Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-23-SLC-min-copySustainable Lexington Committee Minutes of Meeting of April 23, 2024 A meeting of the Sustainable Lexington Committee (SLC) was held by Zoom conference. A quorum of seven was present throughout. Members Present: Cindy Arens (chair), Celis Brisbin, Lin Jensen, Rick Reibstein, Todd Rhodes (vice-chair), Dan Voss, Charlie Wyman Members Absent: Paul Chernick, Andy Joynt Staff Present: Maggie Peard Other Attendees: Mark Sandeen (Select Board), Tina McBride, Tom Wanderer, Atreyi Basu, Ricki Pappo, Dora Liao, Peter Kelley, Gerry Yurkevicz, Mike Spiro, Mike Boudett, Marcia Gens, Jeanne Krieger, Diane Pursley, Jim Williams The meeting was called to order at 6:02 pm. Cindy referenced the opening statement requested by the Town Clerk and all members present responded that they could hear. Approval of past meeting minutes. The draft minutes of March 12 and March 19, 2024, were unanimously approved as written. Comments from residents; emails to committee mailbox; new business. Kudos were expressed to Maggie and Todd for their participation in the Patriots Day races. Cindy noted that LexCAN is sponsoring the May 4 date on the countdown clock to the 250th anniversary of Patriots Day (recognizing the long-exceeded goal of limiting the atmospheric CO2 concentration to 350 ppm), inviting people to join them on the steps of Cary Hall for a photo. This Thursday, LexCAN is sponsoring a letter writing workshop about Hanscom private jet expansion, and also Thursday, a talk on Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World will be presented in Estabrook Hall. Peter Kelley expressed to the committee his concern about building a new high school on the adjacent athletic fields and woods. He provided some historical background, including the extensive review and recommendations for the high school in the late 1990s. He expressed support for keeping the high school in its current location and is looking to the Sustainable Lexington Committee as an ally. SustainabLY update. Atreyi and Dora reported that they had a table at the high school for Earth Day yesterday with Envirothon. On Sunday they went to the First Parish Earth Day service and Sustainable Lexington Committee Minutes of April 23, 2024 connected with many like-minded people, and hope they can do more such events in the future. At our meeting next month they will introduce next year’s SustainabLY leaders. Discuss ATM2024 Article 31 - Single-use water bottle phase out amendment to refer back to SB. Cindy explained that there has been an amendment filed to refer Article 31 back to the Select Board to enable more outreach to the retail community. Tom Wanderer (the proponent) expressed his opposition to the amendment. Cindy noted that the committee had earlier endorsed Article 31, and presented a proposed statement opposing the amendment. It was moved and seconded to issue a statement, authorizing Cindy to wordsmith to fully capture the sense of the committee. It was approved with six in the affirmative and two abstentions. The final statement is attached. Discovery Day (5/25) and Breakfast on the Bikeway (5/17) tabling. Maggie has booked three sites in a row for town sustainability initiatives (Heat Smart, compost expansion, geothermal district pilot, etc.). After some discussion, it was agreed to have a Sustainable Lexington booth at Discovery Day, it being felt important to continue to have a visible presence, but not at Breakfast on the Bikeway for lack of volunteers. Nexamp presentation - community solar opportunities and energy storage concept. Mike Spiro of Nexamp introduced the company and described their programs for community solar and virtual power plants. Nexamp is the largest provider of community solar in the state. They are vertically integrated, continuing to operate the projects they develop. He described their various options for partnering with towns and private partners. Committee members had many questions, thanked Mike for coming, and expressed interest in exploring opportunities for partnering and matching potential private partners with Nexamp. Mike thanked the committee and said he’d be happy to field any further questions or expressions of interest via his email at mspiro@nexamp.com. Review of response letter for Hanscom Expansion - Draft Environmental Impact Report (EEA #16654). Cindy shared a draft comment letter to the Select Board drafted by her, Rick, and Andy. Rick explained some of the key issues and the inadequacy and deficiencies of the Draft EIR. After some discussion it was agreed to address it to MEPA (so it would be part of the public record), with copies to many parties, and convey it to the Select Board as well. It was moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to approve the statement, authorizing Cindy to wordsmith it to fully capture the committee’s intent. The final statement is attached. Sustainability & Resilience Officer discussion and updates. Maggie reported: •FFF/Specialized Code. There was a huge burst of building permit applications just before January 1 when the specialized code took effect. Maggie has been added as a review for new projects. There is definitely a learning curve for applicants. No applications yet under the Fossil-Fuel-Free bylaw. .2 Sustainable Lexington Committee Minutes of April 23, 2024 •Rollout of compost expansion. Expansion enrollment will open in May. All those who are still paying subscribers of Black Earth will be automatically enrolled. •Tufts project – survey results. The Tufts group is looking at trash strategies and drafted a survey to capture town residents’ sentiments; they will be presenting their results and conclusions at the May 6 Select Board meeting. •Solar coaching/Solar 