The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114 Charles D. Baker GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Karyn E. Polito Fax: (617) 626-1081 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR http://www.mass.gov/eea Kathleen A. Theoharides SECRETARY
August 28, 2020
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
PROJECT NAME : Multi-Family Development PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Lynn PROJECT WATERSHED : Boston Harbor EEA NUMBER : 16241 PROJECT PROPONENT : McGrath Realty Trust DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : July 8, 2020
Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA; M.G. L. c. 30, ss. 61-62I) and Section 11.06 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I hereby determine that this project requires a mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Proponent submitted an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) to support the request that I allow a Single EIR (SEIR) to be prepared in lieu of a Draft and Final EIR pursuant to 301 CMR 11.06(8). The Proponent should file a SEIR in accordance with the Scope outlined below.
Project Description
As described in the EENF, the project consists of redevelopment off the Lynnway (Route 1A) in Lynn. The Lynnway is under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). The project includes demolition of a pub/restaurant building on a fully paved site and construction of a 74-unit eight-story multifamily residential building (condominiums) with drive-under parking at grade, access driveways, parking areas, landscaping, utilities, stormwater management system, and grading. Access will be provided from the Lynnway. The project will provide a new boardwalk along the easterly property line from the Lynnway to the existing boardwalk, which will be reconstructed within the limits of the site. The project will be served by municipal water and sewer.
EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020
The City of Lynn (City) has undertaken a broad planning effort to activate the Lynn Waterfront through transit-oriented development and improvements to and expansion of open space and access. This effort includes revisions to the Waterfront Master Plan and Waterfront Open Space Master Plan. On July 9, 2020, the City submitted changes to the 2010 City of Lynn Municipal Harbor Plan (MHP) and Designated Port Area (DPA) Master Plan (2010 MHP) to me for review and approval (2020 Lynn Municipal Harbor Plan Renewal and Amendment (2020 MHP)).
Additional waterfront developments in the greater project area that have undergone MEPA review include a Multi-Family Development at Lynnway Mart (EEA#16044), 254 – 272 and 282R Lynnway (254 Lynnway, EEA#15575), and Lynn Gear Works Redevelopment (Gear Works, EEA#15441). The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) is planning improvements to its parkland and associated public access.
Project Site
The 3.71-acre project site is located at 98-106 Lynnway within the City’s Waterfront Zone 2 (WZ-2) Zoning District and Tideland Overlay District. Approximately 1.92 acres (83,436 square feet (sf)) of the site is located above the mean high-water (MHW) line and 1.79 acres (78,311 sf) is within the watersheet of Lynn Harbor. The site is completely impervious and contains the former 9,000-sf Porthole Pub restaurant building, a large parking area with approximately 200 spaces, a small shed, multiple retaining walls, a concrete dumpster pad, a wooden boardwalk (Lynn Harbor boardwalk), and a riprap slope leading from the upland portion of the site down to Lynn Harbor. The restaurant closed in 2018. The site is bounded by Lynn Harbor to the south, the Lynnway to the north, the Lynn Yacht Club to the east, and a mixed-use development to the west. The Lynnway is primarily under the care, custody and control of DCR, with some segments under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). Site access is via one-way entrance and exit drives. The site is also served by several Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) bus routes along the Lynnway and by MBTA Commuter Rail service at the Central Square MBTA Station.
The site is within the Harbor Planning Area and the 2020 MHP is currently under review by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA). The project site includes 1.66 acres (72,238 sf) of filled tidelands. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (Map No. 25009C0529G, effective July 16, 2014), the entire project site is located within a Zone VE (area subject to inundation by a one-percent-annual-chance flood event) with a base flood elevation (BFE) at 18 NAVD881 (the floodplain extends throughout the site, across the Lynnway, and into properties north of the Lynnway). Topography generally slopes from the Lynnway at the site entrance to Lynn Harbor and varies throughout the site, with elevations near the Lynnway ranging from 14 to 16 NAVD88 with a steep slope down to elevation 8 then up to elevation 11 at the boardwalk. The project site consists entirely of Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF).
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Potential environmental impacts associated with the project include permanent impacts to 161,747 sf of LSCSF and 72,238 sf of filled tidelands. Compared to existing conditions, the project will
1 All elevations referenced in this Certificate are based on North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) unless otherwise specified.
2 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020 generate 1,158 fewer unadjusted average daily trips (adt) (402 adt total), construct 50 fewer parking spaces (150 total parking spaces), use 6,129 fewer gallons per day (gpd) of water (12,771 gpd total) and generate 6,810 fewer gpd of wastewater (14,190 gpd total).
Measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate Damage to the Environment include redevelopment of the project site; reduction of impervious area by 0.35 acres; implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures; installation of a stormwater management system; and implementation of construction-period best management practices (BMPs).
Jurisdiction and Permitting
The project is undergoing MEPA review and requires submission of a mandatory EIR pursuant to 301 CMR 11.03(3)(a)(5) because it requires Agency Actions and will involve a new non-water dependent use or expansion of an existing non-water dependent use or structure, provided the use or structure occupies one or more acres of waterways or tidelands. The project also exceeds the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) thresholds at 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)(1)(e) for new fill or structure or expansion of existing fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway and at 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)(1)(f) for alteration of one-half acre or more of other wetlands (LSCSF). The project requires a Chapter 91 (c. 91) License from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and a Construction and Access Permit from DCR. The project may require an 8(m) Permit from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). The project requires a Public Benefits Determination (PBD) by the Secretary of EEA. It is subject to the MEPA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Policy and Protocol.
The project received an Order of Conditions from the Lynn Conservation Commission that was not appealed. The project requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), and Federal Consistency Review through the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM).
The subject matter of the c. 91 license, which authorizes use of the project site for a non-water dependent use, is sufficiently broad to be functionally equivalent to full scope jurisdiction. Therefore, MEPA jurisdiction extends to all aspects of the project that are likely, directly or indirectly, to cause Damage to the Environment as defined in the MEPA regulations.
Single EIR Request
The MEPA regulations at Section 11.06(8) indicate that an SEIR may be allowed, provided that the EENF: a) describes and analyzes all aspects of the project and all feasible alternatives, regardless of any jurisdictional or other limitation that may apply to the Scope; b) provides a detailed baseline in relation to which potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures can be assessed; and, c) demonstrates that the planning and design of the Project use all feasible means to avoid potential environmental impacts.
Review of the EENF
The EENF includes a project description, an alternatives analysis, existing and proposed
3 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020 conditions plans, estimates of project-related impacts, the c. 91 License application, a drainage report, a traffic analysis and GHG analysis. It identifies measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate environmental impacts. The Proponent submitted supplemental information including revised plans on August 13, 2020 to address comments made at the virtual site meeting. For the purposes of this Certificate, this supplemental information and the original filing materials are referred to collectively as the EENF.
Alternatives Analysis
The EENF evaluates the following alternatives for site development including: No-Build; Office Building; Restaurant/Retail Mixed Use; and the Preferred Alternative as described herein. The EENF did not evaluate a reduced impact alternative that would increase open space, integrate low impact development (LID), or improve resiliency of the site to the effects of climate change. The No-Build Alternative was dismissed because the existing site is antiquated and underutilized and provides a limited tax base. The No-Build Alternative would not provide housing and would not support activation of Lynn’s Waterfront consistent with the City’s planning efforts.
An Office Building Alternative was considered because it is a permitted use in the Waterfront zoning district. This alternative was dismissed based on associated traffic impacts, need for structured parking, higher costs, and the lack of demand for office space. As described in the EENF, parking requirements would be substantially higher for an Office Building Alternative. The Restaurant/Retail Mixed Use Alternative consisted of a 100-seat restaurant, 8,000 sf of retail, 65 residential units and 140 surface parking spaces. The EENF indicates that the parking demand associated with this alternative would preclude the open space and waterfront activation compared to the Preferred Alternative and would generate more traffic. The alternatives analysis did not include quantification of environmental impacts associated with each alternative. This should be provided in the SEIR.
The Preferred Alternative is consistent with the recently amended Zoning Ordinance which allows high rise multifamily residential with no retail component in the WZ-2 district. It will provide direct access from the Lynnway to the Lynn Harbor boardwalk along the waterfront and increase open space (by 11,880 sf).
Traffic and Transportation
The project requires access to the Lynnway and will require a Construction and Access Permit from DCR. The project will reuse the two existing curb cuts on the Lynnway to create a one-way access driveway. Both driveways will continue to be restricted to right-turn only operation due to the raised median along the Lynnway. Available lines of sight at the project site driveway intersections with the Lynnway exceed recommended minimum sight distances to function safely.
