The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900

Boston, MA 02114

Charles D. Baker GOVERNOR

Karyn E. Polito LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Matthew A. Beaton Fax: (617) 626-1081 SECRETARY http://www.mass.gov/eea

November 6, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

PROJECT NAME : L Street Station Redevelopment PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Boston PROJECT WATERSHED : Boston Harbor EEA NUMBER : 15692 PROJECT PROPONENT : HRP 776 Summer Street, LLC DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : September 5, 2018

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (M.G. L. c. 30, ss. 61-62I) and Section 11.08 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and determined that it adequately and properly complies with MEPA and its implementing regulations. The MEPA regulations indicate that a DEIR can be determined adequate, even if certain aspects of the Project or issues require additional description or analysis in an FEIR, provided that it is generally responsive to 301 CMR 11.07 and the Scope. The Proponent may prepare and submit for review a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).

Project Description

As described in the DEIR the project consists of the construction of approximately 1.93 million square feet (sf) of mixed-use development, including 1.3 million sf of residential uses (approximately 1,344 units), 368,070 sf of office space, 85,630 sf of retail uses, 172,000-sf of hotel uses (344 rooms) and 1,397 parking spaces in parking garages and surface parking lots. It includes the rehabilitation and reuse of four turbine halls and administration building associated with the site’s historic use as a power plant. The project will provide 5.5 acres of publicly accessible outdoor space, including a 2.5-acre waterfront park along Reserved Channel. Vehicular access through the site will be provided by an east-west roadway from Summer Street opposite Elkins Street and a north-south roadway from East 1st Street opposite M Street.

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

The project includes seven new buildings as described below:

• Building A: An 82-ft high, seven-story residential building with two levels of parking, to be located at the southeastern corner of the site along East 1st Street; • Building B: An 82-ft high, seven-story residential building with below-grade parking, to be located in the southern portion of the site along East 1st Street; • Building C: A residential building with a seven-story, 84-ft high component and a 21- story, 206-ft high tower to be located at the corner of East 1st Street and Summer Street, with retail uses on the ground floor and two levels of below-grade parking; • Building D: A mixed-use building with a 84-ft high hotel component and a 15-story, 164-ft high residential tower to be located along Summer Street north of Building C and adjacent to the waterfront open space, with retail uses on the ground floor and two levels of below-grade parking; • Building E: A 210-ft high, 20-story residential/hotel building to be located north of Block B in the center of the site, with two levels of below-grade parking shared with the 1898 Building; • Building F: A 115-ft high, 9-story residential building to be located north of Block A, with three levels of structured parking; and, • Building H: A 139-ft high, 12-story office building with retail uses on the ground floor and three levels of structured parking, to be located adjacent to the waterfront open space north of Block F.

Turbine Halls 1, 2 and 3 are located at the center of the site and extend from the planned waterfront open space to East 1st Street. The buildings will be restored and programmed with office space and retail and other community uses that will extend to outdoor patios. The 1898 Building is located between the Building E site and the northern end of the turbine buildings; it will be renovated with 55,490 sf of office use. The small Administration Building located along Summer Street will be reused. All other existing buildings will be demolished.

The project will be constructed in the following phases:

1. Demolition (2019); 2. Phase 1A (2020 to 2022): Renovation of Turbine Hall 3, construction of Buildings A and B, interim opening of Turbine Halls 1 and 2 for public activities and streetscape improvements along East 1st Street; 3. Phase 1B (2022 to 2024): Renovation of 1898 Building and associated public plaza, construction of Building E and extension of M Street through the project site; 4. Phase 2 (2024 to 2030): Final renovation of Turbine Halls 1 and 2 and the Administration Building, construction of Buildings C and D, extension of Elkins Street to the M Street Extension, construction of waterfront open space and streetscape improvements along Summer Street; and, 5. Phase 3 (beginning in 2030): Construction of Buildings H and F.

Project Site

The 15-acre project site is bounded by Summer Street to the west, Reserved Channel to the north, land owned by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to the east, 2

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018 and East 1st Street to the south. The site is located between the primarily residential South Boston neighborhood to the south and commercial and maritime uses such as the Massachusetts Port Authority’s (Massport) Black Falcon passenger terminal, Massport’s Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC) cargo haul road serving the Conley Container Terminal to the east, and other commercial uses. The site was used as an electrical generating facility for over 100 years before being decommissioned in 2007. It consists of several buildings that housed generation equipment and associated infrastructure. The eastern portion of the site has been cleared of structures. The site is fenced and inaccessible to the public.

A four-acre area of the site adjacent to Reserved Channel consists of filled tidelands subject to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s (MassDEP) jurisdiction under M.G.L. Chapter 91 (c. 91). When the ENF was filed, the site was located within the South Boston Designated Port Area (DPA). At the Proponent’s request, the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) conducted a boundary review in accordance with the Designation of DPA Regulations at 301 CMR 25.00. The review process included a public hearing and comment period. On May 10, 2018, CZM issued a Designation Decision that removed the project site from the DPA and added an area along Day Boulevard zoned for water- dependent industrial use. The decision resulted in an increase of the DPA from 137 to 140 acres.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number 25025C0083J (effective March 16, 2016), a portion of the site is located within the 100-year floodplain (Zone AE) with a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 12 ft NAVD 88 (18.45 ft Boston City Base (BCB)) on land and 13 ft NAVD 88 (19.45 ft BCB) over water. The site is sloped from east to west and from south to north, with a grade change of approximately 15 feet.

The site was identified for mixed-use development in the Imagine Boston 2030 citywide plan. The site is located within the South Boston Marine Economy Reserve Subdistrict of the Harborpark Dorchester Bay/Neponset River Waterfront District and the Restricted Parking Overlay District (RPOD). The Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) has commenced a public review process that includes public meetings to solicit the community’s vision for the site and the preparation of the South Boston Edison Power Plant Planning Process Report (PPR). The BPDA has indicated that the PPR will provide the foundation for its Large Project Review process under Article 80B of the City of Boston Zoning Code. The Proponent submitted a joint DEIR/Draft Project Impact Review (DPIR) to meet State and City requirements.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

The project will add 2.2 acres of impervious area (12 acres total); alter approximately 93,000 sf of Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF), 675 linear feet (lf) of Coastal Bank and 1,000 sf of Land Under the Ocean (LUO); and create four acres of new nonwater- dependent use of tidelands. The new office, retail, and residential uses will generate 17,121 new unadjusted average daily trips (adt) or 5,632 new vehicle trips when adjusted to reflect the expected use of alternate modes of transportation, such as transit and walking. The project will add 1,122 parking spaces to the site for a total of 1,397 spaces. Water demand is estimated at 324,503 gallons per day (gpd) and the project will enerate 295,003 gpd of wastewater. The project will result in emissions of Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) and other air pollutants associated 3

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

with the burning of fossil fuels for on-site energy use and automobile travel by residents and visitors to the site.

The project will employ stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) to improve the water quality and flow rate of stormwater discharged from the site, including infiltrating stormwater to the ground. The site will be raised to establish a first-floor elevation that is designed to withstand the effects of sea level rise and the project will incorporate other climate change adaptation measures. The project includes publicly accessible waterfront open space and other public interior and exterior spaces. It will minimize and mitigate transportation-related impacts by providing signalization and roadway improvements and through the implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to encourage use of non-vehicular modes of travel. The project will employ measures to conserve water and contribute to Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) reduction to preserve sewer capacity. The project will mitigate GHG emissions by incorporating energy efficiency measures into the building design and is evaluating generation of on-site renewable energy.

Permitting and Jurisdiction

The project is undergoing MEPA review and subject to preparation of a mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to Section 11.03(3)(a)(5), (6)(a)(6) and (6)(a)(7) because it requires Agency Actions and includes a new nonwater-dependent use of one or more acre of tidelands; will generate 3,000 or more new adt on roadways providing access to a single location; and will construct more than 1,000 parking spaces. The project exceeds the ENF thresholds at 301 CMR 11.06(b)(15) (construction of 300 or more new parking spaces at a single location) and 301 CMR 11.03(10)(b)(a) (demolition of any historic structure listed in or located in any historic district listed in the State Register of Historic Places or in the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth). The project requires a c.91 License and it may require a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate (WQC) from MassDEP. It is also subject to the MEPA GHG Emissions Policy and Protocol and will require a Public Benefit Determination (PBD).

The project requires an Order of Conditions from the Boston Conservation Commission (BCC) (or in the case of an appeal, a Superseding Order of Conditions (SOC) from MassDEP). It will require Article 80 Review by the BPDA including approval of a Planned Development Area (PDA) Development Plan. It will require a Transportation Access Plan Agreement (TAPA) and Construction Management Plan approval from the Boston Transportation Department (BTD). The project requires a determination of no hazard to air navigation from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater General Permit from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and may require a Section 10/Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The project requires review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) and development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Because the Proponent is not seeking State Financial Assistance, MEPA jurisdiction extends to those aspects of the project that are within the subject matter of required or potentially required State Permits and that may cause Damage to the Environment, as defined in the MEPA regulations. Because the project requires a c. 91 License, MEPA jurisdiction is broad in scope and extends to all aspects of the project that may cause Damage to the Environment, as defined 4

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018 in the MEPA regulations.

Changes Since the Filing of the ENF

The project has undergone design development since the ENF was filed and is presented in greater detail in the DEIR. Changes in the design include:

• Reduction in size from 2.1 million sf (msf) to 1.93 msf; • Elimination of an office building on Block G; • Restoration of the 1898 Building in addition to four other existing buildings; • Increase in the number of parking spaces from 987 spaces to 1,397 spaces • Extension of the build-out of the project from 10 years to 12 to 15 years; • Reduction in the heights of buildings C (from 220 ft to 206 ft), D (from 170 ft to 164 ft) and F (from 200 ft to 115 ft); • Increase in open space and pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and, • Decrease in impervious area from 12.5 acres to 12 acres.

As noted earlier, the site is no longer located within the DPA.

Review of the DEIR

The DEIR was generally responsive to the Scope included in the Certificate on the ENF. It described existing conditions and provided an updated description and plans of the project, including proposed uses and structures. It identified the project’s potential impacts on wetlands, tidelands, transportation, water and sewer use, drainage, GHG and air emissions and historic resources. The DEIR reviewed the process for conducting additional soil remediation activities and for excavating contaminated material. It described short-term impacts anticipated during the construction period, and potential mitigation measures. The DEIR included a commitment to provide recycling facilities in all buildings and garages to encourage recycling of waste generated by the proposed uses on the site. The DEIR provided a revised development phasing plan and identified mitigation and public benefits to be constructed in each phase. It included an updated list of required State Permits, Financial Assistance, or other State approvals, an update on the status of each of these pending actions, and a Response to Comments received on the ENF. The FEIR provided Draft Section 61 Findings; however, many of the mitigation measures have not yet been determined or detailed and the Findings did not include an implementation schedule or costs estimates.

Alternatives Analysis

As required in the Scope, the DEIR evaluated a DPA Compliant Alternative, two DPA Compatible Alternatives and a Reduced Build Alternative. The Proponent has adopted the Reduced Build Alternative as the Preferred Alternative.

The DPA Compliant Alternative was developed to compare environmental impacts associated with a water-dependent industrial (WDI) use project that would comply with the c. 91 regulations for structures and uses in a DPA. Potential WDI uses are limited because Massport’s DFC prevents direct navigational access to the site from Reserved Channel. The DPA 5

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

Compliant Alternative would include the reuse of the existing buildings for power generation, including the withdrawal of cooling water from Reserved Channel. This alternative would not increase impervious area, trip generation, vehicle trips or water and sewer use. Power generating buildings would be 185 ft high with a stack height of 330 ft above grade. This alternative would not include site remediation, publicly-accessible interior and exterior uses or restoration of the historic buildings.

The DEIR described two DPA Compatible Alternatives designed to minimize conflicts between the uses at the site and WDI uses in the adjacent DPA. These alternatives would substitute the residential and hotel uses proposed in the Preferred Alternative with more office space. DPA Compatible Alternative A would be similar to the Preferred Alternative with a GFA of 1.93 msf, consisting entirely of office and retail space. It would increase impervious area by 2.2 acres, provide publicly-accessible interior and exterior open space, remediate contaminated soil at the site and use less than half of the water required by the Preferred Alternative. DPA Compatible Alternative A would generate 787 vehicle trips in the morning peak hour and 827 vehicle trips in the evening peak hour and provide 1,522 parking spaces.

DPA Compatible Alternative B would consist of reuse of buildings to provide 1.5 msf of office space. A 1,500-space parking garage would be constructed on the east side of the site as a buffer to adjacent industrial uses. This alternative would add 3.2 acres of impervious area, provide limited public open space and no interior public uses, and generate over 600 vehicle trips during the morning and afternoon peak periods. It would require significantly less water than the Preferred Alternative but would not include remediation of the site or changes to the AUL.

The Preferred Alternative has been designed to achieve the City’s mixed-use planning goals, restore the historic power station buildings for public use and provide publicly-accessible open space. Since the filing of the ENF, it has been reduced in size by 170,000 sf (0.17 msf), the building heights have been slightly reduced, and new impervious area reduced from 2.7 acres to 2.2 acres. It will provide 1,397 parking spaces generate 375 vehicle trips in the morning peak period and 433 vehicle trips in the afternoon peak hour, use 329,890 gpd of water, and generate 299,900 gpd of wastewater. The site will be fully remediated consistent with its planned residential and open spaces uses which is necessary to remove the AUL. The building closest to the DFC will be comprised of office space to minimize potential conflicts with adjacent industrial uses; the residential and hotel buildings will be located closer to the existing neighborhood and will be designed with features to minimize noise and vibration impacts to residents.