101 community event. Maggie has been working with Revision Energy to train Heat Smart advisors to include solar coaching as well. On May 1 there will be an online community event to promote solar and introduce Heat Smart advisors. •Networked Geothermal. Four sites are being examined, looking for the best one or two. Boston Properties/BXP will assess financial feasibility later in the year, enabling more targeted outreach to owners. BR+A is on the team, providing data to help with technical analysis. Yesterday an initial charrette with the full project team was held to dig into the pros and cons of the four sites. They are planning to do more public education and stakeholder/ property owner engagement, and are finalizing contracts with partners. •HomeWorks canvassing - outcomes to date. Homeworks staff have been doing door-to-door canvassing over the last month and have scheduled 461 home energy assessments, a dramatic increase over previous months – typically about 10 per month. •MAPC Priority Climate Action Plan – EPA Implementation Grant Applications from MAPC and State. The state has issued its Priority Climate Action Plan and MAPC has prepared one for the Boston metropolitan region, with a set of eleven priority measures. While anything in the plan could be the focus of an application, the messaging is that there will be a strong focus on funding projects in environmental justice communities, and applications from single suburban towns like Lexington will not have much chance. There will likely be broad-based projects selected that will also benefit Lexington. •Plan for reviewing metrics from HPBP, Fleet Electrification Policy, etc. Next steps for the high performance building policy are to collect data and issue annual reports for that and the fleet electrification policy. Police Station Solar+Storage. Dan provided a brief update. The pricing estimate is materially over budget, driven by higher-than-expected bids for each component. The Facilities Department has suggested three alternatives for consideration by the Select Board: (1) proceed as planned; (2) build the canopy structure and pause on the solar and battery components to enable competitive bidding; and (3) put everything on hold and hope the world gets cheaper in a couple of years. The foundations for the canopy have been installed. Todd reported that the two financial committees have discussed these issues. The Appropriation Committee did not vote but suggested an option to proceed with only rooftop solar. The Capital Expenditures Committee has not yet met, but is expected to favor Option 2. Mark expressed concern over the lack of understanding that the primary purpose of the energy storage system is to charge the police .3 Sustainable Lexington Committee Minutes of April 23, 2024 cruisers, which will save $85,000/year in peak demand charges, rather than to provide back-up power in the event of an outage (a secondary benefit). There was some discussion about approaching the HDC to draw lessons from this project and explore how the town can do sustainability projects without increasing costs so substantially. A motion to forward a statement to the Select Board endorsing Option 2 was presented, seconded, and approved unanimously, authorizing Cindy to wordsmith as necessary to fully capture the intent of the committee. The final statement is attached. SBC/High School - Integrated Process. Lin described the growing sentiment for seriously exploring options for a combination of renovation and additions to the high school in roughly its current location, rather than an entirely new structure. Diane Pursley, Tina McBride, and Jim Williams presented various options for doing so. Considerable discussion followed. Next Meeting: The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Sustainable Lexington Committee is scheduled for 6 pm on May 21, 2024. The committee voted to adjourn at 9:37 pm. Respectfully submitted, Charlie Wyman Attachments: Approved Sustainable Lexington Committee Statement on Proposed Article 31 Amendment Approved Comments on the Draft EIR for Hanscom Expansion, sent to MEPA Approved Statement on the Police Station Solar/Storage Project Sent to the Select Board .4 Sustainable Lexington Committee Minutes of April 23, 2024 Approved Sustainable Lexington Committee Statement on Proposed Article 31 Amendment: It has been well documented that single-use plastic bottles harm the environment and human health. They are made from petroleum which contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Their manufacturing process is toxic and polluting. Chemicals from plastic bottles can leach into its contents during transportation, time on the store shelf, and during storage. The vast majority of these plastic bottles are not being recycled. Even when they are, they are being downcycled and that process releases microplastics and chemicals in the air and runoff water. While plastic bottled water can seem convenient, there are safer alternatives. Besides bringing one’s own water bottle, water in aluminum cans and bottles is widely available on the market. Multiple municipalities in Massachusetts have successfully passed similar bylaws as many as 12 years ago. We applaud the proponent’s outreach to businesses in town. As the proposed bylaw will not take effect until January 1, 2025, there is time for additional outreach to help ensure a successful transition and compliance. For all the reasons above, the Sustainable Lexington Committee supports Article 31 to prohibit the sale of single-serve plastic water bottles in town beginning next year. It is a small but meaningful and necessary step to reduce plastic pollution and its harmful impacts. The proposed amendment would prevent Article 31 from being voted