The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Charles D
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Charles D. Baker GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Karyn E. Polito Fax: (617) 626-1081 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR http://www.mass.gov/eea Kathleen A. Theoharides SECRETARY
July 3, 2020
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE
PROJECT NAME : Suffolk Downs Redevelopment PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Boston and Revere PROJECT WATERSHED : Boston Harbor EEA NUMBER : 15783 PROJECT PROPONENT : The McClellan Highway Development Company, LLC c/o The HYM Investment Group, LLC DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : May 20, 2020
Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA; M.G. L. c. 30, ss. 61- 62I) and Section 11.10 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I have reviewed the Notice of Project Change (NPC) submitted for this project and hereby determine that it does not require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Project Change Description
On January 30, 2020, I issued a Certificate on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for this project, which required the Proponent to submit a NPC to document transportation and transit mitigation commitments once they had been more fully developed and to provide an opportunity for public review. It required that the NPC provide revised mitigation measures and updated draft Section 61 Findings based on ongoing consultation with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) to ensure that delivery of transit improvements occurs commensurate with the scope and scale of project impacts.
EEA# 15783 NPC Certificate July 3, 2020
The Proponent has continued to consult with the MassDOT, MBTA, Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), the Cities of Boston and Revere, and other members of the Transportation Working Group (TWG) since the FEIR Certificate was issued to refine the transit and transportation mitigation commitments. The NPC included an update on this consultation and provided revised transportation and transit mitigation commitments and revised draft Section 61 Findings. The NPC described limited clarifications and minor modifications in the timing of the transportation mitigation and clarified the use of transit mitigation funds based upon consultation with state agencies, the Cities of Boston and Revere, and other stakeholders. The NPC also provide an update on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) mitigation measures and identified measures, required by the City of Boston’s permitting process, which will require additional analysis of measures to reduce GHG emissions and improve the project’s resiliency.
Original Project Description
The project includes the construction of a 16.2 million-square-foot (msf) transit-oriented mixed-use development at the former Suffolk Downs horse racing facility. It includes approximately 10.52 msf of development in Boston and 5.68 msf of development in Revere. The building program includes approximately 5.2 msf of commercial office/lab space; 10.15 msf of residential space (10,000 units); 450,000 sf of retail space; and 400,000 sf of hotel space (800 rooms). As summarized below, build out of the project is anticipated to occur in five phases over 15-20 years. Each phase contains two sub-phases of development (one located in Boston and one located in Revere). Development will commence at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Suffolk Downs and Beachmont Blue Line Stations and proceed west across the site. . Phase 1 – 2020 to 2024: These initial phases of development in Boston (Phase 1B) and Revere (Phase 1R) are located near the two MBTA Blue Line stations. Phase 1 includes construction of 1.87 msf of residential space (1,870 units); 540,000 sf of commercial office/lab space; 175,000 sf of retail space; 130,000 sf of hotel space (260 rooms); and 2,032 parking spaces (1,930 structured spaces and 102 on-street spaces). Phase 1 will install 1.34 miles of water main and 1.13 miles of sewer main. . Phase 2 – 2024 to 2028: This phase includes significant build out of the Central Common to connect Phases 1B and 1R. It also includes development along Waldemar Avenue. Phase 2 includes construction of 2.26 msf of residential space (2,250 units); 770,000 sf of commercial office/lab space; 120,000 sf of retail space; 106,600 sf of hotel space (220 rooms) and 1,847 parking spaces (1,625 structured spaces and 222 on-street spaces). Phase 2 will install 2.08 miles of water main and 2.17 miles of sewer main. . Phase 3 – 2028 to 2032: This phase generally includes development of major portions of the street network connecting to the Central Common. Phase 3 includes 2.40 msf of residential space (2,300 units); 1.90 msf of commercial office/lab space; 128,000 sf of retail space; and 4,279 parking spaces (4,130 structured spaces and 149 on-street spaces). Phase 3 will install 0.45 miles of water main and 0.14 miles of sewer main. . Phase 4 – 2032 to 2036: This phase includes build out of parcels along Tomasello Drive. Phase 4 includes 2.42 msf of residential spaces (2,400 units); 2.0 msf of commercial
2
EEA# 15783 NPC Certificate July 3, 2020
office/lab space; 27,000 sf of retail space; and 4,972 parking spaces (4,835 structured spaces and 137 on-street spaces). . Phase 5 – 2036 to 2040: This phase is located wholly in Boston and includes build out of parcels at the entrance of the project site off of Route 1A. Phase 5 includes construction of 1.20 msf of residential space (1,180 units); 163,400 sf of hotel space (320 rooms); and 690 parking spaces (670 structured spaces and 20 on-street spaces).
As described in greater detail in the FEIR Certificate, the project will construct infrastructure and provide mitigation and public benefits concurrent with each phase of development.
Project Site
The 161-acre project site is located within a densely developed urban area in East Boston (109 acres) and Revere (52 acres). It is generally bounded by the Lee Burbank Highway (Route 1A) and fuel storage tank farms to the west; a shopping plaza to the northwest; Route 145 (Revere Beach Parkway/Winthrop Avenue) and the Crescent Beach neighborhood to the north; the MBTA Beachmont and Suffolk Downs Station, Blue Line tracks, Bennington Street, and Belle Isle Marsh to the northeast and east; and Waldemar Avenue and the Orient Heights neighborhood to the south. The site includes access drives, a grandstand and clubhouse buildings, a one-mile racetrack for thoroughbred racing, a manmade pond (Horseshoe Pond), horse barns and stables, 3,028 surface parking spaces, and other infrastructure. Site access is provided from Tomasello Drive. Refer to the FEIR Certificate for a more detailed description of the project site.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental impacts remain unchanged from those previously identified in the FEIR. Construction of the project will result in the following: 109 total acres of impervious area (including creation of 14 new acres); 13,820 total parking spaces; generation of 72,316 adjusted average daily vehicle trips (adt); use of 2.7 million gallons per day (mgd) of water and generation of 2.46 mgd of wastewater. It will also impact the following on-site wetland resource areas: Inland Bank (4,340 linear feet (lf)), Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW) (2.70 acres), Land Under Water (LUW) (31,340 sf), Riverfront Area (1.48 ac), and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF) (92.37 acres). Construction of off-site transportation improvements will impact the following: Riverfront Area (18,000 total sf), LSCSF (15.5 acres), Filled Tidelands (7 acres), Designated Port Area (DPA) (13.8 acres), and Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) (53,000 sf).
Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts include: redevelopment of an existing site in close proximity to transit; $41 million of roadway improvements at more than 30 locations; $20 million transit mitigation package; development of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program; on- and off-site pedestrian and bicycle improvements; provision of a 40-acre publicly-accessible open space network; Low Impact Development (LID) measures; incorporation of energy efficiency measures in certain buildings to reduce the project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and construction of rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays.
3
EEA# 15783 NPC Certificate July 3, 2020
Portions of the project site and the majority of buildings will be raised to establish a first-floor elevation that is designed to withstand the effects of sea level rise (through 2070) and the project will incorporate other measures to improve the project’s resiliency and ability to adapt to the effects of climate change.
Jurisdiction and Permitting
The project was subject to preparation of a mandatory EIR pursuant to Sections 11.03(1)(a)(2), 11.03(3)(a)(1)(b), 11.03(6)(a)(6) and (7) of the MEPA regulations because it requires State Agency Actions and will result in: creation of 10 or more acres of impervious area, alteration of greater than 10 acres of any other wetlands, generation of 3,000 or more New adt, and construction of 1,000 or more New parking spaces at a single location. It also exceeds ENF thresholds pertaining to wetlands, wastewater, transportation, historic and archaeological resources, and ACECs.
Construction of the project, including on- and off-site transportation improvements, will require multiple Vehicular Access Permits from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and Access Permits from DCR. The project may require one or more Chapter 91 (c. 91) authorizations and one or more 401 Water Quality Certification(s) (WQC), and a Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). The project will require Section 8(m) Permits, Direct Connect Permits, and Temporary Construction Site Dewatering Permit from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). It will also require a Permit for Service Extension under the MWRA Water Straddle Policy and easement rights and/or potential land transfer (from City of Revere to MWRA) for the interim water connection. The project will require Agreements for Improvements with MassDOT and the MBTA for off-site infrastructure/transportation improvements and for work at the Beachmont and Suffolk Downs MBTA Stations. The project will require easements and/or Land Transfers from MassDOT for construction of the off-site Route 1A and Bell Circle improvements and Route 1A corridor improvements. It will also require the following from MBTA: an easement and/or Land Transfer to construct a pedestrian connection to Suffolk Downs MBTA Station, easement rights to construct a berm on Washburn Avenue, roadway layout/sidewalk easement to construct the Winthrop Avenue bus turnout, and a signal maintenance easement to relocate the site’s access drive. The project was subject to review under the May 5, 2010 MEPA Greenhouse Gas Policy and Protocol (GHG Policy).
According to the NPC, the project continues to require the previously identified Agency Actions, none of which have been issued. The NPC indicated the project does not require any New Agency Actions.
The project requires a NPDES Construction General Permit and closure of the existing NPDES Permit for the CAFO from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It may require authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) under the General Permits for Massachusetts in accordance with Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The project may require Federal Consistency Review by Coastal Zone Management (CZM).
4
EEA# 15783 NPC Certificate July 3, 2020
The project is subject to review by several City of Boston agencies, including, but not limited to: Article 80B Large Project review by the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA), Site Plan Review by the Boston Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC), and one or more Orders of Conditions from the Boston Conservation Commission (or in the case of an appeal, a Superseding Order of Conditions from MassDEP). An Impact Advisory Group (IAG), consisting of community members, was appointed to provide input to the BPDA during its review of the project. The project also requires Demolition Review by the Boston Landmarks Commission. The Proponent will prepare and submit a Transportation Access Plan Agreement (TAPA) and Construction Management Plan in coordination with the Boston Transportation Department (BTD) for the project. The Proponent applied to the City of Boston for the creation of a Planned Development Area (PDA) and Approval of five PDA Development Plans in connection with the project. The NPC indicated that the Proponent anticipates receiving a Preliminary Adequacy Determination (“PAD”) waiving further review from the BPDA pursuant to Section 80B-5.4(c) of the Boston Code, and approval of the PDA Plans pursuant to Section 3- 1A, Sections 53-44 through 53-49, and Article 80C of the Boston Code, which when issued are expected to authorize the Director of the BPDA to petition the Boston Zoning Commission to approve the PDA Plans.
The Revere City Council issued a Zoning Code Amendment (on March 27, 2018) and Master Plan Planned Unit Development/Special Permit (on November 29, 2019) for the project. The project requires Site Plan Review from the Site Plan Review Committee, Subdivision Plan Approval from the Revere Planning Board, and review by the City of Revere’s Department of Public Works. It will also require an Order of Conditions from the Revere Conservation Commission (or in the case of an appeal, a Superseding Order of Conditions from MassDEP).