Comments acknowledge positive changes to the project, including a decrease in the project size and changes in site design. Primary concerns identified by commenters include transportation impacts, design and mitigation measures necessary to effectively address the incompatibility of residential uses with marine industrial uses, GHG emissions and need to provide a comprehensive assessment of the site’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change and associated measures to increase the resiliency and adaptability of the site to these effects.

Chapter 91/Tidelands

An approximately four-acre portion of the site adjacent to Reserved Channel is comprised of filled tidelands and is subject to c. 91 jurisdiction as a nonwater-dependent use. The DEIR 6

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018 included a brief review of the project’s conformance to the c. 91 standards. According to the DEIR, the project will comply with the c. 91 standards regarding building setbacks, use limitations, lot coverage and building heights. The project does not include any new buildings for nonwater-dependent use within 100 feet of the shoreline; the existing Administration building is located approximately 30 ft from the shoreline and will be used exclusively for publicly- accessible civic and cultural uses. The project will meet the c. 91 standard requiring that at least one sf of filled tidelands remain as open space for every square foot of tidelands occupied by buildings containing nonwater-dependent use; the project will occupy approximately 49,250 sf (1.13 acres) of tidelands and will maintain an area of 131,060 sf (3 acres) of open space outside of any building footprint. According to the DEIR, the project will not include any buildings on tidelands that exceed the maximum 155-ft height allowed for this site. The DEIR did not clearly identify the dimensions, including height, of nonwater-dependent buildings (or elements of buildings) located on filled tidelands. The DEIR did not depict the Water-dependent Use Zone (WDUZ) on a map, identify any structures or uses within the WDUZ or review the project’s compliance with the applicable c. 91 regulatory requirements.

The project will activate the waterfront with approximately 3 acres of public open space. The waterfront open space will include a boardwalk, event space, a performance plaza, a landscaped bluff and overlook, seating areas, and remnant structures associated with the site’s industrial past. The open space will abut the public interior spaces of the Turbine Hall and will be connected by pathways and sidewalks to the neighborhood, the Thomas J. Butler Dog Park and other on-site uses including a children’s playground.

Because the site is no longer included in the South Boston DPA, the project is not required to comply with DPA-related regulations in the c. 91 licensing process. Comments from Massport, MassDEP, CZM, Boston Harbor Now and the Conservation Law Foundation emphasize the need to minimize conflicts between future uses of the site and the adjacent DPA, including Massport’s Conley Container Terminal and Black Falcon passenger terminal. The DEIR indicates that residential buildings will be buffered from industrial activities by commercial buildings, condominiums will be located away from the eastern edges of the site that border the DPA and apartments will be located above multi-story garages. The waterfront open space has been designed with a landscaped buffer and a stormwater management area between the more active and accessible parkland and the DFC and industrial uses. The Proponent has committed to implementing Massport’s Residential Use Restriction language and will construct residential units to meet applicable noise standards. I note that MassDEP, CZM and Massport have requested that the Proponent provide additional analysis and design commitments to further avoid and minimize conflicts between these uses.

Public Benefit Determination

The DEIR reviewed the public benefits to be provided by the project in accordance with An Act Relative to Licensing Requirements for Certain Tidelands (2007 Mass. Acts ch. 168) and the Public Benefit Determination regulations (301 CMR 13.00). The benefits include:

• Public access to previously inaccessible tidelands; • Remediation of the site; • Reuse of historic structures;

7

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

• Mitigation measures to minimize traffic and other impacts to the neighborhood; • Ground floor public uses to attract the community to the site; • Bicycle and pedestrian improvements; and, • A new stormwater management system to improve water quality.

Wetlands and Stormwater

Wetland resource areas at the site include Coastal Bank, LSCSF and LUO. The project includes repairing the bulkhead by installing new sheeting along its seaward end; this activity may impact up to 675 linear feet (lf) of Coastal Bank and 1,000 sf of LUO. Raising the grade of the site and construction of waterfront open space will alter the entire area of LSCSF.

The project will add 2.2 acres of impervious surface to the existing 9.8 acres of impervious area. The site does not include stormwater infrastructure; untreated runoff is conveyed to the Boston Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC) drainage system and discharged into Boston Harbor. The DEIR provided a conceptual description and plans of the stormwater management system and reviewed its consistency with the Stormwater Management Standards (SMS) of the Wetlands Regulations (310 CMR 10.00). The DEIR did not demonstrate that the stormwater management system will meet all the SMS standards or indicate whether it is designed to comply to the maximum extent practicable as a redevelopment project. The design of the stormwater management system includes BMPs such as deep-sump, hooded catch basins, particle separators, underground injection wells and infiltration chambers to maintain pre- development peak discharge rates and volumes and remove 80 percent of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Treated stormwater will be discharged into the BWSC system in Summer Street and East 1st Street. The DEIR indicated that the waterfront open space would include stormwater management but did not provide any supporting information or details regarding use of BMPs or Low Impact Development (LID) measures. The project will include construction-period sedimentation and erosion control measures and the Proponent will prepare and implement a Long-Term Operation and Maintenance Plan to ensure that the system operates as intended.

Traffic and Transportation

The DEIR included a transportation study prepared consistent with the EEA/Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines issued in March 2014. It described existing and proposed roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle conditions, public transit capacity and infrastructure, roadway and intersection volumes and roadway safety issues. Because the project is anticipated to be completed over a 12- to 15-year period, intersection capacity analyses were provided for the weekday morning and evening peak hours for Existing 2017, No Build 2024, Build 2024 (including Phases 1 and 2), Build 2024 with Mitigation, 2030 No Build, 2030 Full Build (including all three phases) and 2030 Full Build with Mitigation scenarios. The 2030 No Build scenario does not assume completion of Phases 1 and 2. The TIA identified mitigation measures that will be implemented to minimize impacts to the local transportation network, including pedestrian and bicycle accommodations, roadway improvements, transit service and TDM measures. The TIA analyzed the transportation impacts of the project within the study area which includes the following intersections:

8

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

• Summer Street at Drydock Avenue and Pappas Way; • Summer Street at the DFC; • Summer Street at Elkins Street and proposed site driveway; • Summer Street at L Street and East 1st Street; • L Street at East 2nd Street; • L Street at East 3rd Street; • L Street at East Broadway; • East 1st Street at K Street; • East 1st Street at M Street and the proposed site driveway; • East 1st Street at West 1st Street and Pappas Way; • L Street at East 5th Street; • L Street at East 8th Street; • L Street at Day Boulevard; and, • L Street at Columbia Road.

Trip Generation

The number of trips generated by the project was estimated using trip rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook 10th Edition and assigning these trips to various transportation modes. Using the ITE trip generation rates for land use codes (LUC) 221 (Multifamily Housing), 820 (Shopping Center), 310 (Hotel) and 710 (Office), the project would generate 17,121 adt, including 1,166 trips in the morning peak hour and 1,554 trips in the evening peak period. The estimated number of trips has decreased since the ENF due to the decrease in the size of the project and changes by ITE to its trip generation rates.1

The unadjusted trips were converted to person trips using national average vehicle occupancy rates (VOR) derived from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey. A VOR of 1.13 passengers per vehicle was applied to residential and office uses, 1.78 to retail uses and 2.2 to hotel uses. The number of internal trips, which are trips between on-site uses that do not affect the transportation system, was deducted from the total number of person trips.

The person trips were adjusted to reflect transportation mode shares for each use. The mode shares were established using City of Boston and U.S. Census journey-to-work data. In general, vehicular trips are expected to account for 20 to 40 percent of trips to the site, transit for 37 to 42 percent of trips, and walking/bicycling for 23 to 40 percent of the trips. The number of peak hour vehicle trips associated with retail uses was reduced by 20 percent to account for pass- by trips. The number of adjusted peak hour trips for each use under both Build 2024 and Build 2030 conditions are summarized in the tables below.2

1 The 9th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook was used to calculate unadjusted trip generation in the ENF. The updated 10th edition of the handbook includes revised trip generation rates that are in some cases lower than those in the 9th edition. The 10th edition of the handbook was used for the DEIR analysis. 2 The DEIR did not provide a calculation of adjusted daily trips; this information was provided by email from Seth Latrell to Alex Strysky on October 12, 2018. 9

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

Table 1. Build 2024 Trips (adjusted)

Period Transit Walking/Bicycling Vehicle Morning Peak 405 254 250 Evening Peak 527 364 291 Daily 7,440 5,116 4,104

Table 2. Full Build 2030 Trips (adjusted)

Period Transit Walking/Bicycling Vehicle Morning Peak 564 351 375 Evening Peak 732 502 433 Daily 9,754 6,682 5,632

Transit

The DEIR reviewed operations and capacity of MBTA bus routes in the vicinity of the site under existing and future conditions and identified bus routes within walking distance:

• Route 5: City Point to McCormack Housing, with a stop at the Andrew Station on the MBTA’s Red Line subway; • Route 7: City Point to Downtown Boston via Summer Street, with a stop at South Station, which provides access to the Red and Silver Lines, MBTA Commuter Rail, and Amtrak rail service; • Route 9: City Point to Copley Square, with a stop at the Broadway Red Line station and access to the Green and Orange Lines in Copley Square; • Route 10: City Point to Copley Square, with stops at the Andrew Red Line station and Boston University Medical Center; and • Route 11: City Point to Downtown Boston with a stop at the Andrew Red Line station.

Based on the planning capacity3 of busses on these routes, the scheduled frequency of peak hour service and current levels of ridership, passenger demand would be accommodated on all of these bus routes under Existing 2017 conditions. However, due to congestion which results in schedule delays, buses operating during the peak period, in particular Bus Route 7, have been observed to be over capacity with long wait times to board a bus.

Future conditions on the MBTA bus routes were modeled by adding ridership associated with the project and applying a background passenger growth rate of 0.68 percent per year as calculated in the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Long Range Transportation Plan. Under the No Build 2024 and No Build 2030 scenarios, intersection volume to capacity (v/c) ratios are expected to be less than 1.0, with the exception of Route 7, which

3 The planning capacity is 54 passengers per bus (140 percent of the seated capacity). 10

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

suggests that sufficient capacity would be available to accommodate increased ridership. MassDOT comments indicate that future conditions would likely include delays that would impact service operations as they do under Existing 2017 conditions. The addition of project- generated ridership will cause Bus Route 7 to exceed capacity in the evening peak period in the outbound direction and to operate at or near capacity in the morning peak period in the inbound direction under Build 2024 and Build 2030 conditions.

To mitigate its impact on Bus Route 7, the Proponent has proposed to fund and operate additional bus service between the site and South Station in partnership with the MBTA. The bus service would be available to the public as a component of the MBTA’s bus service. The service could supplement Bus Route 7 with busses that truncate the route at South Station or establishing an alternate route to South Station using West 1st Street and A Street.

The DEIR did not analyze the benefit of the proposed supplemental bus service on transit or traffic operations in the study area. The DEIR noted that congestion is a major cause of poor service on Bus Route 7 because it prevents busses from running as scheduled. As noted by MassDOT and the MBTA, the use of v/c ratios to evaluate transit conditions under existing and future conditions does not adequately characterize the factors affecting bus service or the project’s impacts on the transit system, and does not support identification of appropriate mitigation measures. The DEIR did not clearly describe how additional capacity provided by the proposed supplemental bus service would improve transit service, and did not address potential impacts to bus service over time as congestion increases. The Scope requires the Proponent to further analyze transportation impacts and effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures, and as recommended by MassDOT/MBTA to consider additional infrastructure improvements to address traffic congestion.

Pedestrian/Bicycle

The DEIR described existing and proposed conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists adjacent to the project site including peak hour counts in the study area. Sidewalks and crosswalks are located along Summer Street and East 1st Street adjacent to the site; bicycle accommodations are not provided. The Thomas J. Butler Park east of the site includes a multi- use path and a Blue Bike station is located at the South Boston Library approximately 0.25 miles from the site.

The TIA provided an analysis of the Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) at intersections in the study area. For signalized intersections, PLOS is determined by the duration of the pedestrian phase signal cycle and the length of the crosswalk; for unsignalized intersections, PLOS is influenced by conflicting vehicular flow rates in addition to the length of the crosswalk. The results of a PLOS analysis are expressed as rankings from A to F, where A represents minimal delays and E and F represent long delays that may encourage jaywalking. According to the TIA, PLOS will not change between No Build and Build conditions in 2024 and 2030, with the exception of the intersection of Summer Street at L Street and East 1st Street where proposed signal coordination will improve the PLOS significantly.

The project includes mitigation measures to encourage walking and bicycling to and from the site and adjacent areas. On-site streets and portions of Summer Street and East 1st Street adjacent to the site will be designed consistent with MassDOT’s Complete Streets guidelines, 11

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

with sidewalks, crosswalks, dedicated or shared bicycle lanes, lighting and other amenities. Signalization at the site entrance on Elkins Street and coordination of the signals on Summer Street will improve pedestrian conditions. The project will provide 1,532 long-term secure and covered bicycle parking spaces, 279 short-term outdoor bicycle spaces and a bicycle sharing station for use by residents, employees and visitors to the site.

Traffic Operations

The DEIR provided a capacity analysis of the intersections in the study area under existing and future conditions. Existing conditions were established based on traffic counts collected June 2017. No Build conditions in 2024 and 2030 were determined by applying a growth factor of one-half percent per year to the existing traffic data and by adding the expected trips to be generated by seven planned developments within the study area.

The DEIR analyzed the Level-of-Service (LOS), volume to capacity (v/c) ratio, delays and queue length (50th and 95th percentile) for the study area intersections under Existing 2017, No Build 2024, Build 2024, No Build 2030 and Full Build 2030 conditions. The LOS reflects the overall operations of an intersection, including traffic speed, delay and capacity. For urban intersections, LOS D reflects an acceptable level of operations. Under Existing 2017 conditions, the following three intersections operate below LOS D during at least one peak period: Summer Street at Drydock Avenue and Pappas Way, L Street at East Broadway and East 1st Street, and West 1st Street and Pappas Way. These three intersections as well as the intersection of Summer Street/L Street at East 1st Street will operate below LOS D during at least one peak period under the 2024 No Build scenario. No additional intersections are expected to operate below LOS D under the 2030 No Build scenario, but delays and congestion are expected to increase.