on by Town Meeting now. The Sustainable Lexington Committee opposes the amendment. .5 Sustainable Lexington Committee Minutes of April 23, 2024 Approved Comments on the Draft EIR for Hanscom Expansion, sent to MEPA: Dear Mr. Strysky, I am writing to you on behalf of the Sustainable Lexington Committee (SLC). SLC is a committee appointed by the Select Board of the Town of Lexington to advise on Lexington's long-term sustainability and resilience in response to environmental resource and energy challenges, including monitoring state and local issues that affect Lexington’s ability to achieve its sustainability policies, goals, and standards. SLC appreciates the opportunity to express its view of the recently published Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the L.G. Hanscom Field North Airfield Development (Hanscom project) also known as ‘EEA No. 16654 - L.G. Hanscom Field North Airfield Development, Bedford’. SLC feels strongly that the DEIR does not meet the definition of an environmental impact review, because the project will have many very large environmental impacts that are not reviewed. Our comment is that it should be rejected as wholly inadequate and the proponents instructed to conduct a review of the significant impacts that the public has a right to know about. It is not in the public interest to allow a review that avoids public transparency to qualify as acceptable and the nearby towns with a voice in this matter should demand a true environmental impact review. The DEIR is specifically lacking in the following areas: •The DEIR’s evaluation of environmental impacts is built on a misleading premise that growth in demand for aviation activity must be satisfied. In DEIR, Section 2.2 ‘Projected Activity Levels’, the proponents state that the project is designed to address the needs established in Hanscom Field’s demand forecast for aviation activity. From this premise, the proponents argue that the project design will meet this demand in a way that produces a net reduction in noise and air emissions relative to less energy-efficient designs or no expansion at all. A more forthright evaluation of the environmental impacts would compare expected aviation activity under this design to the current baseline of operations. This evaluation would reveal the truly massive increase in emissions if we are beholden to meeting forecasted aviation demand. •The DEIR does not provide an accounting of the air emissions from the flights of the planes to be housed in the hangars. Instead, due to the flawed scoping guidance issued with the Certificate on the Environmental Notification Form, the DEIR’s scope of emissions accounting is limited to the project’s buildings and hangars. As a result, in Section 8.3.3 ‘Air Emissions and in Table 8-4, the proponents attempt to substantiate a claim that a reduction of ferry flights will create a positive environmental benefit. However, there is no discussion of .6 Sustainable Lexington Committee Minutes of April 23, 2024 the emissions impact of total flight hours, which would be one way in which the DEIR could more appropriately contextualize the project’s emissions potential. •The proposed substantial increase in fuel storage capacity, described in Section 1.5.2.4 ‘Fuel Storage Facility’, further supports the notion that the DEIR fails to sufficiently account for the project’s emissions potential. This is a significant flaw in emissions accounting and is out of step with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) statute stating that all relevant state agencies must “review, evaluate, and determine the impact on the natural environment of all works, projects or activities conducted by them and shall use all practicable means and measures to minimize damage to the environment”. The MEPA statute specifically includes the impacts of increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the DEIR does not present a baseline or analysis of expected emissions of air pollutants. •The DEIR fails to provide the results of a Cumulative Impact Analysis in line with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)’s Air Quality Comprehensive Plan Applications regulations 310 CMR 7.02(14). These regulations include enhanced public outreach to and involvement of Environmental Justice populations, assessment of existing community conditions, and analysis of cumulative impacts. In particular, there are requirements to characterize air toxics risk, assess air quality conditions, and evaluate the project's cumulative impact. This DEIR does not present a fully realized assessment of cumulative impact. Nor does it address public health concerns raised by the public, another requirement of MassDEP regulations. •Section 3.1.1.5 on Wetlands, Wildlife, and Water indicates a lack of endangered species analysis. The DEIR finds reasons to exclude the project from an endangered species analysis by either disqualifying species from a need for analysis or explaining that “impacts would need to be considered in future activities on the property that result in tree disturbance”. Any tree or other disturbance of natural areas is harmful to all species living in that environment. A proper analysis of impacts to wildlife must be included in the DEIR. •The DEIR’s approach to fuel spill response and handling is woefully insufficient, particularly given that Hanscom Field is a federal site and a MassDEP classified 21E site (defined as oil and/or hazardous material sites) with a history of past spills, ongoing cleanups, ongoing use of toxic materials, and resulting contamination of groundwater. It is required before property transfers, or to maintain an ongoing cleanup, to do soil and water testing, and to commit to observing any activity or use