Because the Proponent may seek Financial Assistance from the Commonwealth for the project, MEPA jurisdiction is broad and extends to all aspects of the project that have the potential to cause Damage to the Environment as defined in the MEPA regulations.
Review of the NPC
The NPC clarified previous GHG mitigation commitments and provided additional information on the transportation and transit mitigation commitments, revised draft Section 61 Findings, and a revised mitigation implementation plan (Table 13-1) that identified the threshold or phase for implementation of these improvements. No changes are proposed to the building program, massing, or site layout and the environmental impacts remain unchanged from those previously identified in the FEIR. During MEPA review, the Proponent’s consultant provided updated and revised draft Section 61 Findings to address comments submitted by the BPDA on the NPC and continued consultation with DCR and MassDOT/MBTA. The updated and revised Draft Section 61 Findings were circulated to the distribution list on June 24, 2020 and I accepted all late comments as allowed in accordance with 301 CMR 11.06(3). For purposes of clarity all references to the Draft Section 61 Findings refer to this updated and revised version.
5
EEA# 15783 NPC Certificate July 3, 2020
Transportation/Transit
Since the FEIR Certificate was issued, the Proponent completed the engineering and architectural assessments of the Suffolk Downs and Beachmont Stations. As described below, the use and timing of the $20 million funding commitment for transit mitigation has been modified based on the results of this assessment. The draft Section 61 Findings included updates and minor modifications regarding the timing of the transportation mitigation and minor reallocation of transit mitigation funds. Key elements of these refinements include: . Acceleration of safety improvements associated at Bell Circle with the installation of a signalized pedestrian crossing of Route 1A at Harris Street just south of Revere High School and Rumney Marsh Academy.1 . Acceleration of safety improvements at the Route 1A/Tomassello Way intersection and the Route 1A/Curtis Avenue intersection prior to the reconstruction of the Route 1A Corridor.
o Installation of a controlled pedestrian crossing at the Route 1A/Curtis Avenue intersection at Route 1R occupancy to allow safe access to the MBTA bus stop located along Curtis Avenue.
o Installation of a temporary traffic signal at Route 1A/Tomassello Way intersection prior to occupancy of Phase 1R to provide safe access to the site for general traffic and for construction vehicles for the subsequent phases of the project. . Delaying the minor widening of Route 1A northbound at Furlong Drive to Phase 2 to align with the timing for the larger reconstruction of the Route 1A corridor improvements. . The use and timing of the $20 million funding commitment for transit mitigation that was proposed in the FEIR has been clarified as follows:
o Beachmont Bus Study ($1.5 million) - Payment to be provided within 60 days of issuance of a building permit for the first building in the project (previously within 180 days of issuance of the MEPA Certificate).
o Suffolk Downs Design ($4.5 million) - Payment to be provided within 60 days of issuance of a building permit for the first building in the project (previously within 180 days of issuance of the MEPA Certificate). The NPC also clarified that the design will consider projected climate change impacts, such as anticipated stormwater and coastal flooding.
o Blue Line Signals Design ($5 million) - Payment to be provided within 180 days of issuance of a building permit for construction of the first building in the project (previously to be provided on or around June 1, 2021).
o Beachmont/Suffolk Construction ($9 million) - Payment to be provided within 60 days of notice from the MBTA that it has issued a notice to proceed to the MBTA’s general contractor for a construction contract for a material or full
1 Comments from MassDOT indicate that Route 1A does not cross Harris Street and that Route 60 should be referenced instead. 6
EEA# 15783 NPC Certificate July 3, 2020
reconstruction of either Beachmont or Suffolk Downs Station (previously within 30 days of the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) by the MBTA for a construction contract for one of the stations). The NPC also clarified that the project’s design will consider projected climate change impacts, such as anticipated stormwater and coastal flooding.
o Provision of an annual Blue Line operational subsidy of $210,000 for 15 years (totaling to $3.15 million) to fund the operating costs of one Blue Line train. The first payment to be made 60 days after the issuance of the first occupancy permit for Phase 1 (previously upon the issuance of an occupancy permit for Phase 1 or at some other milestone as mutually agreed by MassDOT/MBTA and the Proponent). . The TDM mitigation program was revised to incorporate the implementation of a privately-operated shuttle service. This measure was identified in the FEIR Certificate but was not previously incorporated into the draft Section 61 Findings.
Comments identify the importance of implementing a robust Transportation Monitoring Program to evaluate the adequacy of the mitigation measures and to determine the effectiveness of the TDM program. The draft Section 61 Findings indicated that the future BTD Transportation Access Plan Agreements (TAPA) and Section 8 of the draft BPDA Master Plan for the project will provide for additional TDM measures related to mode share goals, annual monitoring, annual surveys, and other measures. The draft Section 61 Findings did not identify mode share goals; however, the FEIR previously indicated that the traffic study assumed the following mode shares: public transit (29.7%), Walk (11.4%), Bike (3.4%), Carpool/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) (22.3%), and Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) (33.2%). As previously stated in the FEIR Certificate, I expect that the monitoring program will be expanded to incorporate these minimum mode shares and more aggressive mode share goals, including a commitment to conduct mode share surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of the TDM plan. I expect that MassDOT/MBTA, the Proponent, and the City of Boston will continue to coordinate such that the final Section 61 Findings include this information.
The Draft Section 61 Findings clarified that the East Boston Greenway Extension will be designed in coordination with the BPDA and its PLAN East Boston initiative. The findings also acknowledged that Exhibit K of the BPDA’s draft PDA Master Plan for the project references additional measures, including as to stop locations, timing, and other matters related to the shuttles to the Seaport District and South Station. Comments from Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) continue to identify concerns with the off-site private shuttle component of the TDM plan and recommend replacing it with additional funding for MBTA bus service and increased public transit mitigation commitments. Their comments also request additional specificity regarding the timeframe for completion of bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
Comments from MassDOT and the City of Revere support the acceleration of safety improvements at Bell Circle. Comments from the City of Revere note the improvements should be coordinated with traffic improvements that are being planned in association with redevelopment of the adjacent Necco property. Comments from DCR request the Proponent provide ongoing trip monitoring data to the department on intersections under its jurisdiction through the life of the project. Comments from Massport request the Proponent continue to 7
EEA# 15783 NPC Certificate July 3, 2020
coordinate with the agency regarding improvements to Day Square and Congress Street at B Street ramp.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Scope required that the NPC also address any revised mitigation commitments for GHG reductions in light of the cost effectiveness review to be completed by the Proponent for low/mid and high rise buildings, City requirements or Building Code revisions. According to the Proponent, the cost effectiveness review is currently underway and is anticipated to be completed within the next three months, no later than the end of the year. The FEIR previously included a commitment to build all the low-rise residential buildings (Buildings B-13, B-15, B-17, and B- 19) as all-electric and to Passive House (or equivalent) standards if the demonstration project proposed for Phase 1B (multi-family residential building of at least 50,000 SF) is determined to be cost effective. This commitment remains unchanged. As required by the Scope, the NPC clarified that cost effectiveness would be considered as having a payback period of no more than seven years. The evaluation will take into account the following: incremental capital construction and labor costs (compared to a non-Passive house and not all-electric building), available incentives for the additional energy conservation and/or electrification measures and feasibility of capital providers being able to realize the benefits of such incentives; incremental operational and maintenance costs compared to the non-passive house all-electric design and feasibility of capital providers being able to realize the benefits of such incentives; and acceptance of payback period to capital sources in light of their requirements, including requirements respecting return on investment in light of market conditions, term of financing, and availability of capital. I expect that these factors will not affect the use of a seven-year payback period as the metric for determining when the Proponent will commit to Passive House (or equivalent) and electrification measures.
The NPC also reiterated that the Proponent would provide dedicated electric vehicle (EV) parking and charging stations for 6% of the off-street and 2% of the on-street parking spaces (804 total EV spaces). This commitment was originally made after FEIR was submitted but prior to issuance of the FEIR Certificate. Comments from CLF indicate that this commitment is lower than that required by the City of Boston and request the Proponent consider additional EV charging stations and prioritized parking options for EV and zero-emission vehicles. I expect that City of Boston requirements regarding EV readiness will be reviewed and addressed through the TAPA process for the project. I continue to encourage the Proponent to commit to monitoring the EV charging stations and installing additional stations when warranted by demand.
The NPC indicated that the Proponent would work with the City of Boston to utilize any additional federal, city, and/or state funds (including funds from utilities) that are made available to enhance the building design criteria regarding the development of Phase 1B. It is unclear why this commitment was not extended to also working with the City of Revere and to development of the project as a whole. The NPC also identified measures, required by the City of Boston’s permitting process, which will require additional analysis of measures to reduce GHG emissions and improve the project’s resiliency, including compliance with the most recent version of Article 37 (Green Building Guidelines) of the Boston Code, Boston Climate Resiliency and Sea Level Rise Base Flood Elevation requirements, Climate Action Plan or their successors. The
8
EEA# 15783 NPC Certificate July 3, 2020
NPC provided an update on regulatory and policy changes that occurred after the FEIR Certificate was issued. The NPC indicated that an updated Stretch Code (SC) will become effective on August 7, 2020 which will require that all building envelopes meet a minimum prescriptive code level of performance. The NPC indicated that four building typologies2 evaluated in the FEIR have window to wall ratios and aggregate building envelopes that do not meet this requirement. The NPC indicated the envelopes of these buildings will be improved as project design progresses to comply with the SC and result in additional GHG reductions. I note that this issue was identified in DOER’s comment letter on the FEIR.
The NPC also acknowledged that Governor Baker increased the Commonwealth’s commitment on GHG emissions reduction from 80% by 2050 to reach net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 after the FEIR Certificate was issued. The NPC indicated that it is likely that a Net Zero Energy Code will be enacted in Massachusetts by at least 2030, which is approximately halfway through the Project build-out. In this scenario, the NPC estimated that an additional reduction of 8,420 tpy of GHG emissions would be achieved using 2050 grid emissions factors, representing an additional 22% reduction in GHG emissions per year. This analysis assumed a conversion factor of 710 lbs/MWh for the current rate to 200 lbs/MWh by 2050 as outlined in the DOER’s prior comment letter on the FEIR. As described in prior MEPA documents, GHG mitigation commitments were based on the low-end scenario of the Energy Efficiency Profiles/Targets, which results in a 23% reduction in stationary source GHG emissions. Comments from DOER indicated this reduction is reduced to approximately 15% when accounting for SC requirements. As indicated in the Certificate on the FEIR, it is unclear why the low-end scenario is appropriate as the basis for mitigation commitments given the scale of the project and resulting GHG emissions. I encourage the Proponent to continue to consider the high-end scenario of the Energy Efficiency Profiles/Targets as the project progresses through design and permitting, particularly in light of anticipated Code changes and availability of new or enhanced incentives for energy efficient building construction.
