available data on climate change including data from the Massachusetts Coastal Flood Risk Model (MC-FRM) that provides projections for flooding along the entire Massachusetts coastline based on sea level rise projections.
9
EEA# 16350 ENF Certificate May 7, 2021
I encourage the Proponent to consider adopting additional design elements that could increase the site’s resilience, including:
• Ecosystem-based adaptation measures to reduce heat island effect and mitigate stormwater runoff, such as integration of tree canopy cover and LID stormwater management techniques; and, • Stormwater management system design that will accommodate rainfall under projected climate conditions.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
The ENF included an Energy Analysis Report that described energy-efficient design features of the proposed building and estimated the resulting reduction in GHG emissions and energy use. The City of Boston has adopted the Massachusetts Stretch Energy Code (SC). Therefore, the project will be required to meet the applicable version of the SC in effect at the time of construction. The SC increases the energy efficiency code requirements for new construction (both residential and commercial) and for major residential renovations or additions in municipalities that adopt it. The current SC requires a reduction in energy use of 10 percent compared to that achieved by complying with the baseline energy provisions of the State Building Code. According to the ENF, the building will be designed with roof insulation exceeding SC requirement and energy recovery systems that will reduce energy use by 22 percent compared and GHG emissions by 14 percent as compared to a building designed to meet the SC.
I encourage the Proponent to review Department of Energy Resources’ (DOER) comment letter, which describes in detail an energy-efficient design that meets the unique demands of laboratory spaces through partial electrification of heating and ventilation systems and an energy efficient building envelope that reduce demand for heating and cooling. Key components of this approach include:
• A hot water distribution loop of 120 F; • A centralized heating plant consisting of both an air-to-water or ground-to-water heat pump and a gas-fired condensing boiler; • Boiler sized for 100 percent of the peak load; • Air source heat pump sized for 25 to 50 percent of the peak load; and, • Prioritized air source operation with use of the boiler only when loads exceed 25 to 50 percent of the peak load.
The goal of this approach is to minimize Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by providing up to 90 percent of the total annual heating with heat pumps. The design approach described in DOER’s comment letter has been adopted by several development projects with significant lab space that are currently undergoing MEPA review, including Boynton Yards (EEA#16195) and Gateway Innovation Center (EEA# 16289). DOER’s comment letter also provides guidance on building envelope design measures that minimize utility costs and GHG emissions and comply with the energy provisions of the Building Code. I encourage the Proponent to contact DOER for additional information. Given the high energy use associated with lab uses, and the potential for additional lab/office development through the RLFMIP, I strongly urge the Proponent to consider strong commitments to mitigation measures to maximize energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions. This is consistent with recommendations set forth in the This is consistent with recommendations made through the Massachusetts 2050
10
EEA# 16350 ENF Certificate May 7, 2021
Decarbonization Roadmap3 as well as the 2050 Net Zero emissions goal now mandated by the recently enacted Senate Bill 9 - An Act Creating a Next Generation Roadmap for Massachusetts Climate Policy.
According to the ENF, the Proponent will evaluate the feasibility of installing a rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) system. The Proponent should review information provided by the DOER in its comment letter regarding incentives for rooftop PV installations. As noted by Massport, a solar glare study may be necessary due to the site’s proximity to Logan Airport.
Construction
The Proponent should review MassDEP’s comment letter for guidance on regulations addressing construction and demolition (C&D) activities. According to the ENF, the Proponent has not yet determined whether asbestos is present in the existing buildings. All construction and demolition (C&D) activities should be managed in accordance with applicable MassDEP’s regulations regarding removal of asbestos-containing material (ACM) and disposal of asbestos-containing waste materials (ACWM), including the Air Pollution Control regulations at 310 CMR 7.09 and 310 CMR 7.15 and the Solid Waste Management regulations at 310 CMR 19.061. The Proponent should also consult MassDEP’s comment letter for more information on requirements for handling, disposal and recycling of non-ACM C&D material. I encourage the Proponent to reuse or recycle C&D debris to the maximum extent. The project should include measures to reduce construction period impacts (e.g., noise, dust, odor, solid waste management) and emissions of air pollutants from equipment, including anti-idling measures in accordance with the Air Quality regulations (310 CMR 7.11). I encourage the Proponent to require that its contractors use construction equipment with engines manufactured to Tier 4 federal emission standards, or select project contractors that have installed retrofit emissions control devices or vehicles that use alternative fuels to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) from diesel-powered equipment. Off-road vehicles are required to use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD). If oil and/or hazardous materials are found during construction, the Proponent should notify MassDEP in accordance with the MCP (310 CMR 40.00). All construction activities should be undertaken in compliance with the conditions of all State and local permits.
Conclusion
The ENF has adequately described and analyzed the project and its alternatives, and assessed its potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures. Based on review of the ENF and comments received on it, and in consultation with State Agencies, I have determined that an EIR is not required.
May 7, 2021 ______Date Kathleen A. Theoharides
Comments received:
04/23/2021 Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
3 https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ma-decarbonization-roadmap 11
EEA# 16350 ENF Certificate May 7, 2021
04/26/2021 Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) 04/27/2021 Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) 04/27/2021 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)/ Northeast Regional Office (NERO) 04/27/2021 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) 04/28/2021 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)/ Waterways Regulation Program (WRP) 05/04/2020 Department of Energy Resources (DOER)
KAT/AJS/ajs
12
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kathleen A. Theoharides, Secretary, EEA ATTN: Erin Flaherty, MEPA Office FROM: Lisa Berry Engler, Director, CZM DATE: April 23, 2021 RE: EEA #16350, Parcels O and P, Raymond L. Flynn Marine Park, Boston ______
The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) has completed its review of the above-referenced Environmental Notification Form (ENF) noticed in the Environmental Monitor dated April 7, 2021 and offers the following comments.