The EENF includes a Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) that was generally prepared in accordance with the MassDOT/EEA TIA Guidelines and in consultation with the City, MassDOT and DCR. The TIA describes traffic volumes and conditions, anticipated trip generation rates, crash rate data, and level-of-service (LOS) operations at study area intersections under 2020 Existing Conditions, 2027 No-Build (without the project), and 2026 Build conditions. The EENF includes conceptual plans of existing and proposed conditions for site access and internal circulation. The study area consisted of a segment of the Lynnway (Route 1A) and the intersections of Lynnway at Market Street and Lynnway at
4 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020
Lynn Shore Drive, Nahant Road and Beach Road (aka Lynnway Rotary).
The project’s trip generation was based on trip rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)’s Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition). As presented in the TIA, trip generation was calculated based on ITE trip rates for Land Use Code (LUC) 221 – Multifamily housing (Mid-Rise). The project is expected to generate 402 unadjusted adt with 25 and 33 vehicle trips during the weekday morning and evening peak hours, respectively. The project is expected to generate 1,158 fewer adt when compared to the former restaurant use at the site, with 13 additional vehicle trips during the weekday morning peak-hour and 135 fewer vehicle trips during the weekday evening peak-hour.
On-site surface parking will be provided for 133 parking spaces comprised of mechanical (stacker), tandem and standard parking spaces, including 29 surface parking spaces and 104 garage parking spaces, for residents and guests of the project (parking ratio of 1.8 parking spaces per unit). This parking ratio exceeds the minimum parking requirements for a multifamily dwelling allowed on-site under local zoning (1.5 spaces per dwelling). The EENF does not include analysis of measures to reduce parking and associated impervious area. Supplemental information indicates that 17 parking spaces proposed in the EENF as public parking for access to the Lynn Harbor boardwalk will be eliminated.
The TIA includes a summary of vehicle crash data for the continuous five-year period of 2013 through 2017. None of the study area intersections experience crash rates above the MassDOT statewide and District 4 averages for signalized or unsignalized intersections. Outside of the study area, the Market Street/Broad Street, Lynnway/Pleasant Street and Lynnway/Clocktower Business Center Driveway intersections are listed as high crash cluster locations for 2014-2016, with the Market Street/Broad Street intersection and the roadway network to the north of the intersection also listed as a high pedestrian crash cluster area for 2007-2016. A Road Safety Audit (RSA) was conducted for the Market Street/Broad Street intersection in 2017 that suggested a number of safety-related improvements for the intersection. The TIA does not include commitments to any improvements identified in the RSA. The SEIR should discuss any mitigation that may be warranted to address road safety.
Capacity analyses were conducted for the weekday morning and weekday evening peak periods for the existing, 2027 No-Build, and 2027 Build conditions. The 2027 conditions assume that roadway improvements and mitigation proposed by five other developments (primarily residential)2 in the general project area along the Lynnway will be complete by that time. With these improvements, which include construction of a new Lynn Gear Works Site Driveway opposite the Lynnway/Jughandle to include the addition of a left-turn lane on the Lynnway eastbound approach and updated traffic signal timing and phasing along the Lynnway, the TIA indicates that the majority of the movements at study area intersections will continue to operate under acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during peak hours with the addition of project-related traffic; the project will not result in changes in LOS. Independent of the project, the TIA notes that U-turn/left-turn movements on the Lynnway westbound approach to the Lynnway/Market Street intersection would operate at capacity (LOS E) during the weekday evening peak-hour under 2027 No-Build conditions, and will continue to operate at LOS E under 2027 Build conditions. All movements exiting the project site driveway are expected to operate at LOS C or better under all analysis conditions.
2 These projects include multifamily developments at 254-274 Lynnway, 800-810 Lynnway, and 830 Lynnway; Lynn Gear Works at 843 Lynnway; and commercial development of the former Garelick Farms facility at 626 Lynnway.
5 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020
The TIA includes an inventory of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and services in the project area, which are also depicted on a conceptual plan. The study area includes pedestrian access. Bicycle accommodations are not present along the Lynnway; they are present at the Lynnway Rotary as part of a shared travel-way on Nahant Road and Lynn Shore Drive north of the site. The Proponent does not propose improvements to bicycle access. Several MBTA buses operate along the Lynnway adjacent to the project site but are not directly accessible from the project site; the closest stop is located at the Lynnway Rotary (approximately six-minute walk). Bus Route 441/442, between Marblehead and the MBTA Wonderland Blue Line station, also provides access to commuter rail service which operates out of Lynn Station (an approximately 10-minute walk northwest of the project site).
The TIA includes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, which identifies the following TDM measures to reduce site trip generation: provision of an Transportation Coordinator (ETC) to manage rideshare and carpool programs and distribute information to encourage alternative means of transportation; provision of “welcome packet” and posting of information regarding available public transportation services, bicycle and walking alternatives, and commuter options available; provision of work-at-home workspaces to support telecommuting by residents; provision of secure bicycle parking (interior and exterior); and provision of pedestrian accommodations including sidewalks and ADA compliant wheelchair ramps at all pedestrian crossings on-site to building entrances to the sidewalk infrastructure along the Lynnway. In addition, the Proponent will work with the City and MBTA to provide fixed-route bus service to the site and the Lynnway corridor near the project site.
The EENF does not identify any changes to previously approved mitigation or propose additional improvements to the Lynnway. The TIA summarizes improvements that will be incorporated into the City’s Master Plan, including traffic mitigation from the Lynn Gear Works Redevelopment project, and reconstruction of the Lynnway and sidewalks.
Wetlands, Waterways and Stormwater
The project will permanently alter LSCSF and completely redevelop the site through demolition of the existing building and parking, reduction of impervious area by 0.35 acres, installation of a stormwater management system and construction of a new building. The Lynn Conservation Commission reviewed the project for its consistency with the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), the Wetlands Regulations (310 CMR 10.00), and associated performance standards, including stormwater management standards (SMS). It issued an Order of Conditions for the project on February 18, 2020 that was not appealed.
Lynn’s Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the waterfront at Lynn Harbor as one of the most significant areas of flooding in the city. The EENF notes that the site will be elevated (through fill) above the 100-year floodplain. The characteristics of the floodplain, such as topography, permeability, and vegetation, are critical to its effectiveness in slowing moving water and in protecting areas within and landward of these zones from storm damage and flooding. Areas of vegetative cover and pervious areas provide surfaces that can detain, absorb, slow or evaporate waters. Fill, impervious surfaces, and structures may have the effect of channeling flood waters, which increases their velocity.
The entire site is impervious. Stormwater runoff currently drains via surface flow into the site toward a series of catch basins and drywells located at the low point (elevation 8) with no outlet which
6 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020
creates a ponding effect. The site retains all stormwater generated before overtopping the boardwalk and overflowing to Lynn Harbor. Although the project is a redevelopment project, the stormwater management system will be designed in full compliance with the MassDEP Stormwater Regulations. The project includes the construction of approximately 0.35 acres of green open space to facilitate a reduction in the rate of stormwater runoff, slow down times of concentration and promote groundwater recharge. All roof runoff will be infiltrated via sub-surface infiltration facilities. Stormwater runoff will drain via surface flow into deep sump hooded catch basins, which discharge to water quality treatment units, prior to discharge into several subsurface infiltration systems. Given the vulnerability of the site to storm damage and flooding, and potential discharge of stormwater to Lynn Harbor, additional analysis of the design and drainage is warranted. In particular, additional reduction of impervious areas and integration of drainage, open space and landscaping can provide valuable amenities to residents, improve the resiliency of the site to storm damage and flooding and restore the functions of LSCSF.
The project site includes both filled and flowed tidelands and is subject to c. 91 jurisdiction pursuant to 310 CMR 9.00. The EENF includes a copy of the existing c. 91 license. Work is only proposed landward of the current MHW mark and will not increase filled tideland area. The project site includes 83,436 sf of land landward of MHW, of which 72,238 sf (87 percent) consists of historically filled Private Tidelands, measured from MHW to the historic high water (HHW) mark3; approximately 34,060 sf of the filled tidelands is proposed to be occupied by the residential building. The project includes construction of a five-foot wide boardwalk along the easterly property line to access the Lynn Harbor boardwalk and the shoreline via the Lynnway. MassDEP Waterways Regulation Program (Waterways) will review the portion of the proposed work located on filled private tidelands under the applicable Waterways Regulations at 310 CMR 9.00, including but not limited to the non-water- dependent provisions of 310 CMR 9.51 through 9.52.4 The EENF addresses consistency of the project with the Waterways Regulations (310 CMR 9.00) and the 2010 MHP; however, it does not address consistency with the proposed changes in the 2020 MHP. This information should be provided in the SEIR.