I note the continued concerns raised by DOER regarding the Proponent’s lack of leadership in minimizing GHG emissions in light of the scale of the project and its significant contribution to the carbon footprint in both Boston and Revere. I continue to strongly encourage the Proponent to increase its GHG reduction commitments in light of these concerns. I expect that the future reports on energy use and GHG emissions (as described in the FEIR and to be provided with the Interim Progress Reports) will identify additional efforts that have been implemented to reduce GHG emissions and summarize new energy savings achieved by the buildings; including revised mitigation commitments for GHG reductions in light of the cost effectiveness review to be completed by the Proponent for low/mid and high rise buildings, Net Zero Carbon Assessments conducted for the City of Boston, and any Building Code changes that occur after the date of this certificate. As noted in the FEIR Certificate, a formal NPC submittal will be required should the Progress Report indicate that mitigation measures are reduced such that they are is not being provided commensurate with project impacts.
2 Low-Rise Office, High-Rise Office, Signature High-Rise Residential, and Hotel. 9
EEA# 15783 NPC Certificate July 3, 2020
Mitigation Measures / Draft Section 61 Findings
The NPC included a list of GHG and transportation/transit mitigation measures and revised Draft Section 61 Findings for use by MassDOT/MBTA and DCR. No changes were identified to the other Draft Section 61 Findings or mitigation measures previously provided in the FEIR or identified in the FEIR Certificate. Those commitments are hereby incorporated by reference. Refer to Table 13-1 of the NPC for a summary table of the transportation/transit mitigation measures, including the corresponding phase/trigger for their implementation.
Conclusion
The NPC has sufficiently defined the nature and general elements of the project for the purposes of MEPA review and disclosed measures to be taken by the project to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Comments from State Agencies did not request additional MEPA review and I am satisfied that any outstanding issues can be addressed by State Agencies during permitting. Draft Section 61 Findings presented in the NPC should be updated, as necessary, to incorporate additional or modified mitigation measures that may be identified during the Cities’ and/or State permitting process. The Proponent, MassDOT/MBTA, DCR, and other permitting agencies should forward copies of the final Section 61 Findings to the MEPA Office for publication in accordance with 301 CMR 11.12.
July 3, 2020 ______Date Kathleen A.Theoharides
Comments received:
06/04/2020 Stephen Kaiser 06/07/2020 John Vitagliano 06/09/2020 Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) 06/09/2020 City of Revere, Robert O’Brien, Director of the Office of Strategic Planning and Economic Development 06/09/2020 Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) 06/09/2020 Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) 06/23/2020 Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) 06/24/2020 Department of Energy Resources (DOER) 06/24/2020 Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
KAT/PRC/prc
10
Massachusetts Port Authority One Harborside Drive, Suite 200S East Boston, MA 02128-2909 Telephone (617) 568-5000 www.massport.com
June 9, 2020
Secretary Kathleen Theoharides Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Attn: MEPA Office - Page Czepiga, EEA No. 15783 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114
Re: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment/EEA 15783, Boston and Revere, MA, NPC Comments
Dear Secretary Theoharides:
On behalf of the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), below please find our comments on the Notice of Project Change (NPC) submitted by HYM Investment Group/McClellan Highway Development Company for redevelopment of the 161-acre Suffolk Downs site, located in both East Boston and Revere. We continue to appreciate the applicant’s ongoing willingness to include Massport in its development and mitigation planning discussions through both individual and interagency meetings. These meetings have improved the project and helped define project mitigation commitments, which will reduce impacts on Boston Logan International Airport (Logan Airport), other Massport properties and the community overall.
The NPC follows the January 2020 Final EIR and clarifies the final mitigation program for the development. These mitigation commitments will include a range of on- and off-site measures. Of specific interest to Massport are the transit and transportation measures, such as improvements to the MBTA Blue Line, including upgrades to signal systems and both the Suffolk Downs and Beachmont Stations. The mitigation measures also include critical roadway improvements along Route 1A and at Bell Circle.
As the owner and operator of Logan Airport and an owner of several parcels along Route 1A in the area of Suffolk Downs, the transportation improvements that will be completed as part of this redevelopment are critical to the success of both this project and transportation throughout the adjacent area.
Massport has appreciated the opportunity to participate in the ongoing meetings to develop the transportation analyses and associated mitigation elements of the Master Plan project with HYM and with our agency partners at MassDOT, City of Boston, MBTA, CTPS, DCR, MEPA, and the City of Revere. These interagency efforts have provided a valuable forum to coordinate across jurisdictions and work collaboratively to resolve many of the comments that Massport and others have raised on the Draft EIR/PIR and the Final EIR, including comments related to background growth for the development, Blue Line capacity, and Route 1A design.
As the project moves forward, we would like to reiterate that there remain a number of issues that will require continued coordination with Massport. These items include:
Operating Boston Logan International Airport Port of Boston general cargo and passenger terminals Hanscom Field Boston Fish Pier Commonwealth Pier (site of World Trade Center Boston) Worcester Regional Airport
Secretary Theoharides June 9, 2020
Day Square Improvements. While design of this intersection has not been determined, the proponent has committed to work with stakeholders to develop design solutions that will not adversely impact airport access. Congress Street at B Street ramp in South Boston. Due to the scale of the development, impacts from the Suffolk Downs project extend to other parts of Boston. One location where these impacts may be experienced is at the entry points to the interstate highway system in South Boston. Specifically, the signal at the highway ramp at Congress Street and B Street is owned and operated by Massport. Any project-related proposed changes will need to be reviewed and approved by Massport prior to implementation to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on the many other users, including the truck route network that depends heavily on this intersection for access to and from the regional highway system. Phased Development Monitoring. Due to the long-term nature of the project’s phased buildout, we request that the Suffolk Downs operators be required to implement a robust program of ground access/transit monitoring/reporting, with the possibility to review and reconsider the initial mitigation commitments.
Massport’s earlier project letters also commented on several additional project matters which we believe to have been satisfactorily addressed at this time, including:
Building Heights. At its closest point, the project site is located approximately 1 mile from the end of Runway 22R at Logan Airport. Final EIR Table 3.1 confirms that the maximum proposed building heights range from 50 feet to 220 feet; this is consistent with the proponent’s commitment that future building heights will be in compliance with the Boston Logan Building Heights map and FAA height requirements for the Logan Airport airspace. Solar Technologies and Glare. Because the site is under a Logan Airport flight corridor, any extensive exterior lighting, glass facades, significant solar panel arrays, or other architectural features have the potential to be hazards to safe air navigation. The proponent remains committed to additional Massport and FAA coordination as the project design advances.
We appreciate both your consideration of these comments and HYM’s ongoing coordination these past several months with Massport and other agencies to address comments raised in the DEIR/PIR, FEIR, and this NPC filing. Please feel free to contact me at 617-568-3705 or at [email protected] if you would like to discuss these issues further.
Sincerely,
Massachusetts Port Authority
Joel Barrera, Director Strategic & Business Planning
cc: L. Wieland, A. Hargens, R. Passafaro, A. Coppola, S. Dalzell, F. Leo, H. Morrison, S. Sleiman, L. Gilmore MassDOT/Planning and Aeronautics (Attn: Dr. Jeff DeCarlo, David Mohler, Lionel Lucien) Brian Golden, Tim Czerwienski, BPDA Tom O’Brien, Doug Manz, HYM Lauren DeVoe, VHB 2
June 24, 2020
Kathleen Theoharides, Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114-2150
RE: Boston: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment – NPC (EEA #15783)
ATTN: MEPA Unit Page Czepiga
Dear Secretary Theoharides:
On behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, I am submitting comments regarding the Notice of Project Change for the Suffolk Downs Redevelopment project in Boston and Revere, as prepared by the Office of Transportation Planning. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact J. Lionel Lucien, P.E., Manager of the Public/Private Development Unit, at (857) 368-8862.
Sincerely,
David J. Mohler Executive Director Office of Transportation Planning
DJM/jll
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4150, Boston, MA 02116 Tel: 857-368-4636, TTY: 857-368-0655 www.mass.gov/massdot
Boston – Suffolk Downs Page 2 6/24/2020 cc: Jonathan Gulliver, Administrator, Highway Division Patricia Leavenworth, P.E., Chief Engineer, Highway Division John McInerney, P.E., District 6 Highway Director Paul Stedman, District 4 Highway Director Charles Clayton, Director, Transit-Oriented Development, MBTA Neil Boudreau, Assistant Administrator of Traffic and Highway Safety Boston Planning and Development Agency Planning Department, City of Revere Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Mohler, Executive Director Office of Transportation Planning
FROM: J. Lionel Lucien, P.E, Manager Public/Private Development Unit
DATE: June 24, 2020
RE: Boston: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment – NPC (EEA #15783)
The Public/Private Development Unit has reviewed the Notice of Project Change (NPC) submitted by the HYM team (the Proponent) for the Suffolk Downs Redevelopment project in East Boston and Revere. The proposed project entails the redevelopment of the existing Suffolk Downs thoroughbred racetrack facility into a new transit-oriented mixed-use community. The Master Plan project proposes to include 10.52 million square feet (MSF) of development in Boston and approximately 5.58 MSF in Revere. The project will be located along Route 1A on approximately 161 acres currently zoned as an Economic Development Area (EDA), with 109 acres of the site in East Boston and the remaining 52 acres in Revere. The project is bounded to the west by a retail shopping plaza, properties containing fuel storage tanks, and Route 1A; to the north by Winthrop Avenue; to the east by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Blue Line and Bennington Street; and to the south by Waldemar Avenue.
The Proponent prepared and submitted to MEPA an Expanded Environmental Notification Form and Phase 1 Waiver Request on November 30, 2017; a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on October 1, 2018; and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) on December 2, 2019. A Certificate on the FEIR was issued on January 30, 2020, finding the Project’s FEIR adequate; however, the Certificate required the preparation of an NPC to provide an opportunity for further public engagement on transportation related commitments for the Project and to provide additional public review of final mitigation commitments. MassDOT in its comment letter on the FEIR requested that the Proponent conduct further discussions with the Transportation Working Group to finalize some of the details of the Section 61 Finding mitigation program.
The NPC presents updated and final mitigation measures and commitments since the FEIR, specifically related to GHG emissions and transportation (in the form of updated draft Section 61 Findings). There are no material changes to the Project, including no material changes to proposed mitigation measures and commitments included in the Project. The limited clarifications and changes described in the NPC primarily relate to updates and minor
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4150, Boston, MA 02116 Tel: 857-368-4636, TTY: 857-368-0655 www.mass.gov/massdot
Boston/Revere – Suffolk Downs Page 2 6/24/20 modifications in the timing of the transportation mitigation and minor reallocation of transit mitigation funds based upon State Agency, City and community comments received during the FEIR process.