According to the DEIR, the addition of project-related traffic under 2024 Build and 2030 Full Build scenarios will not change the overall LOS at study area intersections significantly compared to No Build conditions. None of the intersections operating above LOS D under No Build 2024 or No Build 2030 conditions are expected to operate below LOS D in the Build 2024 or Full Build 2030 condition, with the exception of the Summer Street at Elkins Street and East 1st Street at M Street intersections, which will provide access and egress to and from the site. The following intersections will operate at LOS E or LOS F under Build conditions with excessive queues and delays:

• Summer Street at Drydock Avenue and Pappas Way; • Summer Street at Elkins Street and proposed site driveway; • Summer Street at L Street and East 1st Street; • L Street at East Broadway; • East 1st Street at M Street and the proposed site driveway; and, • East 1st Street at West 1st Street and Pappas Way.

The DEIR identified the following roadway and signal improvements to mitigate Build 2024 and Full Build 2030 conditions:

Build 2024 • Reconstruction of Summer Street from East 1st Street to the DFC; 12

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

• Signalization of the Summer Street at Elkins Street and proposed site driveway intersection; • Signal timing improvements at the Summer Street at L Street and East 1st Street intersection; and, • Signal optimization at the L Street at East Broadway intersection.

Full Build 2030 • Mitigation described above for the Build 2024 condition; and • Modification of signals and/or signal timing: Summer Street at Elkins Street and proposed site driveway; o st o Summer Street at L Street and East 1 Street; and, o L Street at East Broadway.

The DEIR summarized the findings of a traffic signal warrant analysis. It indicated that a new signal at the Summer Street at Elkins Street and proposed site driveway would be justified based in part on traffic volume. According to the DEIR, these measures will improve operations at the following intersections to LOS D or better for the 2024 Build with Mitigation conditions: Summer Street at Elkins Street and proposed site driveway; Summer Street and L Street at East 1st Street; and L Street at East Broadway. Similar results are expected under the 2030 Full Build with Mitigation scenario, with the exception of the intersection of L Street at East Broadway, which will operate at LOS E in the evening peak period.

Parking

The project will include 1,397 parking spaces. The DEIR provided calculations of parking demand derived from the ITE Parking Generation Handbook and the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking report. Based on the proposed uses and use of the ITE handbook, the project would require 3,026 spaces; when adjusted to account for mode share, the project would require 1,028 spaces. The ULI report provides parking demand rates based on the proposed uses, mode shares, the number of internal trips requiring only one parking space, and temporal variations in parking demand. Parking rates are based on differences in peak parking demand for the proposed uses and an assumption of shared parking among the uses. The peak demand for shared spaces was determined to be 1,356 spaces. The proposed parking supply also accounts for arrival and departures of hotel visitors and parking management. I note that the proposed number of spaces exceeds the number derived from both the ITE (adjusted for mode share) and ULI methods. The FEIR should analyze how shared parking could minimize the number of parking spaces and demonstrate that the parking supply is the minimum necessary.

Transportation Demand Management

The DEIR proposed the following TDM measures to minimize SOV trips to the site:

• Designating an on-site Transportation Coordinator to promote alternative means of transportation to the site; • Providing an on-site shared bike station; • Providing real-time transit information in the lobby of buildings;

13

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

• Providing transit maps and schedules and other information to promote alternative modes of travel in the lobbies of buildings; • Providing preferential parking to carpool and vanpool participants; • Joining the Seaport Transportation Management Association (TMA); • Participating in transportation awareness events, including Car-Free Week, MassCommute Bicycle Challenge and Lunchtime Walking Series; • Initiating on-site transportation fairs and commuter events; and • Providing 1,391 long-term covered and secured bicycle parking spaces to residents and 110 long-term covered and secure bicycle spaces for employees.

Transportation Monitoring

According to the DEIR, the Proponent will conduct transportation monitoring to confirm that post-development conditions are consistent with forecasted conditions and to evaluate the adequacy of mitigation measures and the effectiveness of the TDM program. It will include:

• Annual surveys of employees and residents of the site to determine what travel modes are being used, the use of bicycle parking and alternatively-fueled vehicle parking spaces, use of vehicle charging stations, and parking demand and capacity; • Automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts at each garage entrance for a continuous 24- hour period on a typical weekday and Saturday; and, • Weekday AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts (TMC) and operations analysis at mitigated intersections.

The traffic monitoring program will continue for a period of five years beginning six months after occupancy of the Full Build project.

Climate Change

The DEIR provided an analysis of stationary- and mobile-source GHG emissions and measures to offset emissions. It reviewed existing and future storm and flooding conditions and described design features to improve resiliency to the effects of climate change.

Adaptation and Resiliency

An area of approximately 93,000-sf (2.13 acres) of the site adjacent to Reserved Channel is located within LSCSF with a BFE of 12 ft (18.45 ft BCB). The BPDA’s Sea Level Rise- Flood Hazard Area (SLR-FHA) mapping tool has established the 2070 base flood elevation (SLR-BFE) for the site as 19.4 ft (BCB). The SLR-BFE is based on the Boston Harbor Flood Risk Model projection of a 3.2-ft rise in sea level by 2070 plus 2.5 inches of local subsidence. According to the DEIR, the BPDA’s Climate Resiliency Guidance document requires projects to consider a SLR-Design Flood Elevation (DFE) based on the SLR-BFE plus two feet of freeboard for critical buildings, infrastructure and ground floor residential uses. The SLR-DFE for the site is 21.4 ft BCB. The project has been designed with first floor elevations at 21.5 ft BCB. According to the DEIR, the project will also address the potential effects of sea level rise on the site through a stepped landscape design that will gradually elevate the site to 21.5 BCB south of the shoreline and employ landscaped areas and pervious pavement to manage stormwater runoff. 14

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

The BPDA Climate Resiliency Checklist provided as an attachment to the DEIR identified design conditions to address other climate change effects, including extreme heat and precipitation events. Light-colored paving materials and shade trees will be installed to mitigate urban heat island effects. According to the Checklist, the stormwater management system will be designed to infiltrate the first 1.25 inches of runoff.

Sustainable Design

Article 37 of the Boston Zoning Code requires that the project be certifiable by the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program under the LEEDv4 rating system. The hotel and residential buildings will be designed to achieve a Gold level certification and the office building will be designed to achieve a Silver level certification. The DEIR included the LEED project checklists for the buildings and reviewed sustainable design features of the project, including reduced water use through water-efficient plumbing; purchase of off-site renewable energy and reduced energy consumption; reuse/ recycling of construction and demolition (C&D) debris; and enhanced indoor environmental quality including the use of low-emitting materials.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

The DEIR included a GHG analysis based on the MEPA Greenhouse Gas Policy and Protocol (“the Policy”). The Policy requires projects to quantify carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate such emissions. The analysis quantified the direct and indirect CO2 emissions associated with the project's energy use (stationary sources) and transportation-related emissions (mobile sources). The DEIR outlined and committed to mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions.

For each of the four building types (mid-rise residential, high-rise residential, hotel and office), the stationary source GHG analysis evaluated CO2 emissions for the Base Case and the Design Case. The Base Case was designed to meet the minimum energy requirements of the 9th Edition of the Massachusetts Building Code, which references the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1-2013. The Design Case included additional energy-efficiency measures proposed in the Preferred Alternative.

The GHG analysis used eQuest modeling software to quantify emissions from the project’s stationary sources. The project’s overall stationary source CO2 emissions were estimated at 9,194.4 tons per year (tpy) under the Base Case scenario for the three building types. The mitigation measures included in the Design Case will reduce GHG emissions to 8,199.8 tpy, a reduction of 994.6 tpy (10.8 percent). The estimates of GHG emissions were calculated using the CO2 emission factor of 710 pounds per megawatt-hour for grid electricity published by the Independent System Operator- New England (ISO-NE) in the 2016 ISO New England Electric Generator Air Emissions Report.

According to the DEIR, energy efficiency measures proposed as part of the project include, but are not limited to:

• Energy efficient windows and building envelope with wall insulation, roof insulation and window U-values meeting or exceeding Building Code requirements; 15

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

• Low window to wall ratios; • High-efficiency Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) meeting or exceeding Building Code requirements; • High efficiency hot water boilers; • Water source heat pumps in Building A; • Reduced lighting power density (LPD) in common areas, hotel units and parking garages; • Energy STAR appliances and equipment; • Building commissioning and energy tracking and monitoring systems; • Recycling of waste and construction and demolition debris; • Low-flow and water-efficient plumbing; and • Green Tenant guidelines to inform tenants on how to conserve energy.

The Proponent evaluated the feasibility of using rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) and combined heat and power (CHP) systems to generate energy on-site. An approximately 377- kiloWatt PV system covering 20 percent of the roof area would generate two percent of the project’s electricity needs and reduce GHG emissions by 176 tpy. According to the DEIR, the system would have a payback period of 19.1 years without incentives from the Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target (SMART) program or other sources. The Proponent indicates that it will continue to evaluate installation of rooftop PV systems as the project design of each building progresses and will construct all roofs to be solar-ready.

According to the DEIR, CHP systems in the residential and hotel buildings would in combination generate 2,692 MegaWatt-hours (MWh) of electricity and 18,541 million British Thermal Units (MMBTU) of thermal demand per year and reduce GHG emissions by 109 tpy. The CHP systems would have a payback period of 5.4 years based on financial incentives that may be available from utility companies.

As requested in the DEIR Scope, the Proponent included passive house design features for Building B, a seven-story residential building. The analysis determined that, compared to the Base Case, the building’s GHG emissions would be reduced by 30.6 percent and its energy use reduced by 35 percent. According to the DEIR, construction costs of the building would be 16 percent higher than the Preferred Alternative and 41 percent higher than the Base Case. As noted by the Department of Energy Resources (DOER), the estimated costs are 4.5 times higher than those reported by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).The Proponent indicates it will continue to evaluate the feasibility of passive house design features for the residential buildings based on potential incentives offered through alternative energy credits (AEC), incentives from the MassSave program and Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) grants.

The Scope for the FEIR requires additional analysis of the feasibility, costs (including incentives programs) and co-benefits of solar PV, CHP and Passivehouse.

Mobile Source GHG Emissions

The DEIR analyzed the project’s mobile-source CO2 emissions using the EPA’s MOVES2014 emissions model and data from the traffic study. The MOVES2014a model 16

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

calculates emissions factors for vehicles expressed in a volume per distance travelled. Total emissions of vehicles are estimated by applying Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) data to vehicles in the study area and emissions from idling vehicles. Under 2030 Full Build conditions, estimated project-related emissions would be 2,189 tpy of CO2. The DEIR estimated that the implementation of roadway and TDM mitigation measures would reduce mobile-source emissions by 936 tpy.

Hazardous Waste

A significant concern of residents continues to be the cleanup of contaminated soil at the site. During the review period, the Proponent committed to provide funding for an independent Licensed Site Professional (LSP) to review the project’s plans related to hazardous waste management. I commend the Proponent for incorporating this measures in response to community concerns. I expect the FEIR will provide additional details of this commitment.

Seven releases of oil and/or hazardous materials regulated under M.G.L. chapter 21E, the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) have been documented at the site.4 The releases have been assigned the following MassDEP Release Tracking Numbers (RTN):

• RTN 3-12817: Sulfuric acid; • RTN 3-13007: Fuel oil containing Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH), Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon (EPH), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH); • RTN 3-14575: Sulfuric acid; • RTN 3-17596: Petroleum with EPH and Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH); • RTN 3-22165: Lubricating oil; • RTN 3-26342: Sulfuric acid; and • RTN 3-28038: Weathered oil stains containing EPH and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB).

According to the DEIR, all of the releases have been addressed in accordance with the MCP. Remediation of one of the releases of fuel oil included the adoption of an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) restriction that prohibits residential uses, playgrounds, and similar uses on a 0.2-acre portion of the project site. The AUL was necessary because some of the soil could not be removed due to its proximity to building foundations. The project may include the excavation of the remainder of this contaminated soil to which would be necessary to remove the AUL on the site.

The DEIR described the procedures to be used to ensure that excavated contaminated soils are handled and disposed of to minimize health and safety risks. Prior to excavation of any contaminated soil, additional sampling will be conducted to characterize the chemical properties of the soils in order to identify options for the handling and disposal of the material. The Proponent will also be required to prepare and submit to MassDEP a Release Abatement Measure (RAM) Plan. The RAM Plan will include a human health risk assessment and describe

4 Detailed information on each release and its cleanup status is available on MassDEP’s website at https://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/portal#!/search/wastesite 17

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

procedures for excavating and managing contaminated soil to minimize exposure to workers and the public. Based on the extent of remediation, buildings may be designed with vapor intrusion systems and may include other features to provide safe indoor air quality.

Water and Wastewater

The project will generate 295,003 gpd of wastewater and consume 324,503 gpd of drinking water. Wastewater from the site will be directed to existing 15- and 18-inch sewer mains in Summer Street and a 12-inch combined sewer main in East 1st Street owned by the Boston Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC). As noted by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), the sewer mains are connected to a combined sewer and may result in combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges into Reserved Channel and Fort Point Channel under heavy rainfall conditions. The DEIR includes a commitment to mitigate the project’s contribution of flow into the BWSC sanitary system, but did not identify a sewer improvement project to be implemented or financial contribution that will be made by the Proponent. At a minimum, the mitigation will be equivalent to the removal of four gallons of infiltration and inflow (I/I) for each gallon of wastewater produced by the project. The DEIR did not describe the capacity of the sanitary sewer system, the path and ultimate disposal of wastewater from the site, or any improvements that may be necessary to accommodate the project’s wastewater flows.