The EENF and associated plans identify 17 public parking and one private parking space located within the site’s calculated Water Dependent Use Zone (WDUZ). According to MassDEP Waterways, proposed surface parking within the WDUZ does not meet the requirements of 310 CMR 9.32(2)(d)(2) and is not permitted. Plans in the EENF do not sufficiently describe details to confirm compliance with the maximum building height and corresponding set back distance standards at 310 CMR 9.51(3)(e). The Proponent submitted supplemental information including revised plans to confirm that all planned surface parking has been removed from the WDUZ and that the building heights and setbacks from MHW comply with 310 CMR 9.51(3)(e).
Water and Wastewater
The Lynn Water and Sewer Commission provides water and sewer service along the Lynnway. Currently sewage generated on-site flows by gravity to the existing 18-inch sewer in the Lynnway. The site is also served by an eight-inch water main in the Lynnway for both domestic water and fire sprinkler system. The project proposes new connections to the municipal water systems. The project will reline and reuse a portion of the six-inch PVC sewer service from the existing building as the discharge point;
3 The HHW was obtained from MassDEP’s Presumptive Tidelands Jurisdictional Line Project. 4 Standards enumerated at 310 CMR 9.53 will not apply as the site does not contain any Commonwealth Tidelands.
7 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020
install a new sanitary sewer manhole on-site along the Lynnway; and install a new six-inch PVC sewer service that will collect sewage from the proposed building which will discharge via gravity to the new manhole and the municipal sewer infrastructure. All interior floor drains from the proposed drive under garage will discharge to an oil/gas separator, then to a proposed pump chamber, and through a 1.5-inch PVC force main to the new manhole and into the municipal sewer infrastructure.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The EENF includes a GHG analysis based on the MEPA GHG Policy and Protocol (GHG 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 EENF proposes mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions.
Direct stationary source CO2 emissions included those emissions from the building itself, such as boilers, heaters, and internal combustion engines. Indirect stationary source CO2 emissions were derived from the consumption of electricity, heat or other cooling from off-site sources, such as electrical utility or district heating and cooling systems. Indirect mobile CO2 emissions included those emissions associated with vehicle use by residents and others.
Stationary Source Emissions
The stationary source GHG analysis evaluated CO2 emissions for two alternatives as required by the Policy, a Base Case and the Preferred Alternative. 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 and the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2015 with Massachusetts Amendments to the Stretch Code effective August 2020, including Section C406.1. The City of Lynn adopted the Stretch Energy Code (SC) subsequent to its designation as a Green Community under the provisions of the Green Communities Act of 2008. Therefore, the project will be required to meet the applicable version of the SC in effect at the time of construction. The SC requires a 10 percent reduction in energy use compared to the base Building Code requirements for buildings 100,000 sf or more in size (ASHRAE 90.1-2013 Appendix G). According to the EENF, energy and CO2 modeling were conducted in conformance with the 2020 Amendments to the SC, including Sections C402.1.5 (building envelope), C405.3 (lighting), and C406.1 (additional efficiency measures). Total conditioned interior space is approximately 130,565 sf.
The GHG analysis used eQuest v.3.65 modeling software to quantify emissions from the project’s stationary sources. The project’s overall stationary source CO2 emissions were estimated at 458.9 tons per year (tpy) in the Base Case. The mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Alternative will reduce GHG emissions to 344.4 tpy, a reduction of 114.5 tpy (25.0 percent). Total project-related emissions (stationary and mobile source) will be reduced by 115.2 tpy for an approximate 23.3 percent reduction.
The EENF includes a summary of modeling inputs (e.g., R-values, U-values, efficiencies, lighting power density, etc.) for energy efficiency measures modeled for both the Base Case and
8 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020
Preferred Alternative based upon the conceptual design for each proposed building. The EENF identifies measures incorporated into the site design and modeled in the GHG analysis, measures that were dismissed as infeasible or inappropriate (i.e. peak shaving or load shifting strategies, green roofs and Passivehouse design) and measures that will be studied further during subsequent design.
The following energy efficiency measures are proposed:
• High efficiency building envelopes (roof, wall and window elements); • High efficiency heating and cooling systems using Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHPs); • High efficiency domestic hot water systems; • Sealing, insulating, and testing HVAC supply ducts; • Light-colored roofs; • Reduced interior and exterior lighting power densities (LPD) better than Code; • Energy management systems; • Low-flow plumbing fixtures; • Use of Energy Star appliances; and • Solar photovoltaic (PV) ready roof space on buildings to support third-party systems.
The EENF includes a preliminary analysis of GHG emissions and economic feasibility for residential Passivehouse design. The analysis is based on the Passive House Institute U.S. (PHIUS) building design and certification program. It indicates that the Passivehouse design would reduce total building energy demand by 64 percent, annual energy costs by $1,340 per apartment, and GHG emissions by 55 percent; however, the Proponent asserts that it is infeasible based on additional construction and financing costs. The Proponent will continue to study Passivehouse design and evaluate technological improvements as the design advances. Comments from the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) identify inconsistencies in the financial analysis, and estimate that Passivehouse will be more affordable to own and operate than the currently proposed building based on availability of Alternative Energy Credits (AECs) and MassSave incentives. The SEIR should respond to these comments from DOER and continue to evaluate the feasibility of Passivehouse design.
The EENF evaluates the feasibility of rooftop PV systems. The EENF indicates that the project will install “solar-ready” space for PV on 2,740 sf of the roof (80 percent of the open roof area after excluding mandatory setbacks, mechanical equipment and access areas). A 41-kilowatt (kW) PV system on 2,740-sf of usable roof area could generate up to 41 megawatt (MW) hours per year (MWh/yr) and would reduce GHG emissions by an additional 17 tpy, or 5 percent above the proposed mitigation level.
The Proponent has committed to using ASHPs for space heating and cooling for each apartment. Electrification of building systems is important as this allows the project to benefit from a cleaner electric grid over time with increased procurement of renewable power sources. The EENF evaluates the feasibility of heat pump water heaters (HPWH). Compared to gas fired tankless heaters (GFTH) used in the Mitigation Case, energy use for HPWH would be 37 percent less. Emissions and operating costs are higher for HPWHs. The EENF indicates the Proponent will continue to consider HPWHs.
Upon completion of the project, the Proponent will submit a GHG self-certification to the MEPA Office identifying the GHG reduction measures incorporated into the buildings and details of the owner’s implementation of operational measures. This self-certification will be signed by an appropriate
9 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020
professional (e.g. civil engineer, traffic engineer, architect, general contractor) indicating that all of the GHG mitigation measures, or equivalent measures that are designed to collectively achieve the proposed stationary source GHG emission reduction committed to in the EENF and SEIR, have been incorporated into the project.
Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile-source CO2 emissions were modeled using the EPA’s MOVES2014 model and data from the traffic study. Under Future Build conditions, the project would generate 34.0 tpy of CO2. The implementation of TDM measures is estimated to reduce mobile emissions by 0.7 tpy (two percent) to 33.3 tpy. The EENF does not identify any commitments relative to electric vehicle (EV) charging stations to enable a move towards transportation electrification.
Conclusion
Based on review of the EENF, consultation with public agencies and consideration of public comments, I have determined that the Proponent may file a SEIR consistent with the Scope included below. The EENF provides a detailed project description, an alternatives analysis, identifies potential environmental impacts and identifies mitigation measures. Additional analysis of mitigation to reduce environmental impacts and commitment to feasible measures are necessary; however, I am confident that the Proponent can address these issues in a SEIR. I reserve the right to require a Supplemental SEIR if the SEIR is not adequately responsive to the Scope.
The SEIR should be developed in accordance with the Scope below. It should evaluate alternatives that reduce impervious area and parking, and that increase open space, integrate LID techniques into the drainage system and maximize the function of LSCSF. The SEIR should prioritize feasible, cross-cutting measures that can increase energy efficiency and renewable energy measures based on their potential to significantly reduce GHG emissions over the project lifespan; reduce energy costs for residents; improve resiliency of the site and structures to the effects of climate change; and improve the comfort of residential units by reducing noise and improving air quality, an important consideration for housing proposed in proximity to busy roadways.
SCOPE General
The SEIR should follow Section 11.07 of the MEPA regulations for outline and content, as modified by this Scope.
Project Description and Permitting
The SEIR should describe the project and identify any changes to the project since the filing of the EENF. It should include updated site plans for existing and post-development conditions. Conceptual plans should be legible and provided at a reasonable scale. Plans should clearly identify: all major project components (existing and proposed buildings, access roads, etc.); public areas; wetland resource areas; impervious areas; ownership of parcels including easements; pedestrian and bicycle
10 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020 accommodations; and stormwater and utility infrastructure. Conceptual plans should be provided for on- site work as well as any proposed off-site work for transportation or utility improvements that will benefit the project.