As throughout the environmental review process, the Proponent has worked closely with MassDOT, MBTA, DCR, Massport, the City of Boston, the City of Revere, and other members of the Transportation Working Group during the preparation of the NPC to provide the updates and minor modifications of the mitigation program, which key elements are summarized below:
• The Proponent has agreed to accelerate safety improvements associated with Bell Circle with the installation of a signalized pedestrian crossing of Route 1A at Harris Street just south of Revere High School and Rumney Marsh Academy, which addresses some of City of Revere’s and MassDOT’s pedestrian safety concerns that were raised during the Bell Circle Road Safety Audit. We note that Route 1A does not cross Harris Street; Route 60 should be referenced instead.
• The Proponent is maintaining the commitment to construct the improvements on Route 1A southbound at Railroad Avenue as part of Phase 1, but is deferring the minor widening of Route 1A northbound at Furlong Drive to Phase 2 to align with the timing for the larger reconstruction of the Route 1A corridor improvements.
• The Proponent conducted, and has now completed, engineering and architectural assessments of Suffolk Downs and Beachmont Stations. The Proponent has refined the use and timing of the $20 million payment for transit mitigation that was proposed in the FEIR as follows: o Beachmont Bus Study ($1.5 million) - Payment within 60 days of issuance of a building permit for the first building in the Project. o Suffolk Downs Design ($4.5 million) - Payment within 60 days of issuance of a building permit for the first building in the Project, and the design will consider projected climate change impacts, such as anticipated stormwater and coastal flooding impacts. o Blue Line Signals Design ($5 million) - Payment within 180 days of issuance of a building permit for construction of the first building in the Project. o Beachmont/Suffolk Construction ($9 million) - Payment within 60 days of notice from the MBTA that it has issued a notice to proceed to the MBTA’s general contractor for a construction contract for a material or full reconstruction of one of the stations (Beachmont or Suffolk Downs). The Project’s design will consider projected climate change impacts, such as anticipated stormwater and coastal flooding impacts.
• The Proponent has committed to additional funding for MBTA Blue Line
Boston/Revere – Suffolk Downs Page 3 6/24/20
operational enhancements above what was committed to in the FEIR, which includes an annual payment of $210,000 for 15 years, resulting in an additional $3,150,000 in transit improvements, with the first payment to be made 60 days after the issuance of the first occupancy permit for Phase 1.
• The Proponent has incorporated additional transit and Traffic Demand Management (TDM) mitigation and mode share monitoring measures.
During the review of the NPC, MassDOT has requested further clarification to address safe vehicular and pedestrian access at the Route 1A/Tomassello Way intersection and the Route 1A/Curtis Avenue intersection prior to the reconstruction of the Route 1A Corridor. The Proponent has worked with MassDOT, updated the timing of implementation of the improvements at these locations, and submitted a revised draft Section 61 Finding that addresses the safety concerns. In particular, the interim improvements consisting of the temporary signalization of the Route 1A/Tomassello Way intersection will now be implemented upon occupancy of Phase 1R of the development to provide safe access to the site for general traffic and for construction vehicles for the subsequent phases of the project. Similarly, the Proponent will implement a pedestrian crossing at the Route 1A/Curtis Avenue intersection at Phase 1R occupancy to allow safe access to the MBTA bus stop located along Curtis Avenue.
The required timing of all mitigation measures associated with the Project is summarized in the revised draft Section 61 Findings received via email on June 23, 2020. The draft Section 61 Finding has been updated to include the current and final transportation mitigation measures.
MassDOT therefore recommends that no further environmental review be required based on transportation issues. The final Section 61 Finding will be issued based on the latest draft provided via email. Subsequently, MassDOT looks forward to working collaboratively with the Proponent along with the Cities of Boston and Revere, Massport, DCR, and the MBTA to design and implement over time the mitigation program for the project. Coordination with the MassDOT Public/Private Development Unit and appropriate MassDOT divisions should continue post-occupancy to implement the TDM and monitoring programs for the project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (857) 368-8862.
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. Governor Theoharides Secretary Karyn E. Polito Lt. Governor Patrick C. Woodcock Commissioner
24 June 2020
Kathleen Theoharides, Secretary Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Attn: MEPA Unit
RE: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, Boston and Revere, Massachusetts, EEA #15783
Cc: Maggie McCarey, Director of Energy Efficiency, Department of Energy Resources Patrick Woodcock, Commissioner, Department of Energy Resources
Dear Secretary Theoharides:
We’ve reviewed the Notice of Project Change (NPC) for the above project. The proposed project consists of approximately 16.2M sf of built-space (10M sf of residential multifamily (10,000 units), 5.7M sf of office and hotel, 0.4M sf of retail and restaurant, and about 40,000-sf of single family and townhomes). A 20-year construction period is expected.
Executive Summary
• Current project commitments are limited to standard efficiency improvements that result in 15% lower emissions than current minimum code. The meaningfulness of these commitments will rapidly decrease and become negligible as the project is expected to span 6 code updates over its 20 year build-out.
• In our FEIR comments, we provided two recommended alternative build-out scenarios which would have doubled emissions reduction (from 15% to about 30%), providing meaningful emissions reduction for decades to come, using a strategy of more Passivehouse and efficient electrification of heating.
o These alternative scenarios would reduce 30-year operating costs by $80,000,000 and increase utility incentives to up to $53,000,000. Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, EEA #15783 Boston and Revere, Massachusetts
o However, despite these benefits, the NPC did not adopt any of these recommendations. In fact, adoption of Passivheouse and electrification remains limited to less than 1% of all building, a commitment which is completely unchanged since the DEIR.
• The NPC states that “If additional federal, city and/or state funds, or funds from utilities, are made available for purposes of advancing sustainability objectives and goals to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, the proponent has agreed….to seek to utilize the additional funding”.
o However, significant new funding was introduced (a MassSave® Passivehouse incentive) since the start of this project’s MEPA review, yet the project did not increase the number of Passivehouse units whatsoever.
• Since just the start of this project’s MEPA review, other Boston area projects have committed to over 4,000 new Passivehouse units, mostly through the MEPA process. This project, which will account for 1 out of every 10 new Massachusetts dwelling units (for 20+ unit buildings)i to be built over the next 30 years, is committing to just 50 Passivehouse units out of its planned 10,000 units, or, just 0.5%.
o As stated above, this extremely limited commitment to Passivehouse did not increase even after a $3,000 per unit incentive was announced.
• Our FEIR also recommended the following:
o “The project should be required to release all bidding contracts with a mechanism that allows for a Passivehouse alternative design and price. If bidders have an opportunity to provide a Passivehouse alternative, it may motivate them to do so cost effectively as a value-add strategy to win the project.”
o “Similarly, the project should be required to release all bidding contracts with a mechanism that allows for efficient electrification design and price. If bidders have an opportunity to provide an efficient electrified alternative, it may motivate them to do so cost effectively as a value-add strategy to win the project.”
The above were recommended based on the experience of the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency. During the period 2016 through 2018, documented construction costs for Passivehouse declined from a 3% premium cost to costing 1% less to build than code construction. In those years, the PHFA was building about 400 Passivehouse dwelling units per year which is very similar to the rate of dwelling unit construction at Suffolk Downs1.
1 Suffolk Downs will build about 500 dwelling units, per year, for 20 years.
Page 2 of 13
Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, EEA #15783 Boston and Revere, Massachusetts
The PHFA data show that Passivehouse construction costs declined, then become less expensive, as local designers, builders, and suppliers ramped up experience and familiarity. For this reason, we recommended that the project at least be required to solicit Passivehouse (and electrified heating) alternative bids. However, the NPC did not address this recommendation.
• In our FEIR comments, we expressed concern with the proponent’s approach to a Passivehouse cost study. The proposed study will examine construction costs for just one (1) single Passivehouse building. The study will not be able to take into account inevitable cost efficiencies that will occur as a result of building 500 Passivehouse dwelling units per year, each and every year, for twenty years. The PHFA experience shows that local designers, builders, and suppliers were able to deliver Passivehouse for less cost than Code within 3 years.
The remainder of our letter below presents a detailed review of the project with respect to emissions reduction.
Project Scale
The size and scale of the project is significant. As currently planned, this project could:
• increase Boston’s total building emissions footprint by about 1%ii; • increase Revere’s total building emissions footprint by about 10%iii;
As currently planned, project GHG commitments provide only a very modest 15% reduction in emissions compared to a project built strictly to today’s code. The currently committed level of mitigation will likely significantly diminish over time. This is because over the construction period, 6 code-updates are expected.
As a real-time example of this effect, a new base code (ASHRAE 2016/IECC 2018 with Massachusetts amendments) will go into effect summer of 2020 which will require more stringent envelope performance requirements than the project’s currently proposed envelope performance. As a result, the 15% mitigation reported is already diminished. Actual emissions reduction will be less because of improving codes.
Our EENF and DEIR letters presented Passivehouse and efficient electrification strategies which would yield much larger emissions reduction and other benefits. In summary, these strategies could:
• More than double emissions reduction (in 2020) and, by 2050 cuts emissions in half • Increase up-front incentives by x9 to x13, totaling about $53,000,000iv; • More than double operating cost savings, with savings totaling more than $81,000,000v over next 30 years.
Page 3 of 13
Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, EEA #15783 Boston and Revere, Massachusetts
Despite these advantages, the project is limiting utilization of Passivehouse and electrification to less than 1% of all planned project area, committing to use Passivehouse for just 50 out 10,000 units (0.5%).
Notably, since the DEIR in October 2018, there have been significant progress related to Passivehouse:
• New Passivehouse incentives ($3,000 per dwelling unit) have become available through MassSave®, increasing available incentives by more than $30,000,000 when applied across the Suffolk Downs project. However, the project commitments to Passivehouse did not increase in the FEIR, despite availability of new incentives that could significantly improve the economics of the project. The NPC states that if additional incentives become available, the project would seek to utilize these incentives. However, the project is not utilizing this new incentive.
• During this same period, this new incentive and other market developments have spurred other Boston area Massachusetts projects to commit to more than 4,000 new Passivehouse units. (See Figure 4.)
Committed and Alternative Scenarios
This section presents an analysis of concurrent commitments and two alternative scenarios which use much more electrification and Passivehouse. Theses scenarios were presented in our FEIR response. Table 1 (next page) provides a description of each.
Page 4 of 13
Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, EEA #15783 Boston and Revere, Massachusetts
Description
• Standard efficiency improvements that result in 15% lower emissions than current minimum code (note that code will be updated in August 2020 before any buildings are constructed under this Current project). Commitment
• Less than 1% of building area specifically-committed to Passivehouse and/or electrified.
• About 75% of all multifamily built to Passivehouse with efficient electric heat pump/VRF space heating. No change to service water (condensing gas).
• About 25% of all multifamily as currently committed – no changes
Scenario 1 • About 50% of office, retail, and hotel space heating with efficient electric heat pump/VRF space heating. No change to hotel and restaurant service water (condensing gas). Electric heat pump water heating for retail and office.
• About 50% of office, retail, restaurant, and hotel as currently committed – no changes
• 100% of all multifamily built to Passivehouse with efficient electric heat pump/VRF space heating. No change to service water (condensing gas).