Project Description With this ENF, MCP III Foundry, LLC, proposes to replace an existing building on Parcel O in the Raymond L. Flynn Marine Park (RLFMP), formerly known as the Boston Marine Industrial Park, with an eight-story, 151.5-foot-tall 219,000-square-foot (SF) life science and research and development building and to adaptively reuse the existing one-story structure on Parcel P as a tenant amenity space. The existing 96 surface parking spaces adjacent to Parcel P will be preserved, while Au Bon Pain Way and Anchor Way will be incorporated into the project site. The project will generate 2,608 new vehicle trips per day for a total of 2,910 daily trips; use an estimate 18,801 gallons per day (GPD) of water; and generate approximately 17,100 GPD of wastewater. The project site, including the incorporated roadways, is approximately 115,023 SF, the entirety of which is filled tidelands in the South Boston Designated Port Area (DPA) and land subject to coastal storm flowage (LSCSF) within a FEMA-designated Flood Zone AE (elevation 10). The project will require a minor revision to the c. 91 master license for the RLFMP, which was issued after the development of a comprehensive master plan for the marine industrial park. An update to this plan, the draft Raymond L. Flynn Marine Park Master Plan Update (DMPU) was filed in 2017 (EEA #8161); a final Master Plan Update (FMPU) is currently being developed by the Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA), which owns the marine industrial park.
Project Comments Consistency with RLFMP Master Plan Update The Secretary’s Certificate on the Notice of Project Change for the DMPU issued on January 19, 2018 and its supplement issued February 10, 2020 indicates that until the final master plan concludes MEPA review and a new or amended c. 91 authorization for the RLFMP is issued, the existing master plan and related authorizations remain in effect. The project appears to be generally consistent with the c. 91 master license, which authorizes general industrial uses on Parcels O and P within building footprints that will be maintained by the structures of the proposed project. A minor revision pursuant to the provisions of the c. 91 master license will aggregate the areas of Parcels O and P, a portion of Au Bon Pain Way, and the entirety of Anchor Way into a single parcel, which will affect the overall area of the marine industrial park relative to the calculation of the different types of uses authorized by the c. 91 master license. The FMPU should incorporate the proposed project and its impacts and include a demonstration of the increased rents resulting from the proposed project
enabling or enhancing the RLFMP’s capacity or support for water-dependent industrial uses. The ENF indicates that while Anchor and Au Bon Pain Ways will be a part of the project site, access to the adjacent dry dock will not be compromised; the BPDA should ensure that there are no impacts to these access routes or potential infrastructure improvements to benefit the dry dock’s operations are not precluded. Because of its adjacency to a water-dependent industrial use and proximity to others with a DPA, the proponent should include language in its leases that describe the project’s location and nearby operations, which may generate noise, odors, or other impacts that are expected as a normal course of their business.
Coastal Resilience The ENF indicates that because the building footprints will not be changed and only minor grading of the project site will occur, the existing flood pathways will remain unchanged. The ENF also included an analysis of the existing and proposed pathways of flow toward and away from the project site for the current 1% storm event based upon the existing and proposed topography. A more detailed analysis that incorporates future conditions, such as sea level rise, more intense coastal storms, and increased precipitation, overlain on a topographical figure, and accompanied by a descriptive narrative may be beneficial for both the proponent and BPDA to understand potential future impacts of the project. The proponent should also evaluate opportunities to improve the beneficial functions of LSCSF, such as reducing the amount of fill and replacing smooth impervious surface areas (e.g., paved parking lots and solid concrete surfaces) with landscaped areas that will intercept and slow down flood pathways.
Federal Consistency The proposed project may be subject to CZM federal consistency review. For further information on this process, please contact Robert Boeri, Project Review Coordinator, at [email protected] or visit the CZM website at https://www.mass.gov/federal-consistency- review-program.
LBE/ts/elh/rh cc: Eric Carlson, Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Stewart Dalzell, Massport Richard McGuinness, Boston Planning & Development Agency Nicholas Moreno, Boston Conservation Commission Daniel Padien, MassDEP-Waterways Regulation Program Jill Provencal, MassDEP-NERO Wetlands Program Brad Washburn, Massport
Charles D. Baker Kathleen A. Theoharides Governor Secretary
Karyn E. Polito Martin Suuberg Lieutenant Governor Commissioner
April 27, 2021
RE: Boston Kathleen A. Theoharides, Secretary Parcels O and P – Raymond L. Flynn Marine Executive Office of Park Energy & Environmental Affairs EEA # 16350 100 Cambridge Street Boston MA, 02114
Attn: MEPA Unit
Dear Secretary Theoharides:
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office (MassDEP-NERO) has reviewed the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the proposed Parcels O and P – Raymond L. Flynn Marine Park in Boston. MassDEP provides the following comments.
Wetlands
The ENF uses the FEMA AE Zone (el 10 NAVD88) and the City of Boston’s 2070 Sea Level Rise Design Flood Elevation datum (“SRL DFE) interchangeably; therefore, it is not clear how much of Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (“LSCSF”) is actually being altered, and how much and where filling is proposed. The project should use the FEMA-determined elevations for the purposes of Wetlands Protection Act permitting. The entire project site is located in LSCSF. In section II. B., page 12 , the ENF states that 37,324 square feet of LSCSF will be permanently altered; however, in the following section (section II. C., page 12) it states that 115,023 square feet of LSCSF will be temporary altered. The project should clarify the proposed alteration amounts (temporary and permanent) of LSCSF. In addition, elevating the new building on pilings in lieu of filling LSCSF should be examined in an alternatives analysis. If filling is proposed as the preferred
This information is available in alternate format. Contact Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Director of Diversity/Civil Rights at 617-292-5751. TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper
alternative, the project should demonstrate that filling of LSCSF will not cause increased flooding on adjacent properties or public ways and should ensure that no other wetland resource areas will be impacted.