The project will use 324,503 gpd of water from the BWSC system for domestic use and fire prevention. Water will be supplied via connections to 12- to 16-inch water mains in East 1st Street and Summer Street. The DEIR did not describe the capacity or water pressure of the BWSC system or discuss whether adequate capacity is available. The DEIR noted that the buildings will be equipped with water-conserving plumbing but did not describe any other potential water conservation measures such as reuse of rainwater or gray water for irrigation or other purposes.

Air Quality

The DEIR included a mesoscale analysis of the impact of transportation-related emissions. The analysis analyzed the mobile source emissions generated by the Full Build project with respect to consistency with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as applicable, in the project area. Suffolk County is in attainment for all NAAQS criteria pollutants except 8-hour and 1-hour Ozone standards and in maintenance for carbon monoxide (CO). The analysis was used to determine whether and to what extent the project will increase precursors to the development of ozone, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The analysis used the EPA’s MOVES mobile-source emissions model vehicle trip data from the transportation analysis to model emissions based on vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and vehicle idling at intersections.

The mesoscale analysis evaluated VOC and NOx emissions within the project study area under the following scenarios: Existing 2017, No-Build 2030 and Full Build 2030 conditions. According to the DEIR, Build Condition VOC and NOx emissions are lower than the 2017 Existing condition because of anticipated improvements in vehicle engine and emission technologies. The project will increase NOx and VOC emissions compared to the 2030 No Build condition. Emissions of NOx will increase from 6.5 kilograms per day (kg/day) to 7.3 kg/day 18

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

and VOC emissions will increase from 19.7 kg/day to 22.1 kg/day between the 2030 No Build condition and the 2030 Full Build condition. The proposed roadway mitigation and TDM measures will reduce project-related emissions of VOC from 2.4 kg/day to 1.9 kg/day and emissions of NOx from 0.8 kg/day to 0.5 kg/day.

Historic Resources

The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) has included the site in the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth (BOS.12943) and determined that the entire site is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The project includes the rehabilitation and reuse of the three Turbine Halls, the 1898 Building and the Administration Building. The DEIR provided photos of the interior of the buildings and reviewed potential options for preserving the remaining buildings, including the New Boston station, 1922 Boiler House, a series of Transformer Buildings, the Switch House/Office Building and the Coal Bunker/Boiler Room. The Proponent determined that reuse of the buildings would be infeasible for a combination of reasons, including the cost and technical challenges associated with rehabilitation, the size and configuration of the buildings may not be suitable for reuse, and/or the modifications previously made to the buildings have affected their historical value.

MHC has determined that the proposed demolition constitutes an “adverse effect” on historic properties and indicates that the proposed restoration of the turbine halls, 1898 Building and Administration Building do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. In accordance with its regulations at 950 CMR 71, Protection of properties included in the State Register of Historic Places, MHC has initiated its consultation process with the Proponent to avoid, minimize and mitigate adverse effects of the project.

Construction Period

The DEIR reviewed potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures associated with construction of the project. It provided a draft Construction Management Plan (CMP) and reviewed mitigation measures that are likely to be included in the TAPA the Proponent will file with BTD. The DEIR reviewed measures that will be implemented during the construction period to minimize the project’s impacts associated with noise and vibration, air emissions, fugitive dust, soils management, including contaminated material, sedimentation and erosion, and access to the site by trucks and other construction vehicles. Construction-period mitigation measures will include:

• Implementation of a Traffic Management Plan including designated truck routes; • Maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle access on streets adjacent to the project site, including temporary sidewalks and bike accommodations; • Compliance with MassDEP’s Solid Waste and Air Pollution Control regulations, pursuant to M.G.L. c.40, §54 and the City of Boston Noise Ordinance, including the use of emission reduction equipment on construction vehicles; • Minimizing noise impacts by scheduling construction activities during normal work hours or as otherwise approved by the City of Boston, ensuring that construction vehicles comply with MassDEP’s idling regulations, and using ambient levelling sensors on backup alarms;

19

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

• Using sedimentation and erosion controls in compliance with the requirements of the SMS and the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities; • Implementation of a Construction Waste Management Plan with a commitment of recycling or salvaging at least 75 percent on non-hazardous construction and demolition waste; and, • Minimization of fugitive dust using wet suppression, covering trucks leaving the site, compacting soil or using gravel at site entrances, and daily street sweeping.

The DEIR did not address the presence of asbestos or identify handling and disposal measures that will be employed if it is present at the site.

Conclusion

The DEIR described the project, including revisions to the project design since the ENF. It indicated that design development is continuing and will be finalized in conjunction with State and City permitting requirements. As a result, project impacts have not been fully identified and the Proponent has not committed to a detailed mitigation program. MassDOT has identified additional analysis of the project’s transportation impacts and alternative mitigation measures that must be provided in the FEIR. Based on a review of the DEIR, consultation with State Agencies and a review of comment letters, I have determined that the DEIR is adequate notwithstanding that certain aspects of the project require additional description or analysis in the FEIR. I note that failure to address the analysis and information in the FEIR could result in supplemental MEPA review.

SCOPE

General

The FEIR should follow Section 11.07 of the MEPA regulations for outline and content, as modified by this Scope. The FEIR should clearly demonstrate that the Proponent is committed to all feasible measures to avoid Damage to the Environment, or, to the extent it cannot be avoided, to minimize and mitigate Damage to the Environment to the maximum extent practicable.

Significant issues identified by commenters include need for more detailed information to support assessment of project impacts and mitigation measures including the resiliency of the site design to the effects of climate change; the need for additional analysis of potential conflicts with adjacent industrial uses and measures to minimize conflicts through site design, development program and mitigation; the need for a revised analysis of the project’s transportation impacts that better characterizes its effect on transit and identification of alternative mitigation measures; and a reassessment of the design of the proposed buildings and energy systems to provide greater GHG mitigation, including Passivehouse design and installation of solar PV systems. The FEIR should identify and quantify project impacts and include commitments for implementation of specific mitigation measures.

20

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

In addition, I note that many of the responses to comments consisted of directing reviewers to an entire chapter to address a comment. This is not an acceptable response to a comment letter. The FEIR should include revised responses to comments on the DEIR and any responses in the FEIR should be substantive and responsive to comments within MEPA jurisdiction.

Project Description and Permitting

The FEIR should describe any changes to the project since the filing of the DEIR. The FEIR should include updated site plans for existing and post-development conditions at a legible scale, including the building design, pedestrian and bicycle access improvements, vehicular circulation, open space and the stormwater management system. It should provide plans and sections of existing and proposed site grades. The FEIR should clearly describe and provide plans of each building and building use by floor. It should provide a detailed description of all open space areas, a tabulation of the area of each open space, including the area of publicly- accessible open space on tidelands, and proposed structures, use and programming. It should identify mitigation to offset construction-period and long-term environmental impacts. The FEIR should provide a brief description and analysis of applicable statutory and regulatory standards and requirements, and a description of how the project will meet those standards. It should confirm whether asbestos is present in the existing buildings and identify applicable regulatory requirements for its handling and disposal. The FEIR should include a list of required State permits, Financial Assistance, or other State approvals and provide an update on the status of each of these pending actions.

Alternatives Analysis

The Proponent should consider additional revisions to the Preferred Alternative to reduce impacts, including, but not limited to, further reductions in the size of the project to reduce traffic impacts. The Proponent should continue to analyze alternative design and mitigation measures that address multiple issues. An excellent example of this, which the Proponent has committed to, is the incorporation of significant landscape features into the design that can also support stormwater management and improve the resiliency of the site to sea level rise and storms.

I urge the Proponent to commit to Passivehouse design for residential buildings and hotels based on its ability to reduce conflicts between marine industrial uses and residential uses while reducing GHG emissions and improving the resiliency of the project to the effects of climate change. Passivehouse design includes increased continuous roof and wall insulation and requires less HVAC system capacity. Structures built to Passivehouse standards will be quieter and better insulated from significant noise associated with industrial uses and traffic, which is a particularly important consideration for this site. They are inherently more resilient because they can retain comfortable temperatures for a longer period of time during a power outage. As noted in DOER comments, Passivehouse residential and hotel buildings could offset GHG emissions by more than 62% compared to the Base Case. In combination with PV and CHP, 64% of GHG emissions could be offset.

21

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

Transportation

The FEIR should provide the revised analysis of the project’s transportation impacts as requested by MassDOT. I encourage the Proponent to consult with MassDOT and the MBTA regarding the results of the analysis and proposed mitigation. The FEIR should include an analysis of person throughput to better quantify the project’s impacts on multiple modes of transportation, particularly bus service, and to ensure that proposed mitigation measures improve operations for all modes. The FEIR should provide a segment analysis of the Summer Street corridor using VISSIM simulation software to model existing and future conditions and identify performance criteria for mitigation measures. The analysis should incorporate the MBTA’s metrics for system performance, such as passenger crowding. The FEIR should describe the City of Boston’s plans to reduce congestion and improve travel times on Summer Street with geometric and traffic signal improvements and analyze how the impact of these measures on existing and future conditions. The FEIR should analyze potential mitigation measures identified by MassDOT, including signal timing and alternative lane assignments along the Summer Street corridor, and ability of improvements to capacity to improve operations and capacity on Bus Route 7.

The TIA concluded that the intersection of Summer Street at the DFC would operate at LOS A or LOS B under Build 2024 and Full Build 2030 conditions. Several commenters, including Massport and MassDEP, requested additional analysis of potential impacts to truck access via the DFC. I note that the DFC and the South Boston Haul Road were constructed to divert commercial truck traffic from area neighborhoods. As part of its revised transportation analysis, the FEIR should describe future conditions affecting the Summer Street at DFC intersection, any changes to signalization to be conducted as part of the City’s Summer Street corridor improvements, and traffic operations of trucks and other vehicles using the DFC. The FEIR should provide a detailed description of how the project may use the DFC, identify measures to minimize conflicts with industrial traffic and confirm that, as directed by Massport, the access will be gated.

The Proponent should evaluate additional TDM measures to minimize vehicular trips to the site including, but not limited to, the following:

• Implementation of alternative or staggered work hours and telecommuting options; • Promotion to commercial tenants of savings on payroll-related taxes and provision of employee benefits when transportation benefits such as subsidized public transportation is provided; • Encouragement of employers to subsidize on-site full-time employees' purchase of monthly transit passes; • Participation in the MBTA Corporate Pass program; • Provision of lockers and showers for employees who walk or bicycle to work; • Implementation of a Guaranteed Ride Home program by employers; • Provision of on-line registration for the RideSource ride-matching program through the Seaport TMA membership and/or by individual tenants ; • Encouragement of tenants to organize an internal ride-matching program; and, • Implementation of vehicle sharing program, including dedicated parking spaces in the garages.

22

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

As noted earlier, the proposed number of spaces exceeds the number recommended by both the ITE and ULI methods of calculating parking demand. The FEIR should include an analysis of how shared parking will minimize the number of parking spaces and provide a justification for the proposed number of spaces. The FEIR should discuss whether any parking will be available for off-site residents.

Chapter 91

The FEIR should address whether the Proponent intends to request a Consolidated Written Determination to address project phasing. It should include a comprehensive description of all structures and uses proposed on filled tidelands and review how they comply with the applicable c. 91 regulatory standards. It should identify all ground level uses on tidelands, including those within 100 feet of the shoreline. The FEIR should delineate the water-dependent use zone (WDUZ) and describe measures to activate the site for water-dependent uses. It should describe the use of tidelands for each phase of the project, review compliance of temporary uses with c. 91 regulations, and identify public benefits to be provided with each phase. It should provide an analysis demonstrating that public benefits will be commensurate with impacts at each phase.

The FEIR should provide a comprehensive analysis of how open space, public access and residential uses have been sited so as to minimize conflicts with adjacent industrial uses. It should demonstrate that the Proponent has considered compatibility with respect to noise, traffic and visual impacts associated with operations of adjacent industrial uses. The FEIR should identify mitigation measures, such as Passivehouse design, sound proofing and noise and visual buffers.

The FEIR should provide an updated analysis of public benefits and how it will address the PBD criteria. I will issue a PBD within 30 days of issuing the Certificate on the FEIR.

Wetlands and Stormwater

The FEIR should describe the condition of the seawall and any other structures at the shoreline and any improvements that may be necessary. It should identify the phasing of any in- water work, quantify associated impacts and describe mitigation measures. The FEIR should provide an analysis of how changes to the site may affect its ability to provide the flood control and storm damage prevention functions of LSCSF.

The FEIR should describe the components, location and expected performance of the stormwater management system. It should clarify the design and function of the stormwater management area proposed in the waterfront open space. It should confirm that the proposed system, including infiltration basins, is feasible taking into account contaminated soil conditions and current and future flood conditions. The FEIR should clarify whether the stormwater management system will fully meet SMS standards for new projects and if it will be designed to infiltrate the 1-inch or 1.25-inch rainfall volume. This information was included in the Scope for the DEIR; however, it was not provided in the DEIR. The Proponent must include information that is responsive to this request and clearly describe and depict how LID and Green Infrastructure measures are or can be incorporated into the design. 23

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

Climate Change

Based on the early design stage of the project and in recognition of the opportunities to significantly reduce GHG emissions associated with 1,344 residential units and 1.93 msf of development, I expect the FEIR to include additional meaningful commitments to reduce GHG emissions and improve the resiliency of the site to the effects of climate change.