Scenario 2 • 100% of office, retail, and hotel space heating with efficient electric heat pump/VRF space heating. No change to hotel and restaurant service water (condensing gas). Electric heat pump water heating for retail and office.
Table 1: Summary of Current Commitments and Two Alternative Scenarios
Emission Performance
In Figures 1 through 3 below, gray bar is minimum “stretch code” performance, orange is current- commitments, and green are Scenario 1 (light green) and Scenario 2 (dark green).
Figure 1 below presents the emissions performance. The left side presents emissions performance using 2020 electric grid emission rates and the right side presents emissions performance using expected 2050 emissions ratesvi. Electric grid emissions in Massachusetts are expected to decline significantly due to addition of renewables on the Commonwealth’s grid.
Page 5 of 13
Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, EEA #15783 Boston and Revere, Massachusetts
Figure 1: Emissions Performance – grey (baseline); orange (current commitments); light green (DOER Alternative 1); dark green (DOER Alternative 2)
In 2020, the currently-committed mitigation (orange) has about 15% lower emissions than code minimum. In contrast, Alternative Scenarios 1 and 2 have emissions between 28% to 31% lower than code minimum. Accordingly, Scenarios 1 and 2 improve emissions reduction by a factor of about 2 compared to currently-committed, using 2020 grid emissions rates.
In 2050, currently-committed mitigation (orange) scenario will have about 20% lower emissions than code minimum. In contrast, Alternative Scenarios 1 and 2 will have emissions between 43% and 49% lower than code minimum. Accordingly, in 2050, Scenarios 1 and 2 improve emissions reduction by more than a factor of 2.5 compared to currently-committed. Scenario 2 cuts emissions of the project in half by 2050 compared to code.
Operating Cost Performance
Figure 2 below presents operating cost performance. Alternative Scenarios 1 and 2 are about twice as effective at reducing operating cost compared to currently-committed. Current-commitment reduces operating costs compared to code minimum by 10%. In comparison, Alternatives 1 and 2 would reduce operating cost between 19% to 20%, or, about x2 more cost reduction. Over a 30 year period, operational cost savings could exceed about $80,000,000 with either Alternative 1 or 2, compared to current commitments.
Page 6 of 13
Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, EEA #15783 Boston and Revere, Massachusetts
Figure 2: Operating Cost Performance – grey (baseline); orange (current commitments); light green (DOER Alternative 1); dark green (DOER Alternative 2)
Incentive Performance
Figure 3 illustrates incentive performance. Incentives included below are: MassSave® Passivehouse incentive and value of Alternative Energy Credits (AECs). (A subsequent section provides more information about these incentives.)
We estimate that the currently-committed scenario could be eligible for up to about $4M worth of incentives.vii
Alternatives 1 and 2, in contrast, could yield about x10 more up-front incentives for the developer. Scenario 2, for example, could yield more than $53,000,000 in upfront incentives as a result of increased commitment to electrification and Passivehouse.
Page 7 of 13
Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, EEA #15783 Boston and Revere, Massachusetts
Figure 3: Incentive Cost Performance – grey (baseline); orange (current commitments); light green (DOER Alternative 1); dark green (DOER Alternative 2)
Passivehouse also delivers other performance benefits not monetized above including: improved indoor air quality, reduced noise, and improved resilience.
Penetration of Passivehouse in Massachusetts
Since the Suffolk Downs DEIR in March 2019, adoption of Passivehouse in Massachusetts has increased substantially, particularly in the Boston area. Passivehouse is becoming the “go-to” solution for high-performing residential construction in Massachusetts.
The plan below shows the over 4,450 existing or committed multifamily Passivehouse units in just the Boston area. Of these, over 4,300 units were committed in just the last 12 months since the DEIR submission. About 65% of these new commitments are MEPA commitments.
Page 8 of 13
Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, EEA #15783 Boston and Revere, Massachusetts
Figure 4: Passivehouse in Boston Area including 4,300+ new committed units in last 12 months)
Experience of Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency: Decreasing Passivehouse Costs
Experience in Pennsylvania demonstrates that once designers and builders become accustomed to Passivehouse, potential “premium” costs quickly decline and, in the case of the Pennsylvania Housing and Finance Agency (PHFA), Passivehouse actually costs less to build.
Table 2 presents a summary of dwelling units built to Passivehouse standards for the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency in the years 2015, 2016, and 2018viii. On average, about 400 units per year were constructed to Passivehouse standards in those three years. (No data is available for 2017.)
The cost data show that in the first year, 2015, Passivehouse buildings cost on average 3% more than buildings which were not Passivehouse that year. In 2016, Passivehouse buildings cost 1% more. In 2018, Passivehouse buildings actually cost less to build than standard units.
Number of Cumulative Number Premium $/sf over Year Passivehouse of Passivehouse non-PH building in Dwelling Units Dwelling units year built 2015 368 368 3% increase 2016 507 875 1% increase 2018 325 1,200 1% decrease Table 2: Pennsylvania Passivehouse Cost Data
Page 9 of 13
Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, EEA #15783 Boston and Revere, Massachusetts
This data shows that that, as designers, suppliers, and builders become accustomed to delivering Passivehouse, costs declined until it actually become less expensive to build to Passivehouse than Code.
The Suffolk Downs project will be building multifamily units at a rate of about 500 units per year, or, at about the same annual rate experienced in Pennsylvania. This documented experience reinforces the importance of expanding the cost study to consider project scale and influence of improved experience.
For this reason, our DEIR and FEIR recommended that the project be required to release all multifamily bidding contracts with a mechanism that allows for a Passivehouse alternative design and price. If bidders have an opportunity to provide a Passivehouse alternative, it may motivate them to do so cost effectively as a value-add strategy to win the project. However, the project has not made this commitment.
Also for this reason, in both our DEIR and FEIR, we raised concerns with the committed Passivehouse cost study. This cost study only examines one (1) single building, built in isolation. This cost study will invariably show high costs, being a “one off” different building approach. The study will not capture the inevitable decline on premium costs that will occur as a result of building 500 units each and every year for two decades.
Efficient Electrification of Space Heating
Efficient electrification of space heating entails the swapping of fossil fuels (natural gas, oil, and propane) with cold-climate rated air source heat pumps and variable refrigerant flow (VRF) for space heating.
Electrification of space heating 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 and VRF equipment have lower emissions than other fossil-fuel based heating options, including best-in- class condensing natural gas equipment. Currently, efficient electric heating has approximately 45% lower emissions than condensing natural gas heating and, by 2050, efficient electric heating is expected to have approximately 85% lower emissions than condensing natural gas heating.ix
More Affordable Alternative Scenarios
We noted in earlier comments that the proponent’s FEIR stated that electrification would increase operating costs. However, no analyses were provided to substantiate that finding in either the FEIR or in the more recent NPC. Rather than providing analyses, the proponent’s FEIR referenced state-wide average costs for heating which were unrelated to the proposed project. We recommended in the FEIR that costs analyses should instead be based on the buildings being proposed. The NPC was not responsive to this recommendation.
Page 10 of 13
Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, EEA #15783 Boston and Revere, Massachusetts
In our FEIR response, we presented two alternative scenarios which included various amounts of Passivehouse with electrification (for residential) and just electrification (for non-residential). Both scenarios result in far less operating costs, saving over $80,000,000 over 30 years. The NPC did not provide any analysis or explanation as to why one of these more affordable options was not used.
Efficient Electrification of Water Heating
Efficient electrification of water heating can be performed with air source heat pumps. Swapping from fossil-fuel based water heating to efficient electric offers a similar emissions benefit as described above for space heating. However, it can be difficult to incorporate heat pump water heating equipment in small apartment units. Accordingly, in our FEIR we recommend heat pump water heating for the townhouse, single family houses, office, and retail uses only at this time. The NPC was unresponsive to this recommendation, as well.
Incentives
Key incentives include Alternative Energy Credits and MassSave® incentive for Passivehouse.
Recommendations
As previously recommended in our DEIR and FEIR responses, we recommend much more robust commitments, commensurate with the scale of the project and designed to deliver meaningful emissions reduction in the context of improving codes and accelerating adoption of Passivehouse.
Our specific recommendations are as follows:
1. At a minimum, the project should be committed to either Scenario 1 or 2. Notably, these correspond to the level of performance described as the “high-end” scenario in the FEIR. (This scenario is described, but is not committed.)
2. The Passivehouse cost study needs to be expanded from a single out-of-context building to a study that examines construction of 500 Passivehouse units per year, each and every year, for 20 years.
3. The project should be required to release all bidding contracts with a mechanism that allows for a Passivehouse alternative design and price. If bidders have an opportunity to provide a Passivehouse alternative, it may motivate them to do so cost effectively as a value-add strategy to win the project.
4. Similarly, the project should be required to release all bidding contracts with a mechanism that allows for efficient electrification design and price. If bidders have an opportunity to provide an efficient electrified alternative, it may motivate them to do so cost effectively as a value-add strategy to win the project.
5. Project should commit to project updates every 3 years that report on the following:
Page 11 of 13
Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, EEA #15783 Boston and Revere, Massachusetts
a. Progress and projection toward emissions reduction commitments b. MassSave® updates and incentives c. Building code updates and incentives d. Passivehouse cost and economic updates by building type e. Results of alternative bids from 3 and 4 above along with an analysis of MassSave® and Alternative Energy Credit value. f. The 3 year cycle is designed to coincide with regulatory cycles of both Code and MassSave®
6. All buildings should have envelope performance (using the UA method) that meets or exceeds Code requirements with no-tradeoffs, as required by code coming into effect in August 2020.
7. The project should commit to efficient electrification of water heating for all non- residential buildings and all of the townhomes and single-family homes.
8. The project should periodically re-evaluate efficient electric water heating opportunities for multifamily buildings in the future. Prototype centrally-located air to water heat pump water heaters are being used in other states which could potentially work in Massachusetts. These can be evaluated as part of periodic check in in (5) above.