MassDEP was not able to review the project’s stormwater design because the application contained very little stormwater information. Since the proposed development will increase the vehicle trips to greater than 1,000 per day, the site is considered a Land Use with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (Standard 5). Therefore, the stormwater treatment train(s) should be designed in accordance with the requirements in Standard 6 of the Mass. Stormwater Handbook, including but not limited to providing 44% TSS treatment prior to the discharge into the proposed subsurface infiltration unit.
Solid Waste
MassDEP’s current Massachusetts 2010-2020 Solid Waste Master Plan1 –Pathway to Zero Waste, issued in April 2013 identifies a key goal to reduce solid waste disposal by 30% by 2020, from 6,550,000 tons of disposal in 2008 to 4,550,000 tons of disposal by 2020. MassDEP encourages the Proponent to review the plan to identify project management and operations practices that will assist the Commonwealth in meeting its material management goals. More information on the Solid Waste Master Plan and yearly update reports can be found at: https://www.mass.gov/guides/solid-waste-master-plan.
Waste Ban
Section 310 CMR 19.017 Waste Bans of the Massachusetts Solid Waste regulations prohibit the disposal of certain construction-related wastes in Massachusetts, including, but not limited to, metal, wood, asphalt pavement, brick, concrete, clean gypsum wallboard. Further guidance can be found at: https://www.mass.gov/guides/massdep-waste-disposal-bans.
MassDEP regulations also ban disposal of food and other organic wastes from businesses and institutions that dispose of more than one ton of these materials per week. The ban is one of MassDEP’s initiatives for diverting at least 35% of all food waste from disposal statewide by 2020. Diverted food waste may be composted, converted to energy (through anaerobic digestion), recycled, or reused. Additional information on the Commercial Food Material Disposal Ban can be found at: https://www.mass.gov/guides/commercial-food-material-disposal-ban.
C&D Recycling
Many construction and demolition materials are currently banned from disposal or transfer for disposal in Massachusetts (https://www.mass.gov/guides/massdep-waste-disposal-bans). Therefore, MassDEP encourages the Proponent to make a significant commitment to construction and demolition (C&D) waste recycling activities as a sustainable measure for the project and to assist in complying with waste ban requirements. MassDEP considers an asphalt, brick, and concrete (ABC) rubble processing or recycling facility (pursuant to the provisions of Section (2)(b) under 310 CMR 16.03), the Site Assignment regulations for solid waste management facilities), to
1 Note the Draft 2020-2030 Solid Waste Master Plan is in review and may be finalized in late 2020.
2
be exempt from the site assignment requirements, if the ABC rubble at such facilities is separated from other solid waste materials at the point of generation. In accordance with 310 CMR 16.03(2)(b), ABC can be crushed on-site with a 30-day notification to MassDEP. However, the asphalt is limited to weathered bituminous concrete (no roofing asphalt), and the brick and concrete must be uncoated or not impregnated with materials such as roofing epoxy. If the brick and concrete are not clean, the material is defined as C&D waste and requires either a Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) or a Site Assignment and permit before it can be crushed.
Pursuant to the requirements of 310 CMR 7.02 of the Air Pollution Control regulations, if the ABC crushing activities are projected to result in the emission of one ton or more of particulate matter or other pollutant to the ambient air per year, and/or if the crushing equipment employs a diesel oil fired engine with an energy input capacity of three million or more British thermal units per hour for either mechanical or electrical power which will remain on-site for twelve or more months, then a plan application must be submitted to MassDEP for written approval prior to installation and operation of the crushing equipment.
Asbestos
Pursuant to 310 CMR 7.15 the removal of asbestos from the buildings must adhere to the special safeguards defined in the Air Pollution Control regulations. An asbestos survey to identify all asbestos containing materials (ACM) shall be conducted by a Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards certified Asbestos Inspector. All identified ACM shall be abated prior to demolition activities. The Proponent is required to submit to MassDEP an Asbestos Removal Notification (Form AQ04 (ANF-001)) at least 10 working days prior to initiating work for any project involving asbestos abatement, removal, or disposal. If any ACM will need to be abated through non-traditional abatement methods, the Proponent must apply for and obtain approval from MassDEP, through Application BWP AQ36 - Application for Non-Traditional Asbestos Abatement Work Practice Approval.
Pursuant to 310 CMR 7.09, for any Construction and Demolition, except in a residential building with fewer than 20 units, the Proponent is required to submit to MassDEP a Construction/Demolition Notification (Form BWP AQ06) at least 10 working days prior to initiating work. MassDEP Asbestos, Construction and Demolition Notifications can be found at: https://www.mass.gov/guides/massdep-asbestos-construction-demolition-notifications.
Pursuant to 310 CMR 19.061, disposal of ACWM within the Commonwealth must be at a facility specifically approved by MassDEP. The Proponent is advised that asbestos containing waste materials (ACWM) are a special waste as defined in the Solid Waste Management regulations. There are specific ACWM disposal exceptions for intact vinyl asbestos tile (VAT) and asphaltic-asbestos felt and shingles. The disposal of the ACWM outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Commonwealth must comply with all the applicable laws and regulations of the state receiving the material. Pursuant to 310 CMR 16.05, ACM including VAT, and/or asphaltic- asbestos felts or shingles may not be disposed of at a facility operating as a recycling facility.