limitations, or conditions for maintaining an ongoing cleanup: these responsibilities are not addressed. Additionally, a proper environmental review should evaluate the impact of the expected number of spills in order to properly understand the risks to groundwater and public water supplies that we face in considering this project. Instead, the DEIR explains the mitigants that will protect water quality and simply states that spills will be reported promptly. Increased aviation activity will lead to more fuel spills, which will be harmful to the environment. .7 Sustainable Lexington Committee Minutes of April 23, 2024 •The DEIR does not address the ongoing EPA Five-Year Review (FYR) of the Hanscom Field/Hanscom Air Force Base Superfund Site. The FYR has not been finalized, as the EPA indicates that there are not sufficient long-term protective measures in place, such as groundwater monitoring, to protect human health and the environment from the contaminant 1,4-dioxane. Further, the EPA comments that the short-term protective remedy for contaminant exposure “currently protects human health and the environment because the groundwater is not currently being used.” The community deserves a plan for active restoration of groundwater, not protection by merely shielding it from groundwater that is actively polluted. •Section 1.7.2.1 on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review indicates that the project is subject to NEPA analysis per the FAA’s determination and thus must perform an Environmental Assessment (EA). This has not been done. The DEIR explains that “it is anticipated that a draft EA will be prepared in combination with the Final EIR.” The EA provides an assessment of the environmental impact of activity on federally-managed land. Understanding how the project’s impact aligns with federal standards is an essential component of the Commonwealth’s evaluation of project impacts and should be publicly available for comment prior to finalization of the EIR. The comment period for this DEIR should remain open until the draft EA has been submitted. We expect that the findings of the EA will reemphasize what we see in the DEIR, that increased aviation activity worsens air quality and heightens environmental hazards. •Section 8.1 on Noise and Air Quality describes the regulatory context for noise regulations. In particular, the DEIR highlights that the Town of Bedford has noise control regulations designed to prioritize the well-being and tranquility of residents, but then states “...it is important to note that these regulations do not apply to noise generated by air transportation or activities for which state or federal agencies have established different standards or rules. In such instances, the FAA guidelines prevail.” Those that live in the Town of Bedford and Hanscom Field’s surrounding communities understand the negative impact from noise that increased aviation activity will have. The DEIR should include those impacts. •Finally, there are numerous other evaluations that are not present in Table 1-4’s ‘List of Anticipated Regulatory Permits and Approvals’ that are necessary for understanding environmental impacts. These include permits for air emissions, agreements for maintaining existing groundwater treatment of contaminated sites, activity and use limitations for those sites, impacts on the water supplies of Bedford and Burlington, impacts on the EJ communities within five miles, as well as any attempt to derive a baseline of current impact, to which this will be adding, such as local concentrations of particulate matter, the byproducts of jet fuel combustion, and existing rates of asthma and cancer, deposition on conserved wetlands, historical sites, and local populations. .8 Sustainable Lexington Committee Minutes of April 23, 2024 SLC feels that a full accounting of the impact of these aspects of the Hanscom project is essential to adequately evaluate the project’s impact. Their absence prevents stakeholders from providing sufficient comments. This committee considers the DEIR a complete failure to address the very substantial and primarily significant impacts of the proposed project. The purpose of federal and state requirements for environmental impact review is to respect the public’s right to know. This has not been done. Once an adequate and complete DEIR is prepared and submitted, SLC will provide further comments. Regards, Cindy Arens Chair, Sustainable Lexington Committee .9 Sustainable Lexington Committee Minutes of April 23, 2024 Approved Statement on the Police Station Solar/Storage Project Sent to the Select Board: With regard to the Select Board's pending decision on how to proceed on the Police Station Solar Canopy project, the Sustainable Lexington Committee supports Town staff's recommendation (Option 2) to erect the steel structure (those costs will only increase if there is a delay), complete work on Fletcher Park, and put the solar panels and battery out to bid for future installation. The current bids for solar panels and the battery are clearly overstated. Therefore, it makes sense to put them out to bid separately and get better pricing for those items. Following this approach keeps the project on schedule, will get better pricing on panels and the battery, and ensure that we acquire a 4-hour battery so that we can take full advantage of Eversource's Connected Solutions program. Also, this approach will require only one connection agreement with Eversource. The result will be a project with higher up-front costs than anticipated and connection not until sometime after the building is operational, but will still generate significant financial benefits to the town with the first year of operation and over the life of the building. .10