Sincerely,
Paul F. Ormond, P.E. Energy Efficiency Engineer Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources
Attachment: References
Page 12 of 13
Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, EEA #15783 Boston and Revere, Massachusetts
References
i Based on GWSA IAC Meeting, slide deck, dated 23 October, Slide 7, “Housing Production”, for 20+ unit buildings, built between 2020 and 2050, available here: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/10/25/10-23-18-iac-meeting-slidedeck.pdf ii Based on MAPC data, available here: lead.mapc.org/cities iii Ibid iv Based on $15/Alternative Energy Credit (AEC) and current MassSave® incentive for residential Passivehouse available here https://www.masssave.com/saving/residential-rebates/passive-house- incentives v Operating costs are based on following: $0.21/kWhr and $1.43/therm for residential buildings and $0.17/kWhr and $1.17/therm for non-residential buildings. Cost data sourced from https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a and https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_SMA_m.htm dated posted January 2020 vi Emissions rate of 700 lbs/MWhr in 2020 and 200 lbs/MWhr in 2050. vii This incentive value assumes that the project meets its 15% above-code commitment entirely with efficient electrification and Passivehouse in order to maximize up-front incentives. In summary: the project achieves its FEIR “low-end” commitment by: efficient electrification of about 1,800 multifamily units (otherwise built as currently-planned); efficient electrification of 200,000-sf of office (otherwise built as currently-planned); and efficient electrification and Passivehouse of 300 multifamily units (in addition to the 50 currently-planned). viii Buildings ranged from 24 to 66 dwelling units, with an average of 48 dwelling units per building. Costs are committed construction costs. ix Based on: 700 lbs/MWhr grid emissions in 2020; 200 lbs/MWhr in 2050; cold-climate electric heat pump rated seasonal efficient of 320%; condensing boiler efficient of 95%; natural gas emission rate of 117 lbs/MMBtu
Page 13 of 13
Page 1 of 5 June 4, 2020
Stephen H. Kaiser 191 Hamilton St. Cambridge Mass. 02139
To : Secretary Kathleen Theoharides, Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs Attn: Page Czepiga, Assistant MEPA Director 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 (9th Floor) Boston, MA 02114
From : Stephen H. Kaiser, Citizen Engineer and Historian
Comment on Notice of Prfoject Change for Suffolk Downs, EEA # 15783
The Suffolk Downs development project in Boston and Revere is extremely large at 16 million square gross feet of floor area. In transportation terms, it has suffered through a roller coaster ride of both changing requirements for computer modeling and significant reductions in use of transportation services due to consequences of the COVID crisis. The computer model change resulted in a 120-percent increase in vehicle trips generated, while transit trips were cut in half. COVID produced a dramatic reduction in vehicle travel on all roads, eighty-percent-drops in bus ridership, ninety-percent on rail transit and ninety-five percent on commuter rail. For the past two months the number of passengers using Logan Airport have been ninety-five percent less. Such disruptions in transportation use are unheard of in modern times. The nearest analogy is gas rationing during World War II (when there was also record-high travel on mass transit).
Now MEPA is being asked to make a judgment on the significance of a project change, in terms of the relative increase or decrease in impacts on the urban environment. Given the two major upheavals in transportation for this huge project over the past 30 months, how is it possible for MEPA and the reviewing agencies and public to make a reasoned judgment? MEPA regulations at 11.01(d) state the goal of collecting evidence created by environmental assessment for proper planning and mitigation judgments. How is that task possible, given the turmoil that overlaps the Suffolk Downs proposal? I have reached the conclusion that – for this project – the review process has reached the limits of reasonable utility and that further MEPA assessment should cease. Page 2 of 5 June 4, 2020
In the past I have spoken out many times against the imposition of the CTPS/MassDOT computer model and its effects on undermining the goals of transit oriented development. Both MEPA and MassDOT made a serious error in requiring use of this outdated and flawed model, yet clearly it is not an easy task for any public agency to make a correction. Our obligation should be to learn from this experience and see that it never happens again.
Changes brought about by the COVID experience are much more difficult to evaluate because of the rapid changes that are still occurring. Suddenly work-at-home has a major impact on trip generation. No one has mapped out a plan so that we can regain trust in the use of our transit systems. It is conceivable that a permanent reduction in transit use by 75 percent could become the long term result. We do not know what will happen to road use and congestion. We need answers, ideas and understanding that we never thought would be necessary.
The appropriate immediate need is for MassDOT to begin a comprehensive study intended to collect data showing year 2020 trends in public use of all transportation modes, including land, sea and air. This information should be made public as soon as it is in presentable form. Data collection should focus on greater Boston first but should be international in its general survey. Other cities such as London, Paris and New York have also experienced 80 to 90 percent drops in ridership. MEPA should require use of this information in future EIR submissions.
Some of these changes could be long term. Any return to the status quo ante may be impossible. The popularity of working at home could become a standard occurrence, with stay-at-home trips being in the range of 40 to 60 percent of currently projected trip-making from developments such as Suffolk Downs. Many companies have recognized advantages to work-at-home, including liability benefits and reduced operating expenses. In this sense, Suffolk Downs becomes both a residential and an employment center, with distinct drops in daily commuting to external destinations. Of those transit riders who choose to return to work, a large number may switch to Single Occupant or SOV auto travel, having the effect of decreasing transit ridership while increasing vehicle use. Furthermore there may be a permanent reduction in area employment due to the combined social and economic effects of the pandemic, and thus contributing to reduced auto and transit trips.
One unfortunate precedent within our capitalist system of business booms and recessions is that during an economic downturn some employers may shed obsolete or unnecessary jobs. The largest corporate bankruptcy in the country's history is the case of Page 3 of 5 June 4, 2020
General Motors in 2009. The company entered bankruptcy with the capability to produce ten-million vehicles a year. They left bankruptcy with the same 10-million-vehicle capacity, but with two-thirds fewer employees. A full recovery of the economy in ten years is about as likely as a full recovery of the world's transportation system to 2019 conditions.
From the proponent's perspective, having a controversial computer model imposed on them is a burden not of their own making, nor is the virus situation anything that could be anticipated or planned for. These two radical changes are factors that no other developer has encountered.
As defective as the computer model is, MEPA and MassDOT appear to have logical defenses for their choices. MassDOT was confronted with a very large 16 million square foot development project at Suffolk Downs, and needed a feasible way to evaluate the transportation impacts. However, they selected the wrong computer model. MEPA, not being a cutting-edge expert in such matters, supported the recommendation of MassDOT.
Considering the situation we find ourselves in, EEA should determine that no further transportation analysis is required at Suffolk Downs. The proponent and the agencies have done as much as can be expected of them in this case. Both trip generation and existing usage of transport systems are in a situation of great uncertainty. The opportunity for seeking better analysis at Suffolk Downs has passed.
I shall not at this time get into the technical flaws in the CTPS/MassDOT computer model which caused the dramatic escalation in the number of vehicle trips and depressed transit trip-making. That shall be a topic for another time.
LEARNING FROM THE SUFFOLK DOWNS EXPERIENCE
Governments have learned that after a crisis -- where the damage cannot be reversed -- the achievable priority is to assure that preventable errors never occur again. Notable examples are the 1984 release of toxic gases in Bhopal, India and the Titanic sinking in 1912, when improved industrial safety standards were adopted to provide necessary protections. The sinking of the Titanic resulted in numerous International agreements on ship safety and communications, with the consequence of improved safety for ships making the Atlantic crossing during peacetime. Our most recent example of learning from experience is the case of the Boeing 737 Max airplane after two serious crashes. There is increasing likelihood that the planes will never fly again. Page 4 of 5 June 4, 2020
MassDOT should immediately proceed with a new study based primarily on surveys and measurements of trip-making in the Boston area, to determine : (1) trends in work-at-home, leading to stable expected figures of “non- tripmaking” for residents, based on employees choice, employer policies, communication and insurance issues, (2) trends in transit usage compared to recent and 2019 levels, based on surveys and MBTA ridership data, (3) similar trends in bicycle riding, ridesharing, and walking to work, (4) trends in replacing lost jobs due to lock-downs or employer cutbacks, (5) trends in regional growth.
In this study, MassDOT should use all available resources including business surveys of employee trip making, surveys of transit users, identification of stay-at-home preferences, and potential preferences for SOV travel.
A second regional study would seek to identify key regional bottlenecks (such as the Williams/Sumner/Callahan tunnels and other current capacity limits), measuring vehicles per hour and expected travel speeds compared to 2019 tunnel travel speeds of 10 mph. This study should be entirely empirical, using available MassDOT vehicle counts, queues and speeds, while making no use of the CTPS/MassDOT computer model.
MassDOT would also suspend all applications of the CTPS/MassDOT computer model and begin immediate investigations into the primary flaw – the so-called “BPR Equation” that governs traffic assignment – whereby excessive traffic volumes are assigned to low speeds during Level-of-Service-F traffic flow. This flaw has been present ever since the model was first used in 1963.
This roller-coaster ride through shifting standards of impact evaluation is unprecedented in my experience with MEPA, dating back to early 1976 before scoping even existed. It is especially difficult for public agencies to adjust to such turbulence in their normal business procedures. While I had hoped the Suffolk Downs project could provide acceptable insight into future traffic conditions, the COVID experience has turned our world upside down with respect to transportation, among other things.
It will not be an easy matter to chart our course in the coming years. Page 5 of 5 June 4, 2020
A gap in traffic and transit expertise has been noted in MEPA review over the past thirty years. At one point during the Weld Administration an effort was made to arrange a MEPA staff training session on traffic matters, to be conducted by CTPS. This training session was cancelled and never rescheduled, so the problem remains. Any such training session under present circumstances should be conducted by the MassDOT traffic section and not CTPS, in the interests of closer understanding of empirical data and actual traffic conditions.
Sincerely,
Stephen H. Kaiser, PhD
Note : The original 2017 ENF proposed a site with 33,000 daily trips generated by vehicles and 55,000 trips by transit. With the arrival of the Draft EIR, the situation dramatically changed. Daily vehicle trips more than doubled to 73,000 daily trips and transit trips had been cut in half to 25,000. These changes are entirely due to the use of the CTPS/MassDOT model.
John Vitagliano 19 Seymour Street Winthrop, MA 02152 [email protected]
June 7, 2020
Kathleen Theoharides, Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attn: Page Czepiga, Assistant MEPA Director 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114
Re: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, Boston and Revere, MA EEA No. 15783 Notice of Project Change (NPC)
Dear Secretary Theoharides and Assistant Director Czepiga:
I fully support the Notice of Project Change (NPC), dated May 15, 2020, submitted by HYM regarding the Suffolk Downs Redevelopment project (The Project), EEA No. 15783. I concur that the NPC represents a few minor but complementary changes to the substantive EEA No. 15783 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), dated January 30, 2020.
Specifically, I support the following NPC agreements and issues:
Section 1.5.2 Transportation and Traffic
1. The proposed signalized Route 1A pedestrian crossing at Harris Street will enhance local pedestrian safety, with minimum traffic impacts. 2. The deferral of the minor widening of Route 1A Northbound at Furlong Drive to Phase 2 to assure optimum coordination of all Route 1A design elements. 3. The proposed $20 million payment for transit mitigation to include the Beachmont Bus Study, MBTA Suffolk Downs Station redesign, Blue Line signals design, agreement to proceed forthwith with a single Beachmont/Suffolk station reconstruction, increased funding for MBTA Blue Line operational improvements, and additional funding for a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program.
Section 1.5.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1. Agreement to design and construct four low-rise residential buildings in accordance with Passive House, or equivalent, standards. 2. Provide a significant increase in electric vehicles (EV) parking and charging capacity, from the original FEIR 2% of structured parking to 6% of structured parking. 3. Agreement to undertake a Climate Ready-Net Zero Carbon feasibility assessment. 4. et al.
All elements included in Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 of the NPC are minor but complementary enhancements of the January 30, 2020 FEIR and should be evaluated as such.