The SEIR should provide a brief description and analysis of all applicable statutory and regulatory standards and requirements, and describe how the project will meet those standards. It should include a list of required State Permits, Financial Assistance, or other State or local approvals and provide an update on the status of each.
Alternatives Analysis
The SEIR should include a revised alternatives analysis that quantifies and compares environmental impacts associated with each alternative identified in the EENF. In addition, it should include evaluation of an alternative that reduces the project footprint, reduces parking, incorporates more LID practices, and increases pervious area and vegetated open space. The SEIR should include a narrative and a table that identifies traffic impacts, surface and/or structured parking, impervious area, open space and opportunities for waterfront activation for each alternative.
Transportation
The SEIR should provide an update on any transportation coordination with DCR and MassDOT, and identify proposed mitigation measures. If changes are proposed to mitigation, they should be identified and incorporated into the traffic analysis. The traffic analysis should be revised to reflect the need for potential project mitigation, assuming that improvements from other private or municipal projects may not be implemented prior to completion of this project. The SEIR should identify appropriate measures that may be needed to address road safety. Any proposed project-related transportation mitigation should be described in the narrative and provided in a tabular format, with accompanying figures. The SEIR should describe consistency with Complete Streets design, and provide a circulation plan, to demonstrate adequate pedestrian and bicycle access will be provided within the site and between the site, the waterfront, the Lynnway and public transit. The SEIR should explain why the parking supply exceeds local zoning requirements and evaluate a reduction in parking supply. The SEIR should include a transportation monitoring program and address coordination of monitoring information with other developers. The SEIR should provide an updated TDM program and an update on coordination with the North Shore Transportation Management Association (TMA) regarding inclusion in the TMA. The SEIR should propose a TDM monitoring plan, including proposed measures in the event TDM measures prove less effective than anticipated in reducing Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips to and from the project site. The SEIR should consider a significant commitment to EV charging infrastructure in addition to TDM measures, so that the addition of vehicle trips by the project can be electrified to the greatest extent possible.
Wetlands, Waterways and Stormwater
The EENF states that approximately 72,238 sf of the site is within historically filled tidelands and subject to c. 91 licensing. MassDEP Waterways will review the portion of the proposed work located on filled private tidelands under the applicable Waterways Regulations at 310 CMR 9.00, including but not limited to the non-water-dependent provisions of 310 CMR 9.51 through 9.52. The
11 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020
project includes the construction of a five-foot wide boardwalk along the easterly property line to access the Lynn Harbor boardwalk and the shoreline from the Lynnway. MassDEP Waterways will perform a full technical review of the proposed project once detailed plans are submitted with the c. 91 Waterways License Application. The SEIR should provide an update on the c. 91 application process, including any updates to the information that will be provided to MassDEP.
The project site is located within a planning area subject to the 2010 MHP and to the City’s pending 2020 MHP. The Draft Chapter 91 License Application submitted with the EENF demonstrates that the project complies with the 2010 MHP. However, the Proponent did not perform the same compliance review with the 2020 MHP. The SEIR should include a compliance review to demonstrate that this project is consistent with the 2020 MHP as well as the 2010 MHP, in the event that I issue a Decision approving the 2020 MHP before MassDEP Waterways issues its decision on the pending Chapter 91 Waterways License Application for this project.
CZM comments note that the MHW elevation for this site relative to NAVD88 is 4.12 feet; however, supplemental information identifies the MHW elevation for the site at 5.65 feet without reference to the datum used, while using flood zone elevations based on NAVD88. The SEIR should clarify this inconsistency and ensure that all elevations used to describe the site conditions and proposed development elements for the project are relative to the same datum, which should be clearly indicated. The Proponent should use NAVD88 or clearly identify the conversion factor from NAVD88 if another datum is used. The SEIR should clarify the area of land on-site which is landward of MHW and the area which contains filled tidelands based on slight discrepancies between the EENF, supplemental information and comments.
The SEIR should describe how the project will be designed to ensure that structures and fill (such as proposed retaining walls along the property lines and the at-grade access boardwalk) do not deflect, reflect, or redirect flood waters onto adjacent properties and exacerbate existing flood issues for those areas. The SEIR should consider a design to elevate the proposed boardwalk. The SEIR should consider alternatives to proposed break-away walls and solid walls on the structure, such as vegetation or fencing with at least 50 percent flow-through capacity to allow water through. The SEIR should demonstrate that the project design will include measures to preserve and enhance the function of LSCSF on-site to the maximum extent practicable. The SEIR should include plans that clearly show existing and proposed elevations resulting from fill and grading.
The SEIR should incorporate measures to reduce impervious areas, in particular for parking, and additional vegetation to support the function of the coastal floodplain. The SEIR should identify the Proponent’s commitment to provide more landscaped open space within the WDUZ, where parking for the Lynn Harbor boardwalk was previously proposed, to improve floodplain function along the immediate waterfront. The SEIR should demonstrate that the drainage on-site is designed to minimize flood damage on this and adjacent properties. It should include analysis of improvements to the stormwater management system including incorporation of LID.
The SEIR should include a description of how elevated structures and structural design elements meet or exceed Building Code standards for construction in a flood zone. Comments from DCR’s Flood Hazard Mitigation Program (FHMP) address the project’s consistency with applicable standards and requirements of federal, state and local regulations related to floodplain development. The SEIR should
12 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020 clearly address DCR comments and describe how the project will comply with each applicable standard or requirement for construction in a velocity zone (V zone).
Public Benefits Determination
Consistent with the provisions of An Act Relative to Licensing Requirements for Certain Tidelands (2007 Mass. Acts ch. 168, sec.8) (the Act), which was enacted on November 15, 2007, I must conduct a Public Benefit Review for projects in tidelands that are required to file an EIR.
The legislation states the following regarding the PBD:
“In making said public benefit determination, the secretary shall consider the purpose and effect of the development; the impact on abutters and the surrounding community; enhancement to the property; benefits to the public trust rights in tidelands or other associated rights, including, but not limited to, benefits provided through previously obtained municipal permits; community activities on the development site; environmental protection and preservation; public health and safety; and the general welfare; provided further, that the secretary shall also consider the differences between tidelands, landlocked tidelands and great pond lands when assessing the public benefit and shall consider the practical impact of the public benefit on the development.”
The project exceeds EIR thresholds at 301 CMR 11.03. Therefore, I will issue a PBD in accordance with the regulations at 301 CMR 13.00. The SEIR should include information regarding the public benefits associated with the project and describe how the project will meet the standards for a non-water-dependent use project (301 CMR 13.04). The PBD will be integrated into the Certificate on the SEIR or issued separately within 30 days of the issuance of the SEIR Certificate.
Section 8(m) permitting
Section 8(m) of Chapter 372 of the Acts of 1984, MWRA’s Enabling Legislation, enables the MWRA to issue permits to build, construct, excavate, or cross within or near an easement or other property interest held by the MWRA, with the goal of protecting MWRA-owned infrastructure. MWRA comments indicate that due to the proximity of water infrastructure in Lynnway, the project may require a Section 8(m) permit. The Proponent should consult with MWRA regarding potential Section 8(m) permitting and provide an update in the SEIR. The SEIR should describe the project’s consistency with Section 8(m) permitting if it is required.
Climate Change
Executive Order 569: Establishing an Integrated Climate Change Strategy for the Commonwealth (EO 569) was issued on September 16, 2016. EO 569 recognizes the serious threat presented by climate change and directs agencies within the administration to develop and implement an integrated strategy that leverages state resources to combat climate change and prepare for its impacts. The Order seeks to ensure that Massachusetts will meet GHG emissions reduction limits established under the Global Warming Solution Act of 2008 (GWSA) and will work to prepare state government and cities and towns for the impacts of climate change. The SEIR should address the potential effects of climate change on the project site.
13 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020
The GHG Policy and requirements to analyze the effects of climate change through EIR review is an important part of this statewide strategy. These analyses advance understanding of a project’s contribution and vulnerability to climate change. I strongly encourage the Proponent to consider complementary approaches, such as Passivehouse design, incorporation of renewables and inclusion of LID measures in site design, which can improve the project’s resiliency, reduce GHG emissions and conserve and sustainably employ the natural resources of the Commonwealth.
Adaptation and Resiliency
The site is vulnerable to significant storm impacts. Supplemental information includes an analysis of potential impacts associated with climate change including sea level rise based on an intermediate emissions scenario on the elevation of MHW during the 50-year design life of the project. The Proponent concludes that no additional design considerations for sea level rise will be evaluated for this project because the analysis results in a future MHW elevation below the existing finished floor elevation (FFE) of the parking garage.
