DEIR Certificate- Conclusion & Scope for EIR
Following is an excerpt from the Certificate issued by the Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs on August 26, 2011. This Certificate is essentially an approval of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) submitted by BH Normandy Riverside. The certificate finds the DEIR adequate, but sets out a number of commments and directives for the developer to incorporate in their final EIR filing. Most of these directives are captured in the "Scope" section of the ruling.The text below can be found on pages 12 to 16 of the full Certificate.
EEA# 14590 Draft EIR Certificate August 26, 2011
Conclusion
The project changes identified in the Draft EIR are significant improvements and I expect continued consultation with State Agencies, the City of Newton and local residents will result in additional changes to the density and traffic associated with the project. It is clear that consensus has not been reached for the proposed access plan and additional consultation and analysis is required to demonstrate that local and State interests are balanced appropriately.Comments from State Agencies identify outstanding issues that should be addressed in the Final EIR including additional analysis of access alternatives and support for off-site bicycle and pedestrian access along and to the Charles River. Comments from MassDEP, MAPC and the City of Newton continue to urge the Proponent to better integrate uses within the site, reduce parking, and make firm commitments to TDM measures to leverage the site's transit access while minimizing vehicular traffic. The project must include improvements to the design and an aggressive and effective TDM program to maximize the potential of this site to reduce traffic generation and associated air quality.
The comment letter from the City of Newton identifies its appreciation ofthe changes that are detailed in the Draft EIR and notes that the revised project is a better fit for the area and provides an improved streetscape along Grove Street. Comments from Alderman Sangiolo, Alderman Harney and Alderman-at-Large Gentile acknowledge the Proponent's Willingness to engage in an open dialogue with City officials and the community while identifying significant concerns with the project as proposed. Comments from the Woodland Condominium Trust, the Riverside Station Neighborhood Coalition and individual residents continue to identify significant concerns with the size and impacts of the project, urging for additional reductions in massing and density. In addition, several comment letters urge additional coordination between State Agencies to address transportation and transit issues as well as provision of adequate and safe pedestrian and bicycle connections.
As noted previously, this project is subject to review by the City of Newton and requires rezoning. The City ofNewton, its aldermen and residents, the Riverside Station Neighborhood Coalition and the Woodland Grove Condominium Association have engaged actively in this project and its review. I appreciate their input and thoughtful comments and have considered these issues carefully indeveloping the following Scope. I note that some ofthe issues identified in comment letters are more appropriately addressed by the City through its review and zoning process (e.g. building design) and others are at a level of detail that is difficult to address at this conceptual stage of design.
The MEPA regulations indicate that the Draft EIR may be found adequate even if certain aspects ofthe Project or issues require additional description and or analysis in a Final EIR provided that the Draft EIR is generally responsive to the requirements of 301 CMR 11.07 and the Scope. Based on a review ofthe Draft EIR, the Scope issued on June 4, 2010, consultation with State Agencies, and review of comment letters, I have determined that the Draft EIR is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of the MEPA regulations and the Scope to meet the regulatory standard for adequacy. While I find the Draft ElR to be adequate, there are significant issues that must be addressed in the Final EIR. In particular, additional consultation between the Proponent, MassDOT, MBTA, FHWA, the City of Newton and its residents is necessary to further develop access alternatives.
Scope
Project Description and PermittingThis section should identify any changes proposed to the project since the filing ofthe Draft EIR. I strongly encourage the Proponent to consider further reductions to the project size to reduce associated traffic impacts and address local concerns. It should identify heights, square footage and floor-to-area ratio for each structure. It should include an update on State and local permitting. Phasing of the project should be described in more detail, in particular, identification of which roadway improvements are associated with each phase and how permitting and mitigation will be managed within the context of phasing.