The FEIR should provide a comprehensive review of the feasibility of GHG mitigation measures, including buildings constructed to Passivehouse standards, rooftop PV systems, CHP, ASHPs and district energy. Feasiblity and cost analysis should include evaluation of rebates and incentives available to offset costs. The FEIR should include a revised analysis of Passivehouse design, which considers the significant co-benefits including thermal independence and sound proofing and considers enhanced benefits when combined with solar or CHP. It should include additional analysis of solar PV and CHP as requested by DOER. The Passivehouse analysis should be based on an energy use of approximately 14,000 British Thermal Units per sf per year (14 kBtu/sf per year). It should review the incentives identified by DOER and provide a revised cost estimate. The FEIR should include building roof plans showing the available roof space for PV systems and the area to be made solar-ready. The FEIR should include a supplemental CHP analysis based on consultation with the utility regarding the design and potential financial incentives. It should include the district energy feasibility assessment required by the BPDA.

The project will be built out over a period of 12-15 years. The FEIR should describe an approach to address how each phase will be designed to achieve the maximum feasible reductions in energy use and GHG emissions and a strategy for providing self-certifications to the MEPA Office based on phasing or completion of individual buildings.

The FEIR should provide a comprehensive analysis of potential climate change effects, including sea level rise, increased precipitation and extreme heat, and describe resiliency measures incorporated into the project design. I encourage the Proponent to consider adopting additional resiliency features such as those recommended by commenters. It should provide cross-sections that include existing topography, final grade, areas where fill will be placed, existing floodplain elevation, the SLR-BFE, underground parking and first floor elevations. The FEIR should analyze how changes to the site, including raising the elevation of the site, will affect flow paths and demonstrate that changes will not increase discharge onto adjacent properties. It should specifically address and evaluate the benefits of Passivehouse construction standards on the resiliency of the proposed buildings.

Hazardous Waste

The FEIR should provide information regarding the funding of a third-party LSP including the level of funding, summary of the scope of work, and the entity or entities responsible for hiring and managing the LSP. I encourage the Proponent to require that the independent LSP be available for community meetings to address the review and respond to questions or concerns.

24

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

Construction

The FEIR should identify whether asbestos may be present in the existing buildings and describe how it will be handled and disposed of. Demolition of any structures must comply with the MassDEP Asbestos Regulations (310 CMR 7.15) that became effective on June 20, 2014. These regulations require a pre-demolition and post-abatement surveys and inspections by a licensed asbestos monitor. If necessary, it should provide an update to the draft CMP provided in the DEIR and describe additional mitigation measures.

Mitigation and Draft Section 61 Findings

The FEIR should include a separate chapter summarizing proposed mitigation measures. This chapter should also include draft Section 61 Findings for each permit to be issued by State Agencies. The FEIR should contain clear commitments to implement these mitigation measures, estimate the individual costs of each proposed measure, identify the parties responsible for implementation, and a schedule for implementation; as noted above, this information was not included in the Draft Section 61 Findings provided in the DEIR. It should clearly indicate which mitigation measures will be constructed or implemented based upon project phasing, either tying mitigation commitments to overall project square footage/phase or environmental impact thresholds, to ensure that measures are in place to mitigate the anticipated impact associated with each development phase.

Responses to Comments

The FEIR should contain a copy of this Certificate and a copy of each comment letter received. It should include a separate chapter that fully and specifically responds to each DEIR comment letter without merely referencing a chapter of the FEIR. The FEIR should provide revised responses to comments on the ENF that follow this format. Failure to provide substantive responses may result in a supplemental review. In order to ensure that the issues raised by commenters are addressed, the FEIR should include direct responses to comments. This directive is not intended to, and shall not be construed to, enlarge the Scope of the FEIR beyond what has been expressly identified in this certificate.

Circulation

The Proponent should circulate the FEIR to those parties who commented on the ENF and/or DEIR, to any State Agencies from which the Proponent will seek permits or approvals, and to any parties specified in section 11.16 of the MEPA regulations. Per 301 CMR 11.16(5), the Proponent may circulate copies of the EIR to commenters in CD-ROM format or by directing commenters to a project website address. However, the Proponent must make a reasonable number of hard copies available to accommodate those without convenient access to a computer and distribute these upon request on a first-come, first-served basis. The Proponent should send correspondence accompanying the CD-ROM or website address indicating that hard copies are available upon request, noting relevant comment deadlines, and appropriate addresses for submission of comments. The FEIR submitted to the MEPA office should include a digital copy of the complete document. A copy of the FEIR should be made available for review at the Boston Public Library (BPL) and the South Boston branch of the BPL.

25

EEA# 15692 DEIR Certificate November 6, 2018

November 6, 2018 ______Date Matthew A. Beaton

Comments received:

10/30/2018 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) 10/30/2018 Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) 10/30/2018 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)/ Northeast Regional Office (NERO) 10/30/2018 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)/Waterways Regulation Program (WRP) 10/30/2018 Conservation Law Foundation 10/30/2018 Boston Harbor Now 10/30/2018 Representative Stephen F. Lynch, 8th District 10/30/2018 Boston Parks and Recreation Commission 10/30/2018 Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) 10/31/2018 Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) 10/31/2018 Department of Energy Resources (DOER) 10/31/2018 Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)

MAB/AJS/ajs

26

600 Boston - Logan International Airport Composite of Critical Airspace Surfaces

525 Legend 290 FLAT 500 Surface Elevations (MSL) 801' to 1,000' 601' to 800' 401' to 600' 350 700 FLAT 201' to 400' 340 200 FLAT up to 200' 600 300 Downtown Zone Area 300 200

300 500 Dashed lines identify transition from "Flat" to "Sloping" surface.

150 Contour Interval = 25 FT

700 500 600 200 200 200 300 300 Notes: 100 170 200 FLAT 1. This Composite Map is intended for informational and conceptual 200 planning purposes only and does not represent actual survey data nor

340 100 should it be used in the development of a FAA Form 7460. Massport does FLAT 700 not certify the accuracy, information or title to the properties contained 170 FLAT in this plan nor make any warranties of any kind, express or implied, 210 in fact or by law, with respect to boundaries, easements, restrictions, FLAT claims, overlaps, or other encumbrances affecting such properties. 1000 300

200 900 2. This Composite Map does not replace the FAA's 7460 review process. 800 Consistency with the surfaces shown on this map does not ensure that

700 170 100 the proposal will be acceptable to the FAA and air carriers. Massport FLAT BOSTON - LOGAN 1000 reserves the right to re-assess, review and seek modifications to

FLAT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 200 projects that may be consistent with this Composite Map but that 300 through the FAA 7460 process are found to have unexpected impacts to Boston Logan’s safety or efficiency.

3. Surface elevations are referenced in feet Above Mean 250 Sea Level (AMSL - NAVD88) 1000 300 274 FLAT 400 500 COMPOSITE MAP PARAMETERS

500 200 100 600 SURFACE TYPES RUNWAYS

600 200 145 CIRCLE-TO-LAND ...... ALL RUNWAYS (EXCEPT 14) FLAT 100 100 700 ICAO/AC ONE ENGINE INOP...... 4R, 4L, 9, 14, 15R, 22L, 22R, 27, 33L 700 150 IFR STND DEPARTURE ...... 4R, 9, 14, 15R, 22L^, 22R^, 27^, 33L 255 FLAT 175 IFR NON-STND DEPARTURE ...... 4L 200 ILS APPROACH ...... 4R, 15R, 22L, 27, 33L

150 ILS MISSED APPROACH ...... 4R*, 15R, 22L, 27, 33L*^^ 300 300 200 170 LOCALIZER APPROACH** ...... 4R, 15R, 22L, 27, 33L FLAT LNAV APPROACH** ...... 4R, 15R, 22L, 27, 32, 33L LNAV MISSED APPROACH ...... 4R, 15R, 22L, 27, 32, 33L PART 77 - STANDARD ...... EAST OF 4R/22L 175 230 PART 77 - VFR ONLY ...... WEST OF 4R/22L (N. OF DOWNTOWN) FLAT 400 VISIBILITY (CIRCLING) ...... ALL RUNWAYS (EXCEPT 14) 200 VISIBILITY (STRAIGHT-IN) ...... 4R, 15R, 22L, 27, 32, 33L VNAV APPROACH ...... 4R, 15R, 27, 33L VNAV MISSED APPROACH ...... 4R, 15R, 27, 33L 300 ^ INCLUDES TRANSITION FROM PREVIOUS CRITERIA * CAT 1 AND CAT 3 400 ^^ CAT 3 SHIFTED 200'NW ** ACCOUNTS FOR 7:1 DRIFT DOWN 500

400

190 FLAT 500

600

500 µ

600 VERSION 2 .0 December 2011

C:\travel\BOS-3_TERPS\cad\Mosaic\BOS_COMPOSITE_Ver2pt0_dec2011.mxd 700 Flynn Cruiseport Boston

Dedicated Freight Corridor Security & -All Conley Truck Tra c Passport Facilities -Restricted Access Passport -No Ped Access Terminal Security Screening Facility New Checkpoint Signalized NEW BERTH 10 BERTH 11 BERTH 12 BERTHS 14 & 15 Intersection

New Deepwater Berth w/ 3 quay cranes Future Conley Terminal Lobster Terminal Support Operations Expanded Existing Container Yard Container Yard & Berth

776 Summer Street (Hilco/Redgate) MBTA Power Truck Queuing & Plant Inspection Area

Thomas J. Butler Memorial Park

Massachusetts Port Authority Real Estate & Asset Management Conley Terminal Master Plan April 2017 (2018-2023 Implementation) 0’ 500’ 1000’ 2000’ South Boston

Charles D. Baker Matthew A. Beaton Governor Secretary

Karyn E. Polito Martin Suuberg Lieutenant Governor Commissioner

October 30, 2018

Matthew A. Beaton, Secretary Executive Office of RE: Boston Energy & Environmental Affairs L Street Station Redevelopment 100 Cambridge Street 776 Summer Street Boston MA, 02114 EEA #15692

Attn: MEPA Unit

Dear Secretary Beaton:

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) submitted by the HRP 776 Summer Street, LLC, c/o Hilco Real Estate for the proposed construction of a mixed use project consisting of 2.1 million square feet of development on 15 acres along the Reserved Channel in South Boston. MassDEP provides the following comments.

Wetlands

The project proposes to mitigate the effects of flooding by utilizing a stepped landscape design whereby the project site will be raised above the predicted BPDA sea level rise through the use of site grading. First floor elevations will be at approximately 15 NAVD88 and are intended to protect the site from flooding through the year 2070. The DEIR states that waterfront landscaping, including the use of plantings, site grading and installation of permeable pavement will be used to assist in flood management by slowing flood flows and decreasing site runoff during storm events. The FEIR should consider how build-up on site may change the flow patterns of coastal flood waters and impact adjacent properties.

The DEIR states that stormwater treatment will be provided for the first 1.00 inch of runoff, with a commitment to work with the Boston Water and Sewer Commission to evaluate

This information is available in alternate format. Call Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Diversity Director, at 617-292-5751. TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper

L Street Station Redevelopment EEA # 15692

Green Infrastructure elements capable of retaining an even greater volume of stormwater infiltration capacity over the site’s impervious area, which exceeds MassDEP’s stormwater standards. The FEIR should provide additional calculations and design information on the proposed stormwater management system to demonstrate that the proposed system will achieve these standards. The FEIR should include a discussion of how proposed stormwater BMPs are consistent with the potential site limitations imposed by past MCP actions. In addition, the stormwater controls are proposed to be placed in LSCSF. The FEIR should include additional information as to how these controls will perform in a storm event and propose mitigation measures as appropriate.

Actions to protect critical systems in case flooding at the site occurs sooner than predicted have not been described. The project also does not address how occupants might shelter in place during a flooding event or other emergency situation, or how emergency power, water and wastewater would be managed.

Wastewater

MassDEP notes that the project proponent has affirmed in the DEIR that they will comply with MassDEP regulations which require removal of four gallons of infiltration/inflow for each gallon of new wastewater flow being generated by the project, and that such mitigation will be coordinated with the Boston Water & Sewer Commission as the sewer authority.

Hazardous Waste/ MCP

MassDEP has reviewed the Hazardous Waste/MCP DEIR filing and believes the project proponent adequately responded to MassDEP’s ENF comments.

Several releases of fuel oil occurred in the vicinity of former Fuel Oil Tank Number 3, an above-ground 5.5 million gallon tank. On September 27, 2016, a Notice of Activity & Use Limitation (AUL) was recorded for RTN 3-4519 consistent with MassDEP Bureau of Waste Site Clean-up regulations at 310 CMR 40.0000, the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). The AUL applies to the area of the property formerly occupied by Fuel Oil Tank Number Three. The AUL may require MCP response actions during, and/or after, the L Street development project. The AUL obligations and conditions are described below.

The following AUL activities and uses are allowed within the AUL area:

1. Industrial and Commercial use; 2. Improvements, demolition, construction of buildings or infrastructure, or emergency utility work provided that soil management and health and safety plans are prepared prior to such activities; 3. Any development of a building or infrastructure that would disturb the Engineered Barrier, provided that the structure is designed and approved by a Licensed Site Professional (LSP);

2

L Street Station Redevelopment EEA # 15692

4. Construction of new buildings provided that an LSP evaluates the potential for vapor intrusion from LNAPL, soil, and groundwater into indoor air in the proposed building. If the LSP evaluation indicates the potential for vapor intrusion, the proposed buildings shall be designed to mitigate the vapor intrusion pathway; 5. Any emergency utility work, provided that the any damage to the Engineered Barrier is repaired; 6. Activities and uses which are not identified in the Opinion as being inconsistent with maintaining a Condition of No Significant Risk.

The following AUL activities and uses are restricted within the AUL area:

1. Any activity or use that would compromise the integrity or functionality of the Engineered Barrier: 2. All excavations into or below the Engineered Barrier, unless reviewed and approved by a Licensed Site Professional; 3. Residence, school, day care center, park, playground, or other recreational area; Gardening or other agricultural uses for the cultivation of edible plants destined for human consumption

The activities and uses that are restricted by the AUL, such as residences, schools, daycares and recreational areas, can be implemented at the site if they are evaluated by an LSP and determined to pose No Significant Risk of harm to human health, based on a re-evaluation of the risk characterization and/or the completion of additional response actions necessary to achieve and maintain a condition of No Significant Risk for the new use(s). If activities currently restricted by the AUL are allowed at the site based on such an LSP evaluation, an amended AUL shall be recorded describing the change in the allowed activities within the AUL area.