The SEIR should provide a discussion and analysis of vulnerabilities of the site to the potential effects of other climate change factors aside from sea level rise, including increased frequency and intensity of precipitation events, flooding and extreme heat events. The SEIR should identify measures to improve the project’s resiliency and adaptability to these effects. To support its evaluation, the Proponent should review the 2018 Massachusetts State Hazard and Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan at www.resilientma.com, data available through the Climate Change Clearinghouse for the Commonwealth and the Lynn Hazard Mitigation Plan. The SEIR should describe consistency with sea level rise projections in the Massachusetts Coast Flood Risk Model (MC-FRM). The SEIR should clearly describe how BFEs or design flood elevations have been calculated for this project and how such elevations were adjusted based on climate change data.
Based on the site’s location in V zone coupled with the residential uses proposed, the site, building and stormwater should be designed to exceed current Massachusetts Building Code standards and SMS to the extent necessary to accommodate projected sea level rise and more frequent and intense storm events. The SEIR should include an assessment of “nuisance flooding” over the design life of the project and evaluate the impact of sea level rise scenarios on the mean higher high water (MHHW) elevations over the design life of the project to determine how often and to what extent tidal inundation, apart from storm surge and wave impacts, is likely to affect the project. The SEIR should clearly describe the data used to conduct this assessment, and specify the recurrence interval (100 year, 500 year storm, etc) used to calculate these parameters. The SEIR should analyze the impacts of sea level rise on storm surge over and above the current risk based on best available data, including data from the MC- FRM, to design the project to address additional future risks associated with climate change. The SEIR should clearly explain the rationale for selecting the chosen climate change and sea level rise scenarios used in the analysis and specify the datum used for all elevations. The SEIR should explain why the Proponent has chosen a comparatively short design life for the project (50 years), which will include 74 condominiums. The analysis should consider impacts on structures, building entry and exit points, vehicular access, on-site utilities, and first floor uses. The elevation of structures and structural design elements should be identified in the narrative and on project plans and a comparison to building code standards for construction in a flood zone should be provided in the SEIR.
14 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020
The SEIR should identify the volume of fill that will be imported and proposed elevations resulting from fill and grading in the narrative and on legible plans at a reasonable scale. As discussed above, the SEIR should demonstrate that the project maximizes the function of the LSCSF to the maximum extent feasible, and is designed to prevent structures and fill from deflecting, reflecting, or redirecting flood waters within the site or onto adjacent properties. The SEIR should also demonstrate that the drainage characteristics of the project are designed in a manner that minimizes flood damage on this and adjacent properties.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The SEIR should include a revised GHG analysis that demonstrates the Proponent is avoiding, minimizing and mitigating GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The EENF includes analysis of several measures that are feasible to implement and can significantly reduce GHG emissions. I commend the Proponent for incorporating efficient electrification with ASHPS/Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) for space heating and cooling in building; improved windows and roof performance; and PV ready set aside on the roof. Efficient electrification with heat pumps is a key mitigation strategy.
Comments from DOER indicate that the project could reduce GHG emissions from 11 percent5 to 34 percent by building to Passivehouse standards and installing solar PV on the solar-ready area. In November 2020, an update to the SC will become effective, that uses ASHRAE 90.1-2013-Appendix G and will include several new, or changed, Massachusetts amendments including: C402.1.5 (envelope), C405.3 and C405.4 (lighting), C405.10 (electric vehicle (EV) charging), and C406 (additional efficiency measures). In addition, the additional C406 measures are increased from 2 to 3. The SEIR should set the baseline for the project at the SC provisions which will required in November 2020 to accurately estimate Mitigation Level because this will likely be the code that will be used for building construction.
The EENF indicates that Passivehouse is financially infeasible. However, comments from DOER indicate that the Proponent’s conclusion of infeasibility appears to be due to inconsistent financial analysis. Using the same utility rates and premium costs contained in the submission (key inputs are identified in DOER comments) and without credit for AECs, DOER determined that Passivehouse would cost less than the currently proposed building (energy savings delivered with Passivehouse are larger than the additional cost to finance Passivehouse).
The SEIR should address clarifications identified in the DOER letter and provide information regarding the proposed building envelope in the format requested by DOER. The SEIR should confirm that the project will meet the requirements of 2018 IECC Section C402.1.5 which mandates that the aggregate performance of all above-grade surfaces conform to the wall performance factors in IECC Table C402.1.4 and C402.4 and fenestration values in C402.4.1 and C402.4.3. It should confirm commitment to PV in terms of square footage set aside and size of system that could be housed. It should provide draft Tenant Guidelines that will support GHG reduction levels identified in the analysis and confirm that the modeling of elements specifically delegated to the tenant and/or residential fit-out process is consistent with those that will be mandated as minimum requirements in the Guidelines. The
5 DOER comments identify a potential error in the heating end use for the Mitigation Alternative, which is unusually low (less than 1 kBtu/sf-yr) and increase this value to 4 kBtu/sf-yr as the basis for its analysis and calculation of the Mitigation Level of 11 percent.
15 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020
Proponent should reconsider Passivehouse for residential buildings based on the information provided in the DOER letter. The SEIR should examine the effect of targeted solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) and external shading considering variability of exposure to sun, building self-shading, and shadows from other buildings.
Construction Period
All construction and demolition (C&D) activities should be managed in accordance with applicable MassDEP’s regulations regarding Air Pollution Control (310 CMR 7.01, 7.09-7.10), and Solid Waste Facilities (310 CMR 16.00 and 310 CMR 19.00, including the waste ban provision at 310 CMR 19.017). All C&D activities should be undertaken in compliance with the conditions of all State and local permits. The SEIR should discuss the solid waste and air quality regulatory requirements identified in MassDEP’s (Northeast Regional Office) comment letter and identify the specific and aggressive construction recycling and source reduction goals the Proponent will adopt. The SEIR should describe the project’s removal of asbestos containing materials pursuant to 310 CMR 7.15.
The SEIR should describe the schedule for construction of project elements and identify construction staging areas. It should identify construction-period impacts (including but not limited to erosion and sedimentation, air quality, solid waste disposal, and transportation/traffic) and outline feasible measures that can be implemented to eliminate or minimize these impacts in a draft Construction Management Plan (CMP). A construction period Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) should be developed consistent with the NPDES CGP for the project to reduce erosion and sedimentation during the construction process.
I encourage the Proponent to mitigate the construction period impacts of diesel emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The Proponent should confirm that it will use construction equipment with engines manufactured to Tier 4 federal emission standards or select project contractors that have installed retrofit emissions control devices or vehicles that use alternative fuels to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) from diesel- powered equipment. The SEIR should confirm that the project will require construction contractors to use Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) fuel in off-road equipment and indicate whether it will incorporate additional measures to minimize construction-period emissions. The SEIR should address how the project will support compliance with the Massachusetts Idling regulation at 310 CMR 7.11. The Proponent is reminded that any contaminated material encountered during construction must be managed in accordance with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP; 310 CMR 40.0000) and with prior notification to MassDEP. The SEIR should describe how the project will comply with the MCP during construction. The SEIR should identify preparation of a Spills Contingency Plan.
Mitigation/Draft Section 61 Findings
The SEIR should include a separate chapter summarizing proposed mitigation measures and provides draft Section 61 Findings for each State Agency that will issue permits for the project. The SEIR should contain clear commitments to implement mitigation measures (including monitoring), estimate the individual costs of each proposed measure, identify the parties responsible for implementation, and contain a schedule for implementation. This information should be provided in a tabular format.
16 EEA# 16241 EENF Certificate August 28, 2020
Responses to Comments
The SEIR should contain a copy of this Certificate and a copy of each comment letter received. To ensure that the issues raised by commenters are addressed, the SEIR should include direct responses to comments to the extent that they are within MEPA jurisdiction. This directive is not intended to, and shall not be construed to enlarge the scope of the SEIR beyond what has been expressly identified in this certificate.
Circulation
The Proponent should circulate the SEIR to those parties who commented on the EENF, 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. A copy of the SEIR should be made available for review at the Lynn Public Library.6
August 28, 2020 ______Date Kathleen A. Theoharides
Comments received:
08/04/2020 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) 08/07/2020 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority 08/20/2020 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) – Waterways Regulation Program (WRP) 08/20/2020 Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) 08/21/2020 Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) 08/24/2020 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Northeast Regional Office (NERO) 08/24/2020 Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER)
KAT/PPP/ppp
6 Requirements for hard copy distribution or mailings will be suspended during the Commonwealth’s COVID-19 response. Please consult the MEPA website for further details on interim procedures during this emergency period: https://www.mass.gov/orgs/massachusetts-environmental-policy-act-office.