3
Recycling Infrastructure
MassDEP supports voluntary initiatives to institutionalize source reduction and recycling into operations. Adapting the design, infrastructure, and contractual requirements necessary to incorporate reduction, recycling and recycled products into existing large-scale developments has presented significant challenges to recycling proponents. Integrating those components into developments during the planning and design stage enables the project’s management and occupants to establish and maintain effective waste diversion programs.
The MassDEP appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. Please contact [email protected] at (978) 694-3258 for further information on wetlands issues. Please contact [email protected] at (978) 694-3262 for further information on solid waste, construction and demolition, or asbestos issues. If you have any general questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [email protected] or at (978) 694-3304.
Sincerely,
John D. Viola Deputy Regional Director
cc: Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission Eric Worrall, Rachel Freed, John MacAuley, Pam Merrill, MassDEP-NERO
4
Massachusetts Port Authority One Harborside Drive, Suite 200S East Boston, MA 02128-2909 Telephone (617) 568-1000 www.massport.com
April 27, 2021
Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office Alex Strysky, EEA #16350 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114
Subject: Parcels O and P – Raymond L. Flynn Marine Park – ENF (EEA #16350)
Dear Secretary Theoharides:
On behalf of the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the redevelopment of Parcels O and P located in the Raymond L. Flynn Marine Park (RLFMP) in South Boston. The Preferred Alternative for the project includes the construction of an approximately 219,000 square foot (sf) life science/R&D building at Parcel O (1 Au Bon Pain Way) and the completion of an approximately 9,000 sf adaptive reuse of the existing 12,700 sf building at Parcel P (3 Anchor Way), which will serve as an amenity space for the tenants of the new life science/R&D building. The existing surface parking lot on the property will be maintained and no additional parking is proposed.
The ENF also presents an Alternative Project that includes the demolition of the existing buildings on Parcel O and P and the construction of a new 5-story, 215,000-sf life science/R&D building. Under this alternative, Parcels O and P would be combined and the portion of Au Bon Pain Way between the parcels would be included in the formation of a single parcel. This single building would contain both the R&D and employee amenity uses. The Alternative Project’s 43,000-sf building footprint would span over the discontinued portion of Au Bon Pain Way and over parts of Parcels O and P. The Alternative Project maintains the existing surface parking and no additional parking is proposed.
Massport is a major landowner in the South Boston Waterfront, and the owner and operator of both Flynn Cruiseport Boston and the Conley Container Terminal. These maritime facilities, together with the many seafood processing businesses on and adjacent to Massport property as well as other truck dependent businesses within the district, depend on efficient truck access to and from their business and the interstate highway system. The maritime businesses in the Port of Boston, including the South Boston facilities of Conley Container Terminal, Flynn Cruiseport Boston, and the seafood processors in the Raymond L. Flynn Marine Park, on the Massport Marine Terminal (MMT), and at the Fish Pier together support more than 9,000 direct jobs and generate $8.2 billion annually in economic activity.1 These are the businesses that have invested in and continue to advance
1Economic Impact of the Port of Boston, Martin and Assoc., 2019
Operating Boston Logan International Airport • Worcester Regional Airport • Hanscom Field • Conley Container Terminal • Flynn Cruiseport Boston • Boston Fish Pier
Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides 2 April 27, 2021
Massachusetts’ working maritime tradition by protecting thousands of good-paying blue-collar jobs. And these are the jobs that help to grow and diversify the Commonwealth’s economy. The project site is also under a key approach and departure route for aircraft operating in and out of Boston Logan International Airport (Logan Airport). As, such protection of critical transportation routes and the airspace for Logan Airport are of paramount interest to Massport. The following sections provide additional detailed comments on the project.
Transportation/Traffic
Parcels O and P are located across Fid Kennedy Avenue from the MMT, a collective set of parcels servicing the maritime industrial and other truck-dependent businesses. As such, it is important to minimize the proposed project’s transportation impacts and ensure that the mitigation elements offset any impacts to truck access and operational efficiency. Currently, Massport is working with the City of Boston to redesign the intersection of Fid Kennedy/Massport Haul Road and Northern Avenue, converting the intersection from a roundabout to a four-way signalized intersection. This important intersection improvement, when combined with a realignment of Fid Kennedy Avenue, will provide permanent truck access through the northern gateway of the RLFMP, which was envisioned in the City’s RLFMP Master Plan Update. In order to ensure the success of these improvements, we ask that the Proponent continue to work with Massport and other agencies to finalize the design and traffic analysis of the new intersection. Working together, a design that leads to the successful implementation of the RLFMP Master Plan Update can be advanced. In addition to actions by the Proponent, we also request that the City of Boston commit to a timeline for implementing the intersection improvements and roadway realignments that will be designed.
The proponent includes 88 secure bicycle spaces for employees but does not demonstrate how these bicycles will access the site. Given the truck activity along Fid Kennedy Avenue, Tide Street, and adjacent roadways, it is important to demonstrate how these bicycles will safely access and egress the site and maneuver through the roadway network.
While the ENF provides a transit analysis of the stops closest to the site, the capacity constraints of the transit routes occur at “pinch points” in the system. So while there may be sufficient capacity at the stop throughout the day, there is a significant constraint within the trunk2 of the system (particularly with the Silver Line and SL2). In some cases, SL2 patrons are left on the platform because there is not enough room on the vehicle. As such, the Proponent, City, and MBTA should work together to resolve these challenges and the analysis should acknowledge the system constraints.