Contaminated Soil and Groundwater:

The project proponent is advised that excavating, removing and/or disposing of contaminated soil, pumping of contaminated groundwater, or working in contaminated media must be done under the provisions of MGL c.21E (and, potentially, c.21C) and all other applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and bylaws. If permits and approvals under these provisions are not obtained beforehand, considerable delays in the project can occur. The project proponent cannot manage contaminated media without prior submittal of appropriate plans to MassDEP, which describe the proposed contaminated soil and groundwater handling and disposal approach, and health and safety precautions. If contamination at the site is known or suspected, the appropriate tests should be conducted well in advance of the start of construction and professional environmental consulting services should be readily available to provide technical guidance to facilitate any necessary permits. If dewatering activities are to occur at a site with contaminated groundwater, or in proximity to contaminated groundwater where dewatering can draw in the contamination, a plan must be in place to properly manage the groundwater and ensure site conditions are not exacerbated by these activities. Dust and/or vapor monitoring and controls are often necessary for large-scale projects in contaminated areas. The need to conduct real-time air monitoring for contaminated dust and to implement dust suppression must be determined prior to

3

L Street Station Redevelopment EEA # 15692 excavation of soils, especially those contaminated with compounds such as metals and PCBs. An evaluation of contaminant concentrations in soil should be completed to determine the concentration of contaminated dust that could pose a risk to health of on-site workers and nearby human receptors. If this dust concentration, or action level, is reached during excavation, dust suppression should be implemented as needed, or earthwork should be halted. A Licensed Site Professional (LSP) must be employed or engaged to manage, supervise or actually perform the necessary response actions at the site.

Capping of Contaminated Soil:

If capping of contaminated soil is needed to achieve a level of No Significant Risk, MassDEP recommends the following capping design criteria. In unpaved areas, a minimum of three feet of clean soil should be placed over the contaminated soil. This protective layer of clean soil should be separated from the underlying contaminated soil by a geotextile or combination of materials, which will provide both a brightly colored visual marker and a permeable fabric to separate the clean soil from the contaminated soil. In paved areas, a minimum one-foot cap consisting of clean soil, road base and the pavement layer should be placed over the contaminated soil. Similar to unpaved areas, the contaminated soil should be separated from the clean soil or road base using a visual marker and geotextile. In such cases, an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL), prepared in accordance with 310 CMR 40.1012 would be necessary to identify the maintenance requirements of the cap. It should also be noted that a cap constructed as a Release Abatement Measure will not be considered a Permanent Solution until a Phase III completed in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0850 demonstrates the lack of a feasible alternative, as required by 310 CMR 40.0442(4).

Potential Indoor Air Impacts:

Parties constructing and/or renovating buildings in contaminated areas should consider whether chemical or petroleum vapors in subsurface soils and/or groundwater could impact the indoor air quality of the buildings. All relevant site data, such as contaminant concentrations in soil and groundwater, depth to groundwater, and soil gas concentrations should be evaluated to determine the potential for indoor air impacts to existing or proposed building structures. Particular attention should be paid to the vapor intrusion pathway for sites with elevated levels of chlorinated volatile organic compounds such as tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE). MassDEP has additional information about the vapor intrusion pathway on its website at http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/cleanup/regulations/vapor-intrusion-and-indoor-air- contamination-waste-sites.html.

New Structures and Utilities:

Construction activities conducted at a disposal site shall not prevent or impede the implementation of likely assessment or remedial response actions at the site. Construction of structures at a contaminated site may be conducted as a Release Abatement Measure if assessment and remedial activities prescribed at 310 CMR 40.0442(3) are completed within and adjacent to the footprint of the proposed structure prior to or concurrent with the construction activities.

4

L Street Station Redevelopment EEA # 15692

Excavation of contaminated soils to construct clean utility corridors should be conducted for all new utility installations.

Activity and Use Limitations:

An Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) is a legal document that is recorded or registered at the appropriate Registry of Deeds and identifies site conditions that are the basis for maintaining a condition of No Significant Risk at a property where contamination remains after a cleanup. The AUL identifies permitted and allowable site uses and activities that may occur at a property while maintaining No Significant Risk. The AUL also identifies restricted uses and activities, which could result in the exposure of people at or near the disposal site to remaining contamination if such activities were to occur. The project proponent is advised that in cases where proposed activities would not be consistent with a level of No Significant Risk and/or an existing AUL, additional cleanup and the amendment or termination of the initial AUL and implementation of a revised AUL would be necessary before the proposed activities could occur.

Recycling Issues

MassDEP encourages the project proponent to make a significant commitment to C&D recycling activities as a sustainable measure for the project, consistent with comparable projects that have undergone MEPA reviews. In addition, the proponent is advised that demolition activities must comply with both Solid Waste and Air Pollution Control regulations, pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40, Section 54, which provides:

“Every city or town shall require, as a condition of issuing a building permit or license for the demolition, renovation, rehabilitation or other alteration of a building or structure, that the debris resulting from such demolition, renovation, rehabilitation or alteration be disposed of in a properly licensed solid waste disposal facility, as defined by Section one hundred and fifty A of Chapter one hundred and eleven. Any such permit or license shall indicate the location of the facility at which the debris is to be disposed. If for any reason, the debris will not be disposed as indicated, the permittee or licensee shall notify the issuing authority as to the location where the debris will be disposed. The issuing authority shall amend the permit or license to so indicate.”

For the purposes of implementing the requirements of M.G.L. Chapter 40, Section 54, MassDEP considers an asphalt, brick, and concrete (ABC) rubble processing or recycling facility, (pursuant to the provisions of Section (3) under 310 CMR 16.05, the Site Assignment regulations for solid waste management facilities), to be conditionally exempt from the site assignment requirements, if the ABC rubble at such facilities is separated from other solid waste materials at the point of generation. In accordance with 310 CMR 16.05(3), ABC can be crushed on-site with a 30- day notification to MassDEP. However, the asphalt is limited to weathered bituminous concrete, (no roofing asphalt), and the brick and concrete must be uncoated or not impregnated with materials such as roofing epoxy. If the brick and concrete are not clean, the material is defined as construction and demolition (C&D) waste and requires either a Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) or a Site Assignment and permit before it can be crushed.

5

L Street Station Redevelopment EEA # 15692

Pursuant to the requirements of 310 CMR 7.02 of the Air Pollution Control regulations, if the ABC crushing activities are projected to result in the emission of one ton or more of particulate matter to the ambient air per year, and/or if the crushing equipment employs a diesel oil fired engine with an energy input capacity of three million or more British thermal units per hour for either mechanical or electrical power which will remain on-site for twelve or more months, then a plan application must be submitted to MassDEP for written approval prior to installation and operation of the crushing equipment.

Asbestos removal notification on permit form BWP AQ04 (ANF 001) and building demolition notification on permit form BWP AQ06 must be submitted to MassDEP at least 10 working days prior to initiating work. If any asbestos-containing materials will need to be abated through non-traditional abatement methods, the proponent must apply for and obtain approval from MassDEP, through Application BWP AQ36 - Application for Non-Traditional Asbestos Abatement Work Practice Approval. Except for vinyl asbestos tile (VAT) and asphaltic-asbestos felt and shingles, the disposal of asbestos containing materials within the Commonwealth must be at a facility specifically approved by MassDEP, (310 CMR 19.061). No asbestos containing material including VAT, and/or asphaltic-asbestos felts or shingles may be disposed at a facility operating as a recycling facility, (310 CMR 16.05). In addition, the demolition project contain asbestos, the project proponent is advised that asbestos and asbestos-containing waste material are a special waste as defined in the Solid Waste Management regulations, (310 CMR 19.061). The disposal of the asbestos containing materials outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Commonwealth must comply with all the applicable laws and regulations of the state receiving the material.

The demolition activity also must conform to current Massachusetts Air Pollution Control regulations governing nuisance conditions at 310 CMR 7.01, 7.09 and 7.10. As such, the proponent should propose measures to prevent and minimize dust, noise, and odor nuisance conditions, which may occur during the demolition. Again, MassDEP must be notified in writing, at least 10 days in advance of removing any asbestos, and at least 10 days prior to any demolition work. The removal of asbestos from the buildings must adhere to the special safeguards defined in the Air Pollution Control regulations, (310 CMR 7.15 (2)).

Waste Ban Regulation – 310 CMR 19.017

Section 310 CMR 19.017 Waste Bans of the Massachusetts Solid Waste regulations prohibit the disposal of certain wastes in Massachusetts. These wastes include, but are not limited to, recyclable paper (including cardboard). The Massachusetts Organics Waste Ban on the disposal of commercial organic wastes by businesses and institutions also is in effect. It prohibits the disposal of organic wastes from businesses and institutions that generate a ton or more of organic materials per week, which necessitates the composting, conversion (such as anaerobic digestion), recycling or reuse of organic the waste.

As the lead state agencies responsible for helping the Commonwealth achieve its waste diversion goals, MassDEP and EEA have strongly supported voluntary initiatives by the private sector to institutionalize source reduction and recycling into their operations. Adapting the design, infrastructure, and contractual requirements necessary to incorporate reduction, recycling and recycled products into existing large-scale developments has presented significant challenges to

6

L Street Station Redevelopment EEA # 15692 recycling proponents. Integrating those components into developments such as the Ashland Rail Transit Apartments at the planning and design stage enables the project’s management and occupants to establish and maintain effective waste diversion programs. For example, facilities with minimal obstructions to trash receptacles and easy access to main recycling areas and trash chutes allow for implementation of recycling programs and have been proven to reduce cleaning costs by 20 percent to 50 percent. Other designs that provide sufficient space and electrical services will support consolidating and compacting recyclable material and truck access for recycling material collection.

By incorporating recycling and source reduction into the design, the proponent has the opportunity to join a national movement toward sustainable design. Sustainable design was endorsed in 1993 by the American Institute of Architects with the signing of its Declaration of Interdependence for a Sustainable Future. The project proponent may be aware of organizations that provide additional information and technical assistance, including Reuse Marketplace (http://www.reusemarketplace.org/), USEPA’s WasteWise Program (www.epa.gov/wastewise/), and MassRecycle (http://www.massrecycle.org/). The listed organizations and programs are notable for offering valuable and effective waste reduction and recycling assistance, web-based resources, case studies, and tools for C&D projects.

The MassDEP Northeast Regional Office appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. Please contact [email protected] at (978) 694-3258 for further information on wetland issues. Please contact [email protected] at (978) 694-3236 for further information on the wastewater issues. Please contact [email protected] at (978) 694-3357 for further information on the waste site cleanup issues. If you have any general questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [email protected] or at (978) 694-3304.

Sincerely,

John D. Viola Deputy Regional Director

cc: Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission Eric Worrall, Rachel Freed, Kevin Brander, Steve Johnson, MassDEP-NERO

7

Charles D. Baker Matthew A. Beaton Governor Secretary

Karyn E. Polito Martin Suuberg Lieutenant Governor Commissioner

Memorandum

To: Matthew A. Beaton, Secretary

Att’n.: Alex Strysky, MEPA

From: Ben Lynch, Section Chief, Waterways Regulation Program, MassDEP

Re: Comments from the MassDEP Chapter 91 Waterways Regulation Program ̶ EEA #15692 ENF ̶ Mixed Use Project at the L Street Station; South Boston; Suffolk County; Filled Tidelands of Boston Harbor.

Date: October 30, 2018

The Department of Environmental Protection Waterways Regulation Program (the “Department”) has reviewed the above referenced DEIR (EEA #15692), submitted by HRP 776 Summer Street LLC (the “Proponent”) seeking authorization to reuse the Turbine Hall, the 1898 Building, and an Administration Building which were constructed as part of the L Street electrical generation facility in South Boston, which was discontinued in 2007, and to construct and maintain seven (7) new buildings. Collectively, the repurposed historic buildings and the new structures will house: 1,344 residential units, including both rentals and condominiums; a 172,000 square foot (“s.f.”) 344-key hotel; approximately 368,070 s.f. of office space; approximately 85,630 s.f. of retail, approximately 435,000 s.f. of parking for up to 1,397 spaces, and approximately three acres of public open space.

Chapter 91 Jurisdiction: The project site is located entirely on previously authorized filled tidelands. The Department recommends that in the FEIR, the project proponent provide a full c.91 license history to

This information is available in alternate format. Contact Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Director of Diversity/Civil Rights at 617-292-5751. TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper supplement Department’s licensing records and the Mass GIS Waterways data layer to determine nature of the tidelands on the project site.

Water-dependency: The Department has determined that the proposed uses on the project site are nonwater-dependent pursuant to 310 CMR 9.12(2)(f) and 310 CMR 9.12(4), while the proposed Harborwalk is considered a water-dependent use pursuant to 310 CMR 9.12(2)(a)(4). Given the project does not consist entirely of water-dependent uses, the Department has determined that this project to be a nonwater-dependent use project in accordance with 310 CMR 9.12(1) and, therefore, will be reviewed under the nonwater-dependent performance standards at 310 CMR 9.51 through 9.53.

Chapter 91 Comments:

Compatibility with Proximate Maritime Activities- In the project narrative of the filing, the Proponent describes a proposed series of structures, uses, and activities that will transform the historic industrial nature of the site into an active area of residential, commercial, office, hotel and retail use. Massport’s Conley Terminal and the newly-built Dedicated Freight Corridor (“DFC”), both active industrial facilities that operate round the clock and on weekends, abut the project site on the north and east sides. The proposed transformation of the L Street facility and opening of the site to full public access and other permissible uses is consonant with the interests of the waterways regulations, but it also brings into close proximity these traditionally operationally incompatible uses; accordingly, the Department recommends that the proponent further minimize and/or buffer likely areas of conflict and incompatibility, especially residential uses currently programmed in Buildings A, D & F, especially as the adjacent Massport 5-acre site commences to undertake a range of maritime-industrial support operations.