GHG Analysis
The Final EIR should include a revised GHG analysis that reflects relevant changes to programming, building design and transportation mitigation and addresses numerical discrepancies in the analysis provided in the Draft ElR. I am directing the Proponent to meet with representatives ofthe MEPA Office, DOER and MassDEP prior to the preparation of the revised analysis for the Final EIR. As previously requested in the Draft EIR Scope, the Proponent should expand the GHG analysis to include consideration of the feasibility of mitigation measures and the GHG emissions reduction potential associated with major mitigation elements to evaluate the relative benefits ofeach measure. The Final EIR should explain, in reasonable detail, why certain measures, which could provide significant GHG reductions, were not selected -either because it is not applicable to the project or is considered technically or financially infeasible. For example, the Draft ElR indicates that additional information will be provided in the Final EIR regarding the benefits ofsolar orientation, designs to maximize daylighting within the buildings, and a feasibility analysis of solar PV for project buildings. These strategies could provide significant further reductions in energy use. In addition, I note that the use ofwater source heat pumps is a strategy used to minimize emissions associated with space heat in the residential building. However this technology and its benefits and cost-effectiveness are not described in the Draft EIR and a discussion ofhow its design affects the balance between reductions in energy use and GHG emissions would be instructive.
I encourage the Proponent to consider and commit to installation of solar PV systems on project buildings. The analysis in the Final EIR should identifY which buildings will be constructed to be solar ready and include a feasibility analysis, including identification of payback periods, for installation of on-site photovoltaic (PV) systems on each of the buildings In addition, I strongly encourage the Proponent to make a firm commitment to include design and installation of solar trees on the ICF to support the MBTA's efforts to use renewable energy to meet energy demand.
The Proponent should seek guidance from the Division of Energy Resources (DOER) regarding the development and consideration ofadditional GHG reduction measures and, in particular, with the solar analysis. In addition, it should identify any lighting specifications provided by MBTA. Finally, as noted by MassDEP and other commenters, the Proponent should consider how it can improve its TDM program consistent with its TOD goals and revised the mobile source GHG analysis accordingly.
Traffic and Transportation
It is critical that the Final EIR identify a Preferred Alternative that is supported by the City, MassDOT and FHW A. Additional consultation and analysis is required prior to filing the Final EIR. The Proponent must continue consultations with FHWA, MassDOT, MBTA, the City ofNewton and residents to analyze alternatives in more detail and seek an appropriate and acceptable balance between state and local interests. The Final EIR should include a revised traffic study, access alternatives and 80% plans.
The MassDOT comment letter did not provide details for analysis of alternatives in the Final EIR. Therefore, I expect that the Proponent will advise the City and residents regarding consultations with MassDOT regarding the revised analysis. In addition, I expect the Proponent to work closely with MassDOT and the City of Newton to address any errors, omissions or necessary clarifications in the traffic study. The Final EIR should expand upon the traffic monitoring plan and subsequent to consultation with MassDOT to ensure that it is designed to evaluate assumptions made during the design process and the adequacy oftransportation mitigation measures, including the effectiveness ofthe TDM Program. As noted in the Draft EIR Certificate, FHW A will likely require an analysis that extends the planning horizon 20 years and I encourage the Proponent to submit an analysis with an extended time line in the Final EIR.
I strongly encourage the Proponent to consider reducing the project size further to minimize traffic generation and to consider reducing the number of lanes proposed for Grove Street. In addition, MassDEP, the City and MAPC continue to urge more vertical integration ofuses within each building to enhance the vibrancy of the development and support shared parking opportunities. The Final EIR should consider alternatives to achieve this goal.
The Final EIR should identify how vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access can be improved and/or expanded between the project site, Hotel Indigo, and the Riverside Office Park as another strategy to minimize vehicle trips. I note that changes to the project design have improved integration of the Hotel Indigo into the project; however, this could be improved further. The Final EIR should include analysis of removing the curb cut from the Hotel Indigo and/or analyze the driveway as right-in, rightout only.
The Final EIR should address concerns expressed by the Woodland Condominium Association regarding the location of its access drive and integration with proposed roadway improvements. In addition, the Proponent should consult with DCR regarding potential mitigation for impacts to DCR roadways, including Recreation Road, Park Road and Quineboquin Road.