I have lived all of my life in close proximity to the Suffolk Downs Redevelopment project site and strongly support it for its numerous enhancements to the quality of life of its host and neighboring communities, and its potential for integrating their separate interests and activities.
1. Provision of nearly 1,400 units of affordable housing, and 5,500 market rate units. 2. 40 acres of open parkland and recreational space. 3. 14,000 construction jobs 4. 25,000 permanent jobs. 5. Public transit enhancements for the region. 6. The Project will be a complete Transit Oriented Development (TOD) design, to optimize transit usage and minimize roadway congestion.
The Suffolk Downs Redevelopment Project has been fully supportable during the best of times but at the current economic juncture, with the overall state of our economy hanging by a pandemic thread, The Project would be a $7 billion, privately financed, two decades-long jump start investment in the Commonwealth’s economy that would create desperately needed jobs and an expanded tax base.
I urge the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to immediately approve the EEA No. 15783-NPC to expedite the final state approval of this comprehensive project, in the best interests of the Commonwealth.
Sincerely, John Vitagliano
June 9, 2020 Via Online Comment and E-mail
The Honorable Kathleen Theoharides Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Attn: MEPA Office, Page Czepiga Boston, Massachusetts 02114 [email protected] https://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/EEA/PublicComment/Landing/
Subject: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment Notice of Project Change, Section 61 Findings, EEA No. 15783
Dear Secretary Theoharides:
Conservation Law Foundation (“CLF”) submits the following comments on the Notice of Project Change and proposed Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Section 61 Findings (“NPC”) for the proposed Suffolk Downs Redevelopment (“the Project”) submitted by HYM Investment Group (the “Proponent”).
CLF is a non-profit, member-supported organization dedicated to protecting New England’s environment. CLF protects New England’s environment for the benefit of all people and uses the law, science, and the market to create solutions that preserve our natural resources, build healthy communities, and sustain a vibrant economy. CLF has a long history of advocating for transportation systems that are accessible, reliable, efficient, affordable, and free of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
CLF is pleased that the Proponent has confirmed its commitments in the NPC to provide electric vehicle charging stations, address climate resiliency in its design of the Suffolk Downs and Beachmont Blue Line stations, and improve and expand the East Boston Greenway. However, the transportation commitments enumerated in the NPC do not go far enough considering the scale of the project and unique opportunity that site redevelopment provides. The commitments relative to public transit investments are comparable to those made in much smaller redevelopment projects across the region and should be increased to reflect the size and scale of the proposed environmental impacts. The Proponent’s stated transportation goals upon completion of the Project also fall well short of the bar set by the City of Boston’s Go Boston 2030 mobility goals for addressing transportation infrastructure gaps, increasing access to Suffolk Downs NPC Comments Page 2 of 8 economic opportunity, and responding to the challenges of the climate crisis. The Proponent can and should reduce the parking ratios to better reflect its proposal to build a transit-oriented development, increase its investment in public transit, and eliminate its proposal to operate private shuttles. The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Section 61 (“Section 61”) findings should: (1) discourage car travel; (2) affirm and strengthen the commitment to electric vehicle charging stations; (3) require firm commitments regarding the transportation demand management program; (4) encourage mode shift; (5) increase public transit investments; and (6) include specific dates by when pedestrian and cycling improvements will be complete.
I. The Section 61 Findings Must Discourage Car Travel.
CLF is concerned that the transportation planning for this Project continues to be car-centric rather than a multi-modal, transit-oriented development. The Secretary’s MEPA Certificate encouraged the proponent to reduce on-site parking, support the use of electric vehicles by monitoring electric charging stations, and add more stations if demand increases.1
The amount of time, attention, and money allocated to pedestrian, bicycle, public bus, rail, and private shuttle travel are a fraction of that allocated to easing congestion and improving the experience of driving to, from, and in the vicinity of the Project, with insufficient measures to minimize and discourage single occupancy vehicles. The Proponent has an obligation to mitigate congestion impacts resulting from the Project. This requires significant investment in, and incentives to encourage mode shift. Given this obligation, the massive investment of time and money on traffic improvements compared to the paltry investment in all other forms of transportation combined is disconcerting. The Proponent proposes to allocate more than twice as much money to traffic improvements as compared to all other forms of transportation combined ($41 million and $20 million, respectively). The Proponent should seize the opportunity to shift its mitigation funding toward public transit and additional affordable housing units and away from traffic improvements, all of which will contribute to reduced congestion and improved climate and public health benefits.
CLF is alarmed that the Proponent’s clear priority in its transportation mitigation proposal is to mitigate local traffic congestion, and that the majority of the transportation demand management and parking commitments are variously insufficient, vague, flexible, or empty, as discussed below. Even interpreted charitably, the likely outcomes of these proposed measures threaten to set back the Go Boston 2030 goal of reducing driving alone to 20 percent of all trips by 2030. We urge the Proponent to make much broader and bolder commitments to discourage driving, particularly in single-occupancy vehicles, and increase commitments to multi-modal transit options. We recommend that the Section 61 findings discourage car travel.
The Proponent presents a woefully inadequate car-centric proposal in the NPC by providing a high level of attention and funding to car transportation compared to all other forms of transportation combined. While the Proponent’s analysis takes a broad regional view when addressing car traffic and congestion issues, it does not consistently take a holistic view or
1 Secretary’s Certificate on the Final Environmental Impact Report, EEA # 15783, pages 17, 25, 28. Suffolk Downs NPC Comments Page 3 of 8 incorporate cumulative impacts with respect to other forms of transportation.2 The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act requires “[a]ll agencies, departments, boards, commissions and authorities of the commonwealth shall review, evaluate, and determine the impact on the natural environment of all works, projects or activities conducted by them and shall use all practicable means and measures to minimize damage to the environment”.3
To mitigate against the Proponent’s car-centric approach and comply with Section 61, CLF requests that the Proponent significantly bolster transportation demand management commitments and public transit investments, as discussed below, and reduce the number of parking spaces below 13,820 (on-street and structured) to account for and encourage a greater number of public transit riders and cyclists. A target parking ratio could be 0.3 spaces / 10,000 units or 3,000 spaces. A reduced parking ratio will ensure that the Proponent minimizes damage to the environment caused by the exhaust of single-occupancy fossil fuel vehicles.
II. Section 61 Findings Should Affirm and Strengthen the Proponent’s Commitment to Electric Vehicle Infrastructure.
CLF requests that the Proponent invest in additional electric vehicle (“EV”) charging infrastructure. We acknowledge that the Proponent committed to EV charging for six percent off-street structured parking spaces throughout the Project, an increase from two percent in the FEIR.4 We urge the Secretary to require the Proponent to equip off-street parking spaces with additional EV charging stations to comply with Boston’s EV infrastructure requirements.5 Notwithstanding this increase in EV charging infrastructure, the commitment is woefully inadequate because it fails to meet City of Boston requirements. The City of Boston requires 25 percent of parking spaces in new off-street parking areas shall be equipped with EV charging stations, and the remaining 75 percent shall be electric vehicle supply equipment ready. At a minimum, the Proponent’s infrastructure should increase the number of parking spaces to accommodate EV infrastructure expansion.
The Proponent should also be required to prioritize parking options for EV and zero-emission vehicles by making those spaces closer to buildings and in more desirable locations by a date certain. The Section 61 findings should include the prioritized parking options in phase I. EVs are much cleaner than their conventional gasoline and diesel counterparts, even when accounting for power plant emissions associated with charging EVs. These vehicles are also unique in their ability to become even cleaner as the electricity grid is increasingly powered by low- and zero- emissions power. EVs also do not emit particulate matter or nitrogen oxides from tailpipes, directly impacting and improving local air quality.
Finally, since the Proponent is building the project in phases, we urge the Secretary to include metrics to determine what demand will trigger the need for more charging stations. For example,
2 One of the purposes of MEPA is to provide the opportunity to review the proposal in the context of “the cumulative impacts of the Project and any other Project or other work or activity in the immediate surroundings and region.” 301 CMR 11.01(1)(d). 3 M.G.L. c. 30, § 61. 4 NPC, Pages 1-5, 2-9. 5 City of Boston, “How-To Guide: Electric Vehicle Charger Installation,” page 3, https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2019/12/How%20To%20Install%20an%20EVSE.pdf. Suffolk Downs NPC Comments Page 4 of 8 the metric could include starting in Phase I, the Proponent will provide high-speed EV charging stations, so that 150 percent of demand for EV charging stations is available at all times. This demand shall be measured as no more than 66.667 percent of EV charging stations to be in use at any time.
III. The Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Program Must Include Firm Commitments.
In addition to the imbalance of investment in traffic improvements compared to all other forms of transportation, and the incredible level of specificity related to traffic improvements, the Proponent’s TDM commitments are disappointingly vague and flexible rendering them meaningless. The NPC states that the TDM program will “maximize use of non-auto modes and reduce single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel.”6 This goal to maximize use of non-auto modes contradicts the lengthy mitigation measures devoted to traffic improvements in the proposed Section 61 findings. This is problematic for several reasons. First, the TDM should be tailored to match the needs of the surrounding community and region in addition to employees, residents, and patrons. Second, the fact that the TDM is an integral component of the transportation mitigation package, yet has no firm measurable commitments, means it could fall well short of goals, giving rise to the collapse of the entire transportation mitigation scheme. CLF strongly recommends adding metrics to the Section 61 findings regarding alternative modes of transportation such as the number of bicycle storage options and bike racks. Such metrics will contribute to the success of the TDM.
The privately-operated shuttle system proposed by the Proponent is an example of a TDM so flawed as to be meaningless. Shuttle service is proposed to continue “as warranted by demand” but the Proponent has made no indication as to how the availability of these shuttles would be made known to the public, especially residents of surrounding neighborhoods. If the Secretary disagrees with CLF’s recommendation to direct the Proponent to abandon plants for a private shuttle system and instead investing in additional public transit, then the Secretary should require specific metrics pertaining to the shuttle service. The Proponent must commit to meaningfully publicize the service, and to run it in perpetuity to ensure the service is reliable and will attract riders. CLF supports replacing proposed shuttle service with additional funding for MBTA bus service, but substantial improvements would be necessary to make the proposed shuttle service meaningful if the Proponent is committed to that system.
Traffic rationalization improvements are important for mitigating local congestion, but numerous studies have shown that reduced congestion decreases incentive to use alternative forms of transportation. Thus, additional incentives are essential, including an effective TDM, and viable alternative transit options. As shown above, the TDM is insufficient to guarantee a reduction of vehicles. The Secretary’s Certificate directs the Proponent to establish mode share goals for the project and conduct mode share surveys as part of its TDM plan.7 The Proponent’s proposed Section 61 findings exclude the requirement to conduct resident surveys to determine whether adjustments to the TDM are necessary. CLF requests inclusion of the resident surveys, which should be available in multiple languages to meet the needs of future residents, in the Section 61
6 NPC, Appendix B, page B-20. 7 Secretary’s Certificate on the Final Environmental Impact Report, EEA # 15783, page 25. Suffolk Downs NPC Comments Page 5 of 8 findings. The Section 61 findings should further direct a TDM revision based on results from the resident surveys.