As has been required in the planning and permitting of similar projects near or adjacent to the working port, the Department recommends that the project proponent include Use Restriction language notification to all commercial lessees and, as may be appropriate, to residential and other properties that will be offered for sale, and to include standard sound-dampening design features in the construction of the new buildings.

Traffic- pursuant to 310 CMR 9.36(3), whereby a project may not significantly disrupt any water-dependent use in operation at an off-site location within the proximate vicinity of the of the project site, the Department recommends a more thorough study of the traffic impacts that could reasonably be anticipated to complicate or diminish truck access to and from Conley Terminal. The project should analyze and include any mitigation measures to alleviate or lessen impacts on the movement of freight to and from Conley Terminal.

Open Space- the DEIR describes a creative program for active public use at the water’s edge of the project site, which is an important and necessary public benefit for a project of this scope. The FEIR should provide more refined physical and programmatic detail of these open space elements, to ensure that that such an expansion of public access in an active marine-industrial area does not constrain or interfere with the proximate industrial and marine-industrial activities.

Project Phasing- Figures 1.8(a)-(g) present a set of phasing plans with a timeline that has the site demolition commencing in 2019, commencement of the first two buildings at the landward end of the project site running from 2020 until 2022, and continuing through four discrete phases with completion estimated in approximately 2030. Pursuant to 310 CMR 9.14(4), a project that cannot be reasonably incorporated into a single license, an applicant may request that the Department issue a consolidated written determination which allows for multiple licenses to be issued independently for phases of the project, provided that the Department determines that for each individual phase of the license, the project provides proportional public benefits which exceed the public detriments associated with each sequenced phase. In the FEIR, the proponent should provide a detailed description of the phasing, and a corresponding accounting of the public benefits associated with each phase. In order to meet this public benefit standard, the benefits proposed should be open to all members of the general public. In devising this type of multiple-phase arrangement, the proponent should describe a management structure that will ensure there will be adequate management of areas open to the public throughout the entire construction phase, as well as a permanent system to ensure that all public open spaces and common areas have enforceable mechanisms for the proper maintenance of the publicly accessible open space areas on the project site.

Application status: The Department anticipates performing a full technical review of the proposed chapter 91 application which meets the minimum filing standards set forth in 310 CMR 9.11(3) upon completion of the MEPA review.

Please feel free to contact me at 617-292-5615 or [email protected] if you have any questions. Thank you.

October 30, 2018

Via email: [email protected]

The Honorable Matthew A. Beaton Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Attn: MEPA Office, Alex Strysky Boston, MA 02114

Subject: Comments on L Street Station Redevelopment Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), EEA # 15692

Dear Secretary Beaton: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) submitted by HRP 776 Summer, LLC (the “proponent”) for the proposed L Street Station Redevelopment located at 776 Summer Street in South Boston. This project presents an extraordinary redevelopment opportunity for the City Point neighborhood of South Boston. However, the location of the 15-acre site in the transitional area between marine industrial and residential uses also presents challenges. Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) submits these comments to help inform the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between private development, community benefit and public access, environmental sustainability, and climate resilience. Our comments focus on three primary areas – wetlands and waterways, climate change resiliency, and infrastructure. We appreciate that the proponent has made several substantive changes to the project design since the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) filing in direct response to community stakeholder and public agency comments including a reduction of building heights, a reconfiguration of buildings and programming, and a reduction in trip generation. CLF is also highly supportive of the proposed supplemental bus service, which will provide needed public transportation capacity in this area. We are especially encouraged that the proponent has

1 proposed to begin a pilot of this service at the commencement of demolition, prior to any occupancy of the project site.

Wetlands and Waterways Chapter 91 Compliance The site includes approximately 4 acres of tidelands subject to the Massachusetts Public Waterfront Act, M.G.L. Chapter 91. The proponent asserts that the entirety of tidelands on this site are private tidelands as oppose to Commonwealth tidelands. As a preliminary matter, CLF requests that the proponent provide confirmation from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) that the tidelands on the site are considered private tidelands. While the proponent generally appears to be in compliance with the numerical and use standards set forth in 310 CMR 9.00, we request more information on the proponent’s compliance with the standards for conservation of capacity for water-dependent use and utilization of the shoreline for water-dependent purposes. First, 310 CMR 9.51(2) requires that all new structures and spaces for nonwater-dependent use be developed in a manner that protects the utility and adaptability of the site for water- dependent purposes, including aspects of the project’s built form. CLF is concerned that the current layout and configuration of buildings on this site does not sufficiently provide public views of the water or sight lines from public ways – specifically those on the outer edge of the site where there is an existing residential neighborhood. We understand and appreciate that the proponent has reconfigured some of the buildings on the site in response to Massport’s requests to buffer the Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC) with commercial rather than residential uses and we are supportive of this change. We also appreciate that the proponent has stepped down the height of buildings fronting E 1st Street in keeping with the character of the adjacent residential neighborhood. However, the grid/block configuration of the current building layout along with the heights of Blocks D and E are not conducive to providing waterfront view sheds. This issue was already aptly raised in comments submitted by the South Boston Neighborhood Development Corporation.1 Aside from a potential, and likely narrow, view corridor from the M Street extension, it is not clear whether the waterfront will even be visible from East 1st street, the abutting residential areas, and existing community spaces. This is further complicated by the fact that the M Street extension is proposed to be one of the main points of vehicular access. We request that the proponent

1 South Boston Neighborhood Development Corporation stated in its ENF comments on July 7, 2017, “While the proposed development will enable public access to the waterfront, the size of the development will continue to wall-off the views to the water from the existing neighborhood, offering little improvement over current Conditions.” consider ways to open up more meaningful sight lines from East 1st Street to the waterfront and provide street level renderings depicting any anticipated view sheds. Similarly, the proponent should give more thought to how the reconfiguration of buildings on the site could facilitate more meaningful pedestrian connections from existing community spaces including Christopher Lee Playground and Medal of Honor Park to the new waterfront spaces. Currently the main point of access for both of these locations is the M Street extension, which is also one of the primary vehicular access points. This is a missed opportunity to directly connect these community amenities, and facilitate pedestrian flow, to the waterfront. Second, we request the proponent provide further detail on the project’s compliance with 310 CMR 9.52(1), which requires one or more facilities generating water-dependent activity and a pedestrian access network consisting of walkways and related facilities along the entire length of the water-dependent use zone (WDUZ). The proponent has noted that there are currently no water-dependent uses at the site to be preserved. However, this site was only recently removed from the DPA opening up new opportunities for public waterfront access and making it all the more important that capacity for current and future water-dependent uses is given appropriate consideration. CLF understands that the DFC and abutting industrial uses may present some challenges in facilitating water-based activity and recreation but request that the proponent thoroughly assess the feasibility of these types of facilities in compliance with 310 CMR 9.52(1) Finally, we request clarity on how the site will pursue waterways licensing given the projected schedule/phasing of the project. For instance, the proponent does not intend to begin development of permanent structures on jurisdictional lands until Phase 1b in 2022-2024 but proposes temporary uses including surface parking and event space in Phase 1a following demolition. At the same time, the proponent does not propose any waterfront access until Phase 1b in the form of an “interim harborwalk.” The full waterfront access area is not expected to be completed until Phase 2 in 2024-2030. This proposed scheduling, in addition to the inherent uncertainty of the timeframes, is problematic. We request that the proponent prioritize completion of the waterfront open space and public access features earlier in the project phasing. CLF is concerned that the economic benefits to the proponent will be realized well before any public benefit or access is provided. At the very least, an interim harborwalk should be provided in Phase 1a. CLF requests that the proponent also provide clarity on the “5.5 acres of open space” being developed onsite. We understand that there are various regulatory definitions of open space applicable here but the proponent should provide a breakdown of the composition of the 5.5 acres. This breakdown should include a summary of the types of space (i.e. green space, hardscape, public right of ways, pedestrian versus vehicular space, parking, etc.) as well as the percentage of impervious surface. The proponent should also indicate what percent of the 5.5 acres will be open to the general public on equal terms versus spaces that are only available to select groups such as occupants of the new residential buildings. Compatibility with Industrial Uses The location of this site in the transitional area between marine industrial and residential uses makes this project unique. Striking the appropriate balance between private development, public access, and the ongoing efficiency and vitality of port operations should be a priority. To that end, we appreciate the proponent’s responsiveness to Massport’s comments on the project and request more information on how these needs will be met. In particular, we are concerned that the proposed service road connecting to the DFC could have negative impacts on Massport’s operations if improperly used. CLF requests clarification on what types of “service vehicles” will have access to this connection as well as further analysis on the impact of those service vehicles on Massport’s access and usage of the DFC. Ultimately, CLF defers to Massport on whether a service road and the proponent’s use of the DFC will be detrimental to Conley Terminal operations. However, it remains unclear whether the proponent will be responsive to all of Massport’s requests concerning the service road. For example, the proponent has indicated that “appropriate signage” will be placed at the service road entrance to deter passenger vehicles and pedestrians but Massport has requested that this area be gated. We encourage the proponent to continue working closely with Massport and other industrial port stakeholders to ensure that all port needs are met. Final commitments concerning the preservation of port operations should be memorialized prior to the Secretary’s issuance of a Record of Decision or public benefit determination.

Wetlands Protection Act Compliance The proponent has indicated that the project will impact three types of wetlands resource areas under the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) including land subject to coastal storm flowage (LSCSF), coastal bank, and land under the ocean. The DEIR notes that there are currently no performance standards for LSCSF. However, it is well known that LSCSF serves an essential flood control function and that the alteration of these resources are likely to affect the ability of the floodplain to provide storm damage prevention and flood control interests of the WPA. Moreover, there is an active MassDEP advisory group assisting with the development of regulations that will create performance standards for LSCSF and these standards could be proposed as early as 2019. There is also an active effort by Boston City Council and Boston City Department of Environment to develop a local wetlands ordinance that may implement new standards for LSCSF. CLF encourages the proponent to more thoroughly analyze how the project will impact this resource area and could best comply with forthcoming standards even if not yet applicable. The proponent should also assess and indicate how the project may contribute to flooding on adjacent properties or roadway and what mitigation measures are proposed. To date, the proponent has provided little to no analysis on the potentially negative impacts of the project of LSCSF despite requests by stakeholders, including public agencies, to do so. The proponent’s response to comments states this issue is addressed in Section 4 on sustainability/green building design and climate change resiliency but CLF does not believe it was adequately addressed in this section. We request that the proponent provide further detail on the proposed work in the 100-foot buffer zone and consider alternatives to lessen buffer zone encroachment. The proponent should also describe potential mitigation for wetlands impacts.

Climate Change Resiliency CLF is concerned that despite the size and flood risk of this project, the proponent’s analysis of climate adaptation measures is approximately two pages and lacks any real substantive analysis outside of elevation and sea level rise. The proponent also seems to be conflating climate adaptation measures with mitigation measures. To be clear, mitigation efforts including greenhouse gas reductions and energy efficiency are incredibly important but adaptation measures must also be considered.

The proponent states, “the project team plans to evaluate potential design elements to mitigate the effects of climate change as the design of each project component progresses” but it is impossible for the State or the Secretary to determine whether the proponent is appropriately accounting for and mitigating these environmental impacts without a more substantive analysis and proposal. We strongly urge the proponent to revisit this section in the FEIR and provide greater detail on how climate impacts are being addressed including but not limited to long-term and short-term impacts of sea level rise including increased nuisance flooding; coastal flooding from storm surge; flooding from extreme precipitation; and extreme heat.

The proponent should provide an analysis of how the proposed elevation of the site to a maximum grade of +15 NAVD88 (21.5 BCB) will impact adjacent properties including but not limited to the potential diversion of flood waters and how, if at all, they are coordinating with adjacent properties and Boston Public Works on resilience measures. For instance, whether there is any proposed elevation of street extensions or existing streets that connect to the project site. The proponent should also comment on steps being taken to comply with ADA requirements given the sloped grading and the proposed stepped landscape.

Further, the proponent has failed to comment on how this project proposal could contribute to the vision set forth by the City of Boston’s Climate Ready South Boston plan either onsite or through offsite mitigation.

Other elements for consideration should include:

 Community sheltering locations: the proponent has indicated they will be evaluating the capacity of project buildings to maintain comfortable temperature conditions for three consecutive days in the event of a power outage and loss of heating and cooling capacity. The proponent should consider how this capacity could be leveraged to provide community sheltering spaces onsite for the adjacent residential neighborhood during an extreme weather event.

 Climate resilient building measures: the proponent should consider including climate resilient building design measures including but not limited to locating all mechanical equipment and emergency generators on the roof or top floors of all buildings; saltwater tolerant plantings and other nature-based solutions to promote stormwater capture and water quality; permeable materials and surfaces; installation of backflow preventers; and deployable flood barriers where appropriate.

 Tree Canopy Coverage: increasing tree canopy coverage is an effective and low-cost way of mitigating current and future extreme heat. It also provides a myriad of co- benefits including but not limited to reduction of stormwater runoff, carbon sequestration and improved air quality, and energy conservation. The proponent should describe in greater detail how trees will be incorporated into the site design beyond the proposed street trees along public right of ways.

 Passive house: we are encouraged that the proponent is already evaluating the feasibility of passive house standards for Block B. The Passive House standard not only promotes carbon reduction goals but also serves an important climate resiliency function by maintaining habitable interior temperatures in extreme weather without power – allowing people to shelter-in-place. CLF reiterates the comments made by Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) that the proponent should evaluate the feasibility of passive design for the entire multifamily portion of the project.