17 8/25/2020 Mail - Patel, Purvi (EEA) - Outlook
Lynn Multi-Family Development
Frew, Katelyn (FWE)
Kate Frew Environmental Analyst MA Division of Marine Fisheries 30 Emerson Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 phone: 978-282-0308 x157
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AQMkADg3ZDYwNjk4LTk1YjQtNDVmNC04ZWFlLTVmMTk4MmYwNTllOAAuAAADcjrjNcH1mE2Wc6FvSk%2BFm… 1/1
August 7, 2020
Kathleen A. Theoharides, Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge St, Suite 900 Attn: MEPA Office, Purvi Patel Boston, MA 02114
Subject: EOEEA #16241 –Environmental Notification Form Multi-Family Development, Lynn, MA
Dear Secretary Theoharides:
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) submitted by McGrath Realty Trust (the “Proponent”) for the Multi-Family Development (the “Project”) located at 98-106 Lynnway. The 3.71-acre Project is currently occupied by a vacant restaurant and associated parking lot. The Project involves redevelopment of the site to include a 74 unit multi-family condominium with a drive under parking facility. The Project will also include construction of new access driveways, bituminous concrete parking areas, landscaped areas, utility connections, stormwater management facilities, and incidental site grading.
Section 8(m) of Chapter 372 of the Acts of 1984, MWRA’s Enabling Legislation, enables the MWRA to issue permits to build, construct, excavate, or cross within or near an easement or other property interest held by the MWRA, with the goal of protecting Authority-owned infrastructure. Due to the proximity of water infrastructure in Lynnway, the Project may require an 8(m) permit. The Proponent should contact Ralph Francesconi in the Water Operations Permitting Group at (617) 305-5827 for assistance related to this matter.
On behalf of the MWRA, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Project. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (617) 788-4958 with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Beth Card Director Environmental and Regulatory Affairs cc: John Viola, DEP
Charles D. Baker Kathleen A. Theoharides Governor Secretary
Karyn E. Polito Martin Suuberg Lieutenant Governor Commissioner
Memorandum
To: Purvi Patel, MEPA
From: Frank Taormina, Waterways Regulation Program, MassDEP/Boston
Cc: Daniel Padien, Program Chief, Waterways Regulation Program, MassDEP/Boston
Re: Comments from the Chapter 91 Waterways Regulation Program ̶ EEA #16241; EENF ̶ 98-106 Lynnway, Lynn, Essex County
Date: August 20, 2020
The Department of Environmental Protection Waterways Regulation Program (the “WRP”) has reviewed the referenced Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) EEA #16241, submitted by Engineering Alliance, Inc. on behalf of McGrath Realty Trust (the “Proponent”) to demolish a restaurant/bar building (Porthole Pub) and construct an 7-story residential building consisting of 74-condominimum units with drive under parking garage located on filled tidelands of Lynn Harbor at 98-1076 Lynnway, in Lynn, Essex County (the “project site”).
Chapter 91 Jurisdiction The project site includes both filled and flowed tidelands. However, work is only proposed landward of the mean high water (MHW) mark. The project site includes 83,443 square feet landward of MHW, of which 72,285 square feet (87%) consists of filled Private Tidelands, measured from MHW to the historic high water (HHW) mark. The remaining terra firma is located landward of HHW and is not a geographic area subject to Chapter 91. We note the HHW was obtained from the Department’s Presumptive Tidelands Jurisdictional Line Project. The portion of the proposed work located on jurisdictional tidelands will be reviewed under the applicable Waterways Regulations at 310 CMR 9.00, including but not limited to the nonwater-dependent provisions of 310 CMR 9.51 through 9.52. The standards enumerated at 310 CMR 9.53 shall not apply as the site does not contain any Commonwealth Tidelands.
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
98-106 Lynnway / EEA #16241 / EENF MassDEP Waterways Regulation Program Comments August 20, 2020
Chapter 91 Regulatory Analysis The EENF and associated plans identified seventeen (17) public parking and one (1) private parking space located within the site’s calculated Water Dependent Use Zone (WDUZ). Surface parking within the WDUZ does not meet the requirements of 310 CMR 9.32(2)(d)(2). Furthermore, the plans do not present sufficient details to confirm compliance with the maximum building height standards at 310 CMR 9.51(3)(e). Neither maximum building heights, nor the corresponding set back distance from MHW are shown on the plans submitted with the EENF. However, in response to agency comments during the public information session, the Proponent submitted supplemental information including revised plans on August 13, 2020. This additional information confirmed that all planned surface parking has been removed from the WDUZ and confirmed that the building heights and setbacks from MHW comply with 310 CMR 9.51(3)(e).
Municipal Harbor Planning The Proponent acknowledged that the project site is located within a planning area subject to the 2010 Lynn Harbor Municipal Harbor Plan and Designated Port Area Master Plan (the “2010 Lynn MHP”) and with the City’s pending 2020 Lynn Municipal Harbor Plan Renewal and Amendment (the “2020 Lynn MHP”) .
The Proponent demonstrated that they comply with the 2010 Lynn MHP on Page 2 of the Draft Chapter 91 License Application submitted with the EENF. However, the Proponent did not perform the same compliance review with the 2020 Lynn MHP. The City of Lynn formally submitted the 2020 Lynn MHP to the Secretary of EOEEA for review and approval on July 9, 2020. The Proponent is required to comply with the 2010 Lynn MHP until such time that the Secretary issues a Decision approving the City’s 2020 MHP, then the Proponent is also required to adhere to the Secretary’s Decision on the 2020 MHP. The WRP requests that the Proponent provide a compliance review with the pending 2020 Lynn MHP, in the event that the Secretary issues a Decision approving the 2020 Plan before the WRP issues its decision on the pending Chapter 91 Waterways License Application for this project.
Conclusion Based on the WRP review of the EENF and supporting and supplemental materials and plans provided as attachments thereto, it appears that said work proposed within Chapter 91 jurisdiction complies with the various nonwater-dependent provisions. The WRP will perform a full technical review of the proposed project once detailed plans are submitted with the pending Chapter 91 Waterways License Application.
If you have any questions regarding the WRP’s comments, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kathleen A. Theoharides, Secretary, EEA ATTN: Purvi Patel, MEPA Office FROM: Lisa Berry Engler, Director, CZM DATE: August 21, 2020 RE: EEA-16241, Multifamily Development; Lynn
The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) has completed its review of the above-referenced Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF), noticed in the Environmental Monitor dated July 8, 2020, and recommends that the following comments are addressed in a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
Project Description The EENF proposes to demolish an existing pub/restaurant building on a fully paved site and construct a 74-unit multifamily condominium residential building with drive-under parking at grade, new access driveways, concrete parking areas, landscaping, utility connections, stormwater management facilities, and site grading. The entire project site is located within a FEMA mapped floodplain (zone VE elevation 18 NAVD88) and will permanently impact 161,747 square feet (SF) of Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF). Approximately 72, 238 SF of the site is historically filled tidelands; approximately 34,060 SF of the filled tidelands is proposed to be occupied by the residential building. The site is within the Harbor Planning Area for the current 2010 City of Lynn Municipal Harbor Plan (MHP) and Designated Port Area (DPA) Master Plan (2010 MHP), as well as the 2020 City of Lynn MHP and DPA Master Plan (2020 MHP), which has been submitted to the Secretary by the City and is currently under review.
Project Comments The entire project site is within LSCSF. The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for this site is within the 100-year (1%) flood zone, with a Zone VE (elevation 18 NAVD88) extending throughout the site, across the Lynnway, and into abutting properties on the other side of the road. LSCSF reduces storm damage and flooding by diminishing and buffering the high energy effects of storms. The physical characteristics of the floodplain, such as topography, permeability, and vegetation are critical for determining how effective an area is in slowing down moving water and in protecting areas within and landward of these zones from storm damage and flooding. Areas of vegetative cover and pervious areas provide surfaces that can detain, absorb, slow or evaporate waters. Impervious surfaces, fill, and structures that are not adequately elevated may have the effect of channeling flood waters, which increases their velocity. In particular, as discussed during the MEPA consultation meeting, the revision of the original plan to remove proposed parking spaces within the Water Dependent Use Zone (WDUZ) may provide additional opportunity to increase landscaping elements and improve floodplain function along the immediate waterfront. Development on this site should be designed to ensure that structures and fill do not deflect, reflect, or redirect flood waters. Specifically, the retaining walls proposed along the property lines of the site and the at-grade access walkway proposed along the West side of the site may channel floodwaters onto adjacent properties, exacerbating existing flood issues for those areas. The DEIR should consider a design to elevate the walkway. Proposed break-away
walls and solid walls on the structure are likely to reflect and redirect floodwaters. Consideration should be given to alternatives to these, such as vegetation or fencing with at least 50% flow-through capacity to allow water through. The DEIR should demonstrate that the project maximizes the function of the LSCSF on site by assuring that all possible effort is taken to maximize these functions and incorporate these into the design of the project. The DEIR should also demonstrate that the drainage characteristics of the project are designed in a manner that minimizes flood damage on this and adjacent properties. Existing and proposed elevations resulting from fill and grading should be clearly shown on plans of a reasonable scale. A description of how elevated structures and structural design elements meet or exceed building code standards for construction in a flood zone should be included in the DEIR.