It is important to show that the building can provide sufficient parking to support the proposed uses without spilling over and parking at other parcels or on the street, potentially constraining truck routes. In addition, if food service or other amenities are provided on site, these should remain private or the Proponent should provide sufficient off-street visitor parking to support these uses.
2 Trunk of system includes the Transitway between South Station and Silver Line Way Station.
Operating Boston Logan International Airport • Worcester Regional Airport • Hanscom Field • Conley Container Terminal • Flynn Cruiseport Boston • Boston Fish Pier
Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides 3 April 27, 2021
Building Heights
Massport has developed the Airspace Map (Logan Airspace Map or Airspace Map) that defines the critical airspace around Logan Airport. The Map was created with input from airlines, pilots, city officials, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to protect the flight corridors in and out of the airport and to help guide developers and regulatory authorities on building heights. The Airspace Map aids developers in their planning and informs the FAA approval process of individual projects to determine if they present a potential hazard to air navigation. Failure to protect Logan’s airspace will result in a reduction in safety, loss of airport efficiency, and impact runway utilization potentially shifting flights from one community to another.
Massport requests that the Proponent coordinate closely with Massport early in the design process, before filing the FAA Form 7460-1, to ensure that the buildings do not exceed the airspace limit as defined by the Logan Airspace Map (see http://www.massport.com/media/1545/boston-logan- airspace-map.pdf). The FAA requires that the Proponent submit the FAA Form 7460-1s for the individual buildings. A separate 7460-1s must also be filed for construction cranes. It is equally important that the Proponent coordinate with FAA and Massport early in the construction planning phase to minimize the extent and duration of impacts of the temporary crane(s) on the airspace.
The Logan Airspace Map is based on the NAVD 88 Datum as required by the FAA. To calculate the actual allowable building height, the site elevation, also based on NAVD 88, needs to be subtracted from the Airspace Limit at that location. Please note that the height of the structure is derived from the tallest points such as rooftop utilities or any architectural design elements.
Once the project is complete, developers must file the FAA Form 7460-2 to record the as-built survey with 1A accuracy for FAA national obstruction database purposes.
Solar Arrays
If solar panels are being planned, a separate glare study with the FAA must be completed. The FAA guidance for solar panels can be found at: https://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/policy_guidance/media/FAA-Airport-Solar-Guide- 2018.pdf
Aircraft Noise
Projects directly under flight paths and closer to the airport may also be impacted by overflight noise. Logan Airport operates 24 hours per day and year-round. Overflights are primarily driven by wind and weather and the FAA’s selection of specific runways. We strongly recommend developers reach out to Massport for feedback and guidance on building design guidance to minimize interior noise. For more information please refer to Massport’s website: https://www.massport.com/logan- airport/about-logan/noise-abatement/
Operating Boston Logan International Airport • Worcester Regional Airport • Hanscom Field • Conley Container Terminal • Flynn Cruiseport Boston • Boston Fish Pier
Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides 4 April 27, 2021
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (617) 997-6223 or at [email protected] if you wish to discuss any of our comments.
Sincerely,
Massachusetts Port Authority
Joel Barrera Director, Strategic and Business Planning Massachusetts Port Authority cc: F. Leo, S. Gongal, A. Ng, S. Dalzell, B. Washburn, G. Carr/Massport Lisa Engler/CZM Daniel Padien/DEP Levi Reilly/ Marcus Partners Ken Fields/Fort Point Associates
Operating Boston Logan International Airport • Worcester Regional Airport • Hanscom Field • Conley Container Terminal • Flynn Cruiseport Boston • Boston Fish Pier
To: Kathleen Theoharides, EOEEA Secretary
Through: Alexander Strysky, MEPA
From: Daniel Padien, Section Chief, Mass DEP Waterways Regulation Program
Re: EEA #16350; Parcels O & P, Raymond L. Flynn Marine Industrial Park, South Boston, Filled Commonwealth Tidelands, Suffolk County, Master License No. 10233.
Project Description: the Project Proponent, MCP III Foundry, LLC, through its consultant, Fort Point Associates, has submitted an ENF application that proposes to redevelop two adjacent Parcels, O & P, in the Raymond L. Flynn Marine Industrial Park (“MIP”). Parcel O formerly housed Au Bon Pain in an approximately 68384 s.f building for manufacturing and shipping of bakery products. Parcel O also has approximately 96 surface parking spaces. Parcel P is an approximately 24,280 s.f. parcel, now vacant, with an existing 12,700 s.f. building. These two sites’ structures and uses were authorized in the Master License, No. 10233, issued in 2005. This City of Boston Planning and Development Agency (“BPDA”) and the Economic Development Industrial Corporation (“EDIC”) sought to renew the Master License in 2018, and it is presently undergoing a renewal process through MEPA review. The proposed Project will be reviewed under the standards, conditions, and processes of the Master License approved in 2005.
The Proponent proposes to demolish the structure on Parcel O and construct an eight story, 151’-0” high life science/R&D building with a total square footage of 219,000 square feet. The new building will be elevated in order to bring the first floor level to an elevation of 20.5’ Boston City Base, which is above the City’s 2070 benchmark for the 2070 Sea Level Rise Design Flood Elevavtion (“SLR DFE”). The existing surface parking will remain. On Parcel P, the Project proposes to reuse the existing building as an amenity space for the tenants in the Parcel O building.
Project Comments: Upon completion of the MEPA review and disclosure process, the Project will undergo the review process for a Minor Revision, in accordance with review standards set forth in Special Condition #6. Parcels O & P were each identified as parcels where General Industrial activities and structures are allowed in Table 7 of the Master License, entitled “Marine Industrial Park Master Plan; Future Build Out and Land Use Matrix.” Pursuant to the methods described in Special Condition #5 in the Master License, the proposed redevelopment will be defined as a General Industrial project.