The proponent should also consult the Boston Public Works Department Climate Resilient Design Standards and Guidelines as applicable.

Infrastructure The proponent has indicated that they will work with the City of Boston to comply with the recently implemented Smart Utilities Policy. However, the current project design has the capacity to retain 1 inch of stormwater onsite as oppose to the Smart Utilities requirement of 1.25 inches over the site’s impervious area. We request clarification and further detail on how the proponent will meet this higher threshold. While the proponent has indicated a willingness to work with the Boston Water and Sewer Commission on green infrastructure (GI) elements, we request further analysis of where GI may be suitable onsite and where it could supplement or replace existing gray infrastructure. We look forward to the proponents’ submission of a district energy microgrid feasibility study in compliance with the BPDA smart utilities policy.

Summary of Requests for FEIR:

Wetlands and Waterways

 Confirmation from MassDEP that the tidelands on the site are considered private tidelands;  Analysis of view sheds and sight lines from East 1st Street to the waterfront (potential reconfiguration of buildings needed);  Street level renderings depicting any anticipated views sheds;  Analysis and depiction of pedestrian connections from existing community spaces including Christopher Lee Playground and Medal of Honor Park to the new waterfront area (potential reconfiguration of buildings needed);  Assessment of the feasibility of facilities generating water-based activity and recreation along the shoreline in compliance with 310 CMR 9.52(1),  Assessment of the feasibility of providing waterfront public access and resource areas earlier on in the project phasing;  Clarity on how the proponent intends to pursue waterways licensing given the project schedule/phasing of the project;  A breakdown of the composition of the 5.5 acres of new open space;  Clarification on what types of “service vehicles” will hav access to the DFC;  Analysis of how the project will impact LSCSF and how it could best comply with forthcoming performance standards for LSCSF at the city or state level even if not yet applicable;  Greater detail on the proposed work in the 100-foot buffer zone and consider alternatives to lessen buffer encroachment;  Potential mitigation for wetlands impacts.

Climate Resiliency

 More thorough analysis of climate impacts including but not limited to long-term and short-term impacts of sea level rise including increased nuisance flooding, coastal flooding from storm surge, flooding from extreme precipitation, and extreme heat;  Analysis of how the proposed elevation of the site to a maximum grade of +15 NAVD88 (21.5 BCB) will impact adjacent properties including but not limited to the potential diversion of flood waters and how, if at all, they are coordinating with adjacent properties and Boston Public Works on resilience measures;  Statement on how this project could contribute to the vision set forth by the City of Boston’s Climate Ready South Boston plan either onsite or through offsite mitigation.

Infrastructure

 Clarification on the proponent’s ability to comply with the 1.25 onsite stormwater retention policy;  Analysis of where GI may be suitable onsite and where it could supplement or replace existing gray infrastructure.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments and inform the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).

Sincerely,

Deanna Moran Director, Environmental Planning

October 30, 2018 Via email to: [email protected]

Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) MEPA Office Attn: Alex Strysky 100 Cambridge Street, Ste 900 Boston, MA 02114

Re: L Street Station Draft Environmental Impact Report, EEA #15692

Dear Mr. Strysky,

On behalf of Boston Harbor Now, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the L Street Station Redevelopment submitted by HRP 776 Summer Street LLC (HRP). Our policy and planning team has reviewed the project presentation, toured the project site on several occasions, and attended a series of public meetings held throughout the summer.

As presented in the Draft EIR and following the May 2018 Designated Port Area (DPA) Designation Decision issued by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, the landward portion of the proposed 15-acre redevelopment is no longer part of the South Boston Designated Port Area along the Reserve Channel. Of the total land area, 4.1 acres are on filled tidelands and within Chapter 91 jurisdiction. Because the proposed development is for a non-water dependent use, the project requires a new Chapter 91 license.

Project Description As described in the Draft EIR, the current proposal is for the redevelopment of 15 acres of land along the Reserve Channel in the South Boston waterfront. Since the filing of the Environmental Notification Form, the project has been reduced from 2.1 million SF to 1.93 million SF. The

amended building program proposes to increase retail use, increase office use, more than double hotel use, increase parking options, and decrease residential use. The seven-building proposal now includes:

- 85,630 SF of retail space, - 368,070 SF of office space, - a 344-key hotel, - 1,397 parking spaces to be shared between office and residential users, and - 1,344 residential units

The height of the proposed buildings ranges from 82 feet to 210 feet with the lowest buildings facing the South Boston neighborhood and the tallest buildings located along the Reserve Channel and Summer Street.

Existing Maritime Industrial Uses The project site is bordered by the South Boston neighborhood to the south, the Conley Terminal Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC) to the north, and maritime industrial uses to the East and West. As well-known amongst stakeholders, Massport is investing nearly $35 million in a series of facilities and operational improvements in anticipation of increased growth and container activity at Conley Terminal.

The Dedicated Freight Corridor is Boston Harbor’s major truck route serving Conley Terminal with heavy industrial traffic at all hours of the day and night. It is essential that the proponent continue to work with the Massport Maritime Department to ensure that the proposed mixed-use development minimizes all potential impacts to truck access and existing working port businesses. To ensure that port activity continues to be a key component of the regional economy and also balance non water dependent use in the area, Massport has made significant efforts to move port traffic and activity away from existing residential uses.

The Draft EIR suggests expanding the use of the DFC to include service vehicles traveling to and from the 15-acre site. While this may be an alternative that is worthy of further discussion, we feel strongly that all DFC use must prioritize and benefit the existing maritime operations before a private non-water-dependent project considers using the route even on a limited basis. Section 1.4 of the Draft EIR offers signage as a means to deter passenger vehicles and pedestrians from accessing the DFC. Signage alone is unlikely to deter passenger vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists from accessing the DFC.

To ensure that Conley Terminal operations and other related maritime businesses are not adversely impacted, the final EIR should clearly define “service vehicles,” specify any potential time of day restrictions, limit the use of the DFC to off-peak truck traffic hours, and describe gates or security checkpoints under consideration.

Open Space and Programming We continue to have concerns about the characterization of current maritime-industrial activities at DFC and nearby Conley Terminal operations. Boston Harbor, especially at Conley Container Terminal, is an active industrial area that inevitably adds a significant amount of noise, dust, and vibrations to abutting spaces.

The Draft EIR includes new details for the proposed public areas along the northern edge of the site, closest to the DFC. We understand the design challenge—given the nature of marine industrial operations nearby—and encourage the team to more carefully consider the layout and programming of the public areas along this edge. They must reconcile two very different uses-- general public use and the continued industrial operations of Conley Terminal and other working port businesses. The final EIR should do more to describe and depict details of the observation deck, waterfront boardwalk, waterfront plaza, performance plaza, and overlook.

Figures 3.3, 3.4A, 3.4C, and 3.4E include a dozen examples of outdoor spaces and construction materials used in similar industrial areas around the country. We appreciate the proponent’s efforts to present a diverse set of open space experiences for the general public. We are especially pleased with the focus on arts and culture and would welcome the opportunity to work with the proponent to further define the public realm plan and best practices for waterfront programming and activation.

Transportation As proposed, this development will add a substantial number of new residents and workers to the sidewalks, bus routes, and roadways of South Boston.

The Draft EIR states the proponent will include a total 1,397 on-site parking spaces. As a general principle, we favor public transportation solutions that benefit a broader section of the population. Increasing the number of parking spaces does little to address the much-needed transportation improvements in South Boston. We understand that the project is responding to the community's current parking demands, but this approach directly conflicts with the City of Boston’s efforts to be carbon-neutral by 2050.

There are five existing MBTA bus routes within walking distance (10 minutes or less) of the project site—route 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11. Only one, Route 7, has a stop immediately adjacent to the property along Summer Street and is the only bus option for inbound service across the Reserve Channel to the Seaport and Downtown. As confirmed by the Draft EIR, during peak commuting hours this route is near capacity and does not operate at all on Sundays. While we appreciate the proponent’s willingness to kick off a supplemental bus service as soon as site demolition begins in 2019, we have questions about the proposed pilot program. For example, additional information about management, staffing, schedule of operation, and incorporation of the pilot into existing bus tracking technology should be provided in future project filings.

With the nearest T station more than a 10-minute walk from the site, increased access to public transportation is a critical issue that needs to remain a priority for this project. We encourage collaboration with the MBTA to fund expanded or enhanced service in this route, especially with a city proposal to add a bus only lane to Summer Street. We look forward to additional transportation discussions as the project progresses.

Finally, this 15-acre site and development is large enough to warrant a new Blue Bikes station. We are pleased to learn that the proponent is committing to installing at least one additional Blue Bike Station dock at this location.

Climate Resilient Design As presented in section 4.4.2 of the Draft EIR, the finished floor elevation for the project will be 21.5’ BCB, two feet above the base flood elevation of 19.4’ BCB. The site resiliency plan found in Figure 4.3 proposes to increase the site elevation, improve stormwater collection, implement permeable paving, use light-colored materials, and increase the number of shade trees. These are commendable initial steps and we applaud the proponent for including them in the early design stages of the project.

After the project proponent submitted the Draft EIR and before the closing of the public comment period, Mayor Martin J. Walsh publicly announced the City of Boston’s Resilient Boston Harbor vision plan and released the Coastal Resilience Solutions for South Boston report. Both the vision plan and the report present the City’s district-scale climate adaptation solution for Boston Harbor. This site is part of the Reserve Channel mid-term and long-term solution that can provide flood protection critical to reducing flood risk across South Boston.

Design detail and strategies that embrace the City of Boston’s district-scale solution should be a priority for climate resiliency at this site. We look forward to reviewing additional resiliency measures proposed in the Final EIR and continuing to refine site design measures as the project progresses.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely

Jill Valdes Horwood Director of Policy

MEMORANDUM

TO: Matthew A. Beaton, Secretary, EEA ATTN: Alex Strysky, MEPA Unit FROM: Bruce Carlisle, Director, CZM DATE: October 31, 2018 RE: EEA-15692, L Street Station Redevelopment, Boston

The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) has completed its review of the above-referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), noticed in the Environmental Monitor dated September 5, 2018.

Project Description With this DEIR filing, HRP 776 Summer Street, LLC proposes to redevelop the 15-acre former Edison power plant site, locally known as L Street Station, into a 1.9 million square foot (sf) mixed-use development comprised of office, hotel, residential, and commercial uses with supporting parking, public open space, and internal roadways. The development will be arranged around two new internal roadways supporting seven new buildings while maintaining the historic turbine hall and an administrative building. Since the filing of the ENF, the total build-out of the project has been reduced (from 2.1 million sf to 1.9 million sf) and the amount of residential use has decreased allowing for more commercial, hotel, and office uses. The number of parking spaces proposed has increased with this filing. The project is located at the intersection of Summer and East First Streets along the south side of the Reserved Channel and directly abuts lands and waters with the South Boston Designated Port Area (DPA). The project is located on filled tidelands and proposes impacts as a result of fill to Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF).

Project Comments Coastal Resiliency The DEIR describes design elements which will increase the resilience of the proposed project. However, additional information should be provided in the FEIR regarding how the proposed design addresses climate threats relating to increased frequency and intensity of coastal storms and increases in sea level. CZM comments submitted on the ENF requested plan view and cross section plans which show the exiting topography, proposed fill, underground parking, and proposed finish floor with respect to the FEMA Base Flood Elevation. Although some cross section views were provided (e.g., Figure 3.12a and Figure 4.2), they did not clearly show the existing grades, proposed grades, and FEMA Base Flood Elevations relative to the proposed development. Based on the plans in the DEIR, the fill appears to be along the waterfront, but no information was provided to indicate necessary shoreline treatments of this fill or whether the existing coastal engineering structures will require maintenance or modifications. If work is proposed to these structures, a narrative description and plans should be provided. Additionally, CZM comments requested an evaluation of how impacts to LSCSF will affect the ability of the floodplain to provide storm damage protection and flood control interests under the Wetlands Protection Act. The DEIR should assess how the proposed development may impact the flow of floodwater from the ocean and change or increase potential flooding on adjacent properties including Summer and East First

Streets.

Designated Port Area Since the filing of the ENF, the portion of the South Boston DPA located south of the Reserved Channel, including the site of the proposed L Street Station Redevelopment, underwent a boundary review according to the Designation of DPA Regulations (301 CMR 25.00). CZM completed this review in coordination with Massport, MassDEP and other state agencies to determine whether DPA lands and waters were in substantial conformance with the designation criteria governing suitability to accommodate water dependent industrial use. The final decision on the boundary review (May 2018) resulted in an reconfigured boundary which excluded areas that did not meet the standards for DPAs including the proposed site of the L Street Station project and included areas which did meet the DPA standards. As a result of this review the proposed L Street Station Redevelopment is not located in the South Boston DPA.

However, the proposed project is located adjacent to DPA areas including Massport’s Conley Terminal, Massport’s Dedicated Freight Corridor, and the Reserved Channel. As exemplified in the significant financial investments made by the state in Conley Terminal and the port of Boston, this area is critically important to the local, state, and regional economy. As such, the future of Conley Terminal and associated water dependent industrial operations of the South Boston DPA should be protected. The building program of the proposed L Street Station should be designed such that potentially conflicting uses including residential are adequately buffered from the active DPA uses. Additionally, project-related impacts such as increases in traffic should not adversely impact the operations of Conley Terminal. The FEIR should describe what provisions the proposed project will include to ensure DPA uses are not impacted with the proposed project.

Federal Consistency The proposed project may be subject to CZM federal consistency review. For further information on this process, please contact, Robert Boeri, Project Review Coordinator, at 617-626- 1050 or visit the CZM web site at www.state.ma.us/czm/fcr.htm.

BKC/bw/lbe cc: Rich McGuiness, BPDA Ben Lynch, MassDEP Rachel Freed, MassDEP Northeast Regional Office Amelia Croteau, Boston Conservation Commission

Page 2