It is not clear from the EENF or the supplemental filing that the same datum is used for all elevations for the project. The supplemental information states that the mean high water (MHW) elevation for the site is at 5.65 feet but does not reference the datum used. The MHW elevation for this site relative to NAVD88 is 4.12 feet, suggesting that a different datum was used for the MHW elevation in the filing. However, the flood zone elevations used throughout the document and plans are relative to NAVD88. The DEIR should ensure that all elevations used to describe the site conditions and proposed development elements for the project are relative to the same datum, and the datum used should be clearly indicated. For simplicity, NAVD88 is recommended, but if another datum is used, the conversion factor from NAVD88 should be clear.
The supplemental filing includes an analysis of possible climate change impacts that includes the possible impact of sea level rise as the result of an intermediate emissions scenario on the elevation of MHW during the design life of the project, which is stated to be 50 years. As this analysis results in a MHW elevation below the existing first floor elevation of the parking garage, the supplemental information concludes that no additional design considerations for sea level rise will be evaluated for this project. While it is appropriate for the analysis in the DEIR to include an assessment of “nuisance flooding” over the design life of the project, this portion of the analysis should look at the impact of sea level rise scenarios on the mean higher high water (MHHW) elevations over the design life of the project to determine how often and to what extent tidal inundation, apart from storm surge and wave impacts, is likely to affect the project. The MHHW elevation should be used as it better captures potential impacts caused by sea level rise. In addition, the DEIR analysis should look at the impacts of sea level rise on storm surge over and above the current risk. The best available information, at resilientma.org, should be used as the basis for this analysis. As the site is vulnerable to significant storm impacts currently, the design should ensure that the additional future risks associated with climate change are addressed. For all analyses, the scenario chosen, and reasons for choosing it should be clear. As above, the datum used for all elevations should be specified. The stated design life of the project, 50 years, is minimal for a substantial residential development. The factors that support this abbreviated design life should be included in the DEIR.
The EENF demonstrates regulatory compliance with the current 2010 MHP but does not assess compliance with the proposed 2020 MHP, which has been submitted to the Secretary and is currently under review. The 2010 MHP will be in effect for this project until the Secretary issues a decision on the 2020 MHP, after which the project design will be required to comply with the new plan for waterways licensing. Because the Secretary’s decision may occur before a waterways license is issued for this project, the DEIR should include an analysis to demonstrate that this project is consistent with the 2020 MHP as well as the 2010 MHP.
Federal Consistency Review The proposed project is subject to CZM federal consistency review and must be found to be consistent with CZM's enforceable program policies. For further information on this process, please contact Robert Boeri, Project Review Coordinator, at [email protected], or visit the CZM web site at www.mass.gov/czm.
LE/kg/rh cc: Kathryn Glenn, CZM Rachel Freed, DEP NERO Frank Taormina, DEP Waterways Joy Duperault, Eric Carlson, DCR
Charles D. Baker Kathleen A. Theoharides Governor Secretary
Karyn E. Polito Martin Suuberg Lieutenant Governor Commissioner
August 21, 2020
Kathleen A. Theoharides, Secretary RE: Lynn Executive Office of Multi -Family Development Energy & Environmental Affairs 98- 106 Lynnway 100 Cambridge Street EEA # 16241 Boston MA, 02114
Attn: MEPA Unit
Dear Secretary Theoharides:
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office (MassDEP-NERO) has reviewed the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) submitted for EEA# 16241, the proposed Multi-Family Development in Lynn. MassDEP provides the following comments.
Solid Waste
MassDEP’s current Massachusetts 2010-2020 Solid Waste Master Plan1 –Pathway to Zero Waste, issued in April 2013 identifies a key goal to reduce solid waste disposal by 30% by 2020, from 6,550,000 tons of disposal in 2008 to 4,550,000 tons of disposal by 2020. MassDEP encourages the Proponent to review the plan to identify project management and operations practices that will assist the Commonwealth in meeting its material management goals. More information on the Solid Waste Master Plan and yearly update reports can be found at: https://www.mass.gov/guides/solid-waste-master-plan.
Waste Ban
Section 310 CMR 19.017 Waste Bans of the Massachusetts Solid Waste regulations prohibit the disposal of certain construction-related wastes in Massachusetts, including, but not limited to,
1 Note the Draft 2020-2030 Solid Waste Master Plan is in review and may be finalized in late 2020.
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
metal, wood, asphalt pavement, brick, concrete, clean gypsum wallboard. Further guidance can be found at: https://www.mass.gov/guides/massdep-waste-disposal-bans.
MassDEP regulations also ban disposal of food and other organic wastes from businesses and institutions that dispose of more than one ton of these materials per week. The ban is one of MassDEP’s initiatives for diverting at least 35% of all food waste from disposal statewide by 2020. Diverted food waste may be composted, converted to energy (through anaerobic digestion), recycled, or reused. Additional information on the Commercial Food Material Disposal Ban can be found at: https://www.mass.gov/guides/commercial-food-material-disposal-ban.
C&D Recycling
Many construction and demolition materials are currently banned from disposal or transfer for disposal in Massachusetts (https://www.mass.gov/guides/massdep-waste-disposal-bans). Therefore, MassDEP encourages the Proponent to make a significant commitment to construction and demolition (C&D) waste recycling activities as a sustainable measure for the project and to assist in complying with waste ban requirements. MassDEP considers an asphalt, brick, and concrete (ABC) rubble processing or recycling facility (pursuant to the provisions of Section (2)(b) under 310 CMR 16.03), the Site Assignment regulations for solid waste management facilities), to be exempt from the site assignment requirements, if the ABC rubble at such facilities is separated from other solid waste materials at the point of generation. In accordance with 310 CMR 16.03(2)(b), ABC can be crushed on-site with a 30-day notification to MassDEP. However, the asphalt is limited to weathered bituminous concrete (no roofing asphalt), and the brick and concrete must be uncoated or not impregnated with materials such as roofing epoxy. If the brick and concrete are not clean, the material is defined as C&D waste and requires either a Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) or a Site Assignment and permit before it can be crushed.
Pursuant to the requirements of 310 CMR 7.02 of the Air Pollution Control regulations, if the ABC crushing activities are projected to result in the emission of one ton or more of particulate matter or other pollutant to the ambient air per year, and/or if the crushing equipment employs a diesel oil fired engine with an energy input capacity of three million or more British thermal units per hour for either mechanical or electrical power which will remain on-site for twelve or more months, then a plan application must be submitted to MassDEP for written approval prior to installation and operation of the crushing equipment.
Asbestos
Pursuant to 310 CMR 7.15 the removal of asbestos from the buildings must adhere to the special safeguards defined in the Air Pollution Control regulations. An asbestos survey to identify all asbestos containing materials (ACM) shall be conducted by a Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards certified Asbestos Inspector. All identified ACM shall be abated prior to demolition activities. The Proponent is required to submit to MassDEP an Asbestos Removal Notification (Form AQ04 (ANF-001)) at least 10 working days prior to initiating work for any project involving asbestos abatement, removal, or disposal. If any ACM will need to be abated through non-traditional abatement methods, the Proponent must apply for and obtain approval from
2
MassDEP, through Application BWP AQ36 - Application for Non-Traditional Asbestos Abatement Work Practice Approval.
Pursuant to 310 CMR 7.09, for any Construction and Demolition, except in a residential building with fewer than 20 units, the Proponent is required to submit to MassDEP a Construction/Demolition Notification (Form BWP AQ06) at least 10 working days prior to initiating work. MassDEP Asbestos, Construction and Demolition Notifications can be found at: https://www.mass.gov/guides/massdep-asbestos-construction-demolition-notifications.
Pursuant to 310 CMR 19.061, disposal of ACWM within the Commonwealth must be at a facility specifically approved by MassDEP. The Proponent is advised that asbestos containing waste materials (ACWM) are a special waste as defined in the Solid Waste Management regulations. There are specific ACWM disposal exceptions for intact vinyl asbestos tile (VAT) and asphaltic-asbestos felt and shingles. The disposal of the ACWM outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Commonwealth must comply with all the applicable laws and regulations of the state receiving the material. Pursuant to 310 CMR 16.05, ACM including VAT, and/or asphaltic- asbestos felts or shingles may not be disposed of at a facility operating as a recycling facility.