IV. The Section 61 Findings Must Encourage Mode Shift to Decrease Single Car Travel.
The Proponent includes the following anticipated 2040 build project trips by mode based on CTPS modeling. • 68,948 vehicle trips - reduce to account for more transit trips; • 29,528 transit trips - increase to account for more frequent BL service and additional MBTA bus trips; and • 19,856 bike/ped trips - increase to account for improved pathways that will support cycling. Because the Project is a transit-oriented development, CLF asserts that these anticipated project trips should be adjusted to decrease the number of vehicle trips and increase the number of transit and pedestrian and cycling trips. Such adjustments would better reflect MEPA requirements to minimize damage to the environment8 and spur mode shift away from cars to public transit and active transportation modes. CLF further urges the Secretary to include in the Section 61 findings an agreement in the MassDOT monitoring program for the Proponent to fund the cost of additional annual bus trips in all phases of the project if monitoring shows transit capacity constraints.
V. The Section 61 Findings Must Include Directives to Increase Public Transit Investment.
CLF is supportive of the Proponent’s commitments to public transit, including the upgrades to the Blue Line and investment in the Suffolk Downs and Beachmont Stations, though the public transit investments are insufficient. These upgrades fall far short of what is necessary by law to mitigate against foreseeable climate change impacts caused by the Project. We encourage the Proponent to give the same level of attention to, and investment in, public transportation infrastructure as it did to traffic improvements. The increased ridership spurred by the Project will contribute to greater congestion on the Blue Line. CLF thus requests that the Proponent conduct and update, throughout each project phase, an analysis of impacts on the MBTA system beyond the Blue Line, including bus routes that have stops along the Blue Line, due to the expected increase in ridership. CLF further requests that the Proponent substantially increase its public transit mitigation commitments to address the true anticipated impact of the Project, including investment in the Blue Line beyond just the two stations adjacent to the Project.
The Proponent is required to create and describe how it will work with MassDOT and MBTA to provide transit improvements and must also include information on an expanded monitoring program that includes monitoring public transit use. The Proponent should be required to analyze the impacts for Blue Line riders and affected bus routes (MBTA Routes 119, 120) for each phase of the project. For example, the Proponent should be required to determine whether,
8 M.G.L. c. 30, § 61. Suffolk Downs NPC Comments Page 6 of 8 in fact, there will be 27,000 daily trips on Blue Line by 2040. The NPC includes the Proponent’s total public transit funding of a $20 million payment,9 which will be allocated as follows:
▪ Beachmont Bus Study ($1.5M) ▪ Suffolk Downs Station Design ($4.5M) ▪ Blue Line Signals Design ($5M) ▪ Beachmont/Suffolk Downs Construction ($9M).
While CLF is supportive of MassDOT’s funding breakdown, we urge the Secretary to include the following requirements as part of the allocated funds. ▪ Beachmont Bus Study ($1.5M) • Include a requirement to model the impact to Blue Line ridership of increasing bus service. ▪ Suffolk Downs Station Design ($4.5M) • Explicitly indicate that this money will fund design that is climate resilient and accounts for anticipated stormwater and coastal flooding through the useful life of the station. Include an analysis of whether there is an ability to elevate the station to account for storm surge, extreme precipitation, and coastal flood risk. ▪ Beachmont/Suffolk Construction ($9M) • Explicitly indicate that these funds can be spent to reduce foreseeable climate impacts. • These funds should cover detailed modeling of stormwater and coastal flooding by a date certain.
The Proponent further agrees to pay $210,000 annually for Blue Line operating costs and additional mitigation funding for additional bus route operation and expansion.10 We request that the Proponent scrap the deeply flawed private shuttle system, and commit the nearly million dollars annually that the Proponent proposes to spend on that system to make further investments in the Blue Line and bus system. Funds that the Proponent has allocated to the shuttle should instead be used for the Red-Blue Connector, future procurement of electric buses to add to the MBTA fleet, and funding to support fare elimination and mitigation. Further, the Proponent should expend more than $20 million on public transit investments, while being mindful to also provide additional affordable housing units.
The Red-Blue Connector is an essential step to reducing congestion, improving mobility, and expanding economic opportunity in the region – and provides a necessary relief valve to mitigate the increased burdens on the system posed by the Project. The Red-Blue Connector will have a positive impact on the regional transit system and result in appropriate mitigation, as required by Section 61, to reduce GHG emissions. The Red-Blue Connector should be a high priority for several reasons. As the MBTA describes in the Focus 2040 report:11
9 NPC, Appendix B, page B-4. 10 Id. 11 Focus40: The 2040 Investment Plan for the MBTA, (March 2019), https://www.mbtafocus40.com/. Suffolk Downs NPC Comments Page 7 of 8
“A Red-Blue Connector would provide more direct transit service between fast-growing employment hubs and residential areas, including communities with concentrations of low-income households. It would also enhance access to the Blue Line connection to Logan Airport, which will be increasingly important as the Silver Line faces worsening highway congestion and projections point to continued growth in air travel to and from Boston.”
Put otherwise, the Red-Blue Connector would complete the legacy inner core subway system and serve as a pressure release valve for the other lines. Today, Park Street and Downtown Crossing are often at or over capacity and Government Center will face its own pressures once the Green Line Extension goes into revenue service. The Red-Blue Connector would add much-needed capacity to the system. It would also provide access to key job centers and destinations: Logan Airport, MGH/Mass Eye and Ear, Kendall Square innovation district, plus MIT and Harvard. Access to and from jobs should be a central mission for any transit agency. The Connector would add access to and from housing - especially new housing coming to Suffolk Downs and elsewhere on the Blue Line. Lastly, the Connector would advance social equity in the Boston area. A single parent with a sick child in East Boston should be able to get to MGH’s front door on the Blue Line, just as a senior citizen with limited mobility deserves a route to Logan that does not involve the congested Ted Williams Tunnel.
We recommend that the Secretary direct the Proponent to provide funds to the MBTA for future procurement of electric buses and support fare-free access for all riders originating at the Beachmont, Suffolk Downs, and Orient Heights Blue Line stations in perpetuity.
VI. The Section 61 Findings Must Include Details about Pedestrian and Bicycle Access.
CLF supports the commitments to on-site paths, as well as the proposal to design and build the extension of the East Boston Greenway to the southeast corner of the property.12 We recommend more specificity about the Proponent’s pedestrian and bicycle commitments. The Section 61 findings should include detail about on-site bicycle and pedestrian paths, such as location, and availability in each phase. The final Section 61 findings should include dates by when each of these developments will be complete and operational. For example, there should be specific dates indicating by when the Proponent will engage with community members to inform the design of the East Boston Greenway, complete the design, construct the path, and open it for operation (including Constitution Beach to Walley Street) and Community Path crossing Route 1A at Tomasello Drive to Chelsea Creek.
We request that the Proponent incorporate a bicycle path into the East Boston Greenway and begin East Boston Greenway design work in phase 1 rather than phase 2. We further recommend that the Secretary include details about how the Proponent will improve access to Revere Beach, following engagement with community. Finally, the Section 61 findings should
12 NPC, Appendix B, page B-19. Suffolk Downs NPC Comments Page 8 of 8 include metrics regarding new bike share stations, bike racks, secure bike lockers, and showers to account for more than 19,856 bike/ped trips.
CLF appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. You may direct any questions to Staci Rubin at [email protected] and (617) 850-1781 or Deanna Moran at [email protected] and (617) 850-1780. Sincerely,
Staci Rubin Senior Attorney
Deanna Moran Director, Environmental Planning
One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201
June 9, 2020
Ms. Kathleen Theoharides, Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ATTN: Page Czepiga, Assistant MEPA Director 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114
RE: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment, EEA No. 15783; NPC No. 051520
Dear Secretary Theoharides and Assistant Director Czepiga:
We appreciate very much the opportunity to comment on the NPC and Revised Draft Section 61 Findings for the Suffolk Downs Redevelopment Project (“Project”).
As you probably know, while the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) Development Review Department is the permitting authority on behalf of the City of Boston for the Suffolk Downs Redevelopment Project, the BPDA Planning Department reviews projects to ensure that they are consistent with goals, objectives and plans of the Department. On transportation matters, we also collaborate closely with the Boston Transportation Department (BTD) in reviewing and approving Article 80 development projects.
When it comes to mitigation measures, we understand that the NPC and more particularly the Revised Draft Section 61 Findings largely reflect mitigation measures required by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
For three sections of the Revised Draft Section 61 Findings identified below, we would like to call attention to the fact that the BPDA and BTD have already, or will ultimately, incorporate into their respective approval documents (Master Plan for Planned Development Area, or Master Plan PDA; and, Transportation Access Plan Agreement, or TAPA) requirements for transportation improvements which complement and in some instances go beyond the requirements of MassDOT. In the interest of ensuring coordination between City and State agencies in implementing transportation mitigation measures, we would like to request that the Section 61 Findings be modified to cross reference the Master Plan PDA and TAPA approval documents with respect to the following mitigation measures, which complement and go beyond those required by MassDOT.
1 One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201
Transit Improvements: Shuttle to South Station
Section 1.1.1 of the Draft NPC enumerates a number of requirements related to transit improvements for the project. The Section 61 Findings also incorporate FEIR Table 13-1, Summary of Proposed Transportation Mitigation by Development Phase, which provides certain additional detail on transit improvements including a private shuttle to North and South Station in Boston as part of Phase 2, 3 and 4 of the Project. In the interest of coordination between the State and the City, we would ask that language be added to this section of the Section 61 Findings to indicate that Exhibit K of the BPDA’s Master Plan PDA for the Project requires additional measures regarding stop locations, timing, and other matters related to the shuttles to the Seaport District and South Station.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) MItigation
Section 1.1.18 of the Draft NPC enumerates a range of TDM mitigation measures for the project. In the interest of coordination between the State and the City, we would ask that language be added to this section of the Section 61 Findings stating that both BTD’s Transportation Access Plan Agreement and Section 8 of the BPDA’s Master Plan PDA for the Project require additional TDM measures related to mode share goals, annual monitoring, annual surveys, and other measures.
East Boston Greenway Extension
Section 1.1.17 of the Draft NPC enumerates a number of requirements related to pedestrian and bicycle facilities improvements, including the extension of the East Boston Greenway. In the interest of coordination between the State and the City, we would ask that language be added to this section of the Section 61 Finding stating that Exhibit J of the Master Plan for PDA for the Project establishes additional requirements for the alignment of the East Boston Greenway while addressing other details for the Greenway extension.
We appreciate very much your time and attention to this important project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
VineetKGupta John Read Vineet Gupta John Read Director of Planning Senior Deputy Director for Transportation Planning BTD BPDA
2