The Final EIR should provide a revised site-circulation plan that identifies how bicycles and pedestrians will circulate within the site and identifies proposed bicycle storage. It should address potential conflicts between buses and bicycles. It should also identify how bicyclists and pedestrians will be accommodated within the proposed off-site roadway improvements, in particular, along Grove Street. It should identify existing bicycle and pedestrian routes along Grove Street from Auburndale to Newton Lower Falls and what improvements would need to be introduced to provide a more consistent roadway alignment from Route 16 to Route 30. Traffic access alternatives should also consider whether an alternative that adequately balances regional and local access could be supported by reducing the number of proposed lanes on Grove Street to one in each direction to address constraints to pedestrian and bicycle access.
In addition, the Final EIR should describe in more detail projects proposed by DCR to provide access and rehabilitate pedestrian bridges through the Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP), including the Riverside Rail Trial, Recreation Road footbridge and the Riverside Park footbridge. It should address coordination with DCR regarding the feasibility of restoring the railroad underpass at the bottom of Recreation Road. The Proponent should make a specific commitment to support DCR efforts for the Recreation Road multi-use path and/or hiking trails along both sides of Charles River in the project vicinity and should clearly illustrate how the proposed on-site connection is designed to support these efforts.
Transportation Demand Management
The Draft EIR includes a comprehensive TDM program that evaluates feasible measures to reduce trip generation associated with the project. I commend the Proponent for consideration of a broad range of measures for the proposed TDM program. While I acknowledge the challenge of developing TDM commitments without identified tenants, I expect the Proponent will respond to Agency comments regarding development ofadditional commitments for the TDM. Additional information should be provided on a proposed traffic monitoring plan that indicate how achievement of transit use and nonvehicular access will be monitored and, where necessary, additional measures be introduced.
As noted by many commenters, the site's potential to allow development with lower traffic generation does not appear to be maximized. MAPC, MassDEP, MassDOT and the City of Newton continue to urge the Proponent to integrate uses throughout the site rather than the more segmented approach that is illustrated by project plans. The Proponent should continue efforts to integrate uses on the site, guided by the City of Newton, and aggressively pursue shared parking opportunities.
Wetlands/Drainage
The Final EIR should identify changes to the stormwater management system and describe in more detail work associated with the relocation of gravel roads and railroad tracks within Riverfront Area. The Final EIR should include an operations and management plan and, as requested by MassDEP, provide more information on attainment ofTMDL standards.
I applaud the Proponent's inclusion of LID techniques and a green roof on Building B/P1. The Draft EIR does not indicate whether the Proponent has considered incorporation of green roofs on the other office and retail buildings. The Final EIR should identify where green roofs could be incorporated and, where feasible, incorporate them into the design for stormwater management and to provide additional GHG reductions.
Water Use and Wastewater Generation
The Final EIR should provide an update on consultations with the City ofNewton and MWRA regarding water and wastewater infrastructure. It should identify any changes to proposed infrastructure and, as requested by MassDEP, provide additional information regarding potential I/I mitigation and indicate whether the project will provide mitigation on a greater than 4:1 basis of I/I removed to wastewater generated. The Final EIR should include results of the hydraulic analysis from the City of Newton's water modeL In the event that existing supply and infrastructure cannot meet the demand, the Final EIR should describe how supply and infrastructure requirements will be met. MWRA comments note that the Proponent should continue its coordination with them regarding the re-Iocation of the onsite MWRA water main.
Construction Period Impacts
The Draft EIR included a conceptual staging plan and general information regarding construction impacts on bus and transit service. The Final EIR should include more detailed information, based on consultations with DCR and the MBTA, including construction access, staging and impacts on bus routes, commuter parking and pedestrian access. In addition, it should address concerns identified by the Riverside Office Park and Woodland Condominium Trust regarding traffic and potential impacts to infrastructure during construction. It should specifically address which roadway elements will be constructed during which phase and whether the Grove Street signal can be activated during construction to alleviate construction-related congestion.
Mitigation
The Final EIR should include a separate chapter that identifies all mitigation measures. This chapter should also include revised and updated draft Section 61 Findings for each State Agency that will issue permits for the project, including the MBTA. The draft Section 61 Findings should contain clear commitments to implement mitigation measures, estimate the individual costs of each proposed measure, identify the parties responsible for implementation, and include a schedule for implementation.
Comments
The Final EIR 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 Final EIR should include responses to comments. This directive is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to, enlarge the scope of the Final EIR beyond what has been expressly identified in this certificate.