With respect to the Minor Revision application and process, the Department recommends that the Proponent present information that addresses the standards set forth in 310 CMR 9.36(5)(b) that prevent nonwater-dependent structures or activities which pre-empt marine- industrial use within a Designated Port Area (DPA). This would include reasonable arrangements to prevent commitments of space or facilities that would significantly discourage present or future marine-industrial activity both on the project site or elsewhere in the DPA. Compliance with these standards, found at (a)-(d) of the referenced regulation cited above, should be addressed in the filing with the Department. Along with that, the Proponent should clearly document how the proposed buildings conform with the zoning uses and other standards, including building heights, as further described in Special Condition #4 and in Appendix B of the Master License. Greater detail should be provided on how the amenity functions proposed for the repurposed Parcel P comply with the Master License.
Process: At the close of MEPA review, the Department looks forward to the public review of the Minor Revision application, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Special Condition #6 of the Master License.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCES 100 CAMBRIDGE ST., SUITE 1020 BOSTON, MA 02114 Telephone: 617-626-7300 Facsimile: 617-727-0030
Charles D. Baker Kathleen A. Theoharides Governor Secretary
Karyn E. Polito Patrick Woodcock Lt. Governor Commissioner
04 May 2021
Kathleen Theoharides, Secretary Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Attn: MEPA Unit
RE: Parcel O & P, Boston, MA, EEA #16350
Cc: Maggie McCarey, Director of Energy Efficiency, Department of Energy Resource Patrick Woodcock, Commissioner, Department of Energy Resources
Dear Secretary Theoharides:
We’ve reviewed the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the proposed project. The project includes a 8-story 219,000-sf life sciences building as well as the renovation of a 12,700-sf existing building. The objective of this letter is to share strategies for the project to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) while also improving resiliency and affordability.
Key Strategies
Deployed together, the following have been found to be effective strategies in advancing emission reduction, resilience, and affordability:
• Building design and construction practices that result in low heating and cooling thermal energy demand intensity (heating and cooling “TEDI”) by:
o Maintaining envelope integrity with framed, insulated walls with continuous insulation;
o Thermally-broken windows and other components to eliminate thermal bridges;
Parcel O & P, EEA #16350 Boston, MA
o Minimizing glass curtain wall assemblies and excessive windows;
o Low air-infiltration, confirmed with in-building air-infiltration testing;
o Energy recovery;
o Management of solar heat gains;
• Efficient electrification of space heating, including:
o For highly ventilated lab office (including speculative core-and-shell developments): low temperature, hydronic space heating with heat-input provided by hybrid, in-building, central plant consisting of air-to-water heat pump (primary) and gas boilers (secondary);
• Efficient electrification of water heating, where feasible;
• Extensive rooftop solar-readiness;
• Electric vehicle ready parking spaces.
Experience has shown that the above deliver 50 to 80% less emissions than projects built to Code while improving affordability and resilience. In addition, significant incentives may be available including MassSave® incentives, Alternative Energy Credits (AECs), and Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target (SMART) credits.
Envelope, Heat Recovery, and Solar Gains
The combination of quality envelope, heat recovery, and management of solar gains can result in significant reduction in heating (and cooling) thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI, units of kBtu/sf-yr)1. In addition to reduced utility costs and emissions, the value of a targeted focus on heating and cooling TEDI results in:
• Simplified space heating electrification; • Reduction, and possible elimination, of perimeter heating systems; • Improved resiliency; • Reduced peak demands; • Improved occupant comfort; • Reduced maintenance.
Specific TEDI reduction strategies are:
1 Although they have the same units, heating and cooling TEDI is not the same as heating and cooling EUI. TEDI represents energy requirement, or demand, not energy consumption. For guidance on how to extract TEDI information from building models see “Energy Modeling Guidelines”, City of Vancouver, Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability Department, Land Use Development and Policy Guidelines, Version 2.0, amended 18 July 2018 and “Designing to TEDI, TEUI, and GHGI Performance Metrics”, International Building Performance Simulation Association (IBPSA), by Chan et al Page 2 of 8
Parcel O & P, EEA #16350 Boston, MA
• High-performance window and walls; • Thermal-broken windows and components to eliminate thermal bridges; • Low air-infiltration; • Ventilation heat recovery; • Solar gain management via external shading and/or low solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC)
Buildings with curtain wall envelope require high performing windows and high performing opaque spandrels to achieve heating TEDI reductions. High performing windows and high performing opaque spandrels should be carefully evaluated if curtain-wall construction is considered.
Efficient Electrification – Space Heating
Efficient electrification of space heating entails the swapping of fossil fuels (natural gas, oil, and propane), or electric resistance systems, with cold-climate rated air source heat pumps or ground source heat pumps.
Electrification of space is a key mitigation strategy with significant short- and long-term implications on GHG emissions. Massachusetts grid emissions rates continue to decline with the implementation of clean energy policies that increase renewable electricity sources. The implication is that efficient electric space heating with cold climate air source heat pump (or ground source heat pump) has lower emissions than other fossil-fuel based heating options, including best-in-class (95% efficient) condensing natural gas equipment.
Currently, efficient electric heating has approximately 50% lower emissions in Massachusetts than condensing natural gas heating. By 2050, and possibly sooner, efficient electric heating is expected to have approximately 85% lower emissions in Massachusetts than condensing natural gas heating. See illustration below.
DOER recommends efficient electrification of space heating for all new construction.