Recycling Infrastructure
MassDEP supports voluntary initiatives to institutionalize source reduction and recycling into operations. Adapting the design, infrastructure, and contractual requirements necessary to incorporate reduction, recycling and recycled products into existing large-scale developments has presented significant challenges to recycling proponents. Integrating those components into developments during the planning and design stage enables the project’s management and occupants to establish and maintain effective waste diversion programs.
The MassDEP appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. Please contact [email protected] at (978) 694-3262 for further information on Solid Waste, Recycling, and Asbestos issues. If you have any general questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [email protected] or at (978) 694-3304.
Sincerely,
John D. Viola Deputy Regional Director
cc: Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission Eric Worrall, John MacAuley, MassDEP-NERO
3
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCES 100 CAMBRIDGE ST., SUITE 1020 BOSTON, MA 02114 Telephone: 617-626-7300 Facsimile: 617-727-0030
Charles D. Baker Kathleen A. Theoharides Governor Secretary
Karyn E. Polito Patrick C. Woodcock Lt. Governor Commissioner
24 August 2020
Kathleen Theoharides, Secretary Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Attn: MEPA Unit
RE: Lynn Multifamily Development, Lynn, Massachusetts, EEA #16241
Cc: Maggie McCarey, Director of Energy Efficiency, Department of Energy Resources Patrick Woodcock, Commissioner, Department of Energy Resources
Dear Secretary Theoharides:
We’ve reviewed the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) for the above project. The proposed project consists of a 130,000-sf residential building (74 residential units).
Executive Summary
The project is proposing the following mitigation measures:
• Efficient electrification with air source heat pump/VRF. • Improved windows and roof performance. • PV ready set aside on the roof.
The project could improve mitigation with the following additional improvements:
• Passivehouse for the residential buildings
Note there appears to be an error in the heating end use for the Mitigated case, discussed further herein.
Lynn Multifamily Development, EEA #16241 Lynn, Massachusetts
Pathway to 34% Mitigation Level
The building is currently-proposed to have a Mitigation Level1 of 11%. This can be improved by about x3.1 to 34%. In summary:
• The currently-committed efficiency strategies deliver a Mitigation Level (ML) of 11%. This is accomplished with improved windows, improved roof insulation, and efficient electrification with air source heat pumps. (Note that the submission appears to be overestimating heating end use reduction for the Mitigated case. Our estimated ML of 11% corrects this error. See below for more details.)
• Mitigation Level can be improved to 34% as follows:
o Installing solar PV on the committed PV-ready area would improve ML to 13%. o Building the building to Passivehouse would improves ML to 34%.
Codes and Baseline
Massachusetts Stretch Code applies to this project. Stretch Code requires a 10% energy performance improvement over ASHRAE 90.1-2013-Appendix G plus Massachusetts
1 Mitigation Level is the percent GHG reduction beyond the reduction that would occur as a result of following state and local building codes. A Mitigation Level of 0% means that no mitigation is proposed.
Page 2 of 6
Lynn Multifamily Development, EEA #16241 Lynn, Massachusetts amendments. Accordingly, the baseline for this project should be based on ASHRAE 90.1-2013 plus Massachusetts amendments. The project is using this baseline.
In November 2020, an update to the Stretch Code will take effect. The Stretch Code to take effect in November also uses ASHRAE 90.1-2013-Appendix G. However, there will be several new, or changed, Massachusetts amendments including: C402.1.5 (envelope), C405.3 and C405.4 (lighting), C405.10 (EV charging), and C406 (additional efficiency measures). In addition, the additional C406 measures are increased from 2 to 3.
To accurately estimate Mitigation Level for this project, we recommend that the baseline for this project be set at the Stretch Code provisions which will be required in November 2020 as this will likely be the code that will be used for building construction.
Building Envelope Performance
High-performing envelope is essential to successful GHG mitigation. Key strategies for maintaining integrity of envelope are:
• Continuous insulation; • Reducing air infiltration; • Reducing thermal bridges; • Limiting or eliminating use of glass “curtain wall” and spandrel assemblies; • Maximizing framed, insulated walls sections; • Maintaining window aperture at code levels and improving window U value.
Beginning in November 2020, Massachusetts energy code amendments require conformance with 2018 IECC Section C402.1.5 which mandates that the aggregate performance of all above-grade surfaces conform to the wall performance factors in IECC Table C402.1.4 and C402.4 and fenestration values in C402.4.1 and C402.4.3. It appears that the building conforms to this requirement though this should be verified in the next submission.
Also beginning in November 2020, Massachusetts amendments require that baseline residential building models set maximum fenestration to 24% from current 40%. The project is conforming to this requirement.
According to the information contained in Appendix D, the project is currently committing to the following:
• Wall: U value 0.050, making up 76% of the vertical surface area.
• Window: U value 0.27, making up 24% of the vertical surface area.
The resulting vertical UA is about 30% higher-performing than code minimum.
Roof insulation is proposed to be R-37c.i. (U value is 0.027, which is about 18% higher performing than code.
Page 3 of 6
Lynn Multifamily Development, EEA #16241 Lynn, Massachusetts
The envelope data presented in Appendix D described above appears to potentially conflict with other portions of the submission. For example, elevation views shown on drawings A9 through A11 by HDS Architects (pdf pages 462 through 464) appear to show much more vision glass than described in Appendix D. Also, the elevation views also appear to show extensive curtain wall where Appendix D describes no curtain wall. The project should confirm the envelope values used in Appendix D.
Passivehouse - Residential
The submission contains a preliminary analysis for Passivehouse. Committing to Passivehouse would improve emissions reduction by a factor of our 3.
Using the same utility rates and premium costs contained in the submission, we found that Passivehouse would cost less than the currently proposed building. That is, the energy savings delivered with Passivehouse are larger than the additional cost to finance Passivehouse. Key inputs are:
• Premium cost for Passivehouse, from EENF: $900,900 • MassSave incentive: $222,000 • Net premium financed: $678,900 • Terms: 30 years, 5 percent • Annual energy savings: $44,863 • Annual cost to finance: $43,734
Based on the above, we recommend that the project also commit to Passivehouse.
Note that we have taken no credit at this time for Alternative Energy Credits (AECs) as AEC prices have recently declined to a relatively low value. However, if qualifying equipment is installed, the condominium owners could still obtain AECs in the future if the prices recover, capturing an additional bonus revenue stream to the owners.
Fossil-Fuel Reduction and Efficient Electrification
Efficient electrification of space and service water heating is an effective strategy for GHG mitigation. Electrification entails swapping from gas-fueled equipment to air source electric heat pumps and VRF systems.
The project is making significant strides towards electrification, committing to full electrification of space heating with efficient air-source heat pumps/VRF.
External Shading and Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC)
External shading and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) have not been analyzed yet, consistent with the level of design of the project at this time. As the project moves forward, we encourage examination of building self-shading, external shading, and varying SHGC as a function of
Page 4 of 6
Lynn Multifamily Development, EEA #16241 Lynn, Massachusetts exposure. (For example, targeting lower SHGC-rated glass for building sides and areas more exposed to sun and/or less shaded.)
Rooftop Solar PV
Rooftop PV can provide significant GHG benefits as well as significant financial benefits. The proponent completed a detailed analysis for rooftop PV space, identifying 2,740-sf on the roof that could be set aside for solar PV. This area would support about 30-40 kW of PV.
The project should confirm that they are committing to setting aside this area and making it PV ready.
Potential Errors in Model Output
The heating end use for the mitigated case is unusually low (less than 1 kBtu/sf-yr). To complete our analysis and recommendations, we corrected this value to 4 kBtu/sf-yr. All our results herein are based on this correction for the Mitigated case.
Recommendations for Subsequent Submissions
Recommendations are as follows:
1. Provide the following values for the proposed building:
% of total vertical area U value
Built Wall Curtain Wall Vision Glass Spandrel Operable window Inoperable window Total 100%
2. Confirm that the project will meet the requirements of 2018 IECC Section C402.1.5 which mandates that the aggregate performance of all above-grade surfaces conform to the wall performance factors in IECC Table C402.1.4 and C402.4 and fenestration values in C402.4.1 and C402.4.3.
3. Commit to Passivehouse for the residential building.
4. Confirm PV commitment (put in terms of square feet set aside and size of system (kW) that could be housed).
5. Examine effect of targeted SHGC and external shading considering variability of exposure to sun, building self-shading, and shadows from other buildings.
Page 5 of 6
Lynn Multifamily Development, EEA #16241 Lynn, Massachusetts
Sincerely,
Paul F. Ormond, P.E. Energy Efficiency Engineer Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources
Brendan Place Clean Energy Engineer Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources
Page 6 of 6