Page 3 of 8
Parcel O & P, EEA #16350 Boston, MA
Electrifying Space Heating: Lab/Office Buildings
Lab/office buildings typically have high ventilation loads which has made electrification of space heating a challenge in the past, particularly in a speculative core/shell project. However, DOER is aware of highly-ventilated, speculative core and shell lab/office projects that are pursuing a pathway to partially electrify space heating. The approach uses a hybrid of air to water (or ground to water) heat pumps with gas equipment as backup in which the heat pump can provide 80-90% total annual heating end use.
Key strategies for this hybrid approach are as follows:
• Include a hot water distribution loop of 120℉;
• Include an in-building, centralized heating plant consisting of an air-to-water (or ground- to-water) heat pump and a gas-fired condensing boiler;
• Size the boiler for 100% of the peak load; size the air source heat pump for 25% to 50% of the peak load;
• Prioritize the heat pump operation first and utilize boiler only when loads exceed 25-50% of peak. The objective is to provide 80-90% of the total annual heating with air source.
A hybrid approach like this may provide a feasible means to partially electrify space heating of highly ventilated lab/office building, including speculative core/shell projects.
Efficient Electrification – Service Water Heating
Similar to above, due to Massachusetts low electric grid emissions, even swapping from best in class condensing gas to heat pump service water heating results in significant emissions reduction. However, heat pump service water heating is challenging in some building settings.
Service water heating
Lab/office buildings typically have low service water loads, compared to residential building uses. Heat pump service water heating using packaged air source heat pump equipment is potentially feasible. Such units can be distributed throughout the buildings at or near the service water points of use. If water usage is low, we recommend this approach for those building types.
Alternatively, if the lab/office buildings have higher water loads and/or limited interior space to locate packaged heat pump water heating equipment near point of use. Alternative approaches in these applications include:
• Centrally located air source water heating: These systems consist of centrally located heat pumps, usually with the compressors outdoors, which provide hot water to water distribution piping to the end use locations. These are usually engineered solutions with less packaged equipment options. Page 4 of 8
Parcel O & P, EEA #16350 Boston, MA
• Condensing gas hot water heaters: These systems consist of either centrally located, or distributed, natural gas fired heating equipment. Centrally located equipment is preferable as it allows an opportunity to swap to heat pump water heating in the future.
• Some combination of above.
We recommend the above be evaluated, with a priority toward heat pump water heating.
Solar PV
Rooftop PV can provide significant GHG benefits as well as significant financial benefits. The project should review opportunities to maximize on-site PV by setting aside as much roof space as possible for future rooftop PV.
Even if PV is not installed during building construction, it is important to plan the project to ensure that roof space is set aside for PV and that roof space doesn’t become unnecessarily encroached with HVAC appurtenances, diminishing the opportunities for future PV. Electrification of heating and Passivehouse can both contribute to enabling more PV as these approaches can reduce rooftop equipment associated with conventional code HVAC.
Electric Vehicle (EV) Ready Parking Spaces
EV charging stations are critical for the continual transition towards electric mobility. Even if EV charging stations are not installed during construction, it is critical to maximize EV-ready spaces as it is significantly cheaper and easier to size electrical service and install wiring or wiring conduit during construction, rather than retrofitting a project later.
We encourage the project to maximize EV-ready parking spaces for the project.
Incentives
Buildings which incorporate the above strategies can qualify for significant incentives:
• MassSave performance-based incentives2 offer incentives for every kWh or therm saved compared to a program-provided energy model. The above energy efficiency strategies offer opportunities for large kWh and therm savings.
• Alternative Energy Credits (AECs)3 offer incentives to electrify building space heating using heat pumps and/or VRF. These credits may be distributed on a quarterly basis over time; or, may be distributed in a lump sum to the developer if certain conditions are met.
2 https://www.masssave.com/en/saving/business-rebates/new-buildings-and-major-renovations/ 3 https://www.mass.gov/guides/aps-renewable-thermal-statement-of-qualification-application Page 5 of 8
Parcel O & P, EEA #16350 Boston, MA
• Massachusetts SMART program4 provides significant incentives for solar development on top of federal and state tax incentives. SMART includes pathways which allow solar production to be sold without off-takers. This may be of potential interest to building developers as this allows them to develop rooftop solar without necessarily engaging with building tenants. For this reason, setting aside rooftop solar PV areas helps ensure that building owners’ ability to monetize the roof is not impacted.
Codes and Baseline
Massachusetts Stretch Code applies to this project. Stretch Code requires a 10% energy performance improvement over ASHRAE 90.1-2013-Appendix G plus Massachusetts amendments including C402.1.5 (envelope), C405.3 and C405.4 (lighting), C405.10 (EV charging), and C406 (three additional efficiency measures).
Projects should include the three C406 additional efficiency measures in their Baseline.
Current Mitigation Measures & Preliminary Modeling
The project has been proactive to incorporate energy efficiency improvements such as a high- efficiency runaround heat recovery system and fan coil units for all building zones. Additionally, the project performed preliminary energy modeling of alternative design approaches which incorporated many of the mitigation strategies DOER addressed above. The preliminary modeling presented promising pathways to reduce cost, energy use and GHG emissions. The modeled scenarios were as follows:
• Code Compliant Baseline: Industry-standard approach for a Stretch Code compliant core-shell laboratory building;
• Current Design: High efficiency energy recovery system;
• Option 1: Improved envelope, more efficient heat recovery and partial electrification;
• Option 2: Further improvements to envelope and heat recovery resulting in more of the heat load covered by electrification;
• 100% Electric Option: High performing envelope and energy recovery, and a fully electrified building.
The modeled results show that Option 2 and the 100% Electric Option significantly reduce fossil fuel (gas) use and present significant GHG savings, resulting in GHG reductions of 750 tpy and 850 tpy, as follows:
4 https://www.mass.gov/solar-massachusetts-renewable-target-smart Page 6 of 8
Parcel O & P, EEA #16350 Boston, MA
Additionally, the modeling included a life cycle cost analysis for each option, which showed that Option 2 and the 100% Electric Option are by far the most affordable design strategies with significantly reduced upfront cost and operational savings. The table below of life cycle cost analysis was presented in the preliminary energy study, all values are listed as premiums, relative to the lowest value in each category.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Code Current Option 1 Option 2 "100% Compliant Design Electric" Units Baseline Construction Cost Premium yr1 $ $ 5,980,000 $ 4,370,000 $ 4,070,000 (lowest) $ 90,000 Energy Cost $/yr $ 87,300 $ 63,400 $ 46,400 (lowest) $ 400 Water+Sewer Cost $/yr $ 18,800 $ 11,400 $ 2,200 $ 5,300 (lowest) Net Maintenenc Cost $/yr $ 54,000 $ 31,300 $ 19,500 $ 2,700 (lowest) Relative Net Present Savings $ $0 $2,350,000 $3,230,000 $7,300,000 $7,440,000
As shown in the preliminary analysis, the current design presents a higher upfront cost, increased operating cost, much higher reliance on fossil fuel (gas), and more GHG emissions and thus is not recommended when compared to either Option 2 or the 100% Electric Option. Therefore, we encourage the project to use either Option 2 or the 100% Electric Option for the project.
Recommendations:
Due to the upfront cost savings, ongoing operating savings, reduction in fossil fuel use, and GHG reduction DOER recommends Option 2 or the 100% Electric Option. DOER does not recommend the current approach.
Sincerely,
Page 7 of 8
Parcel O & P, EEA #16350 Boston, MA
Paul F. Ormond, P.E. Energy Efficiency Engineer Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources
Brendan Place Clean Energy Engineer Massachusetts Department of Energy Resource
Page 8 of 8
April 27, 2021
Kathleen A. Theoharides, Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge St, Suite 900 Attn: MEPA Office, Alex Strysky Boston, MA 02114
Subject: EOEEA #16350 – Environmental Notification Form Parcels O and P – Raymond L. Flynn Marine Park, Boston, MA
Dear Secretary Theoharides,
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) submitted by MCP III Foundry, LLC (the “Proponent”) for Parcels O and P – Raymond L. Flynn Marine Park (the “Project”) in Boston, Massachusetts. The Project site is comprised of two parcels, Parcel O and Parcel P, located within the Raymond L. Flynn Marine Park in South Boston. The site is currently mostly impervious and contains commercial buildings as well as associated parking. The Project involves demolition of an existing vacant building and construction of a new eight-story life science and research and development building, as well as repurposing of an existing building to serve as amenity space for tenants of the new building. The project will include approximately 96 existing surface parking spaces.
MWRA’s comments on this ENF relate to wastewater issues and the need for Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Removal and Toxic Reduction and Control (TRAC) discharge permitting.
Wastewater
The ENF reports that the Project will generate 17,100 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater flow, which is an increase of 13,179 gpd over the estimated existing wastewater flow of 3,921 gpd. According to the Boston Water and Sewer Commission (“BWSC”) storm drain and sewer maps, the Project site is served by a separate, privately owned storm drain system. The private storm drains deliver collected runoff to Boston Harbor outfalls. The private sanitary sewer serving the Project site is in FID Kennedy Drive. Sanitary flows are conveyed to BWSC’s South Boston Interceptor North Branch (“SBI-NB”) and then to MWRA’s Columbus Park Headworks in South Boston, which directs flows to the Deer Island treatment plant. The SBI-NB serves both separate sewer areas, such as the Project area, and combined sewer areas of South Boston. Stormwater entering the sewer system from combined sewer areas can exceed the capacity of the SBI-NB, causing surcharging of the SBI-NB that can contribute to combined sewer overflows (CSO) to the Reserved Channel and the Fort Point Channel in large storms.
To ensure that the Project’s wastewater flow does not increase system surcharging or overflows in large storms, the Proponent should work with BWSC to develop a plan for ensuring a 4:1 offset of the Project’s wastewater flow as required by Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection regulation. Four gallons of stormwater and/or infiltration and inflow (I/I) should be removed from hydraulically related sewer system(s) for every gallon of new wastewater flow. Increasing wastewater flow to the South Boston sewer systems without the required offset can compromise the sewer system and water quality benefits of MWRA’s $912 million region-wide CSO control plan, including water quality improvement in the Reserved Channel and the Fort Point Channel.
TRAC Discharge Permitting
MWRA prohibits the discharge of groundwater and stormwater into the sanitary sewer system, pursuant to 360 C.M.R. 10.023(1) except in a combined sewer area when permitted by the Authority and the local community. The Project site has access to a storm drain and is not located in a combined sewer area. Therefore, the discharge of groundwater or stormwater to the sanitary sewer system associated with this Project is prohibited.
A Sewer Use Discharge Permit is required prior to discharging laboratory wastewater, research and development wastewater, and/or marine industrial process wastewater from laboratory or commercial space associated with the Project into the MWRA sanitary sewer system. For assistance in obtaining this permit, a representative from the proposed laboratory and commercial space should contact Erika T. Samuels, Industrial Coordinator, in the TRAC Department at 1 (617) 305-5666.
On behalf of the MWRA, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this Project. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 1 (617) 788-4958 with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Beth Card Director Environmental and Regulatory Affairs
cc: John Viola, DEP Adam Horst